I think this bears re-posting.
https://digitalsynopsis.com/inspiration/privileged-kids-on-a-plate-pencilsword-toby-morris/
Let’s not forget they come in with $$$$ so even if they fail a class, a semester, a year no big deal!
I’ve seen it in action.
I was talking with a group of friends the other day about our kids’ job prospects. Every one of these upper middle class families had helped their kids find summer internships through family connections. Medical internships, law internships, business, and so on. In cases where the internship was unpaid the family had the means to financially support their child, meaning that instead of having to scoop ice cream or work at the Gap they could be doing something that would be a resume builder. Of course the kids will still have to perform, but the point is that they were able to get a foot in the door where a less connected kid could not. Mine found her summer opportunity on her own but had a backup through family connections.
As to academic support, I’ve seen it all. Parents advising kids on which professors’ classes to take for a GPA boost, doing community service which gets credited to their kids, proofreading papers, paying for neuropsychs to facilitate accommodations, helping them with money or advice or paperwork, paying for summer courses so they could graduate on time. The list goes on. In some case it’s just a parent being supportive. In some it’s a naked effort to give their child an unfair advantage.
Many are painting with VERY broad brushes in this thread. There is real entitlement on both sides of this argument. There are plenty of students on both sides that want some type of hand out or break. And there are some on both sides that work their tails off.
Charles Murray wrote about this general phenomenon in the book “Coming Apart: The State of White America”.
You can’t really expect that those who prosper as a result of education will not try to admonish their kids to follow the same recipe, seemingly at the expense of those not in on the game.
Simply … You would rather hail from Belmont than Fishtown.
The trope about rich kids and their parents is getting tired and boring. And no more accurate than most other such generalizations.
I’m confused, what’s so wrong with students partying in college if they are still maintaining good grades and participating in extra curicualars?
^If you have any serious interest, the book is well worth reading:
The book isn’t arguing against partying or denigrating affluent students. It does point out how many students, not “in the know,” are disadvantaged by the party culture and Greek culture at a particular university.
There was a thread on this book. We could do another. If posters read the book.
OUCH.
I guess that is the main point of the book. That these universities have shifted from supporting their low income instate students to catering to the wealthy out of state students who want the climbing walls and Greek life and such.
The U in the book is not one we hear much about on CC and the book,as i recall, made a big distinction between this type of U and the more selective ones with resources to help all their students and also “equalize” the experience in some ways (great financial aid, maybe no loans, everyone lives in similar housing w/similar meal plans, there aren’t extra fees for clubs or whatever). It also points out that the lower income kids did better when they left and went to CCs or regional Us.
@barrons is there anything in particular that is bothering you? We are speaking in general terms so of course generalizations will occur.
@OHMomof2:
“That these universities have shifted from supporting their low income instate students”
It’s a shift, but it’s not a shift from supporting to not supporting. It’s more a shift from the German/Canadian public uni model (little/no tuition for anyone, sink-or-swim for everyone with pretty much no support for anyone, meaning a fairly high drop out/transfer rate as well*) to a model where courting full-pays is important. If anything, low-income in-state students now have more support services and goodies than back in the day, though they also have to take out more loans.
- And the party culture at these public flagships have existed for a looooong time. It's not like these were all serious students and then the parties got wild when the school (typically due to cutbacks in state government funding) started recruiting full-pay OOS students.
The authors hadn’t intended to write this book. Originally they were looking at sex on campus. They were surprised by class differences in educational outcome. As a long ago affluent, sorority girl, state flagship graduate, the book challenged many of my preconceptions. It is worth reading. imho.
One of the problems seemed to be working class students not understanding easy majors like events planning and hospitality and fashion merchandising didn’t lead to jobs that paid more than they would make with only a high school degree, if they could even get a job in those fields, and then they had to pay back their college loans. (I can’t remember all the easy majors) The working class students had no way to know they were not receiving decent advising. How could they know? They were getting expert advice as far as they and their parents were aware.
Those easy majors worked out fine for the affluent students. Why? connections.
I dont think wealthy attractive young women are planning a long career in merchandising. If you get my drift.
^ actually that’s exactly what the authors discovered. Hence the parents’ emphasis on fitting in, having the right brands/contacts/friends, etc. The parties ensured social life that gave access to the environment where the proper ‘habitus’ would be gained, leading to the proper internships, leading to the proper professional environment in which to find an appropriate mate.
Parents ‘paid for the party’ on purpose.
Yes!!. - And working class women were shut out in that environment.
So what are the solutions?
The authors’ suggestions are in the article above. It is against the rules here to quote that much text.
They want schools to avoid taking out of state and international kids because they create demand for the party pathway demand. What about wealthy in-state kids? Don’t they take the party pathway too?
They want to provide affordable tuition and generous financial aid. But taking fewer OOS/international kids (who tend to be full pay) will mean less revenue to the school which will make affordable tuition and generous financial aid more difficult. Taking fewer full pay OOS/International kids (without either other additional funding or spending cuts) would result in higher costs for remaining students which may result in kids who can now afford the school not being able to do so (taking longer, dropping out, taking on debt, etc.).
They want to seriously crack down or eliminate greek life. Not sure exactly what they would want to crack down on to address the problems noted in the study. How many colleges have greek life which exceeds 50% of the student body? What are all of the other kids doing for social lives? And without greek life, won’t the party pathway kids find other ways to get together and party?
They also note that Greek life has members who donate heavily to their alma maters. Cracking down/eliminating greek life likely reduces those donations. More reductions in revenues (making providing affordable tuition and generous financial aid more difficult).
They want to scale back athletics. Well at least they want something that will reduce costs. How much of a difference that will make depends on the school though.
They want to get rid of easy party pathway majors. How are those defined and who gets to define them? Seems to me that at most state schools, you will find a broad range of smarts in terms of the student body. What is a challenging major for one kid may be an easy one for others. How should those be addressed?
They want to build up the mobility pathway with better advising and well-taught transferable courses. That will vary by institution. I know of several state schools with additional advising for first gen and minority students. I think that schools owe all students at least some financial counseling in terms of what given majors mean in terms of jobs. Wealthy kids (I don’t recall seeing a definition of that in the article – was there one?) tend to need that less but not always. Transferable courses? To where? And for what major? Kids can go to a lot of different places. What do schools do to insure that credits they award will transfer to other colleges?
They want to ban legacy admissions. Not sure how important those are to most state schools. Though no doubt they are a target of many as a evil of the college admission process.
They want to make entry into selective programs more flexible and widely available. So get rid of easy majors and make it easier to get into others? Seems contradictory to me. And making programs more widely available may have negative impacts on salaries and job opportunities.
They also want professors to schedule more Friday classes to deter partying on Thursday nights. Really? Strikes me that the authors of the study didn’t get invited to parties when they were in college, hated sports and either didn’t get into the sorority of their choosing or one at all.
Also known as roundup the usual suspects. Why bother with a crappy non repeatable study to state your biases??? Not to mention at many flagships the best students are from OOS and internationals.