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.
There are actually a lot of parents in Boston like id77 making the same choices. I'm a homeowner in Boston and I'm raising my children and managing my finances exactly like id77. They might be "starry-eyed urban pioneers" or whatever label of naivete you want to give them, but some of their postings I have read on Facebook and Tinyhood are some of the sincerest, most sophisticated, and most nuanced *personal* opinions I have read concerning race and class and how to raise good citizens.
My husband and I have already done that rat race called college admissions to get into Harvard or whatever top college those Lexington parents salivate over. Trust me. If you send your kids to the W towns, Newton, or [insert suburban town with insanely valued real estate], and your socioeconomic background is doctor, professor, [insert upper middle class profession], those elite college admission officers will have higher expectations for your child. Your kiddo is going to have to be more than the dime-a-dozen northeast, privileged straight-A student with a 1400+ SAT score if they want to get into one of those schools with single-digit admission rates. You can't expect the schools alone will get your child into the Ivy Leagues. It's not like they hand you an autopilot, parenting cruise button with the deed of the house. You have to be way more pro-active (and maybe even more wily because the other parents are already signing up their kids for Russian Math School by first grade). Of course, NU and BU (perfectly fine universities) will gladly accept your very competent child and your tuition payments anyway. So you just spent 18 years paying the mortgage and property taxes for a $1-$1.5 million dollar house because.....?
You have perfectly articulated my thoughts. I think a lot of those expensive towns are over saturated with the kinds of kids you're mentioning. It is much harder to stand out. The money I'm saving in taxes can be spent on experiences and enrichment opportunities for my child.
Is Boston real estate really half the price? What neighborhoods do these parents live in and what size house?
Probably a mixed bag. You can get a perfectly livable home in a place like JP or West Roxbury for less than the W towns. You can also even get into a spot like Back Bay but you're not going to have 4,000 square feet like you would in a Wellesley.
As a very important aside, size isn't the most important thing. I always hear these discussions wind up with size, size, size as the one and only deciding factor, as if having 4,000 square feet somehow equates to good and 1,500 square feet equates to bad and all other factors (except schools, apparently) are just personal preferences.
I know it's going to be an absolutely horrific and foreign concept to some people, but there actually are families living in smaller homes who are quite happy with their space. Many prefer smaller over larger -- enough space to be comfortable but not so much as to have to feel compelled to frequent Cabot or Jordan's to fill it. It encourages efficiency in usage of space, it discourages excess consumption (a cancer among Americans today), and dare I say encourages a family to spend more time together rather than sheltered away in their separate caves playing on their separate screens. They don't care about having a separate bed/bath for each kid, they don't care if they have separate living/dining/den spaces or a 3-car attached garage or a 400 square foot walk-in closet for their 2 suitcases worth of clothes they actually wear with any regularity. It's more house than they need, more property tax than they need, more heating and cooling than they need, and one of many problems I at least have with places like the W towns is that's about all they cater to anymore. Yes, there's a few smaller homes left in a place like Wellesley, but they usually get snatched up quickly by developers and replaced with yet another giant home because that's what the demographic who wants to live in there wants.
Yes, there's a few smaller homes left in a place like Wellesley, but they usually get snatched up quickly by developers and replaced with yet another giant home because that's what the demographic who wants to live in there wants.
I think fewer people want McMansions than you might think. You are correct about the developers scooping up any available parcel, potential remodel or tear down. However, they are wedging bloated houses onto postage stamps primarily to maximize their profit driven by price per square foot. If there were nicely finished 2,500 sqft homes in some of these towns, many would desire them over the monstrosities.
Last edited by porterhouse; 10-16-2020 at 07:18 AM..
I think fewer people want McMansions than you might think. You are correct about the developers scooping up any available parcel, potential remodel or tear down. However, they are wedging bloated houses onto postage stamps primarily to maximize their profit driven by price per square foot. If there were nicely finished 2,500 sqft homes in some of these towns, may would desire them over the monstrosities.
Of course, NU and BU (perfectly fine universities) will gladly accept your very competent child and your tuition payments anyway. So you just spent 18 years paying the mortgage and property taxes for a $1-$1.5 million dollar house because.....?
If BU is the 'worst case', I'd say attending the 'elite' district served the child well - set a high floor.
I sense many on this forum attended elite schools or, at a minimum, well rated undergrad program. I suspect there is a bit of bias which allows them to believe their success, despite having attended a mediocre school district, is easily repeated due to their excellent genes and parenting. I'm not sure the stats bare this out.
Having attended a middling state college from a then top-tier MA district (in terms of testing), I was horrified by the work ethic and base line knowledge of some of my peers. It was quite clear that not all MA high school programs were as rigorous as mine - these kids weren't stupid and many came from wealthier homes than I, but the resources and training they received from districts like Boston or Woburn were obviously lacking. It turns out middling students such as myself were only middling because they were sharing a classroom with Ivy-bound students and some of that work ethic and training did transfer.
Additionally, the large wealthier districts also tend to have richer (both in terms of funds and experience) non-core paths which, at least in my experience, can help bright and determined students find non-traditional career paths. Again, setting a high floor for students who have neither the interest or mind for 'elite' liberal arts schools.
Does this mean parents should prioritize 'elite' over 'very good'? Eh, probably not unless expectations are truly Ivy. Are they likely raising the floor of their child by selecting Winchester over Somerville? Most likely yes.
I think fewer people want McMansions than you might think. You are correct about the developers scooping up any available parcel, potential remodel or tear down. However, they are wedging bloated houses onto postage stamps primarily to maximize their profit driven by price per square foot. If there were nicely finished 2,500 sqft homes in some of these towns, may would desire them over the monstrosities.
I agree.
The 2,000-2,500 sqft house with 'walkability', good commuter options, and good proximity to Boston for entertainment etc. was the hot commodity the last few years, and priced accordingly.
Belmont, Arlington, Newton among others come to mind
I think fewer people want McMansions than you might think. You are correct about the developers scooping up any available parcel, potential remodel or tear down. However, they are wedging bloated houses onto postage stamps primarily to maximize their profit driven by price per square foot. If there were nicely finished 2,500 sqft homes in some of these towns, many would desire them over the monstrosities.
I agree with this but it may just be the circles I run in. I don't know anybody in a 4,000sqft house other than my wife's boss.
There are actually a lot of parents in Boston like id77 making the same choices. I'm a homeowner in Boston and I'm raising my children and managing my finances exactly like id77. They might be "starry-eyed urban pioneers" or whatever label of naivete you want to give them, but some of their postings I have read on Facebook and Tinyhood are some of the sincerest, most sophisticated, and most nuanced *personal* opinions I have read concerning race and class and how to raise good citizens.
My husband and I have already done that rat race called college admissions to get into Harvard or whatever top college those Lexington parents salivate over. Trust me. If you send your kids to the W towns, Newton, or [insert suburban town with insanely valued real estate], and your socioeconomic background is doctor, professor, [insert upper middle class profession], those elite college admission officers will have higher expectations for your child. Your kiddo is going to have to be more than the dime-a-dozen northeast, privileged straight-A student with a 1400+ SAT score if they want to get into one of those schools with single-digit admission rates. You can't expect the schools alone will get your child into the Ivy Leagues. It's not like they hand you an autopilot, parenting cruise button with the deed of the house. You have to be way more pro-active (and maybe even more wily because the other parents are already signing up their kids for Russian Math School by first grade). Of course, NU and BU (perfectly fine universities) will gladly accept your very competent child and your tuition payments anyway. So you just spent 18 years paying the mortgage and property taxes for a $1-$1.5 million dollar house because.....?
That's pretty much it. If the starter homes are 800K some things are just expected. Of course at the same time they aren't taught that capital gains taxes are lower than income so frankly it makes more sense to become wealthy from investments rather than income from labor (see the book Capital) the tax difference, wear and tear on a human body, ability to vote in the private sector, ability to take a loss on investments to lower a tax bracket etc.
A long time ago I had a internship. The director passed and the assistant for what ever reasons didn't move up. As a result of that eventually the new manager hired a new director from Harvard. Well the assistant didn't want any of that so she left. The Harvard grad declined the job there after and then there's two openings now. I know another Ivy league that frankly hasn't had a job in probably a decade. He's been doing what is called a "white face job" in the middle east for awhile. He volunteers at a non profit that pays for food and lodging and as a result has a huge portfolio of "instagram worthy" photos of other countries. It would not be so bad if it was not for the fact that he did get some degrees and did have some experience on beacon hill. heck I would have thought he would have ran for governor in another 10-15 years. But something happened about ten years ago.... Another Ivy grad I know is on the Cape and she's nice but frankly she doesn't really do much. Teaches in college but probably isn't making tenue and just does eco stuff on the cape. Hardly worth the appeal of spending all that time money and energy. Left Manhattan long ago. Another I met ran a community college and she's nice but I haven't seen her in early 20 years.
This is a pretty good article about how Ivy leagues look and where they end up going. It's mostly a pretty canned response. https://www.financialsamurai.com/wha...d-up-a-nobody/
The idea that there's these fresh young bright minds ready to take on and challenge the world doesn't work. You can't plan for a discover. M&A took over R&D long ago. You don't have to innovate you can pretty much litigate and that leads to out of court settlements (i.e. IP law).
I know another person that pretty much faked his career. He went to william and mary for music which was fine. Then went to U of Vermont for his MBA and then immediately taught business even though he had never ran a business. Well it turns out he was only teaching one online class and he was in Australia at the time! It got to the point where the business wing of the institution put in black bold print
"__________ __________ DOES *NOT* WORK HERE!"
From an employer perspective if the argument is made that Ivy league is all rich, smart and affluent but the resume and CV doesn't reflect that then it means a lack of ambition. Moreover that also means they are automatically overqualified for most jobs. Now if it is argued to be part of a network that's not really up to any legal argument. I've worked for places, spent time in higher ed, have certifications and licenses but I'm not of any legal, moral or ethical argument to drop everything to help out someone I met years ago. Same with this. Mastermind groups are fine but unless there is some contractual obligation then it's just talk. Don't even get me started on the bribery scandal. After awhile no one really cares where you went to school.
If BU is the 'worst case', I'd say attending the 'elite' district served the child well - set a high floor.
I sense many on this forum attended elite schools or, at a minimum, well rated undergrad program. I suspect there is a bit of bias which allows them to believe their success, despite having attended a mediocre school district, is easily repeated due to their excellent genes and parenting. I'm not sure the stats bare this out.
Having attended a middling state college from a then top-tier MA district (in terms of testing), I was horrified by the work ethic and base line knowledge of some of my peers. It was quite clear that not all MA high school programs were as rigorous as mine - these kids weren't stupid and many came from wealthier homes than I, but the resources and training they received from districts like Boston or Woburn were obviously lacking. It turns out middling students such as myself were only middling because they were sharing a classroom with Ivy-bound students and some of that work ethic and training did transfer.
Additionally, the large wealthier districts also tend to have richer (both in terms of funds and experience) non-core paths which, at least in my experience, can help bright and determined students find non-traditional career paths. Again, setting a high floor for students who have neither the interest or mind for 'elite' liberal arts schools.
Does this mean parents should prioritize 'elite' over 'very good'? Eh, probably not unless expectations are truly Ivy. Are they likely raising the floor of their child by selecting Winchester over Somerville? Most likely yes.
I'll be the first to admit my gene pool needs Clorox, but my success was heavily influenced by parenting. My parents were the first generation to even attend a college, and neither of them went to anything approaching prestigious: the kind of colleges you'd have to Google to find anything about unless you happened to live in the towns where those schools were.
I similarly went to public schools that rank way down there (earlier I mentioned my HS was a 1/10 on GreatSchools). My SO went to a 9/10 HS in MA, and when we discuss our school experiences there's really one difference that stands out: athletics vs academics.
In my schools, the football players were gods and cheerleaders were the apex social status for girls. People who were smart were nerds and got bullied, and many children learned from their parents that might makes right and the only way to resolve problems was beating up the people you didn't agree with. In her schools, academics were prioritized and athletics were extracurricular. Things like wealth level or religion replaced intelligence as the measuring sticks for forming castes and assigning bullying targets.
The successes (i.e, "defied the odds" in poor schools) did so because their family supported them and fostered that path from an early age. The high ranked schools still require this fostering, but the resistance is lower as the village was more involved in raising the kid, so to speak. I'm not sure if that's "serving them well", but that's the reality that people are ultimately paying for: go it alone in a lower school or deal with the wave of tiger moms and elitists at a higher ranked school. From a parent's perspective, the high ranked school probably sounds like a no-brainer, but both are stressful to kids, just in different ways.
FWIW, some of the worst candidates I've interviewed were from top-tier schools (a la MIT grad interviewing for a tech job) and some of the best were from bottom-tier ones. At the end of the day, my experience has been that, unless you're trying to go into a field that's built around who you know instead of what you know, your education path becomes irrelevant by about your 3rd year in the workforce, and the only reason it's relevant before that is because it's pretty much all employers have to go on in terms of your skills or work ethic.
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.
