<p>The Bush daughter that went to UT was, shall we say, not nearly as academic as her sister. (this is something I know- not just speculation) I'm sure UT, an excellent school, was a better fit and more fun for her.</p>
<p>MomofWildChild, what does that have to do with anything? GWB wasn't exactly Yale (or Harvard) material either! Somehow, he managed to get into both.</p>
<p>I usually think Amherst and Williams.</p>
<p>
[quote]
old money familys send their children to top schools
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Neither term being defined very well, and then the conclusion is that state schools don't have the atmosphere specified in the original post? Not very good logic.</p>
<p>it seems that mini's post #58 (the entitlement index) addresses the originial question the best-which colleges have the highest percentage of students from wealthy families where the students would feel they are among their own kind (went to private prep schools, families pay full-freight tuition without aid, have an atmosphere of all around 'well-to-do' about it). From his list, it is obvious that it includes a number of colleges that are not 'Ivy League". I agree with some of the above posters as far as the fact that the families who send their children to most of these colleges(especially the elite LAC's)-do not need to focus on their social standing and connections-they already have all of that(hence the WASP-heavy make-up of many of the schools on his list).</p>
<p>Really....people here need to read the official preppy handbook.</p>
<p>Judging from the cars in the parking lot, there were a LOT of rich kids at University of Miami.</p>
<p>"But overall, all three of those universities have similar percentages of students from families with sub $30,000 (8% at Michigan and Columbia, and 5% at Yale) and $30,000-$60,000 family incomes (8% at Yale and Columbia, 13% at Michigan). As for family incomes under $60,000, at Michigan, it is 21%, at Columbia it is $16% and at Yale it is 13%."</p>
<p>These aren't even close to being similar.</p>
<p>"it seems that mini's post #58 (the entitlement index) addresses the originial question the best-which colleges have the highest percentage of students from wealthy families where the students would feel they are among their own kind (went to private prep schools, families pay full-freight tuition without aid, have an atmosphere of all around 'well-to-do' about it)."</p>
<p>The "entitlement index" originally grew out of actual experiences visiting campuses. We could actually "feel" the difference among schools that, for all other intensive purposes might otherwise have been perceived as similar. When I was able to construct the index (which, admittedly, is five years old, but these things don't change very quickly), it was extraordinary how the hard data matched our perceptions of things.</p>
<p>"We do not have any comprehensive measure of the family income of our students."</p>
<p>This is a little truth hiding a big lie. ALL schools have comprehensive measures for those applying for financial aid. They also know very accurately the minimum income necessary to no longer qualify for financial aid, and they know the number of developmental admits. So they are missing only family income of the rich - those in the top 3% of the population (among whom, for many, assets and not income is the relevant measure.)</p>
<p>
[quote]
all other intensive purposes
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Which I take is a typo for "all other intents and purposes," right? I store words phonologically like that in my brain.</p>
<p>Hey, I'm so old, I'm lucky when I store words at all. ;)</p>
<p>"I suggest you leave Chicago and take a trip to Boston or New York. Go to Exeter on graduation weekend, talk to people from Andover, you'll hear the exact same things I'm telling you." </p>
<p>I grew up on the East Coast. I know what rich, preppy people are like. I know people who are old money and people who are new money. You're not even a college graduate yet; I'm old enough to be your mother! What makes you think that you know so much more about the world, because you went to an Exeter event and think you're hot stuff now?</p>
<p>Laxattack: "When I think rich I think old money wealth...in that case they'd take the MIT/Chicago because it's not about "having a good time" it's about performing at a high level throughout your life."</p>
<p>Then you've not been around old money, because old money already HAS it made and doesn't need to suffer through wonky engineering classes at MIT with less social life to boot, when they can get a gentleman's C and have a nice social life at UVA or Davidson, plenty of time to play sports, join Greek or similar organizations, and be surrounded with people just like themselves. Your assertion that MIT is a desired destination for old-money families is laughable. You really don't get that old money means never really having to work if you don't want to.</p>
<p>pizzagirl's right...old money kids might end up through legacy at good schools but NOT tech schools. Amherst, Williams, Davidson, Hampden-Sydney, Bowdoin, Colby, maybe some Ivies but not Cornell or Brown. NEVER at MIT, Chicago, Caltech, UWisconsin/Michigan/Cal Berkeley.</p>
<p>If you can pay full tuition you are automatically admitted to BU. If your academics are not up to snuff they put you in the college of general studies for two years (everyone is full pay in that division) and then you can pursue your academic track.</p>
<p>Laxattack is complete right. The idea that rich people already have social networking and don't need/desire to go to HYP is laughable at best. If your rich(and I know plenty of families like this) you want to send your kids to the best, meaning the Ivys. Because that is where they will interact with the best and brightest generation that will shape our world in the future, just because you already have a social network doesn't mean you don't want to expand. Going to Harvard(and other Ivys) opens doorways and creates possibilities for the rich to become even richer and in the process be around kids( not totally of course) like them. The idea that someone thinks a state school gets wealthier kids than the Ivy's is just false. Finally like laxattack said over 60k a year is not rich, to be considered rich by these schools you need to have 100 million+, any less just doesn't really cut it now a days. In conclusion if your rich you send your kids Ivys because they can have fun, have a great education and meet the leaders of the future.</p>
<p>Also for the record, one of Bush's daughters went to Yale....so when you pull out facts don't just pick and choose what you think supports your argument.</p>
<p>Alexandre and LaxAttack - I think you're talking about two different types of "money". </p>
<p>I went to a very expensive private school that regularly sends a lot of very wealthy students to the University of Michigan, as well as many to the east coast Ivies and all those others. </p>
<p>I think there's a difference between that "wealthy" culture and the old money "ruling class" culture LaxAttack seems to be addressing. The difference cannot necessarily be measured in dollar signs.</p>
<p>Perhaps I'm wrong in this assessment of your arguments.</p>
<p>I'm kind of shocked that Williams is ending up on this list. Are people aware that it's in the middle of the mountains hundreds of miles from any major cities? Most social activities, aside from drinking, which can vary in cost, are either free or very cheap, and there's not really much to do on campus that a lot of money would help with tremendously. The college is also very generous with money for student activities, including some really amazing things, like these junior travel grants students that basically give students a bunch of money to just go travel around the world for their own enrichment (one guy is know is getting about $7000 this summer). Granted, traveling to major cities can be very expensive (although on major breaks, cheap shuttles are provided), and shops in the surrounding town tend to be rather overpriced, but there's really no need to ever spend any money in these places, because the campus is so self-contained. I've heard from a few people that the college used to contain mainly rich white kids, but as far as I can tell, it's definitely not that way now.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I like the way you measure wealth, but I think it's slightly myopic. For state universities, you can measure student wealth as a ratio of the average freshman income to the state's overall average income. For instance, at U-Florida, the average income is ~120K. This is ~4 times a single income home (32K) and almost double the earnings of the 2 income household in Florida (68K). When you consider that the University takes on a responsibility to admit low income students preferentially, this adds up to TONS of students with incomes of 250K+ a year. As a Matter of fact at schools the size of UF, Michigan, etc....the sheer number of just "rich" students in the school trumps the total student body of some elite liberal arts colleges and small universities.</p>
<p>I think this method is more accurate (for state schools), as it is comparing a school's student body wealth to local economies and doesn't confuse 100K in a low income state to 100K in Boston, one of the HUGE problems I have with the way US NEWS ranks starting salaries, by the way. Again, I know out of stater's don't realize it, but U-Florida has Many, Many wealthy and old money families that prefer to send their children to UF, just as I'm sure Michigan, Virginia and Wisconsin do.</p>
<p>Here is a state by state guide of incomes...</p>
<p>And to LAX Attack...there are plenty of wealthy kids at state schools.</p>
<p>Rhapsody in Green...Williams has a lot of old-money kids because it's a small, prestigious NESCAC LAC. But it is the rich kids who are wearing worn out LL Bean clothes and sperrys that are duct-taped together...they do not appear "rich". Old money simply doesn't flaunt it that way. And Williams has a wonderful alumni network and gives strong legacy preference. And is popular not only with Andover and Exeter, but with the small Brooks/Miss Porter's/Brunswick and Greenwich Academy type schools.</p>
<p>"Old money simply doesn't flaunt it that way. "</p>
<p>That has to be the funniest thing I've read in weeks. I suppose old money families all live in middle class neighborhoods in houses of 1500-2000 square feet and all drive Chevys, then right? If a group of rich kids are dressing different because their peers are doing it, they ARE flaunting who they are. Just the fact that you know how "old money" dresses states that they dress a particular way to advertise their background, it just isn't in an opulent way.</p>