<p>Concerning why someone might end up as a teacher from an ivy league, the answer may be simply that they love the subject they studied and want to think about it on a day-to-day basis. Tenure-track positions are very difficult to come by even for ivy-level people, so teaching high school may be the only option if they want to continue to live the life of an intellectual. For people in humanities, these may be the only two options available. There are science jobs in industry, but troubleshooting and working in a lab is very different from thinking about theories. There’s a lot of working with one’s hands if you work as a scientist in industry.</p>
<p>Just joking, PG, and I figured you wouldn’t mind. :)</p>
<p>(In reality, I can probably identify only a few Kate Spade bags from a distance.)</p>
<p>You are right that “students of wealth” can be found everywhere, PG. A good friend of mine had joined a sorority at her LAC, then transferred to a larger school. So her sorority affiliation remained the same. However, while the name of the sorority was the same, the social descriptors were rather different, and she thought that she would not have been accepted to the same sorority had she started at the larger school. There were evident differences in finances–again, not that anyone was “flaunting” wealth, just that the middle of the middle class has a bit lower income than people in the top 10% or so might guess. The larger school (not a drool-inducing one on CC) had its share of students whose parents arrived by private jet. She transferred back to the original LAC, happily, after a year.</p>
<p>Juillet (sp)—</p>
<p>In Massachusetts, even elementary school teachers cannot major in “ed”, but must major in a discipline, like English or math. They essentially minor in education in order to obtain a teaching license, or get their license thru a post-baccalaureate program</p>
<p>I’m still at my single letter college reunion, but thought of this thread as the third student address (by a grade student in public policy who was also class of 95) was entitled “In praise of the clip on necktie”. He wears one because he’s a cop and you don’t want to be in a situation where you could be strangled by your tie. I don’t think he wasted his education.</p>
<p>As for the issue of conspicuous consumption - when I was in college dressing down was part of the student culture. I think there was a period in the 1980s and maybe again in the Sex and the City era when showing off stuff was a bit of a fad, but I look around my reunion and I don’t see anyone worry about clothes. While there were wealthy people and a handful of really, really, wealthy people, I knew very very few of them.</p>
<p>I read an article from a student at Yale who was upset that the Education major or masters program was going away. She loved her training there and being a teacher and so did others in the program.
Just thinking back, my son and daughter’s had quite a few teachers that went to Yale, they are were still passionate (a gift) and loved teaching. One went into it a bit later, not following his calling because he felt he was supposed to do something else. Business was okay but he hated it…he actually loves his job now and does summer tutoring. Most never told anyone but it was someone who knew them or part of a bio. One went to Columbia Teaching College and Oxford for a year, he wasn’t her best teacher but he helped a lot of students with college prep and what to do.</p>
<p>I never thought about it being a “step down” and I hope others don’t think they have to fit a certain mold because of where they went to school. Good teachers come from all over and we need more of them.</p>
<p>My daughter who is at Yale was talking about being a midwife/nurse and a student said, “You’re at Yale, be a doctor” She paused and said, “I’m not sure of my direction, but I don’t want to be a doctor” He looked confused. : ) Sometimes it’s like that.</p>
<p>debruns, ivies are all about the name so the hyper competitive people who choose to apply and attend are going for the name and prestige, so I would not expect a comment like you mentioned about the doctor not to be the normal way of thinking at an IVY. there are many better schools to attend with a much better overall experience then say Harvard, but a different type of student attends those type of schools.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I honestly think that if someone started a thread about being interested in becoming a circus clown, Cobrat would get on board with anecdotes about the various circus clowns he knows from HS days, past college friends, former coworkers/superiors, relatives (who of course span the globe and can be found in any country whenever the need for a generalization arises which this relative can “confirm”), etc. </p>
<p>As to musical instruments in this conversation about “conspicuous consumption goes,” I know nothing of guitars. However, I was originally a music major at college and I can state categorically that a cheap flute sounds incredibly inferior to an expensive flute. I know this because I was the proud owner of a cheap flute. While it was in the shop one day, my flute professor loaned me a gold flute (as in made of) which had been donated to the university. As a worshipper of James Galway “Man with the Golden Flute,” I was astounded that this instrument would be trusted to a lowly freshman. My God, I couldn’t believe how much better my tone was with this flute. The action was easier, so I could play difficult material with greater ease. I HATED to give that flute back after my recital. It had nothing to do with with the brand or cost of that instrument, but with the quality. I’m guessing that an expensive guitar is just going to sound better than a cheapy, regardless of the talent of the musician. If you are a serious musician, you are going to want the best quality instrument your money can buy, and usually, that is associated with a brand name.</p>
<p>As to the OP, he has been told that the Ivies might be comprised of only 35% full pay students, which makes them vastly in the minority. So it seems to me that this trouble “fitting in” for the less financially fortunate is largely a fiction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>With acoustic guitars, there’s definitely a correlation between price paid and quality as you described.</p>
<p>However, the general consensus I’ve heard from experienced guitarists…including established musicians is the same isn’t always necessarily the case with electric guitars. </p>
<p>Especially considering the general quality of the low-mid end guitars has improved so much within the last 15 years that many experienced guitarists I’ve known IRL and on a guitar forum I frequent are happy to use low-mid-end guitars as their main instruments. Some have even gone so far as to sell off their older higher-end instruments because they found the tone of the newer lower-mid end electric guitars to be better than their older higher-end ones. </p>
<p>It isn’t helped by the fact one well-known brand known for targeting the higher-end segment of the electric guitar market has had some hit-or-miss quality control/workmanship issues which some guitarist friends felt were unacceptable for an instrument retailing for $2200+…especially when those same issues aren’t common in guitars retailing for as little as $200-300.</p>
<p>I’ve also heard about the infamous deterioration in QC/workmanship Fender went through in the '70s and early '80s. According to most who lived through that era or experienced many such guitars, the QC/workmanship on a US made Fender of that era was so hit-or-miss due to worn machines and corporate corner cutting that one had to test play dozens of guitars to find a decent/good one. </p>
<p>It’s a factor in why the '70s era Fenders still have some stigma associated with poor QC/workmanship among those who lived/experienced them and to them is proof price doesn’t always == quality. Especially when that era factored into many younger guitarists to move to import brands like Ibanez which were not only much more inexpensive than Fenders back then, but increasingly perceived as having better QC/workmanship.</p>
<p>1959 stratocasters sound pretty epic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I see this thread is still alive.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think it may be more likely that ivy leaguers that come from upper middle class to high class backgrounds are more likely to become teachers than people who come from lower class backgrounds. When you grow up with money, it may not be such a big deal to pass up careers that are more likely to be lucrative. It might not be a conscious choice from the beginning, but for instance, a student from an upper class background may major in Romanian literature, go to grad school in it, then find that they can’t get a faculty position but still want to teach. So they might end up a very qualified high school teacher. </p>
<p>I’ll add, though, that many of these teachers from the ivy league end up at the better high schools. The pay is not necessarily more, but the students are typically more engaged and many times the curriculum is more advanced–that is, it is more like teaching a college class.</p>
<p>That might be true, I agree, but the teachers from Yale, Columbia and the one who did a year in Oxford in my town, all taught at a large urban public schools in our neighborhood. The one who went to Oxford, then Columbia said he couldn’t tolerate the kids at the rich private he taught at earlier, (a neighborhood he himself grew up in at one time) they didn’t really need the help, the parents helicoptered the entire time, they felt entitled, etc. they had money for tests, trips,etc. but yes, I’ve seen many pass up “free tuition” to teach at urban public schools because they wanted the easier students (in their mind)at private or the suburbs.</p>
<p>Yes, you have to know your environment with schools, but many break the pattern, that’s what makes life interesting. : )</p>