<p>I know “preppy” when I see it. I read the handbook. 
</p>
<p>While I very much agree with @woogzmama about the ethos of most prep schools, IMO, “preppy” can be used to denote a certain style of dress and attitude, the way “goth” or “artsy” can be. Not all kids who attend prep school, even preppy, preppy, prep schools are preppy. Not all kids who are preppy attend a prep school.</p>
<p>One of the marks of a preppy girl when I was growing up was that she wore her brother’s hand-me-down Izods and khakis. The dads often drove beat-up station wagons on the weekend. That has largely changed, although many of the preppy brands from that era have endured. Kids may not obsess over preppy brands but they still buy them. Around my neck of the woods these are brands like J. Crew, LL. Bean and Vineyard Vines. At a prom last year at my D’s boarding school the girls all brought an extra pair of flats for when they wanted to shed their high heels. A good 50 percent of the shoes were Jack Rogers sandals. Some of the girls had to try them on at the end of the night to figure out which were theirs.</p>
<p>Just to be clear, I attended prep school (mine was discussed in the original Preppy Handbook), and my kids have all attended prep schools. D is at an extremely preppy school, S’s was much less so, although both were officially prep schools.</p>
<p>I also have to agree with woogzmama about the value of observing social interactions on campus. One of the things that attracted me to S’s college was the way kids seemed to mix it up, both racially and in terms of type. For instance, my S is not an athlete but he counts a couple of varsity athletes among his best friends. I like the fact that kids branch out beyond their “crowd” and it seems to me a mark of comfort and perceived safety.</p>
<p>So did I, and that’s why i asked. If that’s what the OP means by preppy, then I’ll withdraw my recommendation of Earlham. </p>
<p>To understand preppy I can think of no better source than the films of Whit Stillman–grad of the Millbrook School and Harvard. </p>
<p>Any of his films, but particularly Metropolitan. </p>
<p>I haven’t seen those films. Would you give me a thumbnail? </p>
<ul>
<li>sorry for the confusion, when I called him preppy, I meant to say “he dresses preppy” ;)</li>
<li>desert springs looks to be an incredible experience, it’s something I’d have loved. I suspect the reason they have such good placement after two years is that a lot of the kids started out as strong candidates for top schools but oped for the desert. My son is interested but a) I’m not sure how it would work for a chronic insomnia and b) he wants a co-ed institution. </li>
<li>feedback on bennington was very positive. He took a two hour class and loved it, right now it’s his top target school but he didn’t like it enough to take oberlin off the ED list.</li>
<li>feedback on bates to follow.</li>
</ul>
<p>what’s interesting about his search is that he’s not focused on rankings or lists…I’d bet he’s never looked at the us news site as opposed to our first son, who seemed to get caught up in rankings/prestige.</p>
<p>I think that there are variations on the overall “preppy” theme, which get overlooked. Places like Hampshire and Bennington are actually pretty preppy if you are familiar with certain preppy “types.” I suspect that they draw as high a percentage of their students from private secondary schools as any colleges, anywhere. Any college with a high cost of attendance, and limited financial aid, is likely to attract a very privileged student body. Liberal Arts colleges are even likelier to, because their students are less likely to pursue pre-professional studies geared to remunerative careers (although plenty will end up in high-earning positions). The women’s colleges always cultivated an ethos of “education for its own sake,” because they did not expect their graduates to be “breadwinners.” I applaud anyone who still seeks an intellectual, instead of a careerist, path as an undergraduate, but I fully acknowledge that it’s a luxury many feel they can’t afford. </p>
<p>Metropolitan is pretty specific to Manhattan socialites.</p>
<p>I think the second half of this Frontline clip this is a more accurate portrayal of a prep school. It happens to be an Episcopalian school which is why there’s a clip of chapel at the beginning. (start around 13:00) The Frontline story was an update about kids at risk of dropping out in middle school, featuring a girl who went from an inner-city school to a New England boarding school.</p>
<p><a href=“Omarina's Story | FRONTLINE”>Omarina's Story | FRONTLINE;
<p>Well, tony private schools are the ur-definition of preppyness. One of the characters in Metropolitan calls his set the urban haute bourgeoisie. </p>
<p>The film (1990) actually takes place during the first winter break of a group of a group of upper east side kids. Shows them mostly sitting around yakking it up and their way to and from balls and the like with a side trip to the Hamptons. They’re neurotic and insecure. Stillman has been described as both a WASP Woody Allen and a precursor to Lena Dunham. </p>
<p>His later films trace the same set, although not the same characters, into young adulthood. The Last Days of Disco, follows two Hampshire College graduates (referenced above as paradoxically preppy) living in NYC in the early 80s.</p>
<p>Recently, Stillman created an Amazon pilot about a group of Americans living, working, and partying in today’s Paris–Cosmopolitans. </p>
<p>I really don’t know if these films define preppy. What do I know? I went to public school all the way through college, although I’ve been known to wear a blue blazer and khakis. But the films are “excellent”–to borrow a catchphrase of the 90s. </p>
<p>I just want to say that I love all of Whit Stillman’s movies, especially Metropolitan and Barcelona. </p>
<p>LasMa: It isn’t very apposite to this conversation, but Metropolitan is a great, great movie, albeit somewhat specific to its time (early/mid 70s) and place (New York Upper East Side). </p>
<p>The protagonist, Tom, is a Harvard freshman home for Christmas break. His economic circumstances are dodgy – his parents are separated, and while his father seems to be paying for college, and paid for him to go to boarding school, his father isn’t otherwise in contact with him, and his mother (and he) lives in a small apartment on the Upper West Side, before that got trendy at all. Tom is very idealistic and intellectual, and not very socially adept. Almost by accident, he falls in with a group of wealthy, very social kids, with whom he is loosely connected through mutual friends. One of this crowd, Audrey, a French literature major at Smith, has had a little crush on him for years, without ever having met him before, based on the love letters he used to write to her boarding-school roommate. </p>
<p>Tom is initially contemptuous of the shallow lives of this group, going from party to deb ball to party, but he’s bored at home, and it’s fun to be with them, and he likes talking to Audrey and some of the boys. So without really being aware of it, he becomes an actual member of the group. The boys in the group – who are not really less awkward than he – accept him totally; the girls tolerate him sweetly because he’s sweet and they know Audrey likes him, and they make certain that his lack of funds isn’t a problem. Everyone has long, meaningful, earnest (usually hilarious) college-freshman talks. The course of true love does not run smooth, because Tom still carries a torch for Audrey’s prep school friend, and because he’s really immature and she’s not willing to be direct with him. Nothing much happens except the party season peters out, the group falls apart, and Tom awkwardly and in a completely clueless manner finally faces up to the fact that he has romantic feelings for Audrey and ought to do something about it.</p>
<p>It’s a charming movie that was made on a shoestring budget with non-professional (or not-very-professional) actors. (One of them, Chris Eigeman, became a fairly well-known character actor, mainly on TV series.) I am a little younger than the characters in the movie, and I didn’t grow up in New York City, but the movie pretty much gets exactly the tone of preppy young people, some of them smart, keeping themselves amused by going to deb parties and charity balls.</p>
<p>I should add that Eigeman plays essentially the same character in two other Stillman movies (Barcelona, and The Last Days of Disco, both of which are “better” but not necessarily more enjoyable than Metropolitan), and in several Noah Baumbach movies, too. People who are aware of him are generally aware of him because of those movies. But all together they might add up to 20% of the people who saw him play a boyfriend of Lorelai Gilmore for a season.</p>
<p>Sounds intriguing, JHS.</p>
<p>I think deb parties and charity balls kind of encapsulates (for me) the term “preppy,” along with “the casual self-assurance bred of privilege” described by woogzmama, and style-related things like Lacoste, topsiders, etc.</p>
<p>So. Back to the question of the OP’s son who has adopted the preppy fashion, but probably not much of the rest of it. While some Earlham students come from prep schools, and some come from wealthy families, nothing could be further from the school’s ethos than deb party-ing, charity-ball-going, privilege-bred self assurance. If the OP’s son’s preppiness is only clothing-deep, he might do well to check it out. </p>
<p>How about Sarah Lawrence? Very good, I think, for English major types. Quirky probably to the point of being edgy. It is probably 70/30 F/M, which means males are probably desired by the school. Also, straight males are highly desired by the straight females. I don’t know how the stats line up. </p>
<p>Sarah Lawrence was one we visited from our quirky list. Looked great to me, but not to my son. He had too large a list anyway, so we had to downsize. We let him go with his gut reactions on campuses. I would guess males would be highly desired by this school. I know 2 guys who attended and loved it.</p>
<p>back from the bates visit. He thought it was a good school, nice people but likes oberlin quite a bit more and would also choose bennington over bates. It was a good trip as it seems he’d be happy to go to bennington which we think (hope) is somewhere between a safety and a match. </p>
<p>he’s seen a lot of schools and is pushing back on another trip, so he might apply to ursinus and dickonson and visit if he gets in. He feels sarah lawrence is too close to home. </p>
<p>I’ll post back with results when we have them, thanks to everyone for the help, we discovered a lot of great schools through your suggestions!</p>
<p>My first thought after reading original post was Earlham. It seems a lot like Oberlin to me but a little more within reach.</p>
<p>OP, I think your son should visit Kenyon. He sounds very similar to my S. Kenyon has a very holistic approach to admissions and places a lot of weight on the interview and essays. My S got in ED with almost the exact SAT scores as your S but he had a 3.5 GPA. My S is going to be a theater major and had a huge theater resume, including some professional acting and national awards. But, I’m pretty sure he got in because he had a great interview and they loved his essay ( commented on it in his admit letter). He felt there was no other college that could compare to Kenyon. It’s worth a look I think for your S!</p>
<p>I also don’t think Naviance helps at all with this type of student. Both of my boys had high SAT’s and meh GPA’s and were looking at small LAC’s. Almost impossible to judge where they stood. </p>
<p>I’m surprised that he would choose Bennington over Bates. Do you know why? That could help refine other suggestions.</p>