patrick.net

SJ says

Is it possible to buy a nice home at an affordable price in a safe area in California?

No. So my take is why live there? They have slit their own throats over real estate.

CA IS OVER.

It's a social science and particulalry in the SFBA, it can be explained as follows:

* Distribution of API Scores. How many areas are considered truly outstanding school districts? 5% -10%. We are talking about 5-10% of the housing stock and significantly less if it is SFH.

* Family households in small cities (50K plus people) like Palo Alto, San Ramon and Cupertino are considered the most educated in the world, it is only natural that their education standards are higher. I have never met a PhD, science/engineer, business executive that considers anything less than 900 as acceptbale

* Housing price is competed on the margin not %. The spectrum of household income is wide. Lots of people works at low pay jobs (Same jobs everywhere else in the country), but there are also many high paying jobs. This makes median stats useless. Forget using median income as a metric of affordability as it includes college kids and retiree, use family household income at the 75%tile for a better gauge of API buyer inventory and their economics.

* The MID is lucrative in the bay area, especially areas with high API. It makes it unreachable to lower income households.

* Families with small kids are always potential home buyers for obvious reasons.

* The bay area is unique in culture and draw. If you are a chinese/Indian engineer, etc. everywhere else is a deal breaker. While you are saving up to live In Florida, most are unwilling.

* Once you fixed the living cost, SFBA is as cheap to live than anywhere else in the country. The typical SFBA home is not the huge to begin with so there is really no need to downsize. In other words, most will keep their homes to the end.

SFAce,

all the stuff that you wrote may be true (I think it is), but it is irrelevant. Those Tiger Kids of Tiger Parents would do just as Tiger Swell at many other schools in more affordable neighborhoods. I have personally known many who have. Including maybe even myself, and my kids, too. Might even learn a few things about the Real World.

Unless you wanna pay dearly for a status symbol, it's a friggin' waste of money, and for many who stretch to do it, a friggin waste of stress.

B.A.C.A.H. says

all the stuff that you wrote may be true (I think it is), but it is irrelevant. Those Tiger Kids of Tiger Parents would do just as Tiger Swell at many other schools in more affordable neighborhoods. I have personally known many who have.Might even learn a few things about the Real World.

Unless you wanna pay dearly for a status symbol, it's a friggin' waste of money, and for many who stretch to do it, a friggin waste of stress.

I have SFace on ignore, but I have an idea of what he probably said, and I agree with BACAH's post completely. API scores to a certain extent are overrated. A kid who goes to a 930+ API school doesn't have a higher chance of getting into UC Berkeley than a kid who goes to a 890+ API score.

Some people might say there is little difference here or there. That school scores are all close enough, that it's all irrelevant.

But it's a self fulfilling prophecy at the same time.

It's not what you know, it's who you know. If a school has a better score, it's going to attract parents who are richer. And if you're poorer, you'll have to pony up to get in there.

If you don't even have kids, you know that the people who are living around those schools are likely to be very goal orientated with lots of well of people who are willing to put education first. Those are the types of neighbours you want.

Now, there are always cases of "Well so-and-so went to the worst school in the country and is a millionaire now..." but when it comes to a numbers game, people are getting rich from their connections, and getting great connections requires living around those connections and getting to know them and going to school with them.

Kids personalities are defined by those they hang around with. Put your kid into a crappy school, there is a very good chance he'll start aligning life goals along with his peers. Put him in a rich school, and he'll start aligning his expectations with those kids. Every step up helps.

The difference between a fast food worker and someone making 50K a year is huge. Or getting your kids to hang out with kids who will likely enter professions making 100K, or perhaps start their own businesses and make 500K, or those who might just start off with a few million and expand from there.

Goran_K says

I have SFace on ignore,

It's your loss. If I were the POTUS or a CEO of a big corporation, SFace would be my right hand man. This guy is as well rounded as it comes. I'm sorry you don't have the ability to comprehend the information that SFace conveys.

Goran_K says

B.A.C.A.H. says

all the stuff that you wrote may be true (I think it is), but it is irrelevant. Those Tiger Kids of Tiger Parents would do just as Tiger Swell at many other schools in more affordable neighborhoods. I have personally known many who have.Might even learn a few things about the Real World.

Unless you wanna pay dearly for a status symbol, it's a friggin' waste of money, and for many who stretch to do it, a friggin waste of stress.

I have SFace on ignore, but I have an idea of what he probably said, and I agree with BACAH's post completely. API scores to a certain extent are overrated. A kid who goes to a 930+ API school doesn't have a higher chance of getting into UC Berkeley than a kid who goes to a 890+ API score.

It's all about the percentages. API scores guarantee nothing. Just like a law degree from a Top 5 law school guarantees nothing. It's all about the percentages. You're more likely to earn more with a Top 5 degree, but there's no guarantee.

Perhaps the kid from the 930+ API school has a 30% of getting into an Ivy League school and the kid from the 890 API school has a 25% chance. Is it worth it to pay the premium for the 930 school? Probably not. Sometimes you just want the "best" even if it's not a better value.

It is what it is.

"It is what it is."

I should patent this phrase. :)

E-man says

If I were the POTUS or a CEO of a big corporation, SFace would be my right hand man. This guy is as well rounded as it comes. I'm sorry you don't have the ability to comprehend the information that SFace conveys.

It's funny, your recommendation actually helps me solidify my position on the issue.

zesta says

It's all about the percentages. API scores guarantee nothing. Just like a law degree from a Top 5 law school guarantees nothing. It's all about the percentages. You're more likely to earn more with a Top 5 degree, but there's no guarantee.

Perhaps the kid from the 930+ API school has a 30% of getting into an Ivy League school and the kid from the 890 API school has a 25% chance. Is it worth it to pay the premium for the 930 school? Probably not. Sometimes you just want the "best" even if it's not a better value.

It is what it is.

Also if people actually understood how top schools pick incoming freshman, then they would know that some of the top universities try to pick from the Top 5-10% of the class. So going to a hyper-competitive school can actually hurt an applicants case because it's so much harder to bubble to the top, where if they had gone to a slightly less competitive school, they would have been in the Top 5%. Some parents tried to make a huge issue about it a few years ago because people thought the UC system was unfair, but the system still stands today.

No one cares if you're a 50th percentile kid from Top High School USA with an API score of 990.

Well, HYP (Harvard, Yale and Princeton) usually restrict the number of Indian/Chinese kids. So, just going to Cupertino does not help your kid much. Yes, one can get into UCB, though.

Well for me, I'd rather bank a few million and leave the bay area. Sacramento to me is just as nice even though it is a bit hotter in summer and cooler in winter. Real estate is MUCH less expensive there.

raindoctor says

So, just going to Cupertino does not help your kid much.

Yup.

When I was at Wharton, it's not like every other person I met was from Bay Area fortress cities, in fact I can only remember one guy who was from the Bay Area (San Francisco). Some of the people I met went to fairly unrecognizable 4 year schools as well.

SJ says

Well for me, I'd rather bank a few million and leave the bay area. Sacramento to me is just as nice even though it is a bit hotter in summer and cooler in winter. Real estate is MUCH less expensive there.

To each their own I guess. Sacramento is certainly cheaper (provided you don't have to compete with the capitol crowd). If you like that weather and have a good job go for it!

SFace says

and as PKennedy correctly stated, the value of a good school district is the association (or snoberry if you will) At kids soccer practice, the coach is a an executive at Apple, a partner from PwC or a engineer at Cisco. They are the ones that would put your kids in their companies internship to get them fast-tracked that is otherwise not available. And of course, you will recipricate and put their kids in your companies internship.

If your goal is to use casual contacts to get your kid an internship why not move to the fortress when your eldest is in high school at the earliest? Better yet just move to east Palo Alto or La Honda and have your kid join the fortress sports clubs.

(Just don't share your true address)

One thing I'd love to see is some clear, unbiased stats on the career paths of these kids vs. their schools API scores.

Goran_K says

raindoctor says

So, just going to Cupertino does not help your kid much.

Yup.

When I was at Wharton, it's not like every other person I met was from Bay Area fortress cities, in fact I can only remember one guy who was from the Bay Area (San Francisco). Some of the people I met went to fairly unrecognizable 4 year schools as well.

Why did you chose to go to Wharton when you could have saved some money and gone to ASU or UCLA?

I assume it's similar to why parents choose to send their kids to a top school district.

It's better to be the top of your class from Carey or Anderson than middle-of-the-road at Wharton, but many people prefer Harvard, Kellogg, or Wharton despite the astronomical costs.

I think people under appreciate what fast tracking their kids actually does.

I see lots of people working after they get out of school, or during school trying to get some job experience, not necessarily relevant experience either. After a few years, they score a job in their profession, and start working from the bottom up. It might take 2 years before you make a move up, and another 2 years before you make another move. Not because you're not good, because there are just limited spots available.

Meanwhile, fast tracked kid gets an internship at a less than bottom level and when he leaves, he's probably going to start 2 steps up at least, if not jumping directly into a mini manager roll.

Fast tracked kid could be 4-8 years ahead of the other guys. When our careers are roughly 25-30 years long, that 4-8 years could be up to 25%+ head start, plus they have lots of connections which will accelerate them through life as well. And when they finish? They're at the top, while the counterparts are probably 10+ years behind them, assuming they could make the much harder jumps up the corporate ladder later in life.

Goran_K says

I have SFace on ignore

Why did you do that? I find his posts to be among the most intelligent/informative ones around these parts. Is it a personal thing? Disagree politically?

pkennedy says

Kids personalities are defined by those they hang around with. Put your kid into a crappy school, there is a very good chance he'll start aligning life goals along with his peers. Put him in a rich school, and he'll start aligning his expectations with those kids. Every step up helps.

Goran_K says

Also if people actually understood how top schools pick incoming freshman, then they would know that some of the top universities try to pick from the Top 5-10% of the class. So going to a hyper-competitive school can actually hurt an applicants case because it's so much harder to bubble to the top, where if they had gone to a slightly less competitive school, they would have been in the Top 5%. Some parents tried to make a huge issue about it a few years ago because people thought the UC system was unfair, but the system still stands today.

No one cares if you're a 50th percentile kid from Top High School USA with an API score of 990.

Both these statements are true, however, from my experience (two kids, one went to school with API 949, another is still in HS with API 893), I see a huge difference in attitude and level of intelligence of kids that are going to these schools. True, it is almost imposible to be top 10% in school with 930+ with almost perfect GPA and all 5s in AP classes and compete with kids who are top 10% in other schools. However, majority of these kids are still ahead of other kids even if they don't get in to the Harvard, Stanford... Our child wasn't fortunate to get in to the top 20%, among top schools she was accepted were NYU, Carnegie Mellon, never get off of waiting list from Chicago and UC San Diego, and declined from UCLA and UCB. She choose to go to UCSB, she is a honor student, top 1% in her class, and its her 2nd year in school, but she already has a Junior standing. If everything goes well, she will get her bachelor degree in 3 years (not 4), big saving and this time around will most likely have a better chance to get in to the top 10% schools. She is majoring in bio-chemistry by the way, not English….

I don't see my other one is motivated as the first one and only explanation I see is the school. She says not only teachers, but also kids are different in her school from those she used to go with before.

For those of you who has kids who know what they want and how to get it, it doesn't matter what school they are going, but for all other it does make a difference.

zesta says

I assume it's similar to why parents choose to send their kids to a top school district.

Except that's not how top universities pick students for admission. So your parallel doesn't work.

Schools don't look up "API scores", they care about your GPA, your class rank, and your collection of courses. All the top schools do is get you better prepared for high pressure, test oriented environments, but the API score by itself doesn't do much to send kids to good universities.

You could be #245 out of 800 in the 2012 class of Top High School USA, admissions officers don't care. If you're #5 out of #1500 at Over Crowded Hood High School, then they do care.

zhanka says

However, majority of these kids are still ahead of other kids even if they don't get in to the Harvard, Stanford

That's your personal opinion, and I respect that, but it's highly arguable that a kid who went to so-so high school, and got into Harvard is not ahead of a kid that went to top high school, and only got into UCSB. Harvard's alum and business network alone would guarantee that the kid who went to so-so high school would have more opportunities presented to them over UCSB kid.

I find in general people have this misconception that the smartest get the best opportunities, while it doesn't hurt, it's certainly not always true. Who you know, and who you can get introduced to, is sometimes far more important. Guess what? Harvard will open more doors than UCSB, that's simply how it is.

swebb says

Why did you do that?

I got a trolling vibe from him, and lots of negativity overall. Decided it wasn't worth the effort. Anyway, it's not worth my time to discuss to be honest. If you like his content, you can continue reading his post. I've made the personal decision to do otherwise.

Goran_K says

Except that's not how top universities pick students for admission. So your parallel doesn't work.

I assumed part of the reason you chose to attend Wharton was because of the reputation of its faculty and students. Learning from the top-tier teachers and being surrounded by students that have the same passion would help you be more prepared and push you to accomplish things that you would have otherwise not done had you just skated by at a lesser school.

Goran_K says

You could be #245 out of 800 in the 2012 class of Top High School USA, admissions officers don't care. If you're #5 out of #1500 at Over Crowded Hood High School, then they do care

This of course is speculative, but I'd submit that 50% "slacker" at Gunn HS in PA has a pretty good chance at getting into a good UC. An exceptionally bright student that would have gotten into an Ivy League at a top-tier high school may be "held back" when attending "Over Crowded Hood High School" and not reach their full potential due to the distractions and lack of commitment from the lower-tier high school.

Of course this isn't to say that it's not possible, but there's a reason people are more amazed at over-achieving people that have had to overcome hardship.

zesta says

I assumed part of the reason you chose to attend Wharton was because of the reputation of its faculty and students. Learning from the top-tier teachers and being surrounded by students that have the same passion would help you be more prepared and push you to accomplish things that you would have otherwise not done had you just skated by at a lesser school.

You're parallel still doesn't work. High API schools are focused on performing well on CST and CAHSEE standards (in California). The faculty and its reputation matter very little as long as students are able to produce scores. CST and CAHSEE standards are constantly under scrutiny on whether they produce a good student, or a good "test taker". I didn't choose to go to Wharton to be a good test taker.

Wharton faculty are renowned for their performance in the real world, the private sector, and their research. Their reputation is based upon their economic and research success in the real world, not a standardized exit exam.

This of course is speculative, but I'd submit that 50% "slacker" at Gunn HS in PA has a pretty good chance at getting into a good UC.

Yup, it's speculative and wrong. The standards for UC acceptance are well known, and someone in the 50th percentile of their graduating class has a very, very low chance of getting into a good UC even if their school has a 950+ API.

zesta says

An exceptionally bright student that would have gotten into an Ivy League at a top-tier high school may be "held back" when attending "Over Crowded Hood High School" and not reach their full potential due to the distractions and lack of commitment from the lower-tier high school.

Sure, someone who goes to Hood High, where gun fire is going off everyday, is probably not going to do as well as they could at Top High USA where they get a free Macbook Pro just for being a student. But discussing extremes is not really the point here.

The question we're really considering here is if a student who goes to 830 API Benicia High School, where homes are selling for $130-$160 a sqft, is really worse off than another student who went to 893 API Cupertino High where homes are selling $600 - $700 a sqft?

Seriously, think about that one for a minute.

Zesta,

I know of many Engineer/Engineering mangers around. I also know how they think about education of their kids. In a way, you are right: every parent wants to send his kids to the best school out there. 99 percent of these parents don't know how the top schools play the admission game.

1. If one is chinese/indian, Cupertino school helps him to survive the peer pressure, and perform well in the tests. But this does not translate into an automatic HYP admit. These parents kind of know that; that's why they have started out 'well-rounded' games: piano lessons; sports; volunteering; etc. In this sense, most of Cupertino kids are well-rounded--adcoms at HYP know this well-rounded business. So, if the sole purpose is to get into top schools, it is a lost cause.

2. Why people want to go to best schools? Sure, in their admission essays, they say that they want to help/better the world, what not. The actual reason for the majority of kids is to get a great job that gives them pleasure/respect from friends, relatives, neighbors, etc. This one is a game pyramind: there are not that many great jobs out there, for all graduates from top schools.

3. What is the real problem, then? It is not so much about education, nor is it about learning. It is the LACK of jobs that help one raise family, etc. We all have become perma-temps. So, the engineer parents know this. So, they are forcing their kids to get into yale, then to harvard business school, then become a managing director at Bain consulting, etc!! Such thinking is rampant in fortress neighborhoods.

4. How to fix this mess? Of course, create employment for all kinds of people with whatever abilities they have. If someone is an artist, provide him a job; etc. The current economic thinking shared by both democrats and republicans does not help achieve this. If you follow modern monetary theory, and how fiat money regimes work, it is possible to create full employment with price stability.

As an aside, I read bmwman's story of Cupertino type student. Harker school; then UCB; then worked for dropbox, then laid off. Many Cupertino types will end up in such kind of mess, which many of parents are not aware of.

raindoctor gets it.

Goran_K says

You're parallel still doesn't work. High API schools are focused on performing well on CST and CAHSEE standards (in California). The faculty and its reputation matter very little as long as students are able to produce scores. CST and CAHSEE standards are constantly under scrutiny on whether they produce a good student, or a good "test taker". I didn't choose to go to Wharton to be a good test taker.

I think this is where you're underestimating top-tier schools. In these schools the students are already taking AP classes and preparing for college-level AP tests. If the teachers are "teaching to the test" they're teaching for the AP tests, not the CST/STAR tests. The AP test are already a magnitude more difficult than the CST tests. Teaching to the CST will probably be more prevalent in lower tier schools where students are struggling to meet CA minimum standards.

A top-tier school may offer extra-curricular activities such as robotics, music, logic, multiple foreign languages, debate etc. A lower tier school may not. It's not necessarily about students distracted by gunfire, it's a lack of resources and teaching down to the lowest common denominator. The brightest students may not be challenged or pushed to succeed. That's the reality of overcrowded schools, not a extremity.

It's anecdotal, but I know of a recent Gunn grad that was at 50% and was accepted to UCSD. When you have a high school that sends 10% of it's grads to Stanford alone and over 20% to top private schools, that says something about the distribution.

If you're looking at it from purely a monetary standpoint, I agree, it can be hard to justify. Is the best of anything really worth the money? Is a Porsche 911 worth 5x a Camry? Is Wharton worth 5x Carey? At the very least, the premium of a RE in a good school district is close to a pass-through cost. I don't think you can say the same of many other premium products.

Zesta,

If one wants to get into UCSD/UCB, yes, Cupertino/Gunn is good:) That's not how people look at it, esp those who know the game of top schools. Even school rankings are useless, as well. For instance, people know tier-1 ivys (HYP) and tier-2 ivys (UPenn, Columbia, etc). People also know that Princeton is better than MIT for someone who wants to get into a best medical school, etc. (Sure, you can bring in some counter example of some kid preferring MIT to princeton. I am talking about trends, not exceptions).

When someone is talking about top schools, they mean HYP, MIT, S. This typical someone is not one who is so much into learning and wants to get a Ph.D. This 'someone' is a typical Cupertino kid, who wants to make at least $1M a year.

If it is about learning, schools, brands, etc do not play much of a role. One can learn more by not going through the drama of curves, grades, and all other crap.

raindoctor says

The actual reason for the majority of kids is to get a great job that gives them pleasure/respect from friends, relatives, neighbors, etc. This one is a game pyramind: there are not that many great jobs out there, for all graduates from top schools

I'm starting to repeat myself, but from my perspective my primary goal in sending a child to a competitive school is to prepare them for life. You're right, there aren't enough "good jobs" for everybody. There never have been and I don't believe there every will be.

Should they follow the "track" and get accepted to HYP, so be it.

If are able to parlay their social relationship with success-minded peers into something else, that's great too.

If not college, I hope the pressure and resources to achieve intellectually and academically may prepare them for cut-throat "real world".

zesta says

There never have been and I don't believe there every will be.

career is a 20th century invention. If you go back to the history (like 100 yrs ago), kids continue to follow what their parents used to do: farming, blacksmith,ing share-cropping, herding, etc. We are past that. This transformation has brought many other problems: today parents can't guarantee careers of their kids, esp if the parents are like engineers/doctors.

If the parents are toiling miniumum wage jobs, yes, they can hope for a better future for thier kids: like becoming a driver for VTA, or conductor for BART, etc.

What I mean is this: if parents are already at a certian economic level, they want their kids to move up on that economic chain. This is not gonna work out for many silly con valley engineer/manager type parents.

zesta says

If you're a parent and your sole goal is to send you kid to HYP by any means necessary (transferring schools / sending your child to a less competitive school simply so they can "stand out") I truly believe you'll be shortchanging them in the long run.

Of course you could also be saving their sanity and possibly their life. As has been pointed out on this forum its the Gunn not the Gunderson HS kids throwing themselves in front of trains.

http://www.quora.com/How-many-Gunn-High-School-suicides-have-there-been-each-year

Goran_K says

some of the top universities try to pick from the Top 5-10% of the class. So going to a hyper-competitive school can actually hurt an applicants case because it's so much harder to bubble to the top, where if they had gone to a slightly less competitive school, they would have been in the Top 5%.

Not really true. I went to a top 10 university. I was only in the top 25% of my high school class. It was a very competitive, private prep school. Universities take the competitiveness of your school into consideration.

SFace says

How many areas are considered truly outstanding school districts? 5% -10%.

I am a product of one of CAs ONCE pre 1981 so-called truly outstanding school districts, and that same district (while today having many 20M plus listings) is so fucking ghetto ridden from busing in outside students into the district for funding, so horrendous I wouldn't send a dog to the same schools I came out of then.

Point? Selling CA on public school today is not even a remote possibility.

zesta says

I'm starting to repeat myself, but from my perspective my primary goal in sending a child to a competitive school is to prepare them for life. You're right, there aren't enough "good jobs" for everybody. There never have been and I don't believe there every will be.

Should they follow the "track" and get accepted to HYP, so be it.

If are able to parlay their social relationship with success-minded peers into something else, that's great too.

If not college, I hope the pressure and resources to achieve intellectually and academically may prepare them for cut-throat "real world".

If you really want to prepare you kids for the "real world" college is the WORST way to do it. The best way? Kick'em out at 18 and slam the door.

zesta says

I think this is where you're underestimating top-tier schools. In these schools the students are already taking AP classes and preparing for college-level AP tests. If the teachers are "teaching to the test" they're teaching for the AP tests, not the CST/STAR tests. The AP test are already a magnitude more difficult than the CST tests.

That's fine. It means they are well prepared test takers on difficult material. The point still stands, top schools don't care about the API of the school you go to.

Yes you will be prepared, but you will also be 10-20% lower in class rank just because it's hyper competitive. Does a more well-prepared student who gets into UCSB have more opportunity than a student who didn't have as much high school opportunity but gets into Harvard?

That's the point you are not considering.

dannybsmith says

Not really true. I went to a top 10 university. I was only in the top 25% of my high school class. It was a very competitive, private prep school. Universities take the competitiveness of your school into consideration.

No they don't. That's completely false. I know HYP, UC Berkeley, UCLA, UPenn don't even look at the API scores of the schools. There are valid reasons WHY they ignore them which I agree with.

Courses, GPA, SAT scores, and extra curricular, yes... API of the high school, never.

So how do they know the schools are competitive? Like I said, anecdotal stories are fun, but facts are facts.

Goran_K says

That's fine. It means they are well prepared test takers on difficult material. The point still stands, top schools don't care about the API of the school you go to.

If my two choices are being well-prepared on difficult material vs being taught to the lowest common denominator in order to make the CST scores look good, I'm picking the former.

Goran_K says

Courses, GPA, SAT scores, and extra curricular, yes... API of the high school, never.

Agreed, that college admissions would not consider API as a factor. However, since there's going to be a rough correlation between API and the difficult of the coursework, # of AP classes offered, students don't need to be at the top of the class to get into a top university. How else would you explain the a high school that gets 10% of its class to Stanford, 20% to top private schools and another 20% to UCB, UCLA, UCD?

Goran_K says

Does a more well-prepared student who gets into UCSB have more opportunity than a student who didn't have as much high school opportunity but gets into Harvard?

I think a more-prepared student would probably excel at UCSB and a less-prepared student would fail at Harvard.

New Renter says

zesta says

I'm starting to repeat myself, but from my perspective my primary goal in sending a child to a competitive school is to prepare them for life. You're right, there aren't enough "good jobs" for everybody. There never have been and I don't believe there every will be.

Should they follow the "track" and get accepted to HYP, so be it.

If are able to parlay their social relationship with success-minded peers into something else, that's great too.

If not college, I hope the pressure and resources to achieve intellectually and academically may prepare them for cut-throat "real world".

If you really want to prepare you kids for the "real world" college is the WORST way to do it. The best way? Kick'em out at 18 and slam the door.

I hate to say you have a really solid point. I know many very rich very spoiled people (since school days) and frankly the richer they are all too often the more fucked up they are.

I don't know one who could wipe his own ass with both hands under a spotlight.

raindoctor says

career is a 20th century invention. If you go back to the history (like 100 yrs ago), kids continue to follow what their parents used to do: farming, blacksmith,ing share-cropping, herding, etc. We are past that.

If someone wants to do any of those jobs, they are still free to do so. Most people don't consider those jobs/careers "good jobs"

raindoctor says

If one wants to get into UCSD/UCB, yes, Cupertino/Gunn is good:) That's not how people look at it, esp those who know the game of top schools

I think if one wants "maximize" the HYP route, there's an entirely differently level of schooling available. Pay an arm and a leg (non-pass through) and send your kids to a private east coast school that are basically HYP feeders.
New Renter says

If you really want to prepare you kids for the "real world" college is the WORST way to do it. The best way? Kick'em out at 18 and slam the door.

I personally think a 4 year degree isn't for everyone. Too many kids get pushed to college when they're not going to get a job that requires that degree. Better to identify the kids that aren't cut out for it and just send them to trade school. Good money can still be made by craftsmen. Better yet, have them start reffing games early and train them to be a MLB/NFL/NBA ref.

zesta says

raindoctor says

career is a 20th century invention. If you go back to the history (like 100 yrs ago), kids continue to follow what their parents used to do: farming, blacksmith,ing share-cropping, herding, etc. We are past that.

If someone wants to do any of those jobs, they are still free to do so. Most people don't consider those jobs/careers "good jobs"

The question is not about what kind of work is considered career. What I was saying is: there is no guarantee that an engineer/doctor/management consultant/manager father/mom can pass his career to his/her kids.

This has created perverse problems: schools (and which schools), jobs (which kind of jobs), courses (which courses to get 4.0), voluntary work (what kind of voluntary work to get that dream admission), internship (what kind of internships one should to get an offer from blackstone, goldman sachs, etc).

It is rational for parents to send their kids to Gunn, Cupertino, etc. The primary justification they provide is: best learning. While it is true that these schools may provide best learning opportunities (in terms of scores, metrics), the real justification is elsewhere: these schools give a best shot at becoming part of top 0.01 percent.

I know about east coast prep schools. I know someone who went there. Again, there are two kinds of kids that go there: (a) kids of super duper wealthy; kids of celebrities; kids of senators, (b) the others. These kids from (a) can do well without HYP; however, HYP wants them for exclusivity, selectivity, fame and money. Adcoms want people from (a). They don't want people from (b). Many think that just going to phillips Andover, Exeter, opens the doors to HYP; actually, it works the other way: Andover wants kids from (a).

You know, Sr. Bush's dad was in some committee at phlipps (or some elite prep school). Prescott Bush did not want to see Italian kids in that prep school. So, these prep schools, even today, filter out many kids for various reasons, the way HYP filters out. Sure, you see some ordinary guys get admits from HYP (like that white girl, who worked as janitor in his high to support her mom); you see HYP likes such publicity: whenever they admit kids with such background, that increases their publicity.

MIT is a different beast. Kids in the group (a) I mentioned above don't want to be part of MIT crowd.

Of course, these east coast prep schools help one get admitted to tier 2 Ivys easily. Not a big deal. In this economy, BA from Columbia does not help one get anywhere. Even a BA from Stanford means nothing nowadays, unless the kid's dad is well off and connected.

Times have changed since 1970's. Nowadays, the competition to get into top schools tells us about the state of economy, and lack of careers (jobs).

My colleague is from India. He told me about the job situation in India in early 1990's: in those days, even to get a job at Indian outsourcing companies like TCS/Infosys, one should have to go to top Indian schools like IIT. Today, no undergrad at IIT wants a job at TCS/Infosys. So, these TCS/Infosys go to private colleges to recruit. Let me give you a hypothetical analogy: in the past, companies A and B used to go to HYP to recruit; now, these companies go to de anza college, san jose city college to recruit, because there are many jobs available to kids at HYP.

The whole mantra of 'get good education; go to the best college; etc' tells a different story, if we look at underlying changes in economy.