That is a staggering amount of money!

> According to research published by the National Library of Medicine and the Social Security Administration, the lifetime earnings of the average U.S. citizen (over 50 years from age 20 to 69) vary substantially, depending on the various factors we will cover in this article, with an overall average median lifetime earnings of $1,850,000 for men and $1,100,200 for women.

https://www.theknowlesgroup.org/blog/average-american-lifeti...

At the same time. If you invest 2 million in an index fund when they're 10, then it'll be ~$40 million by the time the kid is 40 yr old. So, donating it to USC might be a pretty bad investment unless 2 million is a genuinely small amount for OP.

I don’t know if a single k-12 private school that has tuition anywhere near that in the South Bay Area, except Harker for the upper grades only. Presentation, Bellermine, etc. are all half that.

> you live in a different world than most of us

Probably.

Benefits of a dual income household with both earners making mid-6 figs base and fairly hefty bonuses (and equity), and both of us reached this point by our mid-20s.

This is a very common household structure in the Bay Area.

Your neighbor might be HNW or UHNW and you wouldn't even know it.

But not typical for startup employees.

And UHNW is Ultra High Net Worth Individual

It is.

Before AB1780 it something we heavily considered only because we're Asian American and Asian American admissions at top private like Yale and Harvard have fallen after the Supreme Court's AA ruling, while legacy admissions skyrocketed.

Now that AB1780 exists, and will most likely have teeth in the next 30 years, there's no reason to partake in that zero sum game anymore.

> 2 million is a genuinely small amount for OP.

It comes out to top Bay Area private school tuition for 2 kids over a 16-20 year timeline.

i assume to increase their chances of getting into harvard. back of the envelope math works out to be $715k for their 5-12 education which may be more bang for your buck but also the college entrance strategy is not so much based on donor contribution and more on target school selection.

For example, The Bureau of Labor Statistics indicates median pay for tech workers in 2023 was $104K - https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology

HN skews Bay Area.

BLS didn't normalize the above data to show the Bay Area where it's fairly common to break $400-500k TC by your late 20s/early 30s.

Furthermore, at least in the Bay Area Asian American community, both spouses are working these roles (or adjacent high paying roles like Medicine, Dentistry, High Finance, etc).

My understanding is that Stanford, Berkeley, Caltech and UCLA are more selective and UCSD has better academics.

If you're a selfmade tech founder millionaire......maybe have some faith in the caliber of your own child ?

US population is stable, enrollment has increased, and all of these universities have been prestigious for a while.

I understand that UCs have pivoted to pseudo-private school status by increasing tuition and international student admissions have gotten more competitive. CS has gotten harder to get in as a major, but has the university as a whole gotten more selective ?

I can't see why things would suddenly get a lot harder for undeclared domestic students. Has the domestic rat-race intensified to such a degree ?

1. The Common Application pervasiveness. When I applied to college (many moons ago), I applied to five schools. Now it's not unheard of for kids to apply to 15-25 schools.

2. While the US population is stable there are more kids going to college than 30 years ago.

3. The "resume" of students is much stronger. As a kid I knew someone who got into MIT whose highest math course was HS Calculus, AB equivalent, but not an AP course -- people weren't surprised at the time. I think you'd be hardpressed to find kids who get in with that now. I know kids who have completed Calc BC as HS freshman. Now that's not common, but it's not super rare either. And what HS kid hasn't created their own non-profit? Or published a paper(s)? The bar just keeps rising. Honestly I don't think its sustainable. HS kids applying to Ivies have better credentials than pretty much all of our country's leaders!

Do you think your kid will need a $2m+ boost to get into USC?

Imho, the degree will largely be wasted on a student not smart enough or not motivated enough to get in without that help.

The folks who already run around in moneyed/connected circles have plenty of less rigorous college options that still provide access to social capital, and it’s trivially easy to get into some masters programs at USC if the student is willing to pay and wants the badge (fwiw, this is largely true at HYPS schools as well).

Before AB1780 - yes. We're Asian American, and Asian American admissions at top privates has declined after the Supreme Court's AA ruling at the expense of legacies.

> Imho, the degree will largely be wasted on a student not smart enough or not motivated enough to get in without that help

Not necessarily. It's easier to make a case for a nepo hire/referral if your kid has a "Good" degree.

If you dig closely in intern and new grad hiring across early career tech roles, I'd say a solid minority (20-25%) were landed due to parents leveraging their professional networks.

With a "Good" degree it makes it easier.

Unethical - yes. But such is life

------------

All of this is moot now with AB1780 and the eventual addition of teeth to it in the next 30 years.

I think legacy admissions will eventually get banned in CA due to the political implications now that us Asians and Latinos are the plurality in California, but severely underrepresented in legacy admissions.