<p>People who pay attention to how they dress aren’t necessarily “out to impress” either. There are girls who pay a lot of attention to dressing themselves in a carefully cultivated bohemian type of style - not to impress, but because they like that style and it serves as a form of self-expression. Maybe their clothes are second-hand or goodwill, but they pay attention - they don’t just slap anything on, they put things together with care. We all know people like that; more power to 'em. What’s the difference?</p>
<p>Wow…a spirited defense of college girls who carry expensive designer bags. Why is there always, in such discussions, a vocal minority who feel drawn to defending the wealthy? Why would someone think the rich were in need of their defense? Some of this does, indeed, remind me of Downton Abbey, where the staunchest defenders of the existing class system are often the loyal servants themselves, and most often those highest among the ranks of those servants…</p>
<p>For myself, I recall being shocked at one of my kids, during college visits, making instantaneous evaluations as he strolled across the campus and assessed the look of the student body. “Too many polo shirts,” he might say, or broadening his gaze, “the grass is too perfect.” I was appalled and argued to no use, but I now see that my kid was making crude but useful assessments and he did, indeed, use them to find his way to the places he would thrive. I’ve come around a bit since then and figure, somehow, we know what we are doing even if we don’t know how or why.</p>
<p>I think it’s just that the air of superiority on CC by the have nots/want nots gets old.</p>
<p>When my daughter was a grad student at Vanderbilt and newly married to a new (and poor) doctor, she commented that the Vandy undergrads all had nicer clothes and purses than she did, but she didn’t discount them on that basis. She found other reasons to do that, as grad students anywhere tend to do wrt the undergrads! :)</p>
<p>I don’t see anyone defending “the wealthy.” Wearing expensive clothes is not a crime, and therefore the people who do it need no defending.</p>
<p>What I see is a lot of sanctimonious adults trying to dress up their prejudice as sound moral judgment.</p>
<p>The price of someone’s handbag, or her family’s general ability to afford nice things, has no bearing on that person’s character. Neither does liking fashion, or wanting to look nice on a daily basis.</p>
<p>“there always, in such discussions, a vocal minority who feel drawn to defending the wealthy?”
-Because there is a vocal whatever number “who feel drawn to bashing the wealthy”, isn’t it just logical? It is just provoking others who want to express opposite opinion…just normal reaction, although it is not true under sensorship.
"Why would someone think the rich were in need of their defense? "
-Because nobody is assessing anybody’s need, they are expressing their opinions freely, you can freely critique them, but again, they can freely not pay attention.<br>
And this is my freely expressed opinion.</p>
<p>To you, perhaps. But to other students, having the pajama-pants-in-class or in the case of Oberlin…wearing extremely casual clothes creates a relaxing atmosphere where there’s a de-emphasis on trying to conform to conventional upper/upper-middle class fashions/clothing styles. </p>
<p>A great thing in my book…especially considering it will probably be the last 4+ years they’ll have to dress so casually before they head off to the workplace…especially corporate workplaces where the dress code is definitely on the more stodgy side. More importantly…it was a relief to us working/lower-middle class kids on scholarship/FA as it meant our lack of ability/unwillingness to expend scarce financial resources on conforming to upper/upper-middle class fashion/style norms wouldn’t be held against us. Got away with wearing hole-ridden hand-me-downs for 4 years…something which would not have passed without disdainful comment at more mainstream conventional campuses like Columbia or NYU…especially when I was called out several times on the latter campus/area for wearing business casual wear. :p</p>
<p>IME, this also causes students to assess each other much more on the basis of their character and how they carry themselves in class discussions, academic work, and civic/political activism/service. </p>
<p>Granted, a part of the reason for the de-emphasis on high fashion/corporate dress norms is also political in nature. Most students at my undergrad viewed voluntary participation in such norms is perpetuating the materialistic corporate culture they feel contributes to many of the economic/social ills of the world at large. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There seems to be a small contingent of undergrads at Columbia who seem to hold their grad student counterparts with some disdain/contempt as well. Saw a Spectator cartoon where the portrayed grad students as homeless digging in garbage for their next meal some years back. :(</p>
<p>While it may have been intended as some form of “humor”…it was a bit disconcerting as I was raised in a culture where grad students were to be accorded RESPECT…not cheap mockery for their perceived poverty.</p>
<p>Again, you’re not getting it. How do you know people aren’t just wearing certain things <em>because they like that style</em> as opposed to *trying to conform to conventional upper / upper-middle class fashion"? Give me a break. It’s interesting, the assumption that the campus full of designer bags is just a bunch of conformists, but the campus full of pajama-pants-and-sweats who would look down on the designer bag isn’t equally as conformist - just to a different norm, that’s all. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I gotta say, cobrat, is there something about you in real life that invites strangers to comment on you? Because in nearly every thread, you mention “comments made about you” or “being called out” whether it’s by cousins, or people walking across a campus, etc. Most people are busy enough and preoccupied enough with their own lives that they really aren’t walking up to others and making derogatory comments about what the other person is wearing or doing, or “calling them out” for not
“conforming” to the local standard. Really, no one goes up to anyone and chastises them for being too preppy, too buttoned-up, too sloppy, too dressed-up, whatever.</p>
<p>Columbia or NYU would not really be “mainstream”, and NYU would not be a “conventional campus”. Probably the most “mainstream” schools would be the big state universities that most four year college students attend, and which tend to have many student subcultures, rather than smaller schools or super-selective schools where there is a greater chance for a particular subculture (“preppy”, “grungy”, “status-symbol-oriented”, “anti-status-symbol”, etc.) to be dominant enough for those outside to feel excluded or pressured to conform.</p>
<p>There’s the kind where you need to bring lots of $$$ to the table (the designer bag set) and the kind where the $$$ don’t matter as much (the pajama set.)</p>
<p>That is a distinction WITH a difference.</p>
<p>There are also some sets that are more attitudinal toward those who don’t wear the “right” clothes, too . . . which is primarily what I thought Cobrat was talking about.</p>
<p>In other words, we can seem to all be conformists as long as one ignores how outsiders are treated and how much $$$ it takes to belong.</p>
<p>P.S. Oberlin is interesting in that it has performing music students walking around in tuxes and evening gowns amongs the neo-hippies . . . which is one contributor to why it may be a tad more libertarian in its fashion outlook than other schools?</p>
<p>P.P.S Cobrat didnt say that pajama set = less conformist . . . said that the pajama set places a “de-emphasis on trying to conform to conventional upper/upper-middle class fashions” . . . leaving open that there is non-upper/middle class conformity occurring . . .</p>
<p>The one common thread of comments by older relations and the strangers at NYU was that they all heavily bought into the upper/upper-middle class social/fashion/stylistic norms…and use that as a yardstick for disdainfully/harshly judging others. </p>
<p>The NYU part was especially odd as it was a great cultural shift from the times I visited that campus as a high school kid in the early-mid '90s and the prevailing culture from '00s onwards. Then again, there’s many more well-off transplants from outside the NYC area on that campus compared to back then.</p>
<p>Yeah, well, I don’t buy that “strangers at NYU” spend a lot of time critiquing other random strangers’ clothing, possessions, etc. Your older relations certainly do.</p>
<p>You know, I hate to inform some of you who think that you have to be Thurston Howell III to buy your kid a designer handbag, but the ones that are found on college campuses really aren’t all that expensive and they aren’t the sole province of the rich.</p>
<p>What’s “expensive” and “inexpensive” is extremely subjective…and depends on whether one is solely going on price or price:value/ROI yardstick. </p>
<p>For some, $10 may be too much money to spare for anything except the most basic necessities. For others, a luxury/hobby item costing a few hundred or even few hundreds of thousand dollars is a drop in the bucket.</p>
<p>Well, yeah, that’s the point - it’s subjective. So while some on here think that the girl with the designer handbag is clearly flaunting her massive wealth, for all you know, whatever that bag cost is a drop in the bucket in her family’s lifestyle and indeed, was the equivalent of the $30 Target bag. So how can she be “bragging”? We all spend according to whatever our own personal budgets and tastes are; whether the end result of that is the $30 Target bag or the $300 Coach bag doesn’t change that. </p>
<p>Anyway, I’m sure those who think the $300 Coach bag is a big huge deal have things they spend on that people less affluent than themselves can’t afford. It might be electronics, or books, or wine, or whatever. I wonder why it is that anything they can afford is right, prudent and indicative of perfectly fine morals and not “unreasonable” at all, but the moment it escalates to a higher level - why, then it’s unreasonable and showy.</p>
<p>Pizza—AGAIN, it isn’t that they have the handbag, it’s the attitude that you HAVE to have that bag to fit in on campus. I’m sorry you can’t see the difference.</p>
<p>It’s not just the wealth that’s the factor…but if there’s a critical mass of students who displays such status symbols on campus…it creates an atmosphere that is offputting not only by those who cannot afford such items, but also those who feel doing so influences the campus culture so it is only welcoming those who are a part of and are comfortable with fitting with fashion/stylistic norms of upper/upper-middle class high fashion/corporate dress norms. </p>
<p>Is there anything wrong with a student opting to not attend a college where he/she would feel he/she’s already stuck within the stodgy conformist confines of corporate America or upper/upper-middle class suburbia and would prefer to defer its mandated requirements for the 4+ years he/she’s an undergraduate?</p>
<p>And AGAIN, mncollegemom, please tell me how you can discern the difference when you’re walking behind a girl on a college visit carrying such a handbag. What are the signs that you are looking for – and why are you only looking for such signs among girls carrying these handbags?</p>
<p>I think some of you like to intimidate yourselves over things. “Oh! She’s got an X bag, she must be snooty mcsnotster!” Uh, no - she’s carrying a handbag. That’s all. Really. It’s just so not a big deal.</p>
<p>As I mentioned earlier, I’m in Rome on business. I hired a tour guide that I got through CC (thanks to those who recommended her!). She showed up and she was wearing a gorgeous coat that happened to be Burberry, and carried a Louis Vuitton purse. This meant, what, exactly, about her? What signals should I have concluded about her other than this was her personal taste?</p>
<p>YK, whenever the topic of tattoos gets brought up, it’s wrong wrong wrong to judge someone for having a tattoo - it means nothing about them other than that is their stylistic taste. They could be angels, devils or anywhere in between. What’s the difference?</p>
<p>According to research published in the Journal of Consumer Behavior, women are more likely to buy clothes and make-up their teenage daughters like than the other way around. The researchers found that if a mother is young at heart, has high fashion consciousness and views her daughter as a style expert, she will tend to doppelgang her daughters consumption behavior.</p>
<p>Explains all of the hoochie daughters and hoochie mammas walking around campus.</p>