<p>[The</a> Theory of the Leisure Class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_of_the_Leisure_Class]The”>The Theory of the Leisure Class - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>Nowhere is this more on display than in prestige private colleges.</p>
<p>I think GWU is usually the one singled out for this kind of stuff is because it’s such a high price for a middle tier school (Don’t start a fight with me saying top 50 is middle tier because you know exactly what I mean…).</p>
<p>It’s currently unranked. (and you know what I mean ;))</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Also car brands (to take an example that men are more likely to care about than shoes and handbags) can do that, though it can take skillful marketing on the part of a car company to cultivate a high status image for a brand so that it can charge a premium for it in a given market (some brands are status symbols in some markets but not others).</p>
<p>Then again, Thomas Stanley (The Millionaire Next Door) suggests that spending lots of money on status symbols makes it harder for the high income to accumulate high wealth, while some with more modest incomes but little or no spending on status symbols accumulate considerable wealth and financial security.</p>
<p>It sounds like diversity doesn’t extend to class. In particular, folks of lower classes seem to have all kinds of stereotypical impressions of kids from upper class families. They feel inferior around them, can’t hold a conversation with them and generally can’t stand to be around them.</p>
<p>If we weren’t talking about rich kids, how would that sound?</p>
<p>I get it though. I’m around rich folks l the time that collect classic cars, go to the Superbowl, own beach homes, ski in Vail, CO then go scuba diving at St Thomas in the same week.</p>
<p>But they are people at their core. I know rich people that have been through cancer, lost businesses, been victims of crimes, suffered the loss of a child and a few with disabled kids(mentally and physically).</p>
<p>Because of that, I just treat them like people just like anyone else. I don’t pretend to have wealth and I don’t begrudge theirs. I know almost all of them through work so none are a best friend but maybe because of he work I do, I feel like I’m closer to a friend to them than most people. They tend to work long, long hours and while they have family and friends, few around them understand them so many are socially isolated, get used and put up with groupies.</p>
<p>One more point. I don’t understand the aversion people have to rich people. When I grew up, I wanted to be one. I never expected one to open the door and give it to me. I always figured I would have to get close, observe and act the way they do to get there. </p>
<p>As far as conspicuous consumption - rich kids are not rich people. At least in the sense that they didn’t earn a cent. They were just born into it. Don’t do anything they do. I can’t figure out the difference of the effects from being born into money and collecting welfare checks from the government on one’s psyche.</p>
<p>How on earth do you guys think the original universities got wealthy enough to offer such great financial aid?</p>
<p>Schools are in different points in the transition. They admit the wealth, now, and later, they can admit the kids who are bright but need Aid. But, trust me, the Elites admitted only the wealthy for a good long time.</p>
<p>ETA: Madboutx, most of the people I know who have inherited great wealth are not that obvious about it. You really wouldn’t even know unless you “knew.” Conspicuous consumption is more of a new money thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would be completely oblivious to this. I wonder how many guys would know the difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Guys who are into status symbols tend to pay more attention to cars, watches, and sports equipment than shoes and handbags.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When my D1 was accepted into a “top” private school in our city known for tough academics as well as its high price, I was a little worried. I come from nothing as it relates to wealth or social connections (ditto DH), and some of the wealthiest people in the city send their kids to this school. Most of the wealthy at this school would be described as “old money” (funny really when put into perspective). But there are also many who are like us-comfortable but not rich, as well as many others who just made many sacrifices in order to pay the tuition. Some were on scholarship and would not be considered to be affluent, and others on scholarship were very low income.</p>
<p>I live in either scrubs or old jeans or workout clothes. I was surprised to find that just by looking, I could not discern the wealthy parents from the “not” wealthy. Most drive Suburbans or other domestics, and the lack of designer clothes at various events really surprised me. Lots of old comfy jeans and sweatpants, just like mine. Now, if you were to visit their homes, you would see wealth. But as to every day “consumption,” I didn’t see it, and I have to admit it was a relief. I don’t know why, but I was relieved that I didn’t stick out as not being from that certain “set.”</p>
<p>They don’t want to stick out either. Plus, you don’t become “old money” by spending it all. :p</p>
<p>OK, Mini, you checked out both schools. What do the numbers say about American and GW in terms of % who are on financial aid, avg fin award, avg need met and % who are full pay and % who are have merit money but no fin aid and % eligible for PELL? Do those numbers show a big difference between those who go to one school over another?</p>
<p>I do know more kids who have gone to GW than to American. Those I do know were not conspicuous consumers of high priced goods. From well to do families that still had to borrow to send the kids there and the kids took out loans and paid a share too. My son’s music teacher’s two sons went to GW, one on a very nice scholarship, but he was a NMF and had a lot of choices. Went to GW because of the merit money. The second one got half off the tuition for the time there were two there.</p>
<p>Just got back to this thread. When I was talking about fancy cars, nice trips, etc, I wasn’t talking about GW in particular. I have nothing against GW - in fact, it was my second place choice way back in the Stone Age when I went to college. I was speaking generally about going to a college where the average income is way higher than average. And I said there’s nothing wrong with being rich, so it’s not about jealousy or hating rich people. Cobrat said it better than I did.</p>
<p>What’s the point of accumulating money if you don’t want to enjoy it? In my book the sooner the better.</p>
<p>Yes, well, people who grow up with a lot of money and parent’s who grew up with a lot of money really don’t think money is nearly as important as people who accumulate money.</p>
<p>But, you know, people in the United States used to care about more than just money. I’m not really sure when that changed. But it really, past a certain point, wasn’t the most important thing in the world.</p>
<p>“OK, Mini, you checked out both schools. What do the numbers say about American and GW in terms of % who are on financial aid, avg fin award, avg need met and % who are full pay and % who are have merit money but no fin aid and % eligible for PELL? Do those numbers show a big difference between those who go to one school over another?”</p>
<p>I actually didn’t check them at the time in quite this way because neither was in the so-called “top 50”, and because of the large numbers receiving merit aid at both schools, data would have been hard to come by except through the Common Data Set, which GW wasn’t publishing at the time. It is well out of date now. But you could look it up if you want.</p>
<p>But I can tell you that they looked and felt immensely different. However, even that has to be tempered. These schools are not comparable in most ways except that they are in DC. The majority of GW students are in the liberal arts, a large number are in the engineering school, and a significant portion are in the sciences. Liberal arts students at AU are in the minority, there are few in the sciences, there are none in engineering, and the majority of students are pre-professional. They are really not comparable schools.</p>
<p>GW is far more like NYU than like American.</p>
<p>
Okay, this might actually be the first time I agree with you, barrons!</p>
<p>I have a question about the Pell grants…yes, some schools only have 11-13% on Pell grants, but the USNWR link said in order to qualify for Pell, you need to make $20K per year or less. So, this begs the obvious question – how many kids are there in this country who qualify and actually apply to college? Isn’t it possible that they’ve all been placed? If so, does it really matter if a greater percentage of them are at one university or another? Oftentimes kids choose a school because its a good social fit. (Yes, this might include socio-economic level as a component.) This works both ways. In my years as a teacher I’ve found kids like to associate with those across the stratus, but they also enjoy hanging with their own. I don’t think self-segregation is always a bad thing provided it’s done by choice and not exclusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Students with EFC below $4,995 (currently) are eligible for Pell grants; this typically corresponds to family income levels a lot higher than $20,000 (although higher EFC within the $0 to $4,995 range reduces the Pell grant amount).</p>
<p>Not sure why USNWR writes in a way to imply that $20,000 is the family income limit for Pell grants.</p>
<p>Pell grant eligibility is also affected by whether a family has more than one student in college at the same time, which would allow grants for higher family income.</p>
<p>Pell Grants families generally make up to $42k or so.</p>