<p>calmom:
Again, you don't know enough about me to say whether I have lived from paycheck to paycheck, or walked in the shoes of low income students. An apology that is in the conditional is no apology.</p>
<p>My D spent last year at a private school (elementary) where every student went somewhere exotic for spring break...to Greece, to New Zealand, to the Virgin Islands...and we stayed home. These kids were not even just visiting grandparents in Florida!</p>
<p>She told me she was the "only" person in the class who wasn't "leaving the country for vacation!" And most of these kids have summer homes too, which made her wonder why we didn't have one too. Poooooor child!</p>
<p>And we are very comfortable, but this was a level of wealth that we sure weren't used to. I can really only imagine what a child on financial aid must feel like in these situations, if my spoiled enough child noticed this disparity so easily.</p>
<p>calmom: Thanks for that link. It was hilarious--so true. I also especially enjoyed the 100 year old surgeon video, and the obese children video. I'm also enjoying this thread. Some of these threads could, I believe, easily find a place in The Onion. (jk, folks.)</p>
<p>Well, then Marite, I guess I misconstrued the reasons why you seem to lack understanding of the nature of issues currently faced by kids who are struggling to make ends meet. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt to assume that you had never walked in their shoes. </p>
<p>I still think it also is rude to label all other kids who can't read my daughter's minds as "insensitive clods" -she might call them naive but I doubt that she'd ever label anyone who invites her to a restaurant that is out of her price range a "clod'. </p>
<p>Use of those kind of labels is what contributes to the problem -- it leaves polite and well mannered people feeling smug and self-righteous when they have unwittingly said or done things that are hurtful and demeaning.</p>
<p>Marite--yup, I agree. Lots of assumptions, unwarranted.</p>
<p>Calmom--you are the master of shifting the terms of the debate, and I bow to your expertise.</p>
<p>I'm heartily sorry your D has had such a bad time at B; across the street, my S has not seemed to see so much causing or taking of offense. It could be that's guys; I don't know. It could be that he he's been on both sides and has grown some perspective. It could be that he's always been aware of abject poverty because of various experiences he's had. </p>
<p>I do hope your D finds a better experience as she goes on at Barnard; I'm sorry it's been such as it has been so far for her.</p>
<p>"They aren't going to announce to their friends that pizza night is cancelled because they didn't get their money -- they are going to beg off for other reasons ("I have to study -- I have a paper due"). Their friends are clueless, but not because they are insensitive clods -- its just that their friends have never been in the no-money situation."</p>
<p>Actually, after the third or fourth time that folks said (while playing bridge, at which I was very adept) or watching tv or whatever, "hey, let's order out for pizza", and I said I didn't want any (they all knew, I think, that I worked at BOTH college bookstores in order to make ends meet), I just knew it was time to make myself scarce. I'm sure - really I am - that there would have been folks quite okay about paying my share - but I would have been embarrassed or ashamed to ask (I did have a friend who had no such shame, and was treated just fine.) I don't know to this day whether folks put two-and-two together, and my safe "suburb" allowed me to be more than comfortable enough. </p>
<p>I can't say I was ever comfortable with the situation, or at my college generally speaking, but I can say that I am extremely grateful for the fantastic education I received in the process. To be frank, my parents would have preferred I attend City College of New York, where most of my equally smart classmates did, a large plurality of whom I remember as being smarter than the students at #1 LAC generally speaking. But I am very glad, in retrospect, that I went where I did.</p>
<p>All of this is colored by the fact that those were very, very difficult times (1967-1971).</p>
<p>Now, as it turns out, my d. is now in the coop house on campus, and some of the students do indeed join it to save money - the college provides some staples, they buy food and cook for each other every evening, and the rest of the time, they do what they like. My d. joined it for the conviviality - but it is striking that, with a single exception (her former roommate), she doesn't think there is a single student in the coop who does not receive need-based aid. The flipside, however, is that it is probably the most intellectually exciting house on campus (though I'm sure there are members of other houses that might dispute it.) These kinds of issues are very out in the open on her campus though - 60% of students receive need-based aid, 28% are on Pell Grants, and there are two separate social class discussion groups on campus, one put together by Class Action, and one under the auspices of the college president.</p>
<p>That's not from Gatsby but another story by FSF. But he lived the story and had some insights.</p>
<p>Re Post 115. Yes, I would certainly know how the public schools in some states (not all) are mostly filled with the economically disadvantaged, since I teach there. Sorry if I got O/T. (I thought the discussion had somewhat shifted or broadened to the issue of variations in wealth at college, & how students react or accommodate to that. Guess I strayed.)</p>
<p>Just in general, it's clear to me from the cumulative posts here & from differences I observe between my own 2 D's, that the overall issue of dominant SES (or varieties thereof) can be an important factor to consider in choosing a college, precisely because of those variations in perceptions & responses, socially. One doesn't always know how one will react, but if it's important to a student to feel a camaraderie, kinship, strong acceptance.. whatever, then that should be a point of discussion prior to enrollment decisions, & even as part of the search. </p>
<p>Definitely not lecturing anyone here; rather, warning myself. One of my D's cares very much about how she's viewed, and very much wants to belong, and is very wealth-conscious in general. For her, such considerations could be important to her happiness in a college environment.</p>
<p>For those with a close perspective on both Barnard & Columbia, do you see a real difference in economic homogeneity between the 2 places?</p>
<p>Epiphany:</p>
<p>According to the New Century Foundation, Barnard has the highest percentage of Pell grantees among "the most competitive institutions."</p>
<p>Barnard: 417/2,261 (18.4%)
Columbia: 1,023/6,867 (14.9%).
<a href="http://www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/pellgrant.pdf%5B/url%5D">www.tcf.org/Publications/Education/pellgrant.pdf</a> -</p>
<p>Wow. thanks, marite.</p>
<p>Well, it's 10% below Smith but go figure. The New Century data cited above is VERY old (seven years old) - current data can be found in the latest Washington Monthly rankings that came out this month. The best source of data is Tom Mortenson at College Opportunities, but you need a subscription unless you make friends with him (I have.) (Columbia currently has 17% and change; Barnard about 18 1/2% - note, however, that I think Columbia's data includes the College of General Studies, just as Harvard often tries to include the Extension School - so you have to look carefully at what is being represented. Mortenson smelled that one out.)</p>
<p>Some "old" folks may remember that several years ago, I put together a rather exhaustive "entitlement index". I got started because in visiting campuses, both my d and I began to actually "feel" the differences based on class from campus to campus, and I wondered whether it would be borne out by the data, and in virtually every case, it was.</p>
<p>What I did (which I don't have the time and energy to reproduce at this point) was take the percentage of students who do NOT receive need-based aid, add the percentage of students who did not attend public schools, and subtract the percentage of Pell Grant recipients. There really were very few surprises. Had the data been available, I would have loved to have included an algorithm based on the family income of those not receiving need-based aid, but such information is proprietary, if available at all. </p>
<p>Folks can probably look up the old data if they like. (It's still more current than aforemention New Century data). A similar but cruder index can be constructed by going to the Common Data Sets (don't believe any other data source, including the colleges' own websites), take the total amount of need-based aid and divide by the total number of matriculating students. There are almost no surprises in store if one does that, the results are roughly equivalent to the first method (though less sensitive), and there have been few significant changes over the past 4 years except at Princeton and Amherst, and to a lesser extent Williams (no more students there are receiving aid, but those that are tend to be poorer - meaning there are now even fewer middle class students than before.)</p>
<p>Correction: It's The Century Foundation , not New Century.</p>
<p>Also, googling leads to different articles giving different data.
But here's one from the Chronicle of Higher Education. Its list of institutions is not comprehensive (Barnard is not on it), but the analysis is interesting.</p>
<p>It's a good report, but still two years behind. (You'd see very significant increases at Princeton and Amherst, and a little at Smith; most fell slightly.)</p>
<p>Pell Grant data by itself, however, is just not sensitive enough to lend enough to these discussions. Amherst (and to a lesser extent, Williams) have added to their Pell Grant numbers, but mostly if not entirely at the expense of their middle and upper middle income students ($40k-$92k.) So by itself Pell data is not a powerful instrument for giving one a sense of how a campus might "feel". (and of course there are subjective factors as well - not "everything" is predicated on actual income.)</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>I agree. I did not see the Washington Monthly data. However, even slightly out-of-date stats give a general sense.<br>
I also agree that Pell grant data do not give a good enough picture of the total population on financial aid. For example, Barnard claims that 55% of students receive some financial aid (Harvard claims 70% despite having only 8%+ with Pell grants). This may well include students who receive minimal aid. Nonetheless, these students probably hold jobs and must be careful with their money.</p>
<p>I also agree with 134. Even among non-Pellees, most students that my D knows & meets around campus don't have unlimited spending money & must budget, must earn some, must save some when they do get it, etc. And it still is true that many students who can afford to do more, nevertheless enjoy & participate in the lower-cost residential college activities on & off campus, because they're, well....fun! :)</p>
<p>
They are the same. Despite Garland's snide comment ("across the street...."), there is very little difference among the campuses and the issues my daughter raised are not campus specific, except that my d. has reported that there is a greater tendency to find Columbia students who are obsessed with their own SAT scores and their amazing feat of getting admitted to it. (If you doubt me on that, I would invite you to visit the Columbia thread on this board - I'd be glad to PM you the screen names of regular posters who are prime examples). My d is on the Columbia campus every day for classes & is involved with Columbia student organizations as well. </p>
<p>As to the economic issues -- the same concerns have been raised by her high school friends at Harvard and other elite east coast campuses as well -- its not a Barnard thing. The only particular Barnard aspect of it is I think that girls, in general, tend to be notice more what other girls are wearing and how they accessorize (jewelry, handbags, etc.) -- my d. could probably spot Gucchi a mile off -- so even when nothing is said I think that there is a high level of awareness of class/economic differences. Also, in general students tend to dress reasonably well on the Barnard/Columbia campus - it is not one of those college campuses where everyone is walking around in baggy jeans & sweats, probably simply because it is an urban campus.</p>
<p>Barnard has conveniently put a chart up on its OPIR page-- 44% of the students receive financial aid.
<a href="http://www.barnard.edu/opir/%5B/url%5D">http://www.barnard.edu/opir/</a></p>
<p>Here's a figure I like:</p>
<p>Instructional Expenditure per Student
2006-07: $13,974</p>
<p>Makes me feel rather glad that I'm not one of the folks paying $33,000 annually for $14,000 worth of instruction.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
She told me she was the "only" person in the class who wasn't "leaving the country for vacation!" And most of these kids have summer homes too, which made her wonder why we didn't have one too. Poooooor child!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh Allmusic,</p>
<p>how I do remember when my kid was in elementary school and most of her friends had a summer home. When the question came up in our house I told my D that yes, we do have a summer home and the great thing about our summer home is that we get to live in it in the fall, winter and spring too.</p>
<p>calmom, my understanding is that it is more East Coast than West coast to dress well, including on campuses (but not limited to that). It's also been my own observation.</p>
<p>That said, my d does not notice an inordinate attention to material displays of status, and in fact if anything, she finds the opposite: those who seem (or who she guesses) are wealthy, do not affect the outward signs. There was a lot more attention placed on conspicuous displays at the high school, where wealth was present. (But again, my older d is not bothered by that; younger one, yes.)</p>
<p>My reason for the question comparing Columbia, is that C is esp. committed to low-income admits (aside even from the HEOP and NEOP) -- and aside from the aid issue.</p>
<p>Calmom--you misunderstood me. I have been throughout this thread, trying to convey that I would think that students in the two schools share experiences. By saying "across the street" I meant -- right there, very close by. </p>
<p>My take has been that, sharing food services, classes, and friendships, I am surprised that our kids seem to have had different relationships with wealthy schoolmates. I meant the opposite of your assumption, and i apologize that I didn't convey that clearly.</p>