<p>Erinsdad, that is not the norm on an ivy campus these days.</p>
<p>S transferred out of GW after freshman year. One of his problems with the place was the conspicuous consumption by so many (granted, not all) of the students–designer clothing, shoes and handbags, constant eating at pricey restaurants and clubbing at expensive spots, etc. I think the issue there is the mix of money and the multiple opportunities to display and spend it which are found in an upscale urban environment. I’m sure there were many wealthy kids at the LAC he transferred to, but students would have looked silly in fancy clothing on a suburban campus, and there was really nowhere to throw one’s money around. GW attracts a certain type of urban-oriented student who is looking to take advantage of big city offerings and the big city vibe. It’s not for everyone.</p>
<p>testobsessed, it is not the norm on GWU’s campus either. Doesn’t stop people from spreading the stereotype. My D did not know anyone who even owned a car. The club team she played on used zipcars. Perhaps she was comfortable with many types of people because there is a wealthy element at our HS, but here her friends were from the same background as ours also.</p>
<p>Using Pell grants as a proxy for students from lower-middle to lower income families, we can see that there is considerable variation among different schools.</p>
<p>[Economic</a> Diversity | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity]Economic”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity)</p>
<p>George Washington University had one of the lowest percentages listed for “national universities” at 13%. Others in its company include Caltech (11%), Princeton (12%), Virginia (13%), Notre Dame (13%), Georgetown (13%), Wake Forest (13%), William and Mary (13%).</p>
<p>Cobrat, I am curious as to what type of communication would be helpful from the more privileged students? I mean, what could they say that would be helpful? Do they run the risk of it being perceived as a put down?</p>
<p>Pell grants - American, another DC University, comes in at 15%. So I guess it is all rich kids too? Same for Catholic U in DC. Also many of the Boston schools.</p>
<p>I’m not sure GWU is out there as a rich kids school. About half the kids get financial aid, and 13% of them have enough need to qualify. They also give pretty decent merit aid which I’ll bet would attract those families who do not qualify for financial aid but find paying the their expected contributuion onerous. How far off is that from any number of the private schools? I think having 13% of the kids at the school being PELL eligible at a private school is pretty good. Not gonna see that at top private K-12 school at the top price ranges.</p>
<p>I think you’ll see fewer cars at city schools like GW because there is no convenient place to park them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of it isn’t communicating so much as being cognizant that not everyone has the same level of finances as they may have and to plan/act accordingly while not putting the less privileged students on the spot. </p>
<p>Some of the things we did to avoid making finances an issue with poorer students…emphasis on finding free/extreme low cost activities, if a wealthier member proposes an expensive eatery/activity…they also volunteer to treat everyone else in the group with an easygoing “next time’s your treat”*, etc. </p>
<p>Granted, this was made easier by the fact that flaunting or openly displaying one’s SES through conspicuous consumption was strongly disapproved of by my LAC’s dominant campus culture and would make the perceived offender an object of ridicule and scorn…even by other highly privileged SES students. </p>
<ul>
<li>Something which the wealthier members don’t keep a close track of when it’s in their favor.</li>
</ul>
<p>Just open discussion would help. I remember (granted: it was the dark ages) when I used to hurriedly retreat to my room when folks would do something as simple as ordering a couple of pizzas - I didn’t have the money for it. (And this was on a rural campus where there wasn’t much in the way of display - except the Porsche that would go over the cliff on occasion, and really expensive ski stuff.) There is much more now - especially now that it is coed.) Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with pizzas, or $1,800 handbags, or $900 shoes, or Porsches or…whatever. But there is something wrong when community is broken, and no one dares talk about it. </p>
<p>Thankfully, I found a way to ghettoize myself with three equally poor schlubs.</p>
<p>What comes with wealth is the responsibility to use it for the good of others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is on the lower end of the “national universities” including comparison with the US News top 25:</p>
<p>[Economic</a> Diversity Among the Top 25 Ranked Schools | Rankings | Top National Universities | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools]Economic”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/economic-diversity-among-top-ranked-schools)</p>
<p>Note that Columbia has 29% of its students on Pell grants, and USC has 23%, despite its former “University of Spoiled Children” reputation.</p>
<p>UCB, Columbia had a longstanding mission of avoiding the “rich man’s school” label. It prided itself on providing opportunities for very bright working class and middle income kids.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Particularly at private colleges, and those that don’t meet full financial need; instead, GW uses its scholarship money to attract low/no need students. (Nothing wrong with that policy – it just is…)</p>
<p>btw: GW, like many private colleges, is over 50% full pay; top ~5% income in the country?. (Or at least, those families don’t qualify for need-based aid.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, while Columbia’s record has been better on average than NYU or GWU, they’ve only gotten really good about the latter in the last decade. </p>
<p>Columbia’s FA/scholarships for low/middle income students are a lot better than they were when my HS classmates went there in the mid-late '90s.</p>
<p>I think the issue for my d. when she visited GWU was not how many or few low-income or middle-income students there were, or how many full-pays (if they give you $5k in grants on a $60k per year bill, your family is still going to be in the top 3-5% of the population), but the obvious and (we thought) in-your-face levels of conspicuous consumption. In this, I thought the article spot on.</p>
<p>rathole comment.</p>
<p>I have to admit something that jumped out at me on the list. The lowest level of PELL grant students is Caltech … Caltech which if often held up at the beacon of admissions processes every time MIT is taken to task (who has almost double the number of PELL grant students).</p>
<p>One, of many, lessons I have learned from Mini over the years is that the level of PELL grant students at any one school is not random … it is a direct result of the admission strategy and processes of the school. The highly selective schools in the county pretty much ranged from 11% to 22% (with a couple much higher than this). Looking at PELL grants and financial aid policies (% of students on FA and the amount of gapping) can provide some insight into what the campus culture might be like. Anyone interested might want to read some of Mini’s prior comments and her/his “Entitlement Index” for Research Us … <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/164962-post58.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/164962-post58.html</a> and for LACs … <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/164958-post57.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/164958-post57.html</a></p>
<p>sorry, I didn’t really read this entire thread–just skimmed–but I definitely wanted to say that this article seriously bothered me.</p>
<p>I’m a senior in hs and my top choice was Columbia (deferred and then rejected) or UChicago (also deferred and then rejected). I really did not want to go to a school with a “rich-kid” reputation, because that just isn’t who I am. I wanted down-to-earth people who didn’t mind wearing sweatpants around campus.</p>
<p>I am probably going to GWU at this point. I was sincerely worried about the rich-kid reputation, so I went to accepted students day and found that this reputation is truly an exaggerated misconception. GW does have a very high tuition, and yes, there are A TON of rich, snobby people there. But those people are at EVERY decent-to-top school. It’s simply unavoidable. This article was written in poor taste, and in my opinion is a poor excuse for journalism. Really sad to see GW getting this awful rep.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I get the issue with eating at pricey restaurants and clubbing at expensive spots, which can exclude those who don’t have as much money from social situations. I’m not sure I quite get the issue with designer clothing, shoes and handbags. If I walk into a social setting wearing (insert designer handbag of choice), I’m not quite sure how it affects anyone else, unless I say, “Hey! I’m only going to talk to people who know / care / have one of these bags!” People are either nice or snotty, and what they are physically wearing has nothing to do with that. One can be snotty with a Target bag or perfectly down-to-earth with a Louis Vuitton bag.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cobrat, here’s where I feel that sometimes you can’t win for losing. Some people will interpret “Hey, I’ll get it this time and next time your treat” (knowing that the “next time” will be much more modest or forgotten about) as nice, genuine, etc. Other people will interpret it as showing off. For example, let’s say I’d like to treat my daughter and a few of her friends to XYZ restaurant or outing in downtown Boston. I could do that and have her say - oh, my mom’s treat - but how do I know some won’t view that as snotty or entitled? Or maybe I get a groupon for 2 facials or massages and I say - hey, go and take a friend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>IME, it’s all about the tone, the way it’s communicated, and situational context/health of relationship with one’s friends.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Designer clothing, shoes, and handbags all were designed to communicate high social status. </p>
<p>If they weren’t the designers wouldn’t be able to market them in the way they have towards those who are/want to be associated with the fashionable jet set…and most of their targeted marketing demographic wouldn’t be clamoring for them.</p>
<p>Cobrat, sometimes people just buy things they like because they like the look and / or quality, not because they care if other people notice or not. Other people’s resentment of that isn’t their problem. Also, there are plenty of designer things that don’t have logos that are immediately recognizable to the average person.</p>