<p>cswim06, I appreciate your post. (I appreciate all the posts).
I thought we would see more posts like yours.
Thanks for naming the school.</p>
<p>No downer. We are just reporting what we observe or have observed.</p>
<p>"However, for me, the experience of upper class students who had a wider (or at least different) view of the world, of other places and continents and possibilities - the feeling of confidence that they could go out and do ANYTHING rubbed off on me quite a bit. "</p>
<p>I had a similar experience. A turning point in my life was sitting in the dorm dining room after Christmas break, happily talking about my break visiting my grandmom, who lived a few hundred miles from my house.</p>
<p>I then asked my friend what she did over the break and she commented, "I went to Russia." My jaw dropped. At that point, I had only taken one plane ride in my life. I couldn't imagine going to Russia.</p>
<p>However, I did vow that one day, I would travel extensively out of the country, and I'd also take my kids on trips like that. And as an adult, I have done those things.</p>
<p>The friend -- whose father was a banker -- remains one of my closest friends. Economically, she continues to be in a far higher strata than I am. She inherited money and chose to enter a very lucrative field. However, we still are best of friends -- a friendship based, as all good friendships are -- on mutual interests, not using each other for connections.</p>
<p>I've wondered the same thing as the OP since my son will be going to Tulane next month. When I was at UF, no one seemed to notice who had what. Now, my son says he's already learned to let the rich roll off his back even in high school. He's amused by the way he's become invisible in his summer landscaping job to those in the "gated communities" where he works--some of the same people who can see him quite clearly when they come begging him to fix their computers!</p>
<p>But I wonder whether things have changed at college with a culture that seems so much more possession-driven than it was when I was there.</p>
<p>travel is something that we have really tried to give our kids- unfortunately not so much as a family- it ihas been really hard to get the time and money together, but through trips at schoo.
My older daughters first airplane ride was to Costa Rica with her school, she later went to Canyonlands with her senior class on a two week backpacking trip and to Chicago with CityYear.
Her sister went to Hawaii when she was in 8th grade on a marine biology trip and to NY/DC also in 8th grade.
She has been working to save money for a month long trip to Australia after 10th grade.
Its amazing to me to know that my kids have traveled much farther than I- ( and gratifying in more ways than one)</p>
<p>When it comes to top colleges, at some the majority or close to the majority of students are receiving some kind of financial assistance.</p>
<p>At Harvard, about 70% of undergraduates receive financial assistance (loans, work study), including 48% who get need-based scholarships. At Princeton, about 50% of students get financial aid. 34% of Harvard undergrduates work on campus.</p>
<p>at my school, where the economic strata are in 4 tiers- as the joke goes (1. obscenely rich, 2. rich, 3. affluent upper middle class 4. just well-off). What I notice is that older money students are understated in the wealth, it is the recently acquired wealth where I see it flaunted. I made some very good friends that you would have had no idea that their families were uber-wealthy. It wasn't until we became very good friends, and I was invited to the 'beach house' over spring break( a mansion) or heard that over Christmas break, grandpa flew the entire family of 20 to the super bowl-just how wealthy some of them were. But at school, they just appeared to be normal kids, and can not be seen to be any different than students attending on full scholarships. Of course this is a more extreme example than at large universities where there is a far wider range of economic strata, but at smaller, more homogenous schools, I do not think there is much economic self-segregation.</p>
<p>Interesting topic. The OP implies two questions...one about whether class multiculturalism rubs off while they're there.....and another about whether you become more "class mobile" by having been around others during college.</p>
<p>I think the posts describing self-segregation are generally right, but its also true that people come together over individual interests. The post on race and athletics and music points that out. The same would be true of intense interests in your academic department, or theatre, dance, mountain climbing, etc. There, you'll be around anyone who is equally interested.....so far I haven't heard of the rich kids debate club or the more modest kids debate club. </p>
<p>What does happen, regarding 'connections' for later years, is that if you attend a university full of high acheivers, and which is fairly small, you'll naturally have a "reputation" among your classmates when you leave. It could be any one of a number of things. Hard-working, not too bright. Very bright with stunnning energy levels. Fun-loving with little interest in academics. Keen poker player. High desire for recognition and power. Overly competitive. Terrific concern for others. The whole range. </p>
<p>The point is that some important people get to know you, and not in ways that "the fix is in" if you show up looking for a job or a residency, or to consummate some business transaction. Just in ways that cause the person who was in school with you to have some opinion about you...as Mini does of his roomates. Your behaviour towards the opposite sex is usually noted by many also, and small mental notes are made, usually subconsciously. </p>
<p>All of this is of no moment for the future unless you happen to repeatedly run into people you went to school with later in life. This happens more often at some schools than at others. What does happen, of course, is that it is a much smaller world than any college student imagines, and informal references, both positive and negative, first second and third-hand, come into play. (If I am not mistaken, for instance, Richard Rainwaters association with the Bass brothers began in part because they knew him from school, but I believe that he was from a less well off family than they were.)</p>
<p>THe thread would be a good one to admonish all students to try to treat each other with kindness, tolerance, and respect. In addition to being a nice way to be, it can help you later.</p>
<p>At Brown 25 years ago, there was indeed plenty of affluence. I would agree that the "eurotrash" group self-segregated, but they were not particularly exclusive. Black students also self-segregated (due in part to a minority student orientation that began prior to the arrival on campus of everyone else.) Again, if you wanted to join in you could. The rich kids basically acted & dressed the same as everyone-- but could usually be identified by their vehicles. ;) </p>
<p>Certain social circles were very integrated (racially and economically) and others were less so. Many circles were initially established via dorm relationships, ars endeavors, or sports teams. My particular set of friends ranged from full scholarship URMs to "his grandchildren will never need to work."</p>
<p>What I have found is that the very connected & wealthy kids have risen higher, post graduation, than the others.</p>
<p>From my POV, the spirit of the institution was that we were all one student body; you respected the other students for their intelligence and their myriad talents, regardless of wealth. OTOH, I was from an upper-middle-class home. Had I been from a poor family I might not have felt as much that I belonged. </p>
<p>In any event, Brown was way more integrated than my public suburban HS.</p>
<p>At Harvard, about 70% of undergraduates receive financial assistance (loans, work study), including 48% who get need-based scholarships."</p>
<p>I think you should check that. The difference between the 48% and 70% is not in the loans and workstudy, but in outside, merit-based scholarships. And of the 48% who receive need-based scholarships, 70% of them are in the top quntile (incomes of $85k to $150.) Not a knock on Harvard - most top private colleges and uni's are somewhat similar, relative to the public ones (I don't want to discount the differences among them, but that's another conversation.)</p>
<p>I do have a sense that things are different from when I was in school. As a percentage of family income, costs at private colleges (I figured this out using Amherst as an example) have risen 76% since 1971. Putting aside the truly wealthy, the gap between upper middle class students and poor ones at private colleges is far greater than it was 30 years ago. And one result is that, as a percentage of the student body, the number of poor students (bottom two quintiles) is lower than it was 30 years ago (especially among white students). I know that is true at Williams, where 73% of white students receive no financial aid whatsoever, and I expect that is similar at Yale or elsewhere. </p>
<p>I was in college in a transitional era. The school had just abolished fraternities, many of which were overtly racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic, but hadn't yet down much work to try to figure out how to truly integrate across social classes. But I definitely agree with Momrath that being in such a rural location was a great leveller - there wasn't any place close by to spend a lot of money even if you had it! I don't know much about schools that have eating clubs, finals clubs, or still maintain frats, or how they work. I do know that the "feel" of different campuses is palpable (that's what got me interested in this stuff to begin with - trying to quantify what my d. experienced as qualitative differences when looking at colleges.) </p>
<p>But, you know, all of these experiences are atypical. I truly wonder what is happening at the state universities where the bulk of students go. In many states including my own, they are whiter, and with wealthier students, than at any time in the past 20 years</p>
<p>From Harvard's web site: "Frequently Asked Questions: Financial Aid</p>
<p>Does Harvard offer financial aid?
Yes. About 70% of Harvard students receive some form of financial aid -- grants, loans, and/or part-time work. Our program of need-based financial aid is designed to meet 100% of a family's demonstrated need. Our financial aid policies apply equally to international and U.S. citizens. "</p>
<p>Northstar, Harvard loves to bandy that 70% figure about, but it really means very little. A Crimson article last year pointed out that, coincedentally, 70% of students come from families earning at least $100,000/yr. I'll try to dig that up and supply a link. In general, the campus is VERY upper-middle class.</p>
<p>Blossom, there are certainly wealthy kids at MIT! There are also kids who <em>need</em> that full ROTC scholarship. And a wide range of financial statuses in between. I think the difference at MIT is that most kids at MIT are planning to be engineers of one sort or another, a job that is fundamentally not upper class. (My mother--a terrible snob--considered engineers as people who "worked with their hands" and therefore worthy of contempt.)</p>
<p>I don't know if this is true, but I am noting that that of all the posts, only Carolyn's and mine reflect the experience of lower class white folks at more uppercrusty colleges. And of course, both 30+ years ago.</p>
<p>But this might also suggest that folks from top quintile (but not top 5%) backgrounds ($85-$150k family incomes) find that they can "mix and mingle" up and down the social spectrum far more easily than those at the bottom can (I NEVER had any free cash, and I was far from the poorest student around), or those at the top will.</p>
<p>Just a thought. Could be wrong, too.</p>
<p>I think you are making an accurate observation. The middlings have some amount of discretionary spending money and unless all students agreed to opt for "free" functions or low cost the less financially capable cannot participate UNLESS the middling/greater capabilities offer to pay.....
in my experience there are some folks who encourage their greater capable kids to buy for all or take everyone to dinner on me type of arrangement.....allowing ease of participation for all. I think one thing folks can do is encourage their own students to invite a wide variety of kids to participate........it has always been fun for me whether I paid or not.</p>
<p>well um actually mini- my daughters experience at Reed reflects her experience at a school where they have good aid for lower income students and have quite a range of backgrounds including those who were raised on food stamps and those who have gone to college for generations.
While my oldest has attended private schools K-12- on scholarship, neither my H or I have attended a 4 year school and we are not likely to.
My H works in a factory and no he isn't an engineer ;)
I think it really depends on how you define class
Is it income? Educational status? Does your job definititon define your class?
Writers often make far less than plumbers for instance but I think some would consider them higher class.
Pilots could be considered middle class, but what are they doing really than driving a bus in the sky? :)</p>
<p>It's true that despite the high percentage of students on financial aid, Harvard also has a high percentage of students coming from families making $100,000 or more.</p>
<p>Still, IMO students came together because of mutual interests. There are hundreds of activities on campus, and at most (except for perhaps the final clubs), skill in the activity and passion for the activity are of far more importance than how much money one has.</p>
<p>Pretty sure social class = income, at least in regards to this thread.</p>
<p>Dmd, that was my point. Regardless of the family's income, the MIT experience is a huge leveler,and the type of social distinctions we've observed at other schools don't seem to exist. The fact that it's tough to coast on a "gentleman's C" may be another factor....:)</p>
<p>MIT, however, has 72% of its students receiving needbased grant aid (and a very low percentage coming from private schools) - its profile is very, very different than most of the top private colleges, with students at the lowest end of the "entitlement index" (along with Caltech, RPI, and, though slightly higher, UChicago.) Reed is also toward the lower end among the LACs.</p>
<p>Im sure you have posted before that Reed gives out a higher percentage of grants than some other schools- ( I am not talking about admitting students who qualify for Pell but grants from teh school)
Over half of my daughters finaid package are grants from teh school- and they are actually giving her more this year than her FAFSA EFC- unusual for them I think</p>