[michaelochurch]

The 'thinking about money' is not at all the same as we in industry think. Its about survival on a shoestring, not about making it big.

Absolutely correct. It also begets the False Poverty Effect, in which negative, antisocial, and even unethical behaviors become more acceptable because people think of themselves as poor relative to where they belong.

You see the same thing (False Poverty Effect) in startups. Plenty of startup CEOs and founders feel like it's OK to be unethical because, at a salary of a "mere" $150,000 per year, they're practically performing charity work. When people like they're underappreciated or behind where they "belong" in terms of money or status, they're more willing to do things that aren't exactly legal or ethical.

At least in startups, as you noted, there is upside. In academia, the reward for busting your ass and beating the piss out of the odds is... a middle-class job where you can't be fired. If you'd worked as hard in finance, you'd be able to retire at 40. The stakes are small, the rewards are meager, and this gives the people who are in that game a huge sense of moral superiority.

Did you get your degree from Phoenix, the for-profit college? No? Because its not as legit somehow? That's the real issue. Ivy-league schools are the way they are, because we keep throwing money at them.

And, sadly... we'll keep doing so. If I ever have kids, I'm going to have to spend six-figure amounts on what is, in essence, a socioeconomic advantage under the name of "education". Schools have become a socially acceptable form of inherited wealth that looks like meritocratic academic admissions because, for the outsiders, it legitimately is very difficult to get into the top schools, hence the mystique and prestige.

I think it would be better if we replaced this socioeconomic "black box" of educational admissions with a purely test-driven system. Sure, there'd be really smart people with mediocre test scores who can't get into top schools... but that already happens, just for different reasons (socioeconomic ones rather than flawed testing). However, you'd kill that stupid mystique about Harvard and Stanford having some supernatural ability to select future leaders and people could just say, "yeah, my test scores weren't great", and that would be that. It wouldn't be some huge shame for a valedictorian to get shut out of the top schools; it would be, "I'm not great at standardized tests" (and smart people who aren't good test takers do exist) and that no one would care after age 19. It would work out well for the students at the Ivies who actually want to learn because, on average, they'd have better colleagues. It would probably end the 6- or 7-figure per child, pay-for-socioeconomic-advantage racket surrounding the top colleges and prep schools (and, in New York, grade schools and fucking pre-schools).