Kids, education and generational wealth

[CM]

I grew up lower middle class ... IMO, there is value in building your own life and I wouldn't have wanted my life any other way.

I also grew up lower middle class. I worked part-time through second year of med school.

I don't believe a kid who receives plenty of parental money will necessarily turn out badly, but I think they won't have the same mental and emotional strength that they would have developed without so much help.

[CM]

Being Indian myself these are my thoughts...

The problem with this approach is that the kids can get used to being taken care of by parents. They may not develop the necessary muscles and skills to advance in life, careers.... One thing I realized while going through the process OP described is that I became very resilient, thoughtful, have a proper process of decision making etc. I believe this can still be done without burning out.

Not Indian, and I agree.

[G]

And by your own account, you wife was brought up in wealthy, had everything she could want in childhood, had undergrad and grad for free and yet is a down to earth person not spoiled by her upbringing. And her 2 sisters still require some hand outs.

I see this in many families, especially 2 doctor families with overflowing money and one kid is grounded in reality and the other turns in a wastrel, with both being the same money and opportunities.

Maybe there is something genetic, since the environment is the same. Blaming money as the root of all evil is a easy cop out.

And finally the 16 year old and his off springs are going to inherit the wealth, whatever you try and do. I think it is good to prepare them and hope they have the drive and ambition.

"Wastrel" is officially my favorite word of the month.

I would also point out that one child can act differently in two different households (mine vs mom's). It is a complex matrix, to be sure.

[PWMDMD]

And by your own account, you wife was brought up wealthy, had everything she could want in childhood, had undergrad and grad for free and yet is a down to earth person not spoiled by her upbringing. And her 2 sisters still require some hand outs.

I see this in many families, especially 2 doctor families with overflowing money and one kid is grounded in reality and the other turns in a wastrel, with both having the same money and opportunities.

Maybe there is something genetic, since the environment is the same. Blaming money as the root of all evil is a easy cop out.

And finally the 16 year old and his off springs are going to inherit the wealth, whatever you try and do. I think it is good to prepare them and hope they have the drive and ambition.

Honestly, the difference between my wife and her sisters is in large part, me! We met and started dating while I still lived at home in college. She saw how I grew up but more importantly I had no problem pointing out that most people don't belong to two country clubs because one has better golf and the other has a better beach club. Although to her credit, she was able to see what I was saying. And don't get me wrong, her parents were and are still very generous. I adapted quite quickly to a tie and jacket and ordering off of menus without prices.

All that said, I had a hunger that my kids don't seem to have - a hunger my wife never had. My father was a drunk and never very successful and my parents always struggled with money. I wasn't a great student in high school and going into college I had a huge inferiority complex and I channeled that into school and work. I liked organic chem and P chem because others hated it and thought it was hard - I had something to prove. My kids are certainly better adjusted than I was and they're certainly happier than I was but I fear they have nothing to prove. They actually have pretty great lives and my 16-year-old even said as much a few weeks ago. I do remind them that sooner or later this gravy train is coming to an end and they NEED to be able to take care of themselves. I could buy the 16 year old a car tomorrow but I don't want to. I could fund their entire education but I don't want to. I want them to have something invested. At some point, they need to learn to fly on their own and I don't see how artificially making their adult lives easier will ultimately benefit them in the long run. They have a great childhood but need to struggle at least a little at some point. They need to build their own lives, whatever that ends up being.

[Tim]

Honestly, the difference between my wife and her sisters is in large part, me! We met and started dating while I still lived at home in college. She saw how I grew up but more importantly I had no problem pointing out that most people don't belong to two country clubs because one has better golf and the other has a better beach club. Although to her credit, she was able to see what I was saying. And don't get me wrong, her parents were and are still very generous. I adapted quite quickly to a tie and jacket and ordering off of menus without prices.

All that said, I had a hunger that my kids don't seem to have - a hunger my wife never had. My father was a drunk and never very successful and my parents always struggled with money. I wasn't a great student in high school and going into college I had a huge inferiority complex and I channeled that into school and work. I liked organic chem and P chem because others hated it and thought it was hard - I had something to prove. My kids are certainly better adjusted than I was and they're certainly happier than I was but I fear they have nothing to prove. They actually have pretty great lives and my 16-year-old even said as much a few weeks ago. I do remind them that sooner or later this gravy train is coming to an end and they NEED to be able to take care of themselves. I could buy the 16 year old a car tomorrow but I don't want to. I could fund their entire education but I don't want to. I want them to have something invested. At some point, they need to learn to fly on their own and I don't see how artificially making their adult lives easier will ultimately benefit them in the long run. They have a great childhood but need to struggle at least a little at some point. They need to build their own lives, whatever that ends up being.

They don’t see to have “something to prove”.
You were and had to be “self motivated”.
That is exactly what you want them to be.
Soooooo...... you are setting goals to have them “prove” to you they are motivated.
Just pointing out the potential disconnect between the methods and the desired behaviors. People pleasers vs independent thinkers that are self motivated. You want them to be “like you”, hard driving and not influenced by peer pressure. The only person to please is yourself and set high standards.
Sustained effort is what you actually want. I would suggest small goals with appropriate rewards where the child sets to goal. Positive reinforcement for independent defined objectives and accomplishments. That is how you learned. Working a mindless job to make x dollars to get Dad to buy a car pleases you. Not necessarily the kid. It’s just money. You don’t want a lazy brown noser that does the minimum.

[PWMDMD]

They don’t see to have “something to prove”.
You were and had to be “self motivated”.
That is exactly what you want them to be.
Soooooo...... you are setting goals to have them “prove” to you they are motivated.
Just pointing out the potential disconnect between the methods and the desired behaviors. People pleasers vs independent thinkers that are self motivated. You want them to be “like you”, hard driving and not influenced by peer pressure. The only person to please is yourself and set high standards.
Sustained effort is what you actually want. I would suggest small goals with appropriate rewards where the child sets to goal. Positive reinforcement for independent defined objectives and accomplishments. That is how you learned. Working a mindless job to make x dollars to get Dad to buy a car pleases you. Not necessarily the kid. It’s just money. You don’t want a lazy brown noser that does the minimum.

It's not about pleasing me at all. We live in a world where if you want something you have to work and pay for it. I can think of lots of things I can do with $5K or $10K that gets me closer to my life goals and so it really is "helpful" for him to bring some money to the table and to be able to contribute to paying his insurance and gas. Not all that much more to it. My wife and I always make the point that WE have a lot of money and the kids have whatever is in their bank accounts. That's not meant to be discouraging - just to set appropriate expectations that their current lifestyle is a function of my wife and my efforts and they need to do whatever it is they need to do if they want it to continue. If they don't what a similar life, fine, but understand that going into whatever choices they make. Their mother and I have done what WE need to do to take care of OURSELVES and THEY need to do what THEY need to do to take care of THEMSELVES. Again, not some mastermind plan but simply a fact of life that they need to deal with and do something about. They don't have to be professionals and they don't have to make a lot of money. I want them to find something that they can derive some enjoyment and satisfaction doing while being able to pay for whatever life they choose. At this point, we just tell them to do well in school because it keeps options open. I don't care what they do for a living but do it because you want to do it and not because you limited your options by not doing well in school. If they love carpentry go be a carpenter but do it because that's what you really want to do and not because you really want to be a physicist but you goofed off in school. Also, be a plumber, be a teacher, be whatever, but take pride in it and do it well.

I don't expect my children to be me but I also don't see the value in handing them everything either. One SIL has an MBA and works in finances in Boston (lower-level position and not killing it) and the other is a lower-level executive for a major network in NYC and still, they aren't completely independent. Both went to just sub-IVY league schools and have really been given everything. Don't get me wrong, I love them both dearly and they're great people, but one is 47 and the other is 50 and that's kind of a parenting fail IMO. My oldest two children are average students at best, have no interest in anything I have an interest in, and that's fine. The youngest does seem to have more mental horsepower and he pretty much breezes through school with little effort and he like science like I do. That's fine. In the end, they are all kind, respectful, well-adjusted kids who are very happy go lucky but that doesn't avoid the fact that someday THEY need to be able to take care of themselves. IMO step one starts at 16 when you want a car that is expensive and has ongoing expenses by getting a job. Honestly, the kid has learned very useful lessons about people, business, customer service in the past 3 months bussing tables. He also derives a sense of pride from it and having seen him in action he takes the job seriously while many of his co-workers treat it like it's just a bussing job.

This whole thread really is about how much or how little parents should help kids. Obviously, it will be different for everyone and the net outcome will be different depending on the child. It is an important discussion to have and I've enjoyed reading everyone's opinions.

[bovie]

regarding medicine, I am coming to the conclusion that you can be either a good doctor or a rich doctor. The role of a physician in medicine is changing very fast these days and I feel that this field may not be as lucrative as it used to be (if you want to practice is the right way).

Certainly we’re not saying that all rich doctors are necessarily not good doctors?

[AR]

Certainly we’re not saying that all rich doctors are necessarily not good doctors?

He's talking about the future, not the past. So there may be existing ones, but because of the ways in which things are "changing", he is saying it won't be possible in the future.

I don't think that's true either, but I think that is what he is saying. What he probably really meant is that it will be much harder in the future. I assume most people would here would agree with that. But I think most (myself included) would disagree with what he actually wrote.

[bovie]

In the end, they are all kind, respectful, well-adjusted kids who are very happy go lucky but that doesn't avoid the fact that someday THEY need to be able to take care of themselves.

That’s the real goal right there.

The means by which to get them there is open to debate, but I think this is the desired outcome across the parenting-style and inheritance-opinion spectrum.

[bovie]

He's talking about the future, not the past. So there may be existing ones, but because of the ways in which things are "changing", he is saying it won't be possible in the future.

I don't think that's true either, but I think that is what he is saying. What he probably really meant is that it will be much harder in the future. I assume most people would here would agree with that. But I think most (myself included) would disagree with what he actually wrote.

Agreed. Difficult, maybe. Impossible, certainly not.

Moving forward, I imagine it will be easier for some specialties than others. Not unlike it is now.

[F0017S0]

If you were not qualified, even if all the above were true, you still wouldn’t have gotten the job. And if you weren’t skilled, even if you got the job, you wouldn’t last long.

But yes, you were fortunate/lucky that things lined up in your favor fortune favors the prepared. But not all of the prepared are fortunate (unfortunately). I don’t doubt there were others just as prepared as you, but to say you played no part in landing this job would be cutting your hard work short.

Thinking this way helps ground me. My successes and failures, although mine, are not completely my own. Better not to get too puffed up or too despondent. Just keep doing my best.

Your first statement really spoke to me for some reason, ObgynMD. In some ways, I was nowhere near qualified to run a clinical trial, and inf act, coming from a PhD where I had complete autonomy over my experiments, some would argue that would be a bad trait as trials require strict adherence to the protocol without deviation. PhD students are taught to deviate as needed, not to ask for permission for a review committee and a monitor. Additionally, since I had no experience running trials, one could argue I was unskilled. I lasted as long as I did and made it through COVID shutdowns and recruitment becasue I was hungry to prove myself. That is really what I could bring to the table; so I feel I did get lucky and combined my luck with my determination to not repeat past mistakes.

[ObgynMD]

Your first statement really spoke to me for some reason, ObgynMD. In some ways, I was nowhere near qualified to run a clinical trial, and inf act, coming from a PhD where I had complete autonomy over my experiments, some would argue that would be a bad trait as trials require strict adherence to the protocol without deviation. PhD students are taught to deviate as needed, not to ask for permission for a review committee and a monitor. Additionally, since I had no experience running trials, one could argue I was unskilled. I lasted as long as I did and made it through COVID shutdowns and recruitment becasue I was hungry to prove myself. That is really what I could bring to the table; so I feel I did get lucky and combined my luck with my determination to not repeat past mistakes.

Nobody is completely qualified for the job - most people have a foundational background, but lots of learning happens on the job. Once in the door- you gotta prove yourself! And it sounds like you did!!!! 👏👏👏

[F0017S0]

Boys boys boys! (yes I am assuming)

Of course there is chance involved in everything. But getting a job or into college is not purely chance either. It is not at all like lotto where all you have to do is apply. You need minimum criteria and for some schools/jobs not very many people meet that criteria.


This is not all or none. Where the line falls with how much chance vs skill can be debatable.

As a future MD applicant, I stumbled across an interesting set of data on the AAMC website (https://www.aamc.org/media/6091/download?attachment) that describes the odds of admission to medical school based on MCAT and UGPA. To be honest, this is the most transparent set of admissions data that I have seen; I challenge top-tier undergraduate programs to release data sets like this so that everyone has an idea where their qualifications make them fall so that they have a realistic understanding of their chances of admission.

But we also have to consider that top programs (whether undergraduate or MD) are self-selecting for the cream of the crop. How does the committee decide between candidate A and ZZZZ for one of the few available spots? Ivy-league schools typically admit no more than 10% of the competitive applicant pool, and MD programs maybe 5-6% of the pool. At that point, I struggle to identify how a committee makes their delineations.

Edit: If I were to apply to MD with my current stats, let's just say there is around a 1/3 chance I would get admitted. I am aware that conclusion excludes my PhD, but I have no graduate GPA and I have found no reliable data exists on how those with advanced degrees fare in the admissions process. So the chances, based upon the available data, are not good right now. And even if I earned a perfect MCAT score, I'd still have no more than a 1/2 chance of admission. That's just the data...

[Tim]

The risk we have in processes for education and employment is predetermined profiles and then achieving the internal needs.
Make no mistake, recruiting, acceptance and promotions are not solely based upon merit. Our government has declared that merit is not the priority. Diversity, equity and inclusion are the goals. Many universities and companies the same.
Your profile changes the game. It is a numbers game. Merit is a factor but only within your profile.
Ivies do not admit the top candidates. They admit the top candidates that allow them to meet their profiles. The same for competitive state universities. Does it work is the question.
Numbers game played by different rules. Merit is only one. criteria, applied differently.

[ENT Doc]

As a future MD applicant, I stumbled across an interesting set of data on the AAMC website (https://www.aamc.org/media/6091/download?attachment) that describes the odds of admission to medical school based on MCAT and UGPA. To be honest, this is the most transparent set of admissions data that I have seen; I challenge top-tier undergraduate programs to release data sets like this so that everyone has an idea where their qualifications make them fall so that they have a realistic understanding of their chances of admission.

But we also have to consider that top programs (whether undergraduate or MD) are self-selecting for the cream of the crop. How does the committee decide between candidate A and ZZZZ for one of the few available spots? Ivy-league schools typically admit no more than 10% of the competitive applicant pool, and MD programs maybe 5-6% of the pool. At that point, I struggle to identify how a committee makes their delineations.

Edit: If I were to apply to MD with my current stats, let's just say there is around a 1/3 chance I would get admitted. I am aware that conclusion excludes my PhD, but I have no graduate GPA and I have found no reliable data exists on how those with advanced degrees fare in the admissions process. So the chances, based upon the available data, are not good right now. And even if I earned a perfect MCAT score, I'd still have no more than a 1/2 chance of admission. That's just the data...

Does the following stats change your calculation?

https://www.aamc.org/media/6066/download