Coping with the socio-economic divide between kids

<p>^^Yup, those Main Line facts are exaggerated in popular book series Pretty Little Liars. Ugh, so trashy/materialistic.</p>

<p>As to OP’s question, I think it is important to realize that unless you are Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or similar, there is always someone with more money than you. So if showing off your money is what you want to compete at, you will likely lose (unless you are then next Mark Zuckerberg or similar and will become a billionaire). In our big country, very few are in that league. If your classmate is a billionaire or even just a multimillionaire, don’t compete at that level. Envy of material goods is chasing a paper tiger anyway. Even if you eventually get alot, things are not what will make you happy.</p>

<p>I also think it is somewhat unrealistic to expect that the scion of fabulous wealth will drive an old used car or consider a part time job for spending money. The trust fund income alone could be more than the average salary of many. Occasionally, you do meet a child of the very wealthy who don’t care about money, but this is really rare. When I was a young lawyer in a large law firm, I ran across one such person, once. Yes, it will not be my reality or perhaps yours, but it is their reality.</p>

<p>So here is my question. Who gets to decide what is too much to give a child? My Ds drove a hand me down Lexus SUV for many years. They needed a car to drive to school. This one was 8 years old, had a 150k miles and was available. But, from the outside it was in good shape and looked pretty ritzy.</p>

<p>At their BS where the average income is rather high it was too old to be percieved as a particularly fancy car. In the town where we live, most kids take the bus, and a Lexus is a fancy car. So are my kids snooty and spoiled at home, and modest, if not deprived at school? Who gets to decide? Are Hunter boots OK but Tori Burch flats too spoiled? Or is it only OK if your footwear does not exceed the national average of the cost of shoes. I set my personal limits for my children, and they understand those limits, but those decisions are not influenced by what others choose to do.</p>

<p>I am not going to judge what others choose to buy their children, and I don’t others to judge my kids by what I choose to buy them. Is it harder to raise grounded kids from a position of wealth? Probably. But the knee-jerk if they have money they must be evil and clueless reaction is not a very realistic either. I thought the only one who clearly sounded bratty, spoiled and materialistic in that linked article was the author.</p>

<p>@Sevendad - comment was on the article - not intended to be a comment on your post.</p>

<p>Well…I think that it’s not so much that Hunter Boots are okay and Tori Burch flats are excessive. The divide is more between people for whom Hunter Boots and Tori Burch flats are a viable choice and people like me who don’t even know what the heck those labels are (though I’m going to do a little online window shopping tonight!); even LL Bean is out of my price range unless I’m in the outlet. Not trying to come off as reverse snooty here–just pointing out that the divide goes deeper than you might realize, and that, yeah, it all sometimes looks pretty excessive from my side of the railroad tracks.</p>

<p>However, I don’t think my kid–who carries around a tracfone and wears preppy clothes (or so I thought!) from thrift stores–feels out of place because his parents aren’t even affluent enough to buy him an iphone. (or, okay, apparently that last item makes him feel out of place–still looking for a reason why?)</p>

<p>For the most part, I think my kids realize that what we gave them that they really value is what money could not have bought them–our time, our genuine interest in their lives, our dinner conversations, our unconditional love and support. So my take is that money doesn’t have much to do with what keeps kids grounded, one way or the other–as long as money’s not used as a substitute for the above. </p>

<p>On the other hand, it has undoubtedly made my kids more grounded when they’ve had to work hard to make their own money–mowing lawns, weeding gardens, working carpentry jobs. Again, though, I know people wealthier than I who expect that from their kids. Their kids might have nicer clothes, sports equipment and electronic gadgets than my kid, but it doesn’t seem to affect their attitude toward others.</p>

<p>@classicalmamma: Shaking my head on the iPhone thing. DS is known as a tech whiz and die-hard Apple fan (had to PM advisor when Steve Jobs died as he was DS hero and taking it hard), but he recently switched from iPhone to Android. We thought hell had frozen over. After listening to (snooze) the arguments and hearing him go back and forth with friends of the other persuasion over Parents Weekend, I can only tell you that it’s like religion and you should, at best, just nod your head and feign interest. If you really want your kid to choose Android, PM me and maybe we can hook our kids up. I can guarantee you DS could pursuade Steve Jobs to switch to Android. I’m sure life was easier when all we worried about was getting an extra extention for our “Princess” phones.</p>

<p>…and @classicalmama, I’m totally behind you on “…what we gave them…money could not have bought them”. Bravo. I’m not sure any further discussion of economic divide is even important.</p>

<p>Amen. Give them your time - they know it means something. </p>

<p>on a more prosaic level, I’m all in favor of the idea that the kids should buy their stuff with money they earn. Can’t always make it happen 100%, but there is a kind of deep lesson there, and it takes us out of the losing game of wondering whether it’s okay to give this but not that And when you do decide to give them a present, whatever it may be, it’s a real present.</p>

<p>I’ve indoctrinated my child with my view; the non-wealthy kids should be (secretly) proud to have thrived in what we like to think is a meritocracy–they gained admission, received lots of financial aid, and survived in this expensive environment. I’ve seen anecdotal evidence that some of the financial aid kids think they must be smarter than the full-pay kids because the school is giving them aid. I haven’t figured out if this is true.</p>

<p>Maybe not true that they are smarter, but undoubtedly true that they have fewer options. Kids on major FA know they’ve been given their chance, and that if they screw it up, it’s back to life in Dullsville. That can definitely shape and sharpen their work ethic–though occasionally I think it can also lead to anxiety/pressure that overwhelms them. </p>

<p>Thanks for the perspective on the i-phone fervor, ChoatieMom. :)</p>

<p>islfan: I don’t know if FA kids in general need to be “smarter” than full pay, but I do think they need better stats for admission and need to maintain better grades - within reason. And during a recent three-way transaction I had between a full pay parent, a faculty member and myself, the full pay parent clearly felt more comfortable making demands about transport than I did or ever will. So I guess it’s not so much the metrics of difference as the psychology of it that make a difference for FA kids. Does this make sense?</p>

<p>The latter point about not feeling comfortable complaining makes sense. The first point does not. Often, FA kids do not have “better stats” because they have not enjoyed the same number of opportunities to shine and be well educated before 9th grade. But they do have the IQ, they do have the curiosity and ambition and they do have the appreciation of the boarding school opportunity. It’s refreshing.</p>

<p>Thacherparent: agree in theory but not reality. The acceptance rate for full pays is much higher at almost all the schools. Therefore, it stands to reason that the FA pool is more competitive and schools can be more selective. When an FA candidate applies they are more likely to gain acceptance at the schools they consider “safety” than “reach.” The numbers tell the story. Of course FA kids have the same IQ and fewer opportunities, but it’s still more competitive for them.</p>

<p>WCMOM1958: I don’t know if I’m qualified to comment on whether you’re right about a FA parent not wanting to complain so I won’t. But I’m sure I wouldn’t complain because in all except the most extreme of circumstances, I’m philosophically opposed to it, full-pay, financial aid or not. The other point I would make is that many FA families like us are very well-educated, just not financially successful enough to afford these gargantuan tuitions.</p>

<p>Good point, islfan: “I wouldn’t complain because in all except the most extreme of circumstances, I’m philosophically opposed to it, full-pay, financial aid or not.” As an educator, I know how complex the business of education is and am just not a complainer. But it did strike me that I was more circumspect about the situation than my full-pay counterpart and I wondered, perhaps wrongly, if that was due to our different statuses. Or perhaps my lack of BS experience and the fact that I am completely dazzled by all that is offered means that I’m more starstruck :).</p>

<p>I stated my point really poorly. WCmom, you’re exactly right and I agree with you, as I do with islfan.</p>

<p>Two things:

  1. don’t try to keep up
  2. realize that all that wealth may be hiding a dysfunction at home.</p>

<p>My D learned early that some of the haves are actually have nots in some important areas. Some of the unhappiest kids are the ones who are drowned in “things” and cash but whose homes hide:</p>

<ol>
<li>divorce, spousal cheating, abuse</li>
<li>parental drug and/or alcohol use, addiction</li>
<li>lack of attention, parenting, love. </li>
<li>raised by nannies or raised themselves.</li>
</ol>

<p>But even if that is not the case, my daughter found some nice kids - including some whose families have planes and pilots, summer homes, expensive trappings - who are down to earth and don’t flash about their wealth. Those who do are considered crass. So she hangs out with the kids for whom money is a tool, but not a crutch and it’s working out well. She doesn’t try to keep up, they don’t put her in situations they know she couldn’t afford. For those who do have unlimited funds, she’s been teaching common sense rules (like not counting out $1,000 in full view on a public bus) which I find hilarious. Everyone in her inner circle seems to have reached an equilibrium and for that I’m grateful. :)</p>

<p>Let’s remember that socio-economic divide issues exist at ALL high schools, though it is admittedly more extreme at BS. It’s a life lesson for kids to learn how to deal with this.</p>

<p>My observation was that the kids at my D’s school dealt with the diversity well. They knew who had money and who didn’t but it was more like - he’s probably on FA, but he’s a really talented sitar player. She’s here because she’s a nationally ranked ultimate Frisbee player. He’s a legacy but has really great hair. Everyone had a unique reason for being there and they all seemed to get along well.</p>

<p>However, though I found almost every kid to be wonderful, the parents were another matter entirely. Many were much more aware of the social standing of certain kids and were willing to act upon that knowledge. For example, many parents were blatantly interested in junior making good connections and would “encourage” friendships with certain kids. We are firmly middle class and not A-listers in anyway and that cut down on certain invites. (Thank God) Interestingly, my daughter did get invites from the so called A list. Perhaps there was parental influence behind this since my D was a good student and is not tolerant of princess-like behavior and so might be considered a good influence.</p>

<p>Also, the school itself exasperated the problem by picking trustees primarily from the moneyed class. The big donors were invited to special events where they were treated to a performance by the select choir (who could see for themselves which kid’s parents were in that group.) However, kids have an innate sense of fairness and were righteously outraged if they perceived, right or wrongly, that a trustee’s child was treated more leniently than everyone else.</p>

<p>Something I’ve been thinking about with regard to this thread is “When did I first become conscious/self-conscious of class myself?”</p>

<p>I would guess around 8th grade is about right.</p>

<p>At S’s school, particularly amongst the guys, swagg seems to be the currency de jour. Some very financially privileged kids spend countless hours, memorizing Drake and Common lyrics in the mirror, whether on campus or in homes the size of the local public libraries. The continuous swapping of videos, images and lyrics on FB speaks directly to this trend. These are the same guys who couldn’t make their way to the corner bodega and back without encountering a problem. It is no doubt they will eventually fall back on the failsafe landings that financial wealth affords. For now, I suppose it’s just nice to pretend.</p>

<p>swagg? Drake? Common? Please explain. I can’t make heads or tails of your post.</p>