As an European working with lots of American contractors in the tech field, I'm always impressed by their work ethics. The put in 10-12 hours, 6 days a week.
But from talking with them, it seems like their focus is on retirement - hopefully in their 50's. That's their grand plan, because that's when they'll start "living".
It's a bit of a contrast to us Scandinavians - as we really like to live in the present. No pie in the sky dreams.
Which is also why we guard our working rights and work-life balance like a national treasure.
There are also cultural factors about how you present your work. GC Rota wrote about the mathematics culture in the 50's that European and US researchers worked similar amounts, but the Europeans took great care to present an image of working less than they actually did, and the US researchers often presented an image of working more than they did.
My experiences of working both in the US and in Europe (Germany and Switzerland) was that the number of hours worked in the US was higher, but the intensity of work was lower: There was more office chitchat, more goofing around, more "watercooler/coffee talk", and so forth. There is also an extreme culture of "presenteeism" in the US that starts in highschool (where being physically present is much more important than being attentive in any form).
Well everything is relative. If you lack an example more extreme than you by definition your stance is the most radical - which is neither inherently good nor bad.
I find it hard to empathize with FIRE people [0] because I like my job. But the few I've discussed it with absolutely despise working. Like all-consuming, life-purpose-defining revulsion. And I think there's a feedback loop to it, because in trying to "get it over worth" they increase the intensity and make it worse for themselves. Then it becomes all the more important to get it over with quickly.
I wonder if the European attitude is just more similar to mine, being comfortable with and accepting of a job as a backdrop to build a life around, rather than something intolerable to escape from ASAP at any cost. Probably has to do with the jobs themselves being more comfortable.
You can enjoy your job and pursue FIRE. FIRE just gives you options. You can either stop working, do other work that doesn't pay as well or at all, or keep working and live at a much higher standard of living. Maybe the company you like working for only gives you a few weeks off per year and you want to take 1-2 months of unpaid time off. Maybe you don't want to care about layoffs or market changes or bad management. Maybe one day you wake up and decide you want to spend time with your kids and productive work can take a breather for a while.
It's foolish to focus just on enjoying your job right now, finances be damned, without planning for the future. For what it's worth, I think it's also foolish to despise your job every day for years and years just to retire a few years earlier. But that's not what FIRE is, that's just one group of people taking it to extremes, as is common in any endeavor. For most people, it just means diligently and consistently setting money aside that will give them a level of freedom that those who don't will never achieve.
Yep - this is my take, financial independence gives you freedom.
It's not about hating your job (or even loving your job) - it's about buying your own independence. For those without family wealth it's building your own safety net and bringing money related anxiety to zero and making it easier for your children to take bigger risks too.
This lets you take more risk (like doing a startup) with the downside risk contained. There's a reason startups are more often started by people with family wealth, they're ultimately risking a lot less.
Americans work hard in part because there's more upside potential than in Europe, but there's also more downside risk. I think we could do more to protect the lower bound which would be good for entrepreneurship and society, but we shouldn't put restrictions on the upside (I'd argue restricting upside disincentives risk taking and wealth creation).
One of my main 'contrarian' opinions is that wealth inequality isn't actually a big deal, and as long as you protect the lower bound is desirable in a society. You also need to control how that wealth is leveraged into political power though (and that can be a problem).
Maybe we are talking past each other. By “FIRE” I mean the ability to live on investment income, exclusively and permanently, decades before a typical retirement age.
Retirement on a normal schedule and security for a few months of rest here and there are, I would say, baseline financial responsibility (if you can afford them). These are marginal sacrifices, not a lifestyle/subculture.
Considering the phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs it's kind of hard to imagine people not despising them. I spend my days dreaming of what I could do to fight climate change but not (yet) being able to find ways to do what seems worthwhile just because I can't figure out how to make it cover expenses. How much more science, art, and simple joy could be produced if we were not forced to compete with one another for necessities? Some things produce natural competition (water in the desert) but we have so much damn wealth it's _absurd_ that anyone even fears that losing their job means homelessness.
Last year I bought a dirt cheap (sub-100k) house in the countryside with good internet because I don't _ever_ want my boss to have the power to take the roof over my kids' heads. I am not quite FIRE but it certainly helps.
"A child free from the guilt of ownership and the burden of economic competition will grow up with the will to do what needs doing and the capacity for joy in doing it. It is useless work that darkens the heart. The delight of the nursing mother, of the scholar, of the successful hunter, of the good cook, of the skillful maker, of anyone doing needed work and doing it well—this durable joy is perhaps the deepest source of human affection, and of sociality as a whole."
I'd say that we, at least the Nordic counties - which I am familiar with, have decent enough social/welfare programs, that people can be a bit more selective about their employment. You're not tied up to your work, otherwise you're SOL as far as healthcare etc. goes.
Furthermore, we have more free time/vacation, nicer hours, less commuting, and what not. So you often don't feel like you're living at work - or even worse, work that you hate.
And it is possible to live the FIRE-lifestyle here, if you plan ahead and live somewhat frugally. But still, there's an expectation that you contribute to the system.
> You're not tied up to your work, otherwise you're SOL as far as healthcare etc. goes.
I have a dream that someday the "workplace <-> health insurance" link will be broken in the US. For a few years I thought we might have had a chance, but it seems to have become a back-burner issue again.
The thing that is most maddening about employer-sponsored health insurance is the people who have it don't realize how big of a gulf there is between what is affordable for them vs others in terms of health care.
I have friends with good employer health insurance that go to the doctor over every little cough and sniffle and funny rash.
I have decent health insurance, but it costs enough and has a high enough deductible that every potential trip to the doctor is prefaced with "Is this an issue worth $100?" That's a pretty high bar to clear. Usually you go to the doctor and the answer is "well just wait and see if it goes away." That's not $100 worth of advice.
And if it's after hours, you're looking at closer to $500 minimum. I can't count the number of times my wife and I have debated "Is this bleeding bad enough for a $500 bill?" when one of the kids does something dumb and gets hurt.
> I have decent health insurance, but it costs enough and has a high enough deductible that every potential trip to the doctor is prefaced with "Is this an issue worth $100?" That's a pretty high bar to clear. Usually you go to the doctor and the answer is "well just wait and see if it goes away." That's not $100 worth of advice.
I actually like this (generally speaking) as it causes you to bear some of the upfront cost and allows you an easy way to question the value of an action. With that being said, we should all be able to email our PCP to get answers to questions or schedule 15 minutes video calls.
I’m not against UHC, I think as I’ve mentioned before there are merits to both approaches (we just happen to do neither in the US). What I like about “is this worth $100” is that it introduces some upfront personal responsibility and decision making versus “well I sneezed let’s go to the doctor it’s free!!”.
I just wish it was a more evenly distributed fee. I don't particularly mind that it's expensive to get care (I wish it was a bit less expensive), but the fact that I know so many people who go there seemingly on a whim precisely because it's cheap is frustrating.
>>I have a dream that someday the "workplace <-> health insurance" link will be broken in the US. For a few years I thought we might have had a chance, but it seems to have become a back-burner issue again.
Does the set of Affordable Care Act healthcare plans that can be purchased by individuals by themselves qualify as breaking the link? I know that they're not all perfect, but it seems like a step in the right direction.
That seems high. I had an individual plan a couple years ago which was around $300 a month. As I understand, pricing varies widely by state, so maybe that explains the difference.
If your employer offers a health plan, you are ineligible for subsidies.
As it stands now, I think the last I checked a family plan costs ~$3k / month for me.
If I qualified for subsidies, I could get the same plan free. And I think that was also factoring in my current income, only changing whether my employer offered a health plan.
Edit:
Looked it up. In November 2019, the cheapest family plan available on the marketplace in my area was a "Catastrophic" level plan with a $16,300 total deductible for $1217.90 / month.
> I find it hard to empathize with FIRE people because I like my job.
It's not about having to quit your job. It's about having the option to quit if you decide to. Should you decide not to quit you can keep earning money, without having any real need for it, which means you can invest and get even more money.
It's great that you enjoy your job _today_ (you are probably a minority). But what about 5 years from now? 10 years? Whatever you are working on may change. If you are an employee, your manager could be replaced by a crappy one. If you own your company, the market forces might change.
Not having your job tied to your ability to put food on the table frees you to do whatever you may decide to do.
Interesting perspective. As a software engineer it is unlikely that the world will ever lack satisfying work for me for very long (recessions notwithstanding). If it does, as a reasonably smart and academically successful person, I think I could transition to whatever is next. Maybe it helps that I saw both my parents change careers via graduate school while I was growing up. But you’re right, it is a gamble, and if I were more risk averse I might want stronger insurance against the possibility.
I'm in the same boat as you. I don't totally get the push to retire early. In fact, I don't think I'll ever retire if I can continue working and doing something that I enjoy. I have colleagues who dream of spending their days on a golf course or doing projects around the house. That sounds like a horribly boring life, to me. I'd love to be able to keep working at and solving technical problems until I die. That, and I think my spouse and I would hate each other if we had to spend every moment together. We love each other dearly but also appreciate our time away from each other.
Solving technical problems until you die sounds much more boring than having the freedom to solve technical problems one day, teaching the next, volunteering the third, and taking the family on an extended weekend trip the rest of the week... or literally anything else you want to do. To each their own I suppose.
You my friend, has just described a Professor job at a typical US University. The tenured Professor in US can work until their chosen last day in the office, i. e. as long as they are capable of working.
Academia is not without its downsides. The road to tenure sucks and generally pays peanuts compared to industry. It's not for everyone.
More importantly, those were just examples. Replace teaching with running a bookstore or tending to a community garden or living on a sailboat in the Med and all of a sudden, professorship isn't nearly as desirable. You can always find someone to teach after a long career in industry, no need to lock yourself into academia. :)
As another European who has worked with a few Americans, I've seen a lot of "presenteeism", long hours but not really any greater productivity than their European counterparts
I (average american employee) don't get paid more to work harder or more efficiently and do better, but if my ass isn't in that seat from 8am to 5pm you can bet I'll be paid less.
You want people to work harder? Pay them more for it. Or at least fairly
Average Aussie here. "Presenteeism" is totally a thing here too.
I would argue that linking pay to product, rather than linking pay to timesheet would get people to work more. Directly link motivation!
But linking pay-to-product can be a hard problem!
Long story short (I have refactored this comment a few times), employees are "significant investors" in the business and should be paid as such.
Stock options are a perfect example of this.
Note the "significant" bit though. Most places with "stock options" do it as a token option. A bargaining chip of employment, to negotiate and minimise costs for the company. In Australia, mostly not an option at all.
Which leads to your:
"You want people to work harder? Pay them more for it. Or at least fairly"
Or as I think: If I don't have skin in the game then why should I care?
This is exactly true. I have a friend who used to spend "long hours" in the office. He basically did a VPN into his home network, where he works on hobby projects. Oh yeah, lots of reddit browsing, too. Presence is often equated with productivity.
I have coworkers who do minimal work to just get by and show up in meetings with strong opinions and argue endlessly over slack. They are generally smart but very lazy and very disorganized, so much so that people have brought it up the manager a few times but the manager shrugs and does not want to do much since it requires a lot of effort on manager's part to have difficult conversations and fix things.
I wholeheartedly agree. Even if it is not about "all this week's work has been finished", but "this week's work has taken a toll on me, thus I may not be productive until I get some rest".
which then begs the question: if you spent your whole life working more, and focusing on getting more money, assuming that you can retire in your 50s, can you REALLY stop working?
or will you depress yourself because there's nothing else to do?
retiring early seems great on paper, but at what cost?
That seems overly dramatic. Yes, you can retire in your 50s (or 30s-40s with a good paying job) and stop working. There is always plenty to do in this great wide world that we live in if you have even a modicum of imagination.
Yet going on the FIRE or fatFIRE (financial independence, retire early) forums you encounter countless examples of people who achieve early retirement and lose their minds. They’re bored because they worked so hard and no longer know what to do with themselves. They didn’t spend any time developing other interests or hobbies because they were engrossed in chasing the paycheck. Some are so engrossed in chasing the money that they don’t even stop to consider what they MIGHT do if they retire early.
I think that might be confirmation bias. The people who happily retire and have the freedom to do whatever they want are less likely to talk about it on a forum; they'll just go live their lives. Conversely, if a person banks all of their happiness on retiring early and then is unhappy they are more likely to talk about it on a forum. It's a similar phenomenon to the prevalence of negative reviews outweighing positive reviews.
I rarely seem to see that on the FIRE forums. It seems like 99% of people on those forums are trying to achieve FIRE, and very little discussion about those who have.
When you have been indocrinated your whole life that work is what defines you "Hi, this is John, he's a software engineer/banker/barista/etc", it's difficult to let go.
My wife once talked to an elderly lady that was working in her 80s because she said she had nothing to do, as she had worked all her life in multiple jobs.
I guess imagination gets eroded when you are conditioned to be a wage slave for too long.
My 82-year old relative is like this. She's so accustomed to working hard all her life that even when she could retire easily on alimony and pension, she's so wired to work hard in blue-collar work. She works at a natural foods store and is such a superstar she got some kind of regional (like multi-state US) employee year award. That's what makes her happy. She genuinely likes to serve other people, too. Definitely not my thing but I have infinite respect for it. All about that eudaimonia.
Edit: all the constant activity (always had hobbies on the side too) has kept her in good physical shape plus decent diet and she's Japanese. Definite oba-tank who will probably soldier on well past 100.
or you can buy it yourself. budget for it like any other expense. it's not necessarily cheap, but it's not something so astronomical that no one can afford it at all. Many people somehow find $700/month for their favorite SUV, but $700/month for health insurance is unattainable.
I'm not saying the system is great - I'm in favor of single-payer system overall. But tying access to health insurance to employment as a default mindset really has to be stopped, somehow.
Most of the people for whom $700/month for health insurance is unattainable are not spending $700/month on car payments. There's bound to be some overlap, sure, but let's keep the focus on the fact that expecting everyone to pay $700/month in order to not go bankrupt from health expenses is insane.
"but let's keep the focus on the fact that expecting everyone to pay $700/month"
Everyone's paying it, in one manner or another, either through subsidies, or employer contributions, or paying direct. These are the average costs (relative to location and age) for health insurance plans from for-profit health insurance companies.
But the context was with respect to people planning to retire in their 50s. Plenty of people budget for car payments, and they can budget for health insurance costs too.
I was going to point that out myself. yes. many people do end up continuing that cycle, although there is some ability to stop which is different than other more pressing things (like insurance).
The maximum monthly payment you can have for german public health insurance is 14.6% of 4.687,50 EUR per month in 2020 - that's about 800USD. Mind you, maximum, not average.
14.6% of your wage is the health insurance deductible, 4.687,50 EUR is the so-called "Beitragsbemessungsgrenze", that is the cap from which on your wage is free - it's regularly adjusted (upwards usually).
You can reach that maximum if you are self employed and voluntarily member of the public health insurance - meaning you have to pay both the employers and the employees share. If you're employed, your employer pays about half of it.
Your chosen health insurance can optionally add an extra fee, usually less than a percent or two, most are free.
How does this work if you're unemployed? Is there a separate public option? Or do you just keep on with whatever you may have had before, without paying?
Also, that "maximum/wage" thing - is that per person, or for a household (spouse/kids/etc)?
The level of care is independent of your payment, if you're unemployed you're still covered without payment, students are covered for free until they're 27 (there are ways to loose coverage, but just being unemployed is not one). Like the sibling comment pointed out: if you're living of savings, there's a minimum payment.
The cap is per wage, so every person earning a wage gets the same cap applied to their individual income. (one of the ways that households with a single high earner profit, while two people earning a moderate wage have less). No bonus for kids here, buy if you're member of the public health insurance, your kid is covered for free.
If you're on unemployment or welfare payments the state pays for you. If you live off savings and don't have income you can pay a base rate (a little bit below 200€).
Very out of touch comment. People worried about Health insurance are not paying $700/month for a monthly car payment.
Maybe instead of trying to paint the problem of american healthcare access as a mindset issue, you can recognize that there are many legitimate problems with linking healthcare to employment.
Why should anyone go broke over a medical expense? Why in a developed country? Why is that only a common fear in the US?
In the context of retiring early and planning for expenses, it's not out of touch. If someone is planning on retiring by their 50s, they surely have thought of health insurance and put it in their budget.
I pay $800/month on top of what my employer covers for our health insurance. And it's still worse insurance than what most of my friends and family have. If you work for a small company or are trying to buy off the marketplace, health insurance is insanely expensive.
If you're working for a megacorp, they might be self-funding their own insurance plan. Otherwise, it is just 'insanely expensive', we just have a system where some portion of that insanity is 'hidden' by employers participating in the transaction (much like FICA tax 50/50 split).
I did some work for a small insurance broker - about 15 employees. They provided health insurance for all employees. They invited me to a few company meetings, and the owners asked what people thought the cost of the insurance was, per month, per person. Lots of $100 and $150/month guesses. I said '$600'. Someone laughed, and the owner said "you're close - it's $586". The room went silent. It was going to be going up to, IIRC, something like $630/month, and he was preparing people for "hey, we're going to cover this, but we're probably not going to be able to do much else, or may have to cut back some minor reimbursement stuff."
Keep in mind that $700 a month private personal health insurance isn't going to cover any of your week to week/month to month expenses. You'll end up with a $10k deductible or higher
And then there are denied claims and out of network costs.
People often think of their insurance as good (or will respond so on surveys), until they actually call upon it and it evaporates, leaving them with multiple hundred-thousand-dollar bills related to the treatment of cancer.
Neither is most "employer-provided" insurance. A few folks have 'gold-plated' plans where they are hardly out of pocket for anything, but most people with health insurance plans, of any stripe, still have moderately sized deductibles, on top of paying a portion towards the monthly premium anyway.
Well, in all fairness, my and my wife's health care in the USA has been WAY better than it was in Japan. It costs like 20x as much, though. That's my theory as to why nobody in power wants to actually fix the US system. Maybe the system really is the best if you have unlimited money and unlimited tolerance for bureaucracy
Yes, it depends on work and what type you are. I've talked with lots of older colleagues that dread retirement, mostly because they enjoy work and they also enjoy the people they work with.
Some people will do just fine with their hobbies and projects, others will have a hard time adapting - many even coming out of retirement, due to boredom. Really depends on the individual.
One thing I've heard a lot, from older colleagues, is that people tend to become mentally dull once they go into retirement - at least on the skills they used daily at work.
You need to be pretty disciplined and motivated to maintain your skills at a professional level, once there's no hurry or pressure to deliver anything. Days turn into weeks, weeks into months, months into years - before you know it, you've spent a couple of years of your retirement just chilling around.
Perhaps you're working with a self selecting group of Americans.
As a US based developer with almost 20 years of experience across four cities and (as a consultant) many different corporate cultures, I've never met a single person who consistently works 10+ hour days, or more than 5 days per week.
That's a bold claim. How well do you know all your coworkers schedule?
As somehow who has worked for a shorter period of time, I've met dozens of such folk, many of which I have provided support for on weekends or odd times at night.
In either case, anecdotes are not adding much to the discussion.
As an American that makes good money, I don't think medical costs make retiring in the USA in my 50s a high likelihood probability.
There is a medical cost cliff at 65 when Medicare (large medical subsidies for retired-aged people) kicks in, but the private medical costs of an old-but-not-quite-65 person are pretty high, especially in the USA where pretty much all food is optimized to overload your senses (and as a side-effect, your pancreas).
> But from talking with them, it seems like their focus is on retirement - hopefully in their 50's. That's their grand plan, because that's when they'll start "living".
It goes much deeper than that. The notion that work could not possibly be "living" is much more popular in Europe too. With employment so over-regulated and entrepreneurship discouraged it's easy to see why people treat "work" in a very transactional way.
For most people there just isn't a lot of obvious upside waiting for them if they work extra hard. Salaries are extremely compressed compared to the US. The only way to make real money[0] in Europe is by running a business but that's discouraged too.
Even education - there's no Ivy League of Europe, there's no Stanford. There are some schools that may be considered good, but elite - not really.
[0] well I guess anywhere, but there are many diverse career paths in the US that will reliably get you to a few hundred k. In Europe not so much.
> Salaries are extremely compressed compared to the US.
That's because in Europe social welfare contributions are usually deducted from your salary automatically, thereby making it lower. Which, however, doesn't necessarily mean you're getting less.
> Even education - there's no Ivy League of Europe, there's no Stanford. There are some schools that may be considered good, but elite - not really.
Elite on what scale? I've had the pleasure to see what [math/physics] research at various universities in the US and in Europe looks like and I don't think there is any difference in quality. How would there be one? I think I remember reading somewhere that about 50% of STEM professors in the US are from outside the US.
Besides, the Ivy League-related elitism in the US to a large degree comes from the marketing that those schools (need to) do. They are private institutions after all – in contrast to most European universities –, so they need to maintain that myth.
Of course you're getting less. If you're not using any of the programs you're getting a terrible deal. If you want private healthcare you're going to have to pay for it yourself (and it will only cover basics). I never used a government program once in my life. Actually I'm not even covered by the socialized healthcare. Not that I would like to be, but if I get seriously sick as in cancer there isn't a viable private option. But for normal doctors and procedures I can pay cash just fine.
But either way you cannot explain the differential with just taxes. There are many places in Europe where you might end up paying less as a percentage than America. It's regulation and overall culture too.
Not to mention all sizable EU countries have a lower GDP per capita. Economically they're just inferior.
> Elite on what scale?
No, the point isn't that these schools produce people of vastly superior intelligence or skill. The point is a 15 year old in high school does not feel a lot of pressure to work super hard to get into an "elite" institution, because it's simply not on the radar for most people. .
Just like most people don't have a prospect of a promotion offering vastly superior pay, they don't have a prospect of a school offering vastly superior opportunities.
> For most people there just isn't a lot of obvious upside waiting for them if they work extra hard. Salaries are extremely compressed compared to the US
Exactly!
Even in a fairly well paid European country like Germany the salaries are a joke for high performers.
It is difficult as a dev to earn, even after a decade of experience and working incredibly hard, more than €100k/year.
But a good junior with 1-2 years of experience can earn €50k/year.
So you can’t even make double after taxes of what a junior makes. Almost no matter how hard you work.
And yet you could take it easy and have a great work life balance and after a decade be earning €80k/year.
> Even education - there's no Ivy League of Europe, there's no Stanford. There are some schools that may be considered good, but elite - not really.
In the world's top 20, there are 10 North American universities and 7 European universities at the moment[1]. That's not such a huge difference, given the fact, that undergraduate degrees in most European countries are only taught in the local language. As a result, only universities in the UK and Switzerland are able to reach the "elite" status – and these countries combined are much smaller than the US.
> that undergraduate degrees in most European countries are only taught in the local language
While "most" might be true quantitatively, from what I've seen most of local "best" schools do offer studies in English. Most top schools in Germany seem to offer this. Even an American could get in on these super cheap deals. But there aren't that many takers (from the US). Given the enormous cost differential you'd think people would be storming these schools.
I have some Indian friends that attend such a program at a local university. From talking to them most wanted to go to US (some Canada) but couldn't get in or afford it and this was their second choice. Also none are planning to stay.
The rankings, again, I have to dispute. The best way to rank schools would be to actually ask people which schools they'd go to if cost/admissions wasn't a factor.
> While "most" might be true quantitatively, from what I've seen most of local "best" schools do offer studies in English. Most top schools in Germany seem to offer this.
Even in Germany, probably 90% of the undergraduate courses are taught in German only. The percentage of postgraduate courses available in English is much higher, though. Still, most professors are required to be able to teach in the local language. Therefore, the number of international faculty members outside the UK and Switzerland is very limited.
> Even in Germany, probably 90% of the undergraduate courses are taught in German only
Because there isn't a lot of demand for English courses? Otherwise you'd expect them to increase prices and offer more English courses.
We can go even further - if Germany really offers anything close to an American standard of living and education you'd expect many people would learn German and go live there.
> Because there isn't a lot of demand for English courses? Otherwise you'd expect them to increase prices and offer more English courses.
That's because the first undergraduate degree is completely free for all Germans.
> We can go even further - if Germany really offers anything close to an American standard of living and education you'd expect many people would learn German and go live there.
My entire point was, that European universities outside the UK and Switzerland are unable to compete with the US schools, because they are very unattractive options for foreign professors who don't speak the local language.
> Even education - there's no Ivy League of Europe, there's no Stanford. There are some schools that may be considered good, but elite - not really.
This is in part because research is organized differently in other countries. Lots of world-class research happens in Germany, but in research institutes rather than universities.
For anybody living outside of the UK, going there isn't all that different from going to the US. The tuition is only somewhat cheaper too I think. As opposed to most "best" schools in mainland Europe being essentially free for locals.
So I'd assume any kid in Europe planning to go to Oxford is probably planning to apply to American schools too.
And not sure how reliably you could get accepted too. Like say for myself, when I was younger I really wanted to go to one of the top US schools (ended up not going to any). It was pretty obvious to me I'd never get accepted if I went to a local high-school so went to a prep-school in the US. The UK, I assume, has their equivalent of that too.
> For anybody living outside of the UK, going there isn't all that different from going to the US. The tuition is only somewhat cheaper too I think. As opposed to most "best" schools in mainland Europe being essentially free for locals.
The EU citizens from outside the UK are able to study in Scotland without paying any tuition fees.
The University of Edinburgh is as highly ranked internationally, as Yale, Columbia, and Cornell[1].
The University of St Andrews is as highly ranked locally, as Cambridge and Oxford[2].
> So I'd assume any kid in Europe planning to go to Oxford is probably planning to apply to American schools too.
That's completely wrong. Almost nobody is considering the US when applying to the universities in England, because England offers Tution Fee Loan to all EU students, that only needs to be repaid when one's income is over the repayment threshold[3].
However, this might end in 2021, because of Brexit.
> because England offers Tution Fee Loan to all EU students, that only needs to be repaid when one's income is over the repayment threshold
I stand corrected on this then.
> The University of Edinburgh is as highly ranked internationally, as Yale, Columbia, and Cornell
The rankings I have to disagree with, I'd like to see something that compared expected income or net worth for graduates.
Let's say you're given an opportunity to go to "University of Edinburgh" or Yale with all costs paid for. I think you'll have a hard time finding people who would pick the former.
> The rankings I have to disagree with, I'd like to see something that compared expected income or net worth for graduates.
Universities are primarily ranked by the quality of their research output, not by the expected net worth of their graduates.
> Let's say you're given an opportunity to go to "University of Edinburgh" or Yale with all costs paid for. I think you'll have a hard time finding people who would pick the former.
At least in Europe, a graduate of University of Edinburgh would be worth as much as a graduate of Yale in most industries, including finance, law and tech. They would have equal chances of getting a banking job in London, or working for a FAANG company in Zurich.
The Ivy League only really matters, if one wants to live in the US. And most Europeans don't. Because Europe is not about becoming super rich, but about never becoming poor.
For instance, in my EU country I can take as many years off as I want, and still remain fully covered by the national health insurance by paying just 40€ / month. If a broke my leg tomorrow, it wouldn't cost me anything at all.
Therefore, I couldn't care less about being "a high net-worth individual" as long as I don't need to stress about the basic things in life, and have enough freedom to work only with – or for – the companies I really like.
> The Ivy League only really matters, if one wants to live in the US
Of course not. You'll still have a better network even if you don't stay in America. Say if you need VC funding for your startup in Europe, you'll be dealing with Americans sooner than later. Or if you're dealing with China or India, they share the same preference too. It'll help. And although there aren't that many truly private European VCs I sincerely doubt they wouldn't notice.
I doubt most people outside of the UK know the University of Edinburgh. Everybody knows the top US schools. Never heard of anybody bragging about a University of Edinburgh credential.
I'm not even remotely a fan of higher education or the academia at all. But nonetheless like most people I would notice if somebody had a highly-coveted credential.
> At least in Europe, a graduate of University of Edinburgh would be worth as much as a graduate of Yale in most industries, including finance, law and tech. They would have equal chances of getting a banking job in London, or working for a FAANG company in Zurich.
That point is moot, obviously you couldn't do any major hiring if you expected American credentials in Europe.
Yet, the reverse likely isn't true. A Yale credential would open more doors in America and wouldn't close any in Europe. Hence it's superior.
> I doubt most people outside of the UK know the University of Edinburgh. Everybody knows the top US schools.
My point was, that for 99% of Europeans living in Europe, there is absolutely no difference between a degree from Yale and a degree from University of Edinburgh.
Therefore, given a chance, probably 60-70% would still go to the UK rather than the US, just because it's much closer from home.
I see this with traveling. I love traveling and 100% plan on using some of the money I've gotten from tech to travel. But many of my classmates have an attitude of "later". They make decent salaries, they have the time and freedom. But they don't do anything cool with it! I get living within your means and being frugal but damn if you're making six figures you can afford a trip or two.
But from talking with them, it seems like their focus is on retirement - hopefully in their 50's. That's their grand plan, because that's when they'll start "living".
It's a bit of a contrast to us Scandinavians - as we really like to live in the present. No pie in the sky dreams.
Which is also why we guard our working rights and work-life balance like a national treasure.