<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>I understand the distinction applejack. I was referring to both types of wealth. All those Grosse Point kids have to go somehwere for college right?! hehe!</p>
<p>It's also one of the truest things you probably have read in weeks. No one said they all live in neighborhoods with 1500-2500 sq ft houses and drive Chevys. But old money IS understated, and the worn-out LL Beans and Sperrys is spot-on old money WASP. Doesn't everyone summer on Nantucket anyway? You people really do need to read the Preppy Handbook. You don't know what you're talking about at this level of money.</p>
<p>I wud have to say Monaco University. haha</p>
<p>Although this is not always the case, people from old money do tend to keep from flaunting their wealth. We're talking about beat-up volvos and saabs, not new Lamborghinis. Think passed down Shetland sweaters instead of the latest designer fashion. In general, many people of this ilk are frugal and conservative with their spending.</p>
<p>When I visited Gerogetown it seemed full of country club kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And to LAX Attack...there are plenty of wealthy kids at state schools.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did I ever say there wasn't? Third time somebody has told me I said this, I'd love to be linked to it...have yet to be. Wealthy kids tend to end up at ivies over other schools. And to the person who said just because I haven't graduated college I don't know...well I'd say I'm a much better judge at where people from prep schools go now, because, you know, I'm not too far away from them. I don't know how it was when you were a kid but these days people leave exeter/andover for hyp (just look at the graduation #'s). Furthermore, these schools are where the old money/elite send their kids.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Although this is not always the case, people from old money do tend to keep from flaunting their wealth. We're talking about beat-up volvos and saabs, not new Lamborghinis.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. Perhaps somebody would like to come along saying they drive lamborghinis/ferraris. It'd be about as complete an argument as they go to state schools instead of ivies because they don't need ivies, they already have it made and have no reason to do well.</p>
<p>LaxAttack09, please stop beating the dead horse in this thread.</p>
<p>I find this thread hilarious. Never mind that anyone who is even on this forum probably isn't exploding with cash (heck if I had that much money I would just sit back, party, and go skiing everyday or something). Read the Official Preppy Handbook.</p>
<p>I do think you guys missed Trinity College CT. When I visited the sense of entitlement on campus was pretty amazing. It was sort of hard not finding the audacity of it impressive. Otherwise, the best schools are also the preppiest schools: preps work the hardest of all the people I know to get in the best places and achieve the greatest successes. Expectations, family and personal, are not taken lightly.</p>
<p>From a wealthy boarding school alumni at an Ivy that has spent lots of time in elite circles, the list for "rich" kids is pretty clear, but there aren't really any colleges and universities today that are filled even mostly with rich kids anymore. The number of students that attend these formerly "rich kid" institutions has increased as has the racial, geographic, and socioeconomic diversity in the student body. There are schools with disproportionately high numbers of rich kids but there is NO school where it is the norm anymore.</p>
<p>The list goes something like this:</p>
<p>Tier 1:</p>
<p>U Pennsylvania
Duke
Brown
Columbia
Georgetown
Yale</p>
<p>Tier 2:</p>
<p>Princeton
Harvard
George Washington U
Boston U
Williams
Davidson College
Trinity College
USC
Boston College</p>
<p>Tier 3:</p>
<p>Northwestern
Vanderbilt
U Virginia
Tufts
Tulane U
Middlebury
Vassar
Colorado College</p>
<p>*In no particular order except by tier</p>
<p>From a wealthy boarding school alumni at an Ivy that has spent lots of time in elite circles, the list for "rich" kids is pretty clear, but there aren't really any colleges and universities today that are filled even mostly with rich kids anymore. The number of students that attend these formerly "rich kid" institutions has increased as has the racial, geographic, and socioeconomic diversity in the student body. There are schools with disproportionately high numbers of rich kids but there is NO school where it is the norm anymore.</p>
<p>The list goes something like this:</p>
<p>Tier 1:</p>
<p>U Pennsylvania
Duke
Brown
Columbia
Georgetown
Yale</p>
<p>Tier 2:</p>
<p>Princeton
Harvard
George Washington U
Boston U
Williams
Davidson College
Trinity College
USC
Boston College</p>
<p>Tier 3:</p>
<p>Northwestern
Vanderbilt
U Virginia
Tufts
Tulane U
Middlebury
Vassar
Colorado College</p>
<p>*In no particular order except by tier</p>
<p>The people that have made comments suggesting U Mich is a rich kid school and that the Ivies except Brown and Cornell are filled with wealthy students really don't know what they are talking about (Brown has probably the wealthiest student body of any school, particularly if you are talking about the proportion of uber-wealthy students -- meaning Forbes list kids). </p>
<p>In terms of prep schools, the truly wealthy student bodies (not only old money though) should not include Exeter (Andover should be included though). St. Paul's and Deerfield fit the bill much better as do some other schools like Choate, Cate, Hotchkiss, Hackley, Hockaday, Northfield Mount Hermon, Brentwood, SFUHS, Greenwich and Brunswick in CT, St. Alban's, Thacher, Marin Academy, Harvard-Westlake, Marlborough and Crossroads in LA, Chapin/Spence/Dalton/Brearley (in NYC), Winsor in Boston, Stevenson in Norcal, Bishop's (in La Jolla), Delbarton (in NJ), Lycee Francais de New York, and even publics like Scarsdale High and Princeton High are fairly wealthy.</p>
<p>"he number of students that attend these formerly "rich kid" institutions has increased as has the racial, geographic, and socioeconomic diversity in the student body."</p>
<p>The socio-economic diversity of prestige private colleges, as measured by Pell Grant recipients, is actually at its LOWEST point since 1993. (There's a lot of talk, but with a few exceptions, not a lot of action.)</p>
<p>"When I visited Gerogetown it seemed full of country club kids."</p>
<p>Georgetown actually ranks second (just below Notre Dame) on the "entitlement index" (among universities), and, if you visit, I doubt that you could miss it.</p>
<p>I think the original question has gotten a bit lost: it wasn't where they have the most rich kids, or where rich people want to send their kids, it was where is the best "fit" for a rich kid. I think the following was a good answer to this:</p>
<p>"From the South - Hampden-Sydney, Sweet Briar, Washington and Lee, maybe UVa (the only public that could be classified as having a significant # of rich kids)."</p>
<p>I don't know about other parts of the country, but several of these are schools with a reputation suggesting that people without a lot of money may not be comfortable there. It's less the case at UVa, but at the others there is a lot more conformity in terms of dress, political views, social activities, etc., than at most colleges.</p>
<p>Yes, the focus of the original question is where the child of a rich family (AS DEFINED IN THE ORIGINAL POST) who doesn't apply for financial aid and doesn't work during the school year can feel "at home" and have an enjoyable time. I find it interesting that many replies strongly indicated that urban rather than rural colleges fit this profile better. It happens, for unrelated reasons, that my oldest son is mostly looking at colleges in large urban areas, but he is not rich by the definition of the opening post. </p>
<p>So, bearing in mind that someone in my own household who is NOT rich may be applying to some of the colleges mentioned as rich-friendly in this thread, I'll ask again for the subject drift I asked for [url=<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060442376-post57.html%5Dabove%5B/url">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/1060442376-post57.html]above[/url</a>] (post #57): </p>
<p>Among the colleges identified by consensus here as colleges that are comfortable for rich students, which are also feasible, comfortable, and welcoming for poor students? (It probably does violence to the English language, in worldwide terms, to describe my family as "poor," but we always apply for financial aid for anything my son does academically, and he will surely be working while he goes to college.)</p>
<p>I wonder if there aren't a few characteristics that might make a school more comfortable for less wealthy students, aside from stats about how rich the students are. For example, I would propose the following:
1. On-campus housing for all students all four years. Extra points if all housing costs the same.
2. Weak or non-existent Greek system.
3. Geographical and ethnic diversity.
4. Large school in relatively isolated location, so social life centers on campus(the idea here is that social life is standardized, and doesn't depend on clubbing, for example).
5. High level of athletic involvement by student body at large.</p>
<p>Hi, Hunt, that's an interesting list of criteria for identifying a rich-friendly college that would also be poor-friendly. I'm not sure if the students I know best would like criterion 4, but I acknowledge that MIGHT help mask socioeconomic differences among students, and the other criteria look helpful.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl in post #76 wrote: </p>
<p>"So, if you're a rich kid and you want a cushy, fun college experience (because you don't really need to study, you're set for life), where do you think is more appealing, LaxAttack? MIT/UChicago/Caltech or Pepperdine/Sweet Briar/SMU? You keep thinking that the question is about rich kids who value academics, as opposed to just about rich kids who want to be in an environment with other rich kids and have a good time. "</p>
<p>Agree mostly. There are many kinds of rich kids. Some are driven, hard working and intellectually curious. Some are not. The OP's original post read like the second group... wanting connections, wanting to be pampered, and nary a word about intellectual stimulation.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Throw out any school in the top 75 in that case. Too much work!</p></li>
<li><p>Now look at schools with midpoint SATs in the 1100-1200 range, and students graduating in the top 50%, not the top 5% of their classes.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, USC? Too academically demanding.
Top 20? foggedaboutit. Too focused on academics. Too much work!</p>
<p>Settle in on privates with little merit aid, located in visually pleasing areas of the country, that are not too rigorous in their coursework.</p>
<p>Perpperdine? good choice
SMU? good choice
Gettysburg College? another good choice</p>
<p>Many more like this.</p>
<p>I was thinking of characteristics that might have a "leveling" effect, and I thought participation in athletics might be something like that. Perhaps intense school spirit might be another (Hawkette, are you reading this?).</p>
<p>hunt,
I'm reading, but not agreeing with a lot of the discussion as I think that the brushes being used are just too large to be effective for a prospective student to use in the college search process. Today's college campuses have all changed greatly over the last 10-15 years by the MUCH greater numbers and types of students matriculating. This has brought more diversity, measured almost any way you like, to the vast majority of colleges across the USA. So, IMO, the "student comfort level" issue is not that big a deal except at a handful of colleges and practically none in the top ranks. </p>
<p>For example, just consider the following data on the percentages of students on the campuses of colleges ranked in the USNWR Top 50 national universities who are receiving some form of financial aid. There are certainly differences in the degree to which they have students needing Financial Aid, but it's not like these students won't be able to find others in similar circumstances at these colleges. </p>
<p>All data taken from the latest CDS available for each college. </p>
<p>% of Student Body on Fin'l Aid , College</p>
<p>70% , Case Western
63% , MIT
63% , Rensselaer
57% , U Texas
55% , Princeton
52% , NYU (06-07)
51% , Carnegie Mellon
51% , UC Irvine (03-04)
50% , Dartmouth
50% , UC Berkeley
50% , UC Davis
49% , UCLA
49% , UCSD
48% , U Michigan
46% , Stanford
46% , Vanderbilt
46% , UC Santa Barbara
46% , Penn State
45% , Brown
44% , Cornell
43% , Yale
42% , Northwestern (06-07)
42% , U Illinois
41% , Lehigh
39% , Emory (06-07)
39% , U Florida
32% , U North Carolina
32% , Georgia Tech
32% , U Washington
30% , W&M
29% , U Wisconsin (06-07)
26% , U Virginia</p>
<p>No CDS , Harvard
No CDS , U Penn
No CDS , Caltech
No CDS , Duke
No CDS , Columbia
No CDS , U Chicago
No CDS , Wash U
No CDS , Johns Hopkins
No CDS , Rice
No CDS , Notre Dame
No CDS , Georgetown
No CDS , USC
No CDS , Tufts
No CDS , Wake Forest
No CDS , Brandeis
No CDS , U Rochester
No CDS , Boston Coll
No CDS , Syracuse
No CDS , Tulane</p>
<p>However, if you believe in student quality in, student quality out (and I do), then a college's selectivity is a major differentiated part of the equation and may lead to better post-graduate professional and personal networks. There could be important differences in the types/strength of students who attend these colleges in terms of the intellectuality that they bring and the potential personal and professional connections that they can later provide. So, for me, the judgment about various college choices might be less one of "rich now" and more a question of "rich later."</p>