3 ms·

> it's a simple choice. That's funny: I would also say that it's a simple choice, but in the opposite direction.

alephnerd 3y ago
Do you have kids? That's the difference. Sending them to a weaker school district does impact them negatively over their career. They aren't as likely to get the education+extracurriculars+references needed to get into target programs in target schools, which makes them less likely to start their careers at renowned companies (doesn't have to be FAANG, even unicorns, YC startups, and F1000s restrict new grad hiring to a handful of target programs), which makes them less likely to climb the ladder efficiently, which makes them less likely to be able to afford to buy a house or start a family. Plus they aren't as likely to have a strong alumni network that can help them open doors everywhere. If I stayed in SFUSD I wouldn't have been able to reach the position I am at today versus the HS I went being one with a strong alumni network and the children of high net worth families. My friends who stayed in SFUSD cannot afford to live in the Bay Area anymore and will probably never have a chance to ever afford living in California (they all ended up moving to Arizona and Texas) whereas by going to a target HS, I have a shot at those milestones in my 30s-40s. It sucks, but America is a harsh society now. Most careers outside of Tech/Finance/Accounting pay shit, and Tech+Finance+Accounting jobs severely restrict entry now c. 2023. This is why a lot of parents decide to take a 1-2 hour commute over a 20 minute one
- syntheweave 3y ago
  It's hard to see all the demographic shifts 20+ years ahead, or the kinds of turns a life can take. I stayed in SFUSD. Still in the city. Made money in crypto, haven't worked in quite a few years. My brother also went through and took a more traditional academia-to-government contractor path, house, three kids. All elite schooling does is put you on elite tracking. That is materially the best historically, but honestly, you can develop an amazing network and skillset online, too. That's mostly on the parents to realize that the opportunity exists - a lot of parents have difficulty keeping up with the interests of teenagers and just tell them to do their homework, but it's actually the moment where they can leverage a lot of wisdom and say, "no, actually the school assignment is nothing to stress over - just focus on building one good technical skill for yourself instead of the class, and if we don't know where to start we'll email some industry pros." There is a long tradition in tech of some of the most successful people being, at the start, eager students who actively sought out expert advice and built their network by going directly to the source - not to the highest status roles that get bombarded with that stuff, but to the people a bit behind the curtain, in a critical doing-of-things role. When you get enough of those, you end up well oriented to the actual challenges of the field, and school can melt away into the background as a how-to-get-there detail.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    At the individual level, I agree with you. We are both products of K-8 education in SFUSD, but a couple notes/clarifications 1. Target School =/= Elite School. CS@University of Utah is in no way elite, but is a major recruitment target for Adobe and graphics oriented companies. Same with SJSU (most SJ companies), Oregon State (NVIDIA/Intel), and UT Dallas (telco/networking). Even getting into an <affordable> T70 CS/EE/CE program is increasingly difficult as programs haven't expanded headcount, and getting significant scholarships require a 1450+ SAT at this point. 2. Target Role =/= High Status Role. I can safely state that MIT and Harvard CS students are having a hard time finding entry level roles at even "Ok" employers like Proofpoint or Sophos let alone internships. This causes pressure downwards as now there is increased competition for a smaller and smaller amount of roles. I'm a Product Manager at a niche late stage startup, and for my PM Intern roles I'm getting applications from MBA students at HBS/Tuck/Wharton who straight up told me the only reason they're applying to my role is because McKinsey and Bain revoked internship offers. 1 year ago, I was having difficulty getting interns who even did a BSBA at Haas, but now I have the pick of the litter. The same thing is happening everywhere across all levels of companies. Entry Levels roles are much more competitive in the 2020s than they were when you and I both attended college (I'm going to assume the early-to-mid 2010s). Every entry level role assumes internship experience now, whereas that was much less common in the early-to-mid 2010s (you could go to SFSU without an internship and still land some entry level SWE role somewhere). 3. Macro-Level College Readiness You and I both did well and did K-8 in the same school district, but did the majority of our 8th grade and/or 12th grade class do well? For the sake of this discussion let's assume "well" is defined as on track to a white collar position earning $110,000 a year by 30 ($110k in 2023 is comparable to $90k in 2010). This benchmark requires higher education within Tech+Accounting+Finance, and school districts like SFUSD have a College Going Rate (includes Community College) rate of around 68% compared to a wealthy district like Los Gatos Unified (88%). And then when you factor in tests scores (used to determine scholarship and program admissions) this gets even more stark, with the median SFUSD and LGSHUSD SAT scores being 1230 and 1330 respectively. With all these factors combined, it has become harder to get your foot into the door. There will be smart outliers always (a good friend of mine in college was the only kid in his inner city HS to be college bound and we attended an elite T10 program), but at the macro level, you have less chances and the margin of error is much higher. Make one bad mistake and you won't have a safety net to land on. And that's what alumni networks are at the end of the day - professional safety nets that help us find new opportunities. When I have kids, I'd want them to have an easier time succeeding in life, and this means giving them as much of a safety net as possible, that way if they don't have the ability to hustle, they can still be set for life. PS - which SFUSD hs did you attend? The outcomes at Abe Lincoln or Lowell are different from Mission or Ida B Wells
- marssaxman 3y ago
  Thank you for taking the time to help me understand your point of view. You and I have clearly led very different lives, causing us to focus on different concerns about our children's futures: but I appreciate the sense of responsibility your thinking shows. For my part, I know what long commutes do to me, and I am certain my eleven-year-old is better off with a happy, engaged, lively papa they get to spend a lot of time with, instead of the tired, often-absent grouch I'd be if we moved to the suburbs. Neither my wife nor I have pursued the kind of competitive, ladder-climbing career maximization you describe in our own lives, so that's not a focus in our child-raising either. While we are trying to ensure that horizons remain broad and options remain open, we see our responsibility as less about building some specific path to success and more about supporting our child while they grow the skills they need to pursue whatever kind of life it is they will come to value.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    Thanks for the compliment. And I agree with you - as a parent being close to you kids is critical. Also, the experiences I wrote about come from being Asian American in the Bay Area, where there are no "average" school districts anymore - everything is either underfunded with horrible success rates or hypercompetitive districts that rank in the top 500 nationally (a lot of this was racially driven - Cupertino's school district saw a massive white flight when Asian parents started moving in, and the HS I went to saw the same thing). Also our public higher education system is defunded, so it's often harder to get into CS@UC Davis than it is to get into EECS@Mich. I've had good friends get rejected from UCD and get into MIT. Hell, I got rejected from UCLA and still got into a T10 national university. Living outside of CA and Washington (they face the same issues as CA due to rapid population growth in 20 years but almost no change in funding) you don't need to make the same kind of hard decisions that I mentioned above - there are still decent average school districts with engaged staff and little to no rat race, so you could work as an sofrware engineer at Cummins or Honeywell and still have a 9-5 and send your kids to a decent public school district.

Do you have kids? That's the difference. Sending them to a weaker school district does impact them negatively over their career. They aren't as likely to get the education+extracurriculars+references needed to get into target programs in target schools, which makes them less likely to start their careers at renowned companies (doesn't have to be FAANG, even unicorns, YC startups, and F1000s restrict new grad hiring to a handful of target programs), which makes them less likely to climb the ladder efficiently, which makes them less likely to be able to afford to buy a house or start a family. Plus they aren't as likely to have a strong alumni network that can help them open doors everywhere. If I stayed in SFUSD I wouldn't have been able to reach the position I am at today versus the HS I went being one with a strong alumni network and the children of high net worth families. My friends who stayed in SFUSD cannot afford to live in the Bay Area anymore and will probably never have a chance to ever afford living in California (they all ended up moving to Arizona and Texas) whereas by going to a target HS, I have a shot at those milestones in my 30s-40s. It sucks, but America is a harsh society now. Most careers outside of Tech/Finance/Accounting pay shit, and Tech+Finance+Accounting jobs severely restrict entry now c. 2023. This is why a lot of parents decide to take a 1-2 hour commute over a 20 minute one

syntheweave 3y ago
It's hard to see all the demographic shifts 20+ years ahead, or the kinds of turns a life can take. I stayed in SFUSD. Still in the city. Made money in crypto, haven't worked in quite a few years. My brother also went through and took a more traditional academia-to-government contractor path, house, three kids. All elite schooling does is put you on elite tracking. That is materially the best historically, but honestly, you can develop an amazing network and skillset online, too. That's mostly on the parents to realize that the opportunity exists - a lot of parents have difficulty keeping up with the interests of teenagers and just tell them to do their homework, but it's actually the moment where they can leverage a lot of wisdom and say, "no, actually the school assignment is nothing to stress over - just focus on building one good technical skill for yourself instead of the class, and if we don't know where to start we'll email some industry pros." There is a long tradition in tech of some of the most successful people being, at the start, eager students who actively sought out expert advice and built their network by going directly to the source - not to the highest status roles that get bombarded with that stuff, but to the people a bit behind the curtain, in a critical doing-of-things role. When you get enough of those, you end up well oriented to the actual challenges of the field, and school can melt away into the background as a how-to-get-there detail.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  At the individual level, I agree with you. We are both products of K-8 education in SFUSD, but a couple notes/clarifications 1. Target School =/= Elite School. CS@University of Utah is in no way elite, but is a major recruitment target for Adobe and graphics oriented companies. Same with SJSU (most SJ companies), Oregon State (NVIDIA/Intel), and UT Dallas (telco/networking). Even getting into an <affordable> T70 CS/EE/CE program is increasingly difficult as programs haven't expanded headcount, and getting significant scholarships require a 1450+ SAT at this point. 2. Target Role =/= High Status Role. I can safely state that MIT and Harvard CS students are having a hard time finding entry level roles at even "Ok" employers like Proofpoint or Sophos let alone internships. This causes pressure downwards as now there is increased competition for a smaller and smaller amount of roles. I'm a Product Manager at a niche late stage startup, and for my PM Intern roles I'm getting applications from MBA students at HBS/Tuck/Wharton who straight up told me the only reason they're applying to my role is because McKinsey and Bain revoked internship offers. 1 year ago, I was having difficulty getting interns who even did a BSBA at Haas, but now I have the pick of the litter. The same thing is happening everywhere across all levels of companies. Entry Levels roles are much more competitive in the 2020s than they were when you and I both attended college (I'm going to assume the early-to-mid 2010s). Every entry level role assumes internship experience now, whereas that was much less common in the early-to-mid 2010s (you could go to SFSU without an internship and still land some entry level SWE role somewhere). 3. Macro-Level College Readiness You and I both did well and did K-8 in the same school district, but did the majority of our 8th grade and/or 12th grade class do well? For the sake of this discussion let's assume "well" is defined as on track to a white collar position earning $110,000 a year by 30 ($110k in 2023 is comparable to $90k in 2010). This benchmark requires higher education within Tech+Accounting+Finance, and school districts like SFUSD have a College Going Rate (includes Community College) rate of around 68% compared to a wealthy district like Los Gatos Unified (88%). And then when you factor in tests scores (used to determine scholarship and program admissions) this gets even more stark, with the median SFUSD and LGSHUSD SAT scores being 1230 and 1330 respectively. With all these factors combined, it has become harder to get your foot into the door. There will be smart outliers always (a good friend of mine in college was the only kid in his inner city HS to be college bound and we attended an elite T10 program), but at the macro level, you have less chances and the margin of error is much higher. Make one bad mistake and you won't have a safety net to land on. And that's what alumni networks are at the end of the day - professional safety nets that help us find new opportunities. When I have kids, I'd want them to have an easier time succeeding in life, and this means giving them as much of a safety net as possible, that way if they don't have the ability to hustle, they can still be set for life. PS - which SFUSD hs did you attend? The outcomes at Abe Lincoln or Lowell are different from Mission or Ida B Wells
marssaxman 3y ago
Thank you for taking the time to help me understand your point of view. You and I have clearly led very different lives, causing us to focus on different concerns about our children's futures: but I appreciate the sense of responsibility your thinking shows. For my part, I know what long commutes do to me, and I am certain my eleven-year-old is better off with a happy, engaged, lively papa they get to spend a lot of time with, instead of the tired, often-absent grouch I'd be if we moved to the suburbs. Neither my wife nor I have pursued the kind of competitive, ladder-climbing career maximization you describe in our own lives, so that's not a focus in our child-raising either. While we are trying to ensure that horizons remain broad and options remain open, we see our responsibility as less about building some specific path to success and more about supporting our child while they grow the skills they need to pursue whatever kind of life it is they will come to value.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  Thanks for the compliment. And I agree with you - as a parent being close to you kids is critical. Also, the experiences I wrote about come from being Asian American in the Bay Area, where there are no "average" school districts anymore - everything is either underfunded with horrible success rates or hypercompetitive districts that rank in the top 500 nationally (a lot of this was racially driven - Cupertino's school district saw a massive white flight when Asian parents started moving in, and the HS I went to saw the same thing). Also our public higher education system is defunded, so it's often harder to get into CS@UC Davis than it is to get into EECS@Mich. I've had good friends get rejected from UCD and get into MIT. Hell, I got rejected from UCLA and still got into a T10 national university. Living outside of CA and Washington (they face the same issues as CA due to rapid population growth in 20 years but almost no change in funding) you don't need to make the same kind of hard decisions that I mentioned above - there are still decent average school districts with engaged staff and little to no rat race, so you could work as an sofrware engineer at Cummins or Honeywell and still have a 9-5 and send your kids to a decent public school district.