4 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

It's about 'investing to retire', so if already there, then why would you.   Why I don't do anything to generate income, having more than enough already.

 

Topic is about kids & Uni, is it worth it ... or not.  I think the 4 or more years and cost of Uni isn't worth it in the 'west', unless having a connection to use that diploma.   If you aren't an idiot, like many, borrowed money for liberal arts or phycology degree as fairly useless.

 

Better to simply get job, learn a trade, go self employed, save and start RE investing.  People need 2 things, a roof over their heads & food.   Food is too much work.

Interesting view indeed. Thanks

13 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

Better to simply get job, learn a trade, go self employed, save and start RE investing.  People need 2 things, a roof over their heads & food.   Food is too much work.

Better to move into a commune, take drugs and live off welfare.

Hard work is for suckers (I know, I did it).

 

Having a Harvard degree might give some kudos and a good network, but equally so would a degree from many other universities such as MIT, Oxford, Cambridge, or the French Grandes Écoles. Though you would likely need to speak french for those.

 

With the arrival of AI and robotics, the job market will, indeed is already changing rapidly. i have told my daughter that before going to university she will have to consider which jobs (and careers) are less likely to be affected by AI taking them over, as her preferred career choices might not be employable by then. At the moment she wants to become a doctor.

 

Of course this all depends on us not having World War III to blow us all to smithereens.

 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Better to move into a commune, take drugs and live off welfare.

Hard work is for suckers (I know, I did it).

 

 

You are describing Starmer's UK 🙂

2 hours ago, Wingate said:

Couldn't get in, eh?

 

Unlike your kids, they’re not allowed to attend a lowered bar DEI commie indoctrination trash institutions that hands out used toilet paper diplomas.

My kid i going to Rhodes College on a free ride -- nearly 400k for 4 years. The cost is similaar to Harvard if you information is correct. 

Alas, Harvard wasn't offering. 

7 minutes ago, novacova said:

lowered bar DEI commie indoctrination trash institutions that hands out used toilet paper diplomas

Is there any other kind?

5 hours ago, KhunLA said:

No, as just an extension, and 4 more years to get another piece of paper stating you completed 'how to work for someone else' courses.

 

I'd teach them how to invest in RE & the market, so they can 'retire' and have enough time & money to do what they want.  Wish I had a mentor, and could have retired at 30, instead of 45.

 

Same here, I wish I'd been taught to trade Forex for 3 years, instead of the inane BS at uni, how Charles Babbage invented the computer.

They indoctrinate kids, not educate them. Vipers nest of woke nonsense and DEI appointments.

6 hours ago, phetphet said:

Most non US citizens are unlikely to even get past Trump's ICE to get into the country, let alone get a place at Harvard.

 

 

 

 

Nonsense. 

Some Non-US citizens have had a problem getting in. 

The most recent data I could find says that in April 2025 there were around 198,700 DAILY international passenger arrivals.   

If even 10% were being rejected there would be a LOT more news about it.

 

There is, admittedly, a trace of anti-tertiary education bias in some circles. Those who’ve graduated from the "School of Hard Knocks" or the "University of Life" might carry a touch of bitterness - or perhaps just pride in having carved out success on their own terms. That success, however, often comes through alternative paths that are not without their own costs and compromises.

 

Another undeniable factor is the financial burden of university. Tuition fees, accommodation, and living expenses add up significantly - and that’s before we consider the opportunity cost of delaying full-time work by three or four years. For many, that’s a serious deterrent, especially when immediate income is needed or when the return on investment isn’t guaranteed.

 

In my own case, university was indispensable. My career would have been impossible without it. Yet, I sometimes wonder if I might have been happier taking a different route - becoming a plumber, perhaps, starting my own business, working with my hands. There’s a certain appeal in the straightforwardness of skilled trades. But in the UK, that too comes with complications: as your business grows and crosses tax thresholds, financial penalties can feel disproportionate to the rewards.

 

That said, having a degree undeniably expands your options. It provides professional and geographic mobility, and if it’s from a highly regarded university, it opens doors that might otherwise remain closed. It’s not just about the job - it’s about access, credibility, and perceived competence. It’s about being able to choose: to work for someone else, to work for yourself, or to shift careers entirely if life demands it.

 

Some have floated the idea of bypassing university altogether - taking the money saved and giving it to our children to invest instead. It sounds enticing, but raises tough questions. How long would that money last? What happens if the investments fail? What’s the fallback plan? Without a qualification, what do you lean on if the venture collapses?

 

That, ultimately, is the crux of the university argument: it's something to fall back on. But the same might be said of a trade - a solid, practical skill can be just as much of a safety net.

 

Then there's the looming presence of AI. In twenty years, which jobs will still exist? Will pilots still be necessary, or will automation rule the skies? Will we have a trained pilot on every flight - just in case? No one really knows.

 

Forecasting the future is a fool’s errand, but what seems certain is this: the capacity for critical thinking, adaptability, and continuous learning will be invaluable. In that sense, education - formal or otherwise - is a form of future-proofing.

 

Finally, we can’t ignore the social capital that top-tier universities offer, both in the UK and the US. These institutions are often less about the education itself and more about the networks they create. But then again, elite international schools in places like Thailand offer similar networking value, often tailored to local or regional contexts.

 

In the end, university isn’t the only path, but it is a path - and for many, a valuable one. What matters most is not whether someone has a degree, but whether they have real options, a plan, and something solid to fall back on when life inevitably throws its curveballs.

 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

There is, admittedly, a trace of anti-tertiary education bias in some circles. Those who’ve graduated from the "School of Hard Knocks" or the "University of Life" might carry a touch of bitterness - or perhaps just pride in having carved out success on their own terms. That success, however, often comes through alternative paths that are not without their own costs and compromises.

 

Another undeniable factor is the financial burden of university. Tuition fees, accommodation, and living expenses add up significantly - and that’s before we consider the opportunity cost of delaying full-time work by three or four years. For many, that’s a serious deterrent, especially when immediate income is needed or when the return on investment isn’t guaranteed.

 

In my own case, university was indispensable. My career would have been impossible without it. Yet, I sometimes wonder if I might have been happier taking a different route - becoming a plumber, perhaps, starting my own business, working with my hands. There’s a certain appeal in the straightforwardness of skilled trades. But in the UK, that too comes with complications: as your business grows and crosses tax thresholds, financial penalties can feel disproportionate to the rewards.

 

That said, having a degree undeniably expands your options. It provides professional and geographic mobility, and if it’s from a highly regarded university, it opens doors that might otherwise remain closed. It’s not just about the job - it’s about access, credibility, and perceived competence. It’s about being able to choose: to work for someone else, to work for yourself, or to shift careers entirely if life demands it.

 

Some have floated the idea of bypassing university altogether - taking the money saved and giving it to our children to invest instead. It sounds enticing, but raises tough questions. How long would that money last? What happens if the investments fail? What’s the fallback plan? Without a qualification, what do you lean on if the venture collapses?

 

That, ultimately, is the crux of the university argument: it's something to fall back on. But the same might be said of a trade - a solid, practical skill can be just as much of a safety net.

 

Then there's the looming presence of AI. In twenty years, which jobs will still exist? Will pilots still be necessary, or will automation rule the skies? Will we have a trained pilot on every flight - just in case? No one really knows.

 

Forecasting the future is a fool’s errand, but what seems certain is this: the capacity for critical thinking, adaptability, and continuous learning will be invaluable. In that sense, education - formal or otherwise - is a form of future-proofing.

 

Finally, we can’t ignore the social capital that top-tier universities offer, both in the UK and the US. These institutions are often less about the education itself and more about the networks they create. But then again, elite international schools in places like Thailand offer similar networking value, often tailored to local or regional contexts.

 

In the end, university isn’t the only path, but it is a path - and for many, a valuable one. What matters most is not whether someone has a degree, but whether they have real options, a plan, and something solid to fall back on when life inevitably throws its curveballs.

Thank you

 

In a world where epidemiologists are dismissed as frauds and meteorologists are fired as irrelevant it is easy to come to the conclusion that universities are also irrelevant. Sour grapes for the people that did not or could not participate. The ever increasing demands of modernization requires more trained people, not less. Individuals with high intelligence and high skills can be successful with less training, but the numbers don't lie, without an education, you are unlikely to succeed.

2 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Thank you

 

In a world where epidemiologists are dismissed as frauds and meteorologists are fired as irrelevant it is easy to come to the conclusion that universities are also irrelevant. Sour grapes for the people that did not or could not participate. The ever increasing demands of modernization requires more trained people, not less. Individuals with high intelligence and high skills can be successful with less training, but the numbers don't lie, without an education, you are unlikely to succeed.

 

Not sure anyone considers education as useless or a fraud as you infer.  And it is a far different position to reduce numbers of meteorologists on the government tit to the idea that their science isn't of value.  Hopefully you aren't one of the idiots that think recent downsizing of that area is in any way a causation of loss of life in the Texas flooding.  

 

And success is an interesting question.  I know my plumber is doing very well for himself.  He inherited the business from his father (a golf buddy) and makes very good money.  Of course he has to get his hands dirty.  But even if all he earned financially was a solid living for himself and family is that some how lesser than a high earner in value?

 

Yes, we need trained people.  Not educated in useless knowledge.  Heck I am all for getting a masters in music or art or whatever drives you.  If you understand those degrees usually do not lend themselves to a comfortable living.  And if you aren't saddled with a debt bomb.

 

Problem is in the USA today we have too many college grads with zero useful skills and too few plumbers, electricians, or other trade skills that will be earning money once AI removes the need for general education monkeys.  We have colleges assuring students it's OK to follow their dream of being a master in the 12th century Bolivian culture and taking on $200,000 in debt.  Which cripples them economically for life.  

 

I will concede some careers demand a degree.  I want a doctor who attended a real university.  I want my lawyer to have passed the bar.  I want my financial planner to have completed economics in college.  But I don't care if my piano or guitar teacher did.  Despite my mother having a masters in music I respect some people can be self taught and not have a piece of paper in that area. 

 

For myself I did not get a college degree, instead attending a trade school in electronics.  And then a job in the virgin data communications industry in the 70s.  Then career moves, Silicon valley startups, and retirement at 42 late 90s.  But I admit my path was very lucky and I don't think today that this path would have the same result.  Just mentioning to clear up any envy or derision of a higher education.  My family background is rife with degrees from Yale/Stanford and other institutions of higher learning.   I am the only one in my family lacking a college degree.  But I've done OK.  

 

Bottom line is education is great.  BUT the idea that only those who work in a clean hands world have value is wrong.  And we need to end the concept that if you don't attend college you are a failure at life.  That is elitism and only losers feel a need to feel superior for having read Immanuel Kant.  

3 hours ago, jimmybcool said:

 

Not sure anyone considers education as useless or a fraud as you infer.  And it is a far different position to reduce numbers of meteorologists on the government tit to the idea that their science isn't of value.  Hopefully you aren't one of the idiots that think recent downsizing of that area is in any way a causation of loss of life in the Texas flooding.  

 

And success is an interesting question.  I know my plumber is doing very well for himself.  He inherited the business from his father (a golf buddy) and makes very good money.  Of course he has to get his hands dirty.  But even if all he earned financially was a solid living for himself and family is that some how lesser than a high earner in value?

 

Yes, we need trained people.  Not educated in useless knowledge.  Heck I am all for getting a masters in music or art or whatever drives you.  If you understand those degrees usually do not lend themselves to a comfortable living.  And if you aren't saddled with a debt bomb.

 

Problem is in the USA today we have too many college grads with zero useful skills and too few plumbers, electricians, or other trade skills that will be earning money once AI removes the need for general education monkeys.  We have colleges assuring students it's OK to follow their dream of being a master in the 12th century Bolivian culture and taking on $200,000 in debt.  Which cripples them economically for life.  

 

I will concede some careers demand a degree.  I want a doctor who attended a real university.  I want my lawyer to have passed the bar.  I want my financial planner to have completed economics in college.  But I don't care if my piano or guitar teacher did.  Despite my mother having a masters in music I respect some people can be self taught and not have a piece of paper in that area. 

 

For myself I did not get a college degree, instead attending a trade school in electronics.  And then a job in the virgin data communications industry in the 70s.  Then career moves, Silicon valley startups, and retirement at 42 late 90s.  But I admit my path was very lucky and I don't think today that this path would have the same result.  Just mentioning to clear up any envy or derision of a higher education.  My family background is rife with degrees from Yale/Stanford and other institutions of higher learning.   I am the only one in my family lacking a college degree.  But I've done OK.  

 

Bottom line is education is great.  BUT the idea that only those who work in a clean hands world have value is wrong.  And we need to end the concept that if you don't attend college you are a failure at life.  That is elitism and only losers feel a need to feel superior for having read Immanuel Kant.  

Only an uneducated Maga cultist would say that.

16 hours ago, atpeace said:

Hmm, but about 70% of enrollees families are in the top 20% of earners and 4.5% in the bottom 20%.  Assume some far lefties are organizing protests to rectify this 🙂  The wealthy and powerful part of the left knows exactly how to fool the masses and has been doing it for a long time.

 

Where did you  get your data? You should consider the source of your data.

Harvard publishes its data and it is based on actual  data gathering.

By The Numbers

25%  of Harvard families pay nothing

55% receive Harvard scholarship aid

100%    of students can graduate debt-free

 

When Harvard considers financial status, it does not take into account Home Equity or retirement savings, which allows for more students to qualify for financial aid.

 

https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid

 

It looks like you  took your information from an AI response on Google, which in turn  gathered information from articles that relied on self reporting by a non representative sample of freshman students.

 

What's the problem with price? Don't some mugs here pay the same to send their kids to Thai "international" school?

10 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Only an uneducated Maga cultist would say that.

Bwahahahaha.  You really told me.  🤣😅

7 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Where did you  get your data? You should consider the source of your data.

Harvard publishes its data and it is based on actual  data gathering.

By The Numbers

25%  of Harvard families pay nothing

55% receive Harvard scholarship aid

100%    of students can graduate debt-free

 

When Harvard considers financial status, it does not take into account Home Equity or retirement savings, which allows for more students to qualify for financial aid.

 

https://college.harvard.edu/financial-aid

 

It looks like you  took your information from an AI response on Google, which in turn  gathered information from articles that relied on self reporting by a non representative sample of freshman students.

 

I got the info from a liberal media publication CNBC 🙂 Harvard doesn't supply much info because ---- well it is embarrassing 🙂  

 

More importantly, you should read my post before replying.   You supplied numbers that have nothing to with what I posted. Read my post again and slowly 🙂

 

Harvard is for the wealthy and yes a few normal people get in but they should be ashamed on how few lower income students attend and hence  their PR department releases the data you posted with little context.  

This is stupid. I had top students rejected. No TV posters kid getting into Harvard. Point is moot.

 

What's the point of the poll and the post entirely?

On 7/10/2025 at 7:09 AM, Ralf001 said:

Hell of a minibus ride to and from each day.

Not from a MAGA POV, they live in a small isolated world.

14 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

Not from a MAGA POV, they live in a small isolated world.

I agree that many of the MAGA crowd are blinded by Trumps charismatic personality BUT this type of herd mentality from liberals is why I switched parties and voted for Trump this go around.  Liberals have to look in the mirror and stop marching blindly behind the party elites. 

 

Liberals should start voting in non elites and politicians like Berny Sanders that really care about their welfare.  I don't believe Berny's policies are realistic in many situations but he does sincerely care about his constituents.  Now compare that to Nancy Pelosi... She probably spends as much time thinking about the normal Americans in a years span as she does putting on her makeup each morning.

1 hour ago, atpeace said:

I got the info from a liberal media publication CNBC 🙂 Harvard doesn't supply much info because ---- well it is embarrassing 🙂  

 

More importantly, you should read my post before replying.   You supplied numbers that have nothing to with what I posted. Read my post again and slowly 🙂

 

Harvard is for the wealthy and yes a few normal people get in but they should be ashamed on how few lower income students attend and hence  their PR department releases the data you posted with little context.  

 

Yes, I did read what you wrote. Harvard supplies a significant amount of information, because it files an annual report for its largest donors. They want to know where the donations are going. The trustees of the endowment fund also have a fiduciary duty to know. The onus was on you to provide a source for your information. 

 

You wrote; "about 70% of enrollees families are in the top 20% of earners and 4.5% in the bottom 20%"      What does that mean? Earners where? How was an earner defined? Does it include retirement funds, home equity etc? What is the top earner in $ and what is the bottom earner in $. You are  making references to undefined data points. 

 

There is a reason why many people cannot  gain acceptance into a university and it is simple: They cannot meet the   requirements. Harvard uses the following criteria;

- Academic results

- ACT or SAT result

- A minimum of two teacher evaluations/recommendations

- Notable extracurricular achievements in the Arts (e.g. performance), Science (research), Social contributions (volunteering or community organizing)

 

Harvard also has an admission interview. If the prospective student is incoherent, or not well spoken, it will not help.

 

The reality is that low income people are more likely to be of lower intelligence. No, I am not saying all poor people are of low intelligence, but there is a relationship between poverty and intelligence level. (And it is  rather simple, the poor are exposed to damaging pollution and have a lower quality of nutrition which does not assist  child development.)

In the USA, the poor attend lower quality schools and are less likely to be exposed to enrichment such as music, performing arts, sports, and travel.  None of this on its own is critical, but it is the summation of damage that has the  impact.  And students rich or poor must have a desire to  achieve and to attend  a good university.  How many children in Compton would pick Harvard over a chance to cut a rap album with Lil Gucci and and some cootchee mamas? How many kids from some meth infested town in rural Kentucky even complete high school?

 

It is all about focus and discipline and much of the USA  does not have  it. An education is an investment and too many people don't have the work ethic to succeed.

54 minutes ago, Hamus Yaigh said:

Not from a MAGA POV, they live in a small isolated world.

I livre in Thailand... What does Maga have to do with a minibus ride to Harvard ?

On 7/10/2025 at 7:16 AM, bkk6060 said:

Why?  More and more studies are showing a high end education is becoming obsolete.   Better to learn a trade.

Good point. I would only send my child to University if they were interested in pursuing a vocation that had significant demand, such as certain medical specialties and health care technicians, any type of engineering, cyber security, an MBA from a top ten school, or fine art restoration. 

 

So many other professions are obsolete and so many college graduates are having a very hard time finding quality work. When you graduate with a quarter of a million dollars in debt and you can't find a job, or the job pays marginally more than someone without a degree, you know you've been suckered by the system. 

 

 

I had a privilege to study with professors of Harvard. The way the material is presented is very visual, to the point, without the usual academic fluff unless you want to drill deeper. That was quite a big difference when compared with other universities, so if I had any kids, which I don't, I would definitely work towards it. Compared to other useless expenses, and having years to prepare for it, the tuition fees are achievable for many middle class families as well.

Just now, Patong2021 said:

 

Yes, I did read what you wrote. Harvard supplies a significant amount of information, because it files an annual report.

for its largest donors. They want to know where the donations are going. The trustees of the endowment fund also ave a fiduciary duty to know. the onus was on you to provide a source for your information. 

 

You wrote; "about 70% of enrollees families are in the top 20% of earners and 4.5% in the bottom 20%"

What does that mean? Earners where? How was an earner defined? Does it include retirement funds, home equity etc? What is the top earner in $ and what is the bottom earner in $. You are  making references to undefined data points. 

 

There is a reason why many people cannot  gain acceptance into a university and it is simple: They cannot meet the   requirements. Harvard uses the following criteria;

- Academic results

- ACT or SAT result

- A minimum of two teacher evaluations/recommendations

- Notable extracurricular achievements in the Arts (e.g. performance), Science (research), Social contributions (volunteering or community organizing)

 

Harvard also has an admission interview. If the prospective student is incoherent, or not well spoken, it will not help.

 

The reality is that low income people are more likely to be of lower intelligence. No, I am not saying all poor people are of low intelligence, but there is a relationship between poverty and intelligence level. (And it is  rather simple, the poor are exposed to damaging pollution and have a lower quality of nutrition which does not assist  child development.)

In the USA, the poor attend lower quality schools and are less likely to be exposed to enrichment such as music, performing arts, sports, and travel.  None of this on its own is critical, but it is the summation of damage that has the  impact.  And students rich or poor must have a desire to  achieve and to attend  a good university.  How many children in Compton would pick Harvard over a chance to cut a rap album with Lil Gucci and and some cootchee mamas? How many kids from some meth infested town in rural Kentucky even complete high school?

 

It is all about focus and discipline and much of the USA  does not have  it. An education is an investment and too many people don't have the work ethic to succeed.

If you read my post then why did you supply numbers to refute it that had nothing to do with my post? Not going to read this new  post of yours because you still refuse to address why  you  used set of numbers that had nothing to do with my post.  I probably agree with much of what you wrote above but don't engage in this silly game.  Harvard is embarrassed I assume because of its VERY VERY low income student enrollment. 

 

Harvard supports work force quotas and diversity but  being an elite  institution they don't feel the rules apply to them.  Only other lesser institutions...  They are the Nancy Pelosi of the elite institutions.

I have had two families during my years, as first wife passed away from breast cancer - we had a daughter together - she grew up going to international schools in several countries except for 6th grade in California and a part of a test her 6th grade class took the PSAT or SAT (I forget)  and she scored higher than the national average for that year so the international schools did well with her.  My second family, we also have a daughter...went to Thai schools for 5 years - waste of time both for her and us as we kept trying what was supposedly one of the top schools but we learned quickly that for her future we needed something else.  We relocated to CM and she tested and joined the CM International school - greatest for sure!  She graduated speaking, reading, writing, and understanding 4 different languages - Thai, English, Korean and Chinese.  The Korean language was self taught as she was a fan of the K-POP and has passed to the highest level on the international korean proficiency test (level 6) and is entering her 3rd year at the top Thai university and has been selected to spend that 3rd year at a top Korean University as an exchange student.  We have never pushed her at all, as CMIS teachers seem to make their students want to excel in learning and succeeded with her.  She was accepted with scholarships to US colleges but for personal reasons opted to stay in Thailand.  From what I have written you should be able to understand that if our daughter wanted to go to Harvard University and was accepted then we would totally support her in her wishes.  She loves school and learning and also joins many school activities every year and has seemed to know what she wants to do upon finishing graduate school in a few more years and we will continue supporting her 100% so that she remains a HAPPY person.  Sorry for this long-winded explanation of why we would support her going to Harvard.

21 hours ago, novacova said:

Unlike your kids, they’re not allowed to attend a lowered bar DEI commie indoctrination trash institutions that hands out used toilet paper diplomas.

LOL.

 

Like the OP, you're obsessed with a place that was never ever going to be an option for those with your genes, and that reality gets stuck in your craw.

 

I doubt DEI got me in, though perhaps. Class Valedictorian and near perfect SATs (lost a few points on the Verbal, but none on the math), plus a host of letters in sports.....just maybe influenced the Admissions Committee. Or maybe the DEI part was they needed a few science nerds, and I fit the bill.

On 7/9/2025 at 8:06 PM, angryguy said:

Why or why not?

 

It was never created for the average person.

These schools were created by elites for the elite. 

 

A lot of US presidents went to Ivy League schools and they're total ding dongs. George Bush Jr. comes to mind. 

 

3 minutes ago, Presnock said:

I have had two families during my years, as first wife passed away from breast cancer - we had a daughter together - she grew up going to international schools in several countries except for 6th grade in California and a part of a test her 6th grade class took the PSAT or SAT (I forget)  and she scored higher than the national average for that year so the international schools did well with her.  My second family, we also have a daughter...went to Thai schools for 5 years - waste of time both for her and us as we kept trying what was supposedly one of the top schools but we learned quickly that for her future we needed something else.  We relocated to CM and she tested and joined the CM International school - greatest for sure!  She graduated speaking, reading, writing, and understanding 4 different languages - Thai, English, Korean and Chinese.  The Korean language was self taught as she was a fan of the K-POP and has passed to the highest level on the international korean proficiency test (level 6) and is entering her 3rd year at the top Thai university and has been selected to spend that 3rd year at a top Korean University as an exchange student.  We have never pushed her at all, as CMIS teachers seem to make their students want to excel in learning and succeeded with her.  She was accepted with scholarships to US colleges but for personal reasons opted to stay in Thailand.  From what I have written you should be able to understand that if our daughter wanted to go to Harvard University and was accepted then we would totally support her in her wishes.  She loves school and learning and also joins many school activities every year and has seemed to know what she wants to do upon finishing graduate school in a few more years and we will continue supporting her 100% so that she remains a HAPPY person.  Sorry for this long-winded explanation of why we would support her going to Harvard.

Cool story! I would never make those type of sacrifices knowing the end result is far from guaranteed.  Probably why I don't have children.  Also, the wife and I are smart enough and exceptionally gifted at enjoying ourselves  but lets just say the kid would have to hit well above his/her level.