<p>Right, but now it’s not even a school problem. It’s just life.</p>
<p>I was one of the poor ones which may be why I don’t get all this sympathy. I really don’t get it. Go to school, work hard and do well then build a life where you can afford stuff. Lots of kids on my campus drove BMWs, the 300z was hot and Saab was hot back then. Kids pledged fraternities and sororities which cost money, kids attended off campus parties and wore nice clothes. I didn’t. I got my degree, graduated with honors, started making little money and aggressively worked my way up to nice living. </p>
<p>I’m not lamenting that I didn’t wear the latest fashion, drive a car or attend every lavish party at some frat house. Stop treating poor kids like crap. They aren’t victims in constant need of coddling and handouts. Tell these kids that this is your chance to lift yourself and your families out of their economic circumstances and inspire them to bust their tails at school and stay motivated. Enough of the phony pity and nonsensical concern about how hard it is to play with rich kids when you’re poor. Not one ounce of everyone’s pity will benefit any of those kids as much as a push in the right direction.</p>
<p>It’s so demeaning and degrading to treat every less fortunate person like a charity case. That is the most elitist, bigoted and offensive ideology in this country today and it need to die off.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>??? Columbia asks parents for NOTHING if income is below 60K and no loans either, and it goes from there. I don’t think it is any different than Harvard or Princeton or Yale in that respect. </p>
<p>I did read somewhere that Princeton has added some $ for eating club fees to its FA packages, to correct that disparity.</p>
<p>A company I used to work for would reimburse college students for their interview expenses- flights, taxis, hotel and meals if needed. It took a while, but a group of us got the policy changed so that we advanced the students money, vs. paying them back.</p>
<p>Big difference to a kid whose family can’t afford a 1200 charge on the visa card that month. Big difference to a kid who might not have a credit card. I don’t think that’s demeaning or degrading, and we never treated anyone like a charity case. But it’s crazy to claim that a poor kid who has worked his tail off and is interviewing for those great jobs that will stick him firmly in the top income bracket isn’t going to face an obstacle that an affluent kid would never even think about. You go to school in New Haven, CT and made Phi Beta Kappa as a junior. Your job interview is in Chicago, and the company is happy to cut you a check about four weeks after your interview to cover your expenses.</p>
<p>It’s degrading to make sure that you’re not adding an extra obstacle to this kids life? I don’t buy it. It’s degrading to assume that everyone in the world can just buy a plane ticket and get paid back “whenever”.</p>
<p>People will never agree on what the right thing is to do here, because everyone has their own opinion about how other people should live and what has value. Some think the way rich kids live is excessive, so why should we be providing poor kids with the means to live in a similar way? </p>
<p>My father thought everyone should work extremely hard and save, save, save! So that is what is instilled in me.</p>
<p>If people are consternating over others’ exotic vacations and designer clothes, is there a reason why anyone should do anything about that? Maybe it is the students who go without who learn the better life lessons and become better citizens of the world.</p>
<p>I marvelled at all the advising available to my Ds regarding which classes to take, etc. I don’t remember any of that being available when I was in college; I navigated it all myself and figured it out. I probably developed skills they don’t have because I had to do it.</p>
<p>Re: #265</p>
<p>It is possible that some employers may want to screen out applicants from lower SES backgrounds without being too obvious about it.</p>
<p>[Wall</a> Street’s Lacrosse Mafia - Businessweek](<a href=“Businessweek - Bloomberg”>Businessweek - Bloomberg) notes that:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lacrosse has taken off even with the not-at-all-rich. For women the equipment costs aren’t bad, really just a stick and goggles and mouthpiece. For men, there’s more gear but it can also be found used. The game’s on a field so nothing major required there, not more than soccer.</p>
<p>Now just like the cheap sports, kids whose families can afford lessons, club/travel teams, tournaments and so on have an advantage. </p>
<p>I’d think better “weed out the poor” sports might be, oh, water polo or crew or competitive skiing or ice hockey or tennis or squash.</p>
<p>I do take your point about possible employer motivation though.</p>
<p>Then there is this: [Midwestern</a> liberal arts colleges use lacrosse to recapture suburban students | Inside Higher Ed](<a href=“http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/04/04/midwestern-liberal-arts-colleges-use-lacrosse-recapture-suburban-students]Midwestern”>Midwestern liberal arts colleges use lacrosse to recapture suburban students)</p>
<p>This article is spot on and any Columbia student on financial aid is going to struggle even if they have a full scholarship because of the high costs of basic necessities in the city. I was on financial aid at Barnard in the '80s. My widowed mother thought I should be able to live on 1/4 of our Midwestern family food budget - a family that never went out to eat. Try cooking for one in a gentrified neighborhood! My D13 would have loved to have taken the Macaulay Honors scholarship she was offered at Hunter but I discouraged it because I knew she wouldn’t have been able to afford a daily cup of coffee in NYC. Even in Oxford, MS, on a very generous scholarship, she comments that she is worried she’ll lose friends because she has to turn down their invitations because she can’t afford to spend money like water like they do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ultraguy - I can see you’re new on this site. You really need to go through it and read the hundreds, if not thousands of stories, of kids who, either due to merit or financial need, attended private schools at the same costs or less than their public instate. To limit your kids to public because that’s all you think you can afford, is just misinformation. </p>
<p>I, for one, had two daughters who attended privates at the same cost of attending in-state (due to merit awards), and each of those privates had programs that FAR excelled those offered at the public, and gave them educational opportunities that our public could not provide… for the same price.</p>
<p>[Luxury</a> Shopping, from the Other Side of the Register : The New Yorker](<a href=“http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/currency/2013/12/luxury-shopping-from-the-other-side-of-the-register.html]Luxury”>Luxury Shopping, from the Other Side of the Register | The New Yorker)</p>
<p>I hope this is correctly linked. It is an article in the New Yorker, “Luxury Shopping, from the Other Side of the Register”. </p>
<p>If the link doesn’t work, the article shows up immediately when googled. </p>
<p>The interesting paragraphs are towards the end, where the author refers to several studies linking money to a lack of empathy towards others, and how money affects personal interactions.</p>
<p>“several studies linking money to a lack of empathy towards others, and how money affects personal interactions”</p>
<p>Of course money is root of all evil. Lets ensure no one can get rich or stay rich. :p</p>
<p>Did you read it?</p>
<p>Was anyone else humming Lorde’s “Royals” by the end of the first paragraph of that article?</p>
<p>It’s not the luxury shoppers at Neiman-Marcus who are mowing one another down and punching one another on Black Friday to get their hands on some electronic gadget.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, he had socks, shoes, 3 pairs of pants, maybe 6 shirts, and a fake “Members Only” type jacket. He had acne scars, burn scars, and a bad home haircut. He worked both on campus and off campus to help with the bills. What he lacked were the suburban social graces that usually come with a somewhat privileged background and the rigorous academics needed to succeed while working two jobs.</p>
<p>He got zero fraternity bids despite rushing intently (fraternities were much cheaper than dorms), not even from the house that gave them to nearly anyone. He had trouble forming any real friendships. His poverty was obvious in a manner beyond the clothes and the spending money. Sophomore year, the courts located his father who had abandoned the family 10 years earlier and he lost his financial aid.</p>
<p>I know a girl who just graduated from U Penn on full-boat financial aid who had a great experience. Kind of like mini’s kids, she was home schooled in a two parent household, brilliant parents, no tv. She is smart, socially adept, pretty, and intellectual even by Penn standards. When the only deficit is cash flow, the odds of a decent experience go up considerably.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My observation in the 1980’s (granted, the greed-is-good 80’s) is different. There were the exact same types of social strata and consumption as today. The actual name brands were different (Lacoste and Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein and Gloria Vanderbilt) but the concept was the same. I certainly remember girls who had expensive clothing, handbags, shoes and the like. In fact, I actually wore a fur coat (not mink) that was a hand-me-down from my mother, and I was <em>not</em> the only girl on campus who had one. I knew kids who had private jets and multiple homes. I really think that while the specifics may have changed, the overall concepts haven’t, and I don’t think there’s some horrible new trend towards conspicuous consumption that’s any different from how it’s always been.</p>
<p>Re: #272</p>
<p>Of course, wealthy people and luxury shoppers are not necessarily the same set of people. Some wealthy people are not particularly interested in luxury goods – these are the “millionaires next door” who accumulate wealth and financial security on middle incomes. Some luxury shoppers do not get wealthy because they spend all of their money as fast as they can make it.</p>
<p>“Did you read it?”</p>
<p>Does New Yorker matter? May be to some but not to me.</p>
<p>Your response to “Did you read it?” is exactly what would be predicted by the two studies the author cited. Thank you.</p>
<p>“author cited”</p>
<p>He must be somebody in somebody’s book.</p>
<p>I am only suggesting an action based on your comment that there is a correlation between rich and lack of empathy. </p>
<p>I am lost on why it matters whether I read anything since you are telling me what it says already.</p>