<p>
</p>
<p>It is only the others’ problem if you don’t keep bringing up the fact you disagree with their disdaining you or that “it’s wrong” like you’ve been doing on that and this thread. </p>
<p>The fact you keep doing so can reasonably lead others to believe that classmates/greater public criticizing you for having such fancy handbags is also your problem in spades. :)</p>
<p>In many careers, networking is essential to success. It would be prudent to consider the networking potential when choosing a college if you are interested in one of those careers. Whether the best way to do this is to look for rich people, I don’t know–I think that may be part of it, since there’s probably a fair amount of overlap between rich people and connected people in many fields. Taking this into account is no more crassly mercenary than asking whether the college has a major that will prepare you for the career you want, or whether the job placement services there are good.</p>
<p>By the way, I have to say that CC really provides us an amazing opportunity to psychoanalyze each other.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree that networking is essential in many careers. However, if one goes about it by solely looking for wealthy people and in asking the question, giving off vibes other posters have noticed about being obsessed with associating with them mostly/solely for job/networking opportunities, those networking efforts aren’t likely to be fruitful. </p>
<p>One doesn’t get far in any form of socializing…including networking if one comes across with attitudes/vibes which turn off those one is trying to connect with. </p>
<p>It’s no different than the vibe given off by many acquaintances/so-called friends who only call someone when they have a problem requiring that person’s expertise. As I said before…not cool in mine…or many other people’s books.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No one’s ever criticized me in my life for having (xyz material good). If they have, it’s been a tree falling in a forest that I didn’t hear. And if they did, the great thing is that I don’t really GAS about what the “greater public” thinks of my choices as long as I am happy with them. You might consider that approach sometime, instead of constantly being worried whether you’ve “put the rich kids in their place” or appropriately impressed the hipster poseurs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And yet, you keep bringing up this topic whether it’s a prospie turned off by a given college because a visible critical mass of students carry/wear expensive designerwear or on this thread which has even less relevance. Interesting…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The above statement is a bit of a contradiction considering most hipsters I’ve met tend to be rich kids themselves…and if the common native New Yorker joke I keep hearing/reading about is correct, come from well-off upper/upper-middle class suburb…especially those in the Midwest. </p>
<p>BTW: Hipsters weren’t the widespread phenomenon they are now when I was in college. We had neo-hippies, neo-Marxists, neo-Maoists, etc…but hipsters? Most undergrad classmates I knew from my time in college have pointed to the hipster phenomenon at Oberlin as a sign the college has moved too far to the mainstream/right in the last 10+ years. We certainly weren’t nearly as fashion conscious…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It has been more than a couple of years since I was afflicted with guitar acquisition syndrome. :D</p>
<p>I think it is hilarious that colleges promote things like clubs based on race and religion, artwork composed of menstrual blood, classes teaching sado-masichism during sex week, and the like, but heaven forbid the rich kids be allowed to self-segregate! That idea must be banned because others might feel bad or be offended! I think it makes those colleges look silly and petty. Let the students be free to explore any pursuit, no matter how outlandish; just don’t let the rich congregate! And yes, one of my kids attended a college like that.</p>
<p>To be “fair,” I don’t see a lot of colleges that actually prohibit many types of clubs, and if the college doesn’t choose to acknowledge or support the Greek social clubs, they tend to exist anyway. </p>
<p>Colleges are invested in giving the impression that once you are in you are “in.” It’s a marketing tool. </p>
<p>Nowhere on earth is this true, not in the most socialist culture, not anywhere. Humans have preferences. In groups and out groups form and have formed since they lived in caves, I would guess. </p>
<p>I don’t want my kid to go to a college where they are presented with some bizarre sanitized version of the world which they will never again encounter. I want them to go to college and figure out how to be independent. So far so good.</p>
<p>Corbat, I’ve never encountered much judgement on my material possessions or clothing choices from any but the most disaffected outgroups or the most fastidiously boring in groups, and both of them, imho, are tedious and pretty irrelevant in the bigger picture of life. I think you come from a strange perspective which lacks necessary relevance for Joe or Jane College, though you clearly find it useful for yourself and that is good… for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In that case, I don’t think OP should waste a lot of time worrying about which schools rich people attend. Pay attention to which engineering programs attract the most and best employers for interviews, and which have the best placement history. </p>
<p>I’m not an engineer, but a lot of people in my family are. My impression is that engineering is a profession that is as close to a true meritocracy as you’re ever likely to find. The school you attend may matter for your first job, but that’s based on the school’s reputation with employers, not rich people’s social or business networks. And after a few years on the job, your school won’t matter nearly as much as your actual work. Yes, professional relationships–networks–may lead to more and better opportunities down the line, but those will be relationships you develop, based largely on others’ confidence in the quality of your work. Engineering is a field in which it’s hard to b.s. your way through, or to advance on the basis of who you know rather than what you can do.</p>
<p>Besides, I just don’t see that many rich people going into engineering. Engineering has long been a ticket to a solidly middle-class to upper-middle class SES, attractive to the sons and daughters (but mostly sons) of the middle class, and to the upwardly mobile sons and daughters of the poor. For the wealthy, a typical engineering career would represent downward mobility. Of course, you’ll find some children of wealth in engineering, but that’s not the primary clientele for engineering programs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or at least not that many who are in engineering and also want to be spendy. I brought the entire topic of this thread up yesterday with a young friend who’s doing a summer engineering internship with my employer. The young friend, a rising engineering sophomore at Cal, said that SES was pretty much a non-issue because the entire group’s interests tended towards the inexpensive. The big expenditure was when working on a robotics project for a competition, which meant late hours which were incompatible with the dining hall hours which meant needing to go out to eat afterwards. </p>
<p>Other places for wealthier students to congregate: Equestrian Team. Ski Team. Now someone is going to chime in saying that they learned to ride/ski in their rural/mountain community where you were put on a horse/given a first pair of skis at age 3. True, yet I’d wager that the majority of students taking part in those sports–especially in urban universities–are from high SES families.</p>
<p>^It took about 20 seconds to identify DD’s boarding school roommates as 1 percenters. The first from the Vinyard Vines and Broadreach stickers on her laptop, and the vacation photos of dives in exotic locales going up on the wall; the second from the equestrian prizes and Frye boots. (Broadreach runs expensive international scuba and sailing trips for teens, Frye boots start around $400.)</p>
<p>Don’t assume too much. You can get those Frye boots for a lot less than $400 online.</p>
<p>This is another point I think is worth mentioning. My daughter’s expensive designer jeans came from the thrift shop. So you can’t necessarily tell whether somebody is rich or is just a savvy thrift/consignment shopper.</p>
<p>^Yeah, but when the kid wearing those boots owns her own show horse it’s a pretty good bet. ;-)</p>
<p>Well, you never know. This reminded me of something that happened while I was in college–a rich kid who turned out not to be rich at all: [Yale</a> Daily News no. 70 January 24 1977 :: Yale Daily News Historical Archive](<a href=“CONTENTdm”>CONTENTdm)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Remember that an engineer’s job is the design something under various real-world constraints, including cost. A car company probably needs better engineers to design a quality $15,000 car than to design a quality $50,000 car, for example. If those same engineers apply the mental optimization (“can we do this better and cheaper?”) to their personal lives, they may be more frugal than others of similar income (as Thomas J. Stanley has observed). Plus, they may appreciate the engineering that went into a $15,000 car more than a $50,000 car.</p>
<p>ucbalumnus, you really need to go out and test-drive the new Tesla sedan. :D</p>
<p>You can get Vineyard Vines at TJ Maxx. I do think it can be a signal, but it’s not the expense of VV that makes it a signaling device.</p>
<p>Speaking of wealthy elite, I’ve always wondered what the joke was associated with the punchline above.</p>
<p>[Zeta</a> Chi Trading Places - YouTube](<a href=“Zeta Chi Trading Places - YouTube”>Zeta Chi Trading Places - YouTube)</p>
<p>That Tesla looks great and has great reviews too. Want one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The signal it gives me is that if VV were publicly traded it would be time to short the stock.</p>