Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All the rich kids I know around me are depressed, seriously depressed.
It seems that they're finally beginning to realize that once they leave Mom&Dad they will have to start earning their own $.
But all of their lives they've lived in comfort and aren't really accustomed to the idea that luxury can't be taken for granted. Thus I've found that the rich kids I know at school are starting to report themselves as depressed as we near the end of high school.
Has life always been this way for (most) rich kids in history? Or is it because of the decline of family-oriented values and the rise of rampant individualism that now the rich kids must "go off" and basically fend for themselves regardless of their childhood background?
It seems to me that the increasing opportunity for social mobility (thus allowing poor, hard working, gifted students up into the stratosphere) has also made the rich kids' position more precarious and unstable to say the least.
Hahaha. Did it occur to you that majoring in hard sciences and math like mathematics, economics, chemistry, statistics or physics at Yale is still considered getting a liberal arts degree and are included in those salary surveys? Ooops, apparently you didn't.
That's a commencement speech of a no-name liberal arts college, not the link to the study. And you misread it, genius. Read the sentence I have in bold more carefully again.
Now read my original response. Tell me it was nonsense again.
For the record, I went to a top ten university with a liberal arts curriculum and majored in chemistry. That makes me someone with a liberal arts degree, and I then go fill out a survey saying I make X amount of money and I have a liberal arts degree. Sadly, then you come along and analyze my data point and argue that a "liberal arts" major (like English) is superior in the long run to a "science and technical major" (like chemistry), and then go on forums telling everyone how great an English or philosophy major is.
Like I said earlier, the reason AT&T has more senior managers with liberal arts degrees is because they probably went to top tier schools like the Ivies, especially true if this study was taken in 1980. It's a case of correlation does not equal causation. They still majored in science and technical majors, they just got them from prestigious universities with a liberal arts curriculum (hence, liberal arts degrees).
To be frankly honest to readers here that might be persuaded by cpg's BS, don't get an English major if you aren't planning to go to grad or professional school. If you want to go to law school, b-school or medical school, then it doesn't matter what major you were. But not many businesses except those in the publishing business and your relative's like to see an English major on the resume.
Again, total nonsense. I'm surprised that your 'top-ten' university education (By the way, how do they measure that? I'm always fascinated how people come up with those lists) can't come up with a more coherent argument than that. Further, it appears your reading comprehension is fundamentally lacking. As I said before, there is a definite salary advantage for people who have career-driven majors immediately upon leaving school. No question. But over the long haul, people with liberal arts DEGREES do better, because they are ultimately better prepared for management. I cited studies to make my case. All you can seem to do is bluster about, and offer a bunch of pretentious "correlation is not causation" nonsense.
What's more, let's just move on to another point. Today, almost anyone who wants to really earn money must ultimately go on to grad or professional school. In that sense, a humanities degree confers an advantage because of the sheer volume of writing and thinking that's required. Having served as an ongoing guest lecturer to a couple of MBA programs, I can tell you which aspirants excel. It's not the ones with the business or chemistry degrees, I can tell you that.
In truth think the beating heart of your diatribe isn't really facts, but rather a need to put others down. Sorry that you're so insecure.
You can not generalize.Rich equal unhappy,not true!!!I was a rich,spoiled,sole child,but i also got from my parents and grandparents love,affection and great values.Me and all the rich kids i knew (they had the same values like me), stayed away from drugs,alkohool,(even smoke),trouble and turned into grown ups with great values.It all depends on the familly,you come from,on the education,values,the way you were raised.
I consider money is importante,money is not everything and can not buy you hapinness,but it can give you a better life,it can give you better condition to live,to study,to get a better education,to get better healthcare,to see the world and so on.With teh right education from home,with the right values,you learn to handle and value money and familly properties (given form generation to generation debtsfree like in europe most cases)the right way and even if rich,you still can be happy. I know many rich people in Europe,who have great kids,who achieves great academically,stay away from trouble and are happy kids and teenager.Also from rich parents coming grown ups,who were sucsseful academically (and with access to agreat education,they become succesful financially,on their own feet),built great families with the same values they were taught.A lot of rich people end in drugs too,but also a lot of poor people and middle class ends too.Everybody can have acces to drug,every pocket can buy drugs,depends on you,if you get involved in it or not.So you can not generalize.And yes,smart ,good educated rich people with great values are very happy!
All the rich kids I know around me are depressed, seriously depressed.
It seems that they're finally beginning to realize that once they leave Mom&Dad they will have to start earning their own $.
But all of their lives they've lived in comfort and aren't really accustomed to the idea that luxury can't be taken for granted. Thus I've found that the rich kids I know at school are starting to report themselves as depressed as we near the end of high school.
Has life always been this way for (most) rich kids in history? Or is it because of the decline of family-oriented values and the rise of rampant individualism that now the rich kids must "go off" and basically fend for themselves regardless of their childhood background?
It seems to me that the increasing opportunity for social mobility (thus allowing poor, hard working, gifted students up into the stratosphere) has also made the rich kids' position more precarious and unstable to say the least.
Does anyone have any opinions on this matter?
Rich kids -- they have the latest cell phones with unlimited text messaging. Wait - so do the poor kids.
Rich kids have internet and cable television. Well - so do the poor kids.
Rich kids get to go to college and so do the poor kids.
Maybe they're sad because there's no point in being rich anymore, no point in working hard to have something because everyone has the same.
acquiring and processing abstract information and synthesizing theories and responses.
Now if I tried to do that where I work, I'd be fired. They want action, they want results. They want things working right. If there's a problem they want it fixed and fast. No synthesized theories and responses.
I work at a university with a fair amount of overpriveleged kids, and the mindset is amazing. At the end of the year when they go on job interviews for some of them it's unthinkable that they would take a position that pays $25,000 a year (or live in shabby one bedroom apartment or gasp! take the bus.) I want to say, "honey, you're a *philosophy* major. That's a good salary."
You see the exact same mentality with the so-called poor kids. I dont' think you find many kids today who expect that after they attain a degree, they're going to have to work very hard or won't be offered 6 figure salaries.
I think it's an overall problem with our culture today. Rich and poor alike are above working. Sometimes you see a kid that grew up middle class whose parents instilled some kind of work ethic but even many of them can't envision ever going without.
I went to a top ten university with a liberal arts curriculum and majored in chemistry. That makes me someone with a liberal arts degree,
Do you have a B.S. or a B.A.? Just because you had to take a 100-level English course to graduatefrom college doesn't mean you have a liberal arts degree.
Last edited by fleetiebelle; 12-06-2009 at 09:11 AM..
you did not get it!
first of all you study for yourself (at least this is my opinion),to be content with yourself,yes,i am an educated person and i achieved a great degree in yale.something to be very porud of, according to my opinion.And when i reach this point,i can make whatever i want with my life,because i have the confirmation that i am a smart,capable person...not everybody succed in finishing a study at yale,even if he has the money!!He could have been a sheperd from teh beginning,but there would have been a big difference!he would have been only a not educated shepperd and nothing else!so,he is somebody and has a great education,alhough he decided to become a shepperd.I totally admire such people,who make the best for them,who do not care of the opinion of other people,like yours.
And he may be in your eyes only a shepperd (he is not in mine),but you have no clue,how much his education could have helped him to expand,to make better decision with his "bussiness"his life,he sees the world with other eyes,his horizont was opened through the yale education,do you get it??
You have no idea,how beautiful the life of a shepperd can be,live in healthy air,have healthy food,close to nature and so on..i am sure that is more behind ( he is smart enough to expand his bussiness and make good money with it,shepperds from my country made six figure amounts in selling lamms to the arabic world,there are so many possibilities),but in my eyes this guy is absolutely smart and he took the best decision for him..no,it was not a waste of money,education is NEVER a waste of money,i am sorry you see this this way!what he learnt in school,nobody can take it from him,he learnt for life!and believe me ,i come form nature and fresh air and fresh food (not like hier in california)..and yes,fresh air,fresh food,good water,close to nature is millions worth for healthy,for teh familly,for all his life..you did not get it,but he made a million decision!!!your parents shoudl have continued to admire him,because in my eyes he is absolutely great and made the best thing!!!
You see the exact same mentality with the so-called poor kids. I dont' think you find many kids today who expect that after they attain a degree, they're going to have to work very hard or won't be offered 6 figure salaries.
I think it's an overall problem with our culture today. Rich and poor alike are above working. Sometimes you see a kid that grew up middle class whose parents instilled some kind of work ethic but even many of them can't envision ever going without.
I think you're right, malamute.
Why do you think this is so?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
