<p>I think Northstarmom has it right. Most college friendships will be based on mutual interests and activities. The other thing not yet mentioned is that opposit (or same I suppose) sex attraction is not likely to be based on money.</p>
<p>It's hard to imagine Harvard kids looking around campus for kids with similar net worths to befriend.</p>
<p>Yes, indeed - and Reed ranks in the top 5 in need-based grants-in-aid per student attending.</p>
<p>"It's hard to imagine Harvard kids looking around campus for kids with similar net worths to befriend."</p>
<p>Are you sure? I thought that's what the more elite finals clubs were mostly about? Isn't that precisely what Douthat's most recent book is about? (But I could be wrong - while I've had close friends there, I obviously never attended myself.)</p>
<p>zagat, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is exactly what happens, at least with the well-off students. honestly, the kids from greenwich date other kids from greenwich (or park avenue, or lake forest, or marin county). i'm not sure what its like for the "rest" of the student body. however, i can say that it is rare to see people dating outside of their race, which can at times give at least some indication of a person's economic background.</p>
<p>actually, dating exclusively within one's social circle is much less surprising to me than basing friendships on similar criteria. regardless, both happn regularly...</p>
<p>Mini, from what I understand, the finals clubs at Harvard represent a very small minority of the student body. By most accounts, their existence is disparaged by many there, and members of those clubs are not representative of the student population at large.</p>
<p>re: extracurriculars as the great equalizer. i'm not sure how true this is. of course, several campus organizations have very diverse memberships (student council and, to a lesser extent, the school newspaper immediately spring to mind). however, a combination of factors make some of these groups the most self-segregating on campus.</p>
<p>take sports. you've got the huge, money-making sports like football and basketball that have relatively diverse rosters. but then you have crew, squash, tennis, lacrosse and others that are made up largely of kids from either bonafide prep schools or affluent publics that might as well call themselves andover for the exclusivity local real estate prices provide. </p>
<p>then look to singing and dancing groups. so many of them break down along ethnic lines. there's kuumbah, the black gospel singing group, an asian-dance group etc. i suppose one could say such organizations "celebrate" diversity, but at what cost?? from the members i know of the more "elite" acapella groups (and i only know a few so i could be misinformed), i've gathered that they are composed mostly of wealthy kids who were lucky enough to be trained in music through childhood.</p>
<p>anyway, sorry to play devil's advocate. but i do think there is a tendency at harvard, with its hundreds of clubs and extracurriculars, to find a miniature niche of individuals who are astoundingly similar to you and rarely break out of that mold.</p>
<p>hmm, how to explain the finals clubs. there are 8 officially recognized clubs, all of them exclusively male. each year, the clubs initiate about 20 members each. so out of 800 guys in each class at harvard, 160 or so join a club. so that's 20% (give or take according to the year) of the male population (excluding frosh) right there.</p>
<p>a club scene that only included 10% of the entire student body might be considered miniscule. however, a huge perk of club membership is inviting the college's more "aesthetically pleasing" females into the imposing mansions smattered around the square. so in reality, you've got 1/5 of the school's guys belonging to these clubs and a very healthy portion of the girls clamoring to enter them every weekend.</p>
<p>and don't forget the female finals clubs. there are two popular ones at the moment, probably with 120 or so girls between them. one just got a house of its own in the square (a real beauty). and these two (especially the bee) are just as elitist as there male counterparts. </p>
<p>but of course, there ARE alternatives to the finals club scene that are much more egalitarian.</p>
<p>cswim, are you sure it isn't just your group? Black female Harvard grad here, from the dark ages, who married a white follow student from of all places, Greenwich.</p>
<p>Certainly I'm not a student but I do visit several time a year as a participant of committees and interact with students of all stripes. I continue to see very diverse groups. I know many wealthy kids who bend over backwards to play down their wealth as did many of my college friends. Surely you will see people everywhere in life who are more comfortable with their mirror image. I fail to think it's a significant number of those who make it to Harvard today.</p>
<p>There was much more of a pecking order at Yale Law School. Most popular group? The very smart. Everyone wanted to be their friend and be in their study group. Absolutely no care where you came from by that stage.</p>
<p>"The rich are different from you and me. . ."
Like a few others here, I had the experiece of being a dining hall worker at a preppy/greek dominated school. There were a few of those "oh, her--she works in the 'dining hall,'--and looks it, too. . " (What, sweat and hairnets aren't cool?) and "Pity you have to work" comments. The first time I called Mom crying, but soon got over it. The friends that kept in touch after college were mostly dining hall co-workers. Scholarships/dining hall job got me through school debt free, though I had nothing to spare and signed over my checks directly to the school. My impression of rich kids at that time (and they couldn't help it they were raised that way) was that they were spoiled, rude, immature, and inconsiderate of others--the kind of people who left their messes for others to clean up. And then retreated into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever. . .</p>
<p>My friend went to an ivy (20+ years ago), and it was similar. He was called a "GD" (geographic distribution)--it was known that standards were slightly lower for GDs, so this was a putdown, and got the "Can't play with the big boys, can you?" taunt from the prepsters. Though he was befriended by the "son of a famous person," and spent Thanksgiving with him once, the friendship didn't last--probably because of a lack of $ to travel, go to expensive clubs, do those things--drug du jour-- that were part of that lifestyle. There was a lot of "what company is YOUR daddy president of?" --trying to classify people to see if you're their kind. My friend's dad was mentally ill and unemployed, but he was too ashamed to say that, so he told people his dad was a "Mystic." Rich people just don't like to hang around with someone who is always worried about not being able to afford something--or having to "borrow" money to do it. Friend's impression of the rich: they are ruthless. Preps: immoral, decadent. However, there was another son of one of the wold's wealthiest families who was very humble, geeky, wore nothing but polyester thrift shop clothes. . .
My friend did have an opportunity to travel twice with students who were 1st generation Americans--staying with their relatives on budget trips to Europe and Asia, so that type of "mixing" was an advantage. In general, though, I would say that classes don't mix. Mostly it is an issue of lifestyle, common experiences. Don't blame poor kids for lack of confidence--do we ask if the rich have "confidence" to approach poor kids? We all want friends we can relate to.</p>
<p>On the flip side, an ivy is where these "sons and daughters of famous people" can go and fit in. In a way, I feel sorry for them. How do they know if their friends are true friends, or just "wow, your dad is X!" or "wow, you're a famous actress!" There are so many of these people in the ivys that students are much more low key about it, and they can find others who can relate to that special burden of fame and wealth.</p>
<p>kirmum, i'm not sure when you were in college and don't wish to offend by taking a guess. but i think there are two trends to explain why there may be more of a class issue at harvard today than in the past:</p>
<p>1) the student body has, on the whole, become more affluent. today's harvard may not compare to that of the 1940s, when everyone came from choate and exeter, but it has been said that it is closer to that model today than it has been for many decades. no need to go into this any further as i'm sure you've read all about it. but perhaps the increasing number of wealthy kids and declining number of middle-class students widens the gap between the different classes.</p>
<p>2) it seems that the philosophy of the day is "if you've got it, flaunt it." i've read that finals clubs were terribly unpopular during the late 60s, early 70s as they were seen as distasteful signs of wealth and an old world order. my guess is that the early 90s also hurt their popularity, what with the grunge counterculture (such as it was) shunning materialism. but it seems to be back in a big way. witness the growth in popularity of sororities and female finals clubs on campus. so, students may have been a bit more low-key about their wealth back in the day, but such behavior seems to have given way to showing off...</p>
<p>Atomom, on one hand you claim the rich kids treated everyone who wasn't rich badly and then you speak of your friend being invited to mix who some of the wealthy at family homes in Europe. That kind of invitation suggests real relationships.</p>
<p>As I wrote yesterday, in my experience, hesitency to mix is greater on the part of some from modest backgrounds. It really does boil down to confidence. If you feel inferior or have a chip on your shoulder, it's difficult to hide. Let's face it, many are in awe of the rich and give interaction much more thought than the other way around.</p>
<p>Kirmum, what do you think of "Jack and Jill"? <a href="http://www.jack-and-jill.org%5B/url%5D">www.jack-and-jill.org</a></p>
<p>Back in my day, the early 80s, there were still tons of top boarding school kids and finals clubs were fairly popular. I actually think there is a much more diverse group today then there was then. Much to the dismay of many of my classmates, you can no longer buy your child a seat at Harvard unless you are of unusual wealth. Back then, those merely wealthy and slightly connected could still be fairly certain of admission.</p>
<p>My daughter is looking at schools like Choate and Exeter. We've gone out of our way to see how blacks and for that matter all types of kids, are accepted at those schools. We've spoken to numerous families and really do believe, even at these supposed bastions of wealth, there is a very diverse population today.</p>
<p>I have a daughter who will starting Columbia as well and a son at UCSD. Of these three kids, I think the one at the least diverse school is my son at the public college. There are few poor kids and few upper middle class (much less wealthy), only a small percentage of blacks and an over representation of Asians. They are almost all from California. This is the child I'm afraid isn't seeing the world and doesn't have the opportunity to socialize among many classes.</p>
<p>Kir, I'm curious: what would you say someone should look for when visiting a school to get a measure of how much interaction and/or acceptance there is between various racial and income groups?</p>
<p>
[quote]
It really does boil down to confidence
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Agree kirmum. Some are born with a preternatural confidence. I was born with it. More **** than sense sometimes. Likewise, my S2 was born thinking he was 35 years old. My FIL has it too, a true Horatio Alger, from the ashes of abject poverty to top 1/2% of career and income.</p>
<p>Agree with mini that it may be that upper middle class kids mix more easily, but some, like my FIL, transcend all classes with ease. </p>
<p>Disagree with zagat about links between wealth and sexual attraction. I'm not a sociologist, but I believe the majority of studies indicate that women do factor in the man's ability to be a good provider (ie; wealth adds a big bonus to a man's attractiveness) while men avoid women with higher educational/income status.</p>
<p>"anyway, sorry to play devil's advocate. but i do think there is a tendency at harvard, with its hundreds of clubs and extracurriculars, to find a miniature niche of individuals who are astoundingly similar to you and rarely break out of that mold."</p>
<p>I think that most people hang around with others who have lots in common with them. One of my roommate's roommate home was so lavish that when a movie star came to her city, her family got to host him. My boyfriend's single parent family lived above a store in the ghetto of a big city.</p>
<p>I hadn't realized how well off my roommate was until a few years after graduating, I moved to her hometown and her family invited me over to Christmas dinner with "a few friends." The evening started with about 40 of us singing carols accompanied by the organ in their foyer. Dinner was cooked and served by a maid. Afterward, at least 20 more "friends" came over for dinner including the mayor, a federal judge and a state judge who later became mayor.</p>
<p>When we were in college, I knew that my roommate didn't work and didn't have any scholarships, and would fly off to Caribbean vacations during school breaks. My boyfriend had to work, and when he went home to Baltimore, took Greyhound. I had scholarships and worked during the school year and summer, and when I could afford to fly home instead of busing it, felt very lucky.</p>
<p>I don't remember knowing anyone in college who was among the super wealthy. I also don't, however, remember any people with money putting down others. </p>
<p>In the EC activities that I did -- the school newspaper, radio station and community service organization -- skills and passion were of great importance. Money wasn't.</p>
<p>As for the final clubs, I never had any interest in them. Sounded silly and boring to me.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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
[/quote]
More 30+ year-old info. My (former) H was a "scholarship" student at Harvard back when those words meant something. His family lived in public housing (white family), he had a work-study job cleaning rooms and toilets, etc. etc. as part of his full-ride. He "mixed and mingled up and down the social spectrum" easily BUT there was a ceiling: no way was he going to be in a final club or mix with that stratum. Below that, yes. No distinctions between him and classes all the way up to the upper-middle.</p>
<p>Now, my question is, when today's 100% need student from St. Paul's, Exeter, Miss Porter's, etc. shows up at Harvard, can THEY get into the final clubs and the uppermost stratum? Is it the money, the full-bore pedigree, or can the "partial" pedigree of the preppy private school now get them there?</p>
<p>Carolyn, when my daughter announced her desire to attend a boarding prep, I had no idea what we'd be in for. We got the names of many families and children at the different schools. She has done overnights with other black girls at each of the schools she is applying to. We have together gone to meals and events at each school. I have spoken to many parents. </p>
<p>Dstark, don't know Jack and Jill but will check it out.</p>
<p>I have a big promblem with the idea of the rich being so different. My life has taken me through many social classes. I haven't noted big differences along the way.</p>
<p>Jack and Jill is an organization where educated and successful African Americans get together, socialize, network, and find mates.</p>
<p>Kirmum, I agree with you. People aren't different. It's their behavior towards other social classes that can be different. People can be exclusionary.</p>
<p>Kirmum, Just listing some general impressions, personal experiences--didn't say or mean to imply that all rich kids treated "everyone" badly. Also, I didn't say that the "1st generation" students my friend traveled with on "budget" trips were wealthy. (They were immigrants, not foreign students--more middle/upper-middle class). This was the "going back to the old country, sleeping bags on the floor of granny's cottage" experiences, not the "summer vacation with euro friend, room service at daddy's villa" experiences. Still, they were unique experiences, and ones that indicate relationships among people of somewhat different classes and ethnic groups.</p>
<p>Mixing across classes can only work at the discretion of the richer person. (Imagine hoards of wealthy people trying to get into Commuter U. so they can slum it with the poor--with the hope that some super poor person will befriend them and take them home for the weekend to mom's single-wide where they can eat grits. . .) Poor people are in the inferior position and the rich generally don't seek out their company. That's why they call them "climbers," "moochers," and a few other things. . .
A big reason so many people want to go to elite schools--and want to know if their middle class kids will really mix with the rich there-- is to get a taste of, and later--through job/social connections or marriage--possibly attain that lifestyle.</p>