<p>
</p>
<p>Oddly, people at Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Duke, and Northwestern were SO SO SO nice to me and welcoming. Let’s get over the hating guys. I meant for this post to be helpful to others, not for me to be criticized. You’re only confirming my hypothesis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I actually went to Stanford, and never once saw anyone flaunting their wealth. True, sometimes a student might talk about skiing at some resort, without even realizing what it’s saying about them - this is rare. (I’m pretty sensitive to socioeconomic issues, having come from a background far below the poverty line.) It’s actually a well-recognized phenomenon on campus that rich students are “afraid” to let on that they have money; it’s been written about in the student newspaper several times, noting the lack of class-consciousness that students have.</p>
<p>If I hadn’t written your opinions off by the time you said that, I would have then, given that I know what a point of contention this issue (a fear of showing or discussing socioeconomic status) is on Stanford’s campus.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rephrase: "why didn’t the latter show me the proper REVERENCE?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do absolutely despise the materialism I’ve noticed in many of the nouveau-riche (they flaunt their wealth is what I’m saying), but this by no means contradicts my support for social uplift. While I believe everybody should have a chance to climb the socioeconomic ladder, I simply think it’s in poor taste to brag about material things even if they do become wealthy someday. I actually come from a low-income family and if I happen to become rich, I would hate to be ostentatious. For me, though, being non-stylish and having no accessories only highlights my positive qualities more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are welcome to write off my views. However, it’s coming from the perspective of an outsider who’s not in the Stanford bubble, which can be a plus (fresh perspective) or a negative (limited opportunity to observe). Like I said, people’s expressions are very subjective so I caution anybody to, of course, ready everything I said with a grain of salt. I simply stated my views, and others may disagree or not.</p>
<p>I hope you see why superficial, extremely limited experience under the guise of certainty or expertise isn’t helpful to any prospective students. It just misleads them.</p>
<p>What I saw of Stanford was a glimpse, no different from how thousands of others judge schools on a visit. It’s very difficult to ignore the obvious wealth I noticed in Stanford though even if people, as you claim, try hard to downplay it. I did not notice similar levels of wealth at Harvard and Yale even if their student bodies might be similarly wealthy or wealthier. It was obvious in Princeton but it was not flaunted. </p>
<p>Like I said, I’m not claiming to be an expert on anything. Take my views with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>Hopefully you don’t use the word “beautiful” when touting your looks in real life. (It’s one thing to say one is “very good-looking” or “very attractive” - it’s another to say “beautiful,” which also has effeminate connotations.)</p>
<p>I’m done pointing out the problems I find in your posts.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Genuine curiosity: what were the sorts of things that indicated obvious wealth? I may agree with you on some points if you have something tangible, but I can’t honestly think of anything.</p>
<p>
dartmouth does not have an undergrad business school. How could this possibly be a factor?</p>
<p>
No, I don’t use the word in real life. I used it here because it’s more accurate as far as describing one’s physical features DEVOID of clothing style/accessories, etc. It describes one’s existence in natural form. Some people can be “good-looking” or “hot” if they just dress themselves the right way and are fit but not necessarily beautiful. Also, so what if the word has feminine connotations? Come on now, that’s very nitpicky.</p>
<p>
connections :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you really think B-school kids are going to want to hang out with arrogant undergrads that are 8-10 years younger than them?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s important to remember that tone isn’t present on the internet. Your comment admittedly seemed harsher and more hateful than the caustic remarks that you’ve directed towards me. I’m not trying to attack you here, i’m just trying to make apparent something that you might not have been aware of. But i’ll take your comments as being in bona fide, mostly because i think you’re being honest.</p>
<p>You claim to hate the materialism that you see people display, yet at the same time, you purport yourself to be “beautiful” (a highly subjective, self-flauntiing term; and I say that because posting on what your impression of specific colleges from a gay “conservative” point-of-view in no way involves how you look). </p>
<p>However, it could be said (without too much disagreement) that people who come off as self-flaunting, such that they refer to themselves as “beautiful” through a medium such as this, when one has absolutely no reason to do so, are narcissistic; and often narcissism comes with materialism. You seem awfully similar to the those people you supposedly dislike? </p>
<p>I’m a gay male, who’s socially liberal but generally politically conservative. I don’t comment on how beautiful I am or not (as beauty is subjective and I prefer to not go there) whenever I give my opinions on colleges. See the difference between us here?</p>
<p>Beauty is not as subjective as people would like to believe. The fundamentals of beauty is universal.
[The</a> Truth About Beauty | Psychology Today](<a href=“http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201010/the-truth-about-beauty]The”>The Truth About Beauty | Psychology Today)</p>
<p>As I said before,“beauty” by itself is not related to gayness or conservatism. I mention it here because I just happen to have all 3 traits, the intersections of which has created a very specific identity and perhaps desires/needs in terms of what one looks for in a college. I believe that beautiful people (regardless of their sexual or political orientation) do feel more comfortable in certain settings than others. If you add on to that layer their sexual orientation and politics, the dynamics change and the latter two traits could further influence their choices.</p>
<p>Beauty is quite as subjective as people think. Person A can find X beautiful, while person B finds is hideous and vice versa. While some things may be considered to be “mainstream” beautiful, that’s irrelevant. It’s the case that such and such number of people just happen to find the same things beautiful; this doesn’t mean that beauty is any less subjective.</p>
<p>That said, your continuation as to how “beauty” somehow makes you a different person is even more shallow than it was before. Quite literally, no one really cares. Again, I’ll reiterate, for proclaiming to dislike the stereotypical materialistic person, you come off a lot like one. In fact, had you not claimed otherwise, I would have said you were one. Maybe you need to reconsider who it is that you are, because your attitude most certainly does not display who is it you claim to be; in fact, it portrays, quite well, those with whom you claim you do not associate with and have a particular dislike for.</p>
<p>
omg I just lost it here. Trollololol</p>
<p>Beauty is subjective if you are looking at the MANIFESTATIONS of beauty made possible by material accessories (one guy is preppy, while another is indie, etc) and interaction with CONSUMER culture. This is how people have different “types” they are attracted to. But beauty in its NATURAL form (no clothes, make up, scarves, stylish clothing, etc) is universal. It is <em>NOT</em> subjective. Scientists have actually done experiments to measure commonalities across subgroups/cultures on what people consider beautiful. In any case, I can use whatever term you want (good-looking, attractive, or whatever) but it doesn’t change the fact that in this world, beautiful people ARE treated differently. And sometimes, it CAN affect their college choices and is therefore relevant to consider. Depending on the person, you don’t want to go to a college where you get special treatment and/or are hated for being beautiful.</p>
<p>This is one of the clearest examples of ■■■■■ activity that I’ve read on CC. I suggest that others do not take the OP’s bait and continue to respond for his/her entertainment value.</p>
<p>^^ I’m actually really surprised it’s even gotten this far…</p>
<p>I’m not a ■■■■■…I don’t understand what’s trollish about being beautiful, gay, and conservative? Maybe the same reason you think I’m trollish is what actually made me stand out in the brutal admissions processes at some of these schools (though obviously I did not let on that I was “beautiful”). I’ve been constantly amazed by my classmates, for example, to the point where I sometimes think they’re superhuman :)</p>
<p>Isn’t the stereotype that “beautiful” people are often small-minded, shallow, narcissistic and materialistic? You’re so pompously fully of yourself, I can understand why people aren’t nice to you. I’m sure it’s dreadfully annoying to have to be around someone who think that they’re so beautiful that it matters enough to post it on an online forum where it’s absolutely irrelevant. </p>
<p>While you may be amazed by your classmates, I’m amazed by your na</p>