<p>Just wondering if the change over the past few years in increased need-based aid available at the ivy league and other highly competitive colleges has changed the mix of students who attend. </p>
<p>Are students at these schools as a whole now considered more down-to-earth, or is there still an elitist or "prep-school" quality that is pervasive on campus?</p>
<p>Wealth =/= elitist.</p>
<p>The one Ivy that I’m very familiar with – Cornell – doesn’t have a “prep-school” quality, perhaps because it doesn’t attract a lot of students who went to prep schools. However, the students in some of its programs, especially engineering and architecture, have every right to claim that they’re an elite group.</p>
<p>I’m just wondering what the OP means by, “the last few years”? Need-based aid has been a progressively indispensable recruiting tool among the ivies for something like siixty-plus years. And, yes, compared to students in attendance at the end of World War II, the mix of students is incredibly different – with the possible exception of Princeton.</p>
<p>johnwesley: I will admit to liking to take a shot at Princeton from time to time, but I don’t think yours is valid anymore. I just looked at Princeton’s and Yale’s recent class profiles, and they are virtually identical in terms of markers like type of secondary school attended. (Both have near 60% from public schools. Yale has slightly more independent day school students, and fewer students from Catholic or other religious schools.) However, a meaningfully larger percentage of Princeton students receive financial aid – 60% vs. 53% at Yale.</p>
<p>Subjectively, I no longer have the sense (as I once did), when I am on the Princeton campus, that I am seeing a student body that’s blonder and more expensively dressed than I would see in New Haven or Cambridge. My wife taught a couple of seminars there a few years ago, and reported that the students were far less preppy than she expected based on what Princeton was like when we were in college.</p>
<p>So, yes, I think the mix of students at Princeton has changed a lot over the years. They still all go to Princeton, of course . . . which means that they are walking around manicured gardens in a setting that’s a fantasy of suburban wealth, and they aren’t taking care to give that I’m-aware-of-my-surroundings vibe. So they are naturally going to look more privileged than students at urban campuses.</p>
<p>What I think has changed is the middle. You have people who could afford full pay and people who qualify for FA. To qualify for FA, a family would need to make below 120-150K. 120K salary maybe high in certain areas of US, but around the NE, it is not enough to save up enough money to pay for 50k+ a year tuition, especially if a family has more than one kid. Families with income of 150k to 300K would need to borrow a lot of student loans or go to lower tier schools where they could get merit money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>$120,000 per year is about the threshold of the top 10% of household income in the US. Which implies that the list price cost of attendance of many universities is unaffordable to a large percentage of households in the US. That the New England states and NY do not have as attractive public universities as the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic, CA, TX, WA, and GA makes it more of a problem for those living in the New England states and NY, although even the public universities’ in-state list prices are unaffordable to a large percentage of households in the US.</p>
<p>I guess what I was wondering was if there is less of a prep school vibe than in the past. Would a kid who was not very materialistic, not into clothes, etc. fit in?</p>
<p>Maggiedog, there’s no generic answer. Yes, of course, there are lots of people who are not materialistic, not into clothes, etc., at all of those colleges, so objectively you will fit in fine. On the other hand, at some of them lots of people ARE into clothes and ARE materialistic, and all of them have a fair number of wealthy, privileged kids. If you aren’t wealthy and privileged yourself (which isn’t the same thing as being materialistic or into clothes), that may make you feel anything from (a) transiently insecure once in a while, but no biggie, to (z) constantly resentful and paranoid that you are being looked down on, despite knowing that’s not really true. If you are toward the (a) end of the spectrum, things will be fine, and if you are toward the (z) end you will want to transfer.</p>
<p>In other words, your question is more about you than about the colleges. It is a couple generations since not being a preppy was a big problem anywhere outside your own head. But if it’s a problem in your head, then it’s a problem.</p>
<p>Only at the very top schools. It’s starting to filter down, but the middle class are still shut out at most private colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is really the crux of it. Plenty of not-wealthy kids are into clothing and status, and plenty of extremely wealthy, old-money preps are wearing grandpa’s hand-me-down cardigan sweater and sis’ old boat shoes. Anyway, what makes someone “elitist”? It sure isn’t money. Elitism is an attitude, not a dollar amount in the bank.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This might be a good question to ask on the forums of individual colleges that interest you.</p>
<p>And if the issue really worries you, you might want to include some of the top public universities (UCLA, UVA, etc.) on your list. At those schools, there will be students from a large range of socioeconomic backgrounds.</p>
<p>You may also find out that you fit in well with people whose socioeconomic background is different from yours. I know of a student from a not-very-wealthy background (the child of two public school teachers) who ended up at a college where she was surrounded by extraordinarily wealthy kids. It never seemed to make a difference except that she had lots of people who could give her rides (she was one of the few people who didn’t own a car). Socially, she fit in just fine.</p>
<p>I live in the northeast in one of the most expensive counties in the US and can assure you that someone making $200,000 a year could easily live in a perfectly nice house and pay for college. They choose not to. I could move to a different town and pay twice as much for my house and pay at least twice as much in taxes, and if I did we wouldn’t be able to afford college for our kids. You make your choices.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even at the publics, the family income distribution varies a lot.</p>
<p>According to this [USNWR</a> table](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools]USNWR”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools), percentage of Pell Grant recipients (from approximately the bottom 40% to 50% of household income families) among what USNWR lists as the “top 25 national universities” (let’s not get into a war over the validity or lack thereof of this ranking, since it is peripheral to the subject, ok?) were (schools mentioned recently highlighted):</p>
<p>UCLA 37%
Berkeley 36%
Columbia 26%
USC (Trojans) 19%
MIT 19%
Emory 19%
…
Cornell 16%
…
Yale 13%
…
Notre Dame 11%
Georgetown 11%
Virginia 11%
Caltech 11%
Princeton 11%
Wake Forest 10%
WUStL 7%</p>
<p>Most of the increase in those receiving “need-based” aid in the past decade has, with some exceptions, been among those in the top 10-20% income range, and are receiving smallish grants. With some exceptions (Amherst, and, earlier, Princeton, though the percentage is still small), the percentage of those receiving Pell Grants (i.e. those in the bottom 40% of the U.S. population) has changed very much. </p>
<p>“However, a meaningfully larger percentage of Princeton students receive financial aid – 60% vs. 53% at Yale.”</p>
<p>This may, or may not be meaningful. Princeton still has (nominally) fewer students on Pell Grants. The big gain is among those in the top 10-20% of the population in income, meaning that they are looking to prevent these students from going over and accepting scholarships at the Vanderbilts of the world.</p>
<p>(Some of the numbers can be fiddled with, as well. The Harvard Pell numbers, for example, include the Extension School; the actual percentage of entering first-year undergrads at Harvard College is closer to 6%.)</p>
<p><a href=“Some%20of%20the%20numbers%20can%20be%20fiddled%20with,%20as%20well.%20The%20Harvard%20Pell%20numbers,%20for%20example,%20include%20the%20Extension%20School;%20the%20actual%20percentage%20of%20entering%20first-year%20undergrads%20at%20Harvard%20College%20is%20closer%20to%206%.”>quote</a>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>mini, I’m afraid you have that backwards. If you take the Extension kids out, the number goes up from 6 to 12 percent, or more if you disregard international students who aren’t eligible for Pell grants. See
[Economic</a> Diversity at Harvard (Continued) - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/05/economic-diversity-at-harvard-cont/]Economic”>Economic Diversity at Harvard (Continued) - The New York Times)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A current student here at one of the schools you’re referring to, and those are the very opposite images from what I know of my friends and classmates in college. In fact, the insinuation that because I chose to attend a top college I’m likely to be preppy, wealthy, and materialistic is borderline offensive. </p>
<p>Whether or not you’re comfortable around people of different socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion and so on has more to do with your own confidence and self acceptance than with the background of other people. Perhaps you should take Marian’s suggestion and post your question to the individual college forums, where you may find student posters who are on full financial aid, work jobs, and can ease your concern that somehow students at top schools are somehow all materialistic and preppy.</p>
<p>“mini, I’m afraid you have that backwards. If you take the Extension kids out, the number goes up from 6 to 12 percent, or more if you disregard international students who aren’t eligible for Pell grants.”</p>
<p>The chart provided had H. at 17% (which is far off, regardless).</p>
<p>The article I linked to explained that the 6% number includes all the Extension students–who shouldn’t be included in the first place, really–and a lot of them aren’t eligible for Pell grants because they’re not seeking a degree. Harvard says, if I recall correctly, that the “real” number is more like 16% if you drop the extension students and internationals. Somewhere around 9% of Harvard students are internationals, and not eligible for Pell grants. Of course, who knows what percentage of those international students are poor.</p>
<p>I think in many ways being a student is a great leveller in terms of the kinds of outward displays of wealth you seem to be talking about. People live in the same places, they eat the same food in the same places, they drag themselves from their beds to the same early morning classes regardless of their parents’ income. There are relatively few opportunities to ostentatiously flaunt your (parents’) money - you might have all the toys, but you have nowhere to put them. </p>
<p>Talking specifically about clothes, I have found that what people wore came under much greater scrutiny at my low income urban public high school than it ever really did at my Ivy League college. The prep-school wealthy, in my experience, have little interest in the aspirational bling that was such an important marker of social status in my high school. But then, they don’t really need to.</p>
<p>I don’t think the elitist/down-to-earth divide is that closely associated with pure wealth. Someone can have a great deal of money and not be elitist in the sense of looking down on people who don’t have money or making sure that everyone knows just how rich they are. And I think, in my experience, that is a key distinction in looking at different people’s experiences of top schools today. </p>
<p>I think in the past there was a sense that the Ivy League schools were clubs from which all but the very wealthy were vigorously excluded, not just because people from other socioeconomic backgrounds straight didn’t have the money to attend, but because their attitudes and values just didn’t fit right - the poor (or even just the not extremely rich) were different and the Ivy League was not their place. Nowadays, I think you don’t see that so much, and perhaps, to some extent that is attributable to the increased aid given to the aspirational middle classes (and it is the upper/middle classes who have been the recipients of this expansion in need-based aid, however much they feel they are being shut out. The truly poor are still for various reasons unlikely to have the opportunity to attend an Ivy League school and so get the aid they could, in principle, have received). Although it is not perfect, there is a now a continuum of wealth, and of the attitudes and values associated with it, which everyone is on, rather than a large group of haves and a tiny number of have-nots that the rich graciously allowed in. </p>
<p>As a Pell recipient, I was aware that the majority of my classmates were richer than me, some more so than others, and our experiences and ways of looking at life were not always quite the same, but while, if you compare individuals with individuals there were some people who were very different to me, and yes, there were people who were preppy and elitist, I never felt that I was so extremely different from my classmates as a whole. I never felt set apart from everyone else, like a curiosity or a performing monkey. I never felt I shouldn’t be there.</p>