Yeah, I reread the initial post and figured it was probably from that. I think it's a disingenuous look at success to consider it solely as income.dsheinem wrote:that may be due to the thread title/first post, which set up this primary binaryAck wrote:It bothers me that we seem to be limiting our views on what success must mean to be solely economic or educational.
Case in point, let's look at Ds here. I don't know how much he makes, but professors do ok for themselves, depending on the field, though often after years of debt and hard work. But Ds is respected professionally for his research, has published a significant body of work, has a good family life with a wife and kid who love him, and has the respect of his coworkers, students, and fellow retrogaming enthusiasts. I'd say he's a success, money or not.
Blu, do you ever find that such students who make it have a better drive to succeed than the ones from better-funded schools? As Ds mentioned earlier, a lot of the kids who went to such schools and continued on to college did so solely because it was "the thing to do." That was my experience for the first few years of college, where I struggled and had to fight to develop the right attitude for college despite having done well in a good high school(admittedly it was the only high school in town at the time, with the exception of a religious private school that wasn't any better).Blu wrote: The students that do get here in some less-advantaged schools have greater challenges and a steep learning curve than students who actually had a suburban, well-funded education.
