<p>I concur with Northstarmom. Students that my kids and I know at Wash U, GW, Cornell, Notre Dame and other private schools speak of just as much conspicious consumption.</p>
<p>“Finally, as a group, they seem fairly stingy. Over the last four years, my S reports that he has seldom spent more than $100 per month”</p>
<p>I don’t think my D has spent more than a few hundred dollars per year there. Of course, there is some advantage to being a girl.</p>
<p>I just read the article. My daughter’s friends (of middle, high and low income) do not jet set to Vegas for a weekend. They all do their own laundry. They all buy used books and sell them at the end of the semester.<br>
The backpacking trips prior to freshman year may cost money, but FUP (Freshman Urban Program) is totally free. Some of the wealthiest kids do this program so that they can immediately get involved in community service. (And they are clearly not doing this for a college resume!)</p>
<p>DocT: I was being extravagant. Most months, S spends about $50. Occasionally, they splurge for someone’s birthday. So many things at Harvard are free.</p>
<p>Despite what the article said, I don’t recall ever seeing a chauffeur dropping off kids at the dorms. But I do know kids under 18 who own used tuxes, since some of our high school’s music groups require them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but not every college in the country has made it its purpose to enroll more students from low-income backgrounds. I think that’s why the journalist singled out Harvard.</p>
<p>I don’t deny that Harvard tries to make life as easy as possible for its low-income students (cf Shoestring Strategies for Life at Harvard) but I do believe that the journalist does a good, honest job of nudging the university in the right direction, toward a destination where such a guide won’t be necessary. Although I don’t think Harvard will ever reach that destination, it is taking some encouraging steps such as requiring students to read treatises on class and wealth at orientation.</p>
<p>It is true that the article reinforces some common misconceptions about Harvard, but it is to the advantage of the university that newspapers hold it accountable to its promise – its promise to all students – in an honest way.</p>
<p>Several of Harvard’s peer schools have the same commitment and mission to diversify the university on a socioeconomic level. Yet, I haven’t quite seen the same amount of criticism (and sometimes even vitriol) directed at those universities as towards Harvard - and I think that’s a function of Harvard’s name recognition. Commentators tend to single out Harvard because it’s the easiest to target.</p>
<p>Is Princeton still the least economically diverse college in the country based on Pell-grant eligibility? I know it used to be.</p>
<p>“Yes, but not every college in the country has made it its purpose to enroll more students from low-income backgrounds. I think that’s why the journalist singled out Harvard.”</p>
<p>Fine for the journalist to single out Harvard for that reason. However, it would be a far better story if it had also looked at how low income student feel at other schools such as U Mass. The implications of the story as it’s written are that low income students have a rougher time at Harvard than they may at other schools, which isn’t necessarily true.</p>
<p>For instance, the materialism culture is stronger at my local second tier public, and there aren’t many – if any – resources to help low income students there. In fact, the low income students at my second tier public can’t even get the need-based aid they require. Some have had to sell their blood to help pay for their expenses. That was in a student newspaper article about how some students were earning money.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The only such statistic I’ve seen is the percentage of students actually receiving Pell Grants, and Princeton routinely ranks near the bottom of that metric, so I wouldn’t be surprised.</p>
<p>Note about tuxs:</p>
<p>I regretted not buying one for my son when he was back in high school. You can buy one for about $100 at Syms in Danvers/Peabody. After my son attended four proms at $80 a rental, the purchase would have been a bargain. S has friends that did purchase them (at the above price range and they are NOT wealthy individuals) because they were in music performance groups that made it logical for them to buy. They then also used them for prom. Depending on the price, a tux is not as extravagant as it sounds. Prom dresses are way worse (don’t ask about D’s senior prom dress). So if in the article stated that a tux implies wealth and a social status then I think they are basing that assumption on a time when tuxes were not carried in discount stores.</p>
<p>You guys have hit on all of the big points.</p>
<p>One interesting thing I’ve noticed here is that the economic divide (for things like vacations, bar hopping, etc) slowly shifts from who has wealthy parents to who has had lucrative internships. (At least in past years) a summer at a hedge fund could result in a ~$20k+ payoff, while summers spent volunteering or abroad are much more likely to deplete savings.</p>
<p>Last year pro rata for wall street internship was based on annual salry of around $100,000. This year it is just about around $60,000 per annum on pro rate basis. A 40% cut beacuse of tanking of the market.</p>
<p>@collegeinusa - I don’t think that’s true. ~$12k or so has been the standard pay for investment banking/trading internships for as long as I’ve been at Harvard. Perhaps housing stipends, end of summer bonuses, or overtime were cut at some firms - but these things were never common to begin with. I’ve never heard of a bank paying $25k as base salary for the summer.</p>
<p>Yes what you say is true - “housing stipends, end of summer bonuses, overtime were cut at some firms - but these things were never common to begin with.” These items inflated the price to $100k per annum. No bonus, no moving expanses or housing stipend this year and this deflated the cost from $100K to 60 K.</p>
<p>About internships: S, who’s at another Ivy, has seen the economic divide showing up the widest when it comes to obtaining internships. Kids from higher socio-economic backgrounds have much broader and more powerful connections in business and industry, and thus often come to college with pretty impressive internships on their resumes. They’ve gotten plum summer jobs where their mom or dad or uncle works. Then they can build on that experience to gain even better opportunities while in college, since previous experience is critical. S had worked in skilled jobs while in high school (ie, better than McDonald’s or cutting lawns) but had nothing of the caliber of what the rich kids had.</p>
<p>Here’s a response from Miguel, one of the students quoted in the article:</p>
<p>Fellow Harvard Students, </p>
<p>I am writing to address comments and express my concerns regarding a recent article published by the Boston Globe in which I was featured titled “The Harvard Disadvantage”. First of all, allow me to admit that although I believe the article to be rooted in legitimate arguments, I found it to be one-sided, misrepresentative, and ultimately counterproductive. I was asked to share my opinion regarding the issue because of my involvement with the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations, particularly my involvement with issues concerning income and social class on campus. </p>
<p>Personally, I was disgruntled with the author’s self-constructed image of me. The author’s decision, for example, to use my expressed interest in writing for the Harvard Crimson and translate it into an image of me writing “in my journal to sort out my feelings”, or to claim that I was relocated due to class-tension issues (which is completely false) reveals the deliberate choice to portray the interviewed students as ghetto, troubled, self-absorbed, and socially misfit. The article disregarded my involvement with campus organizations, my immeasurable happiness with Harvard faculty and students, and my positive attempts to address these issues. It is obvious that the writer intended to portray the subjects, not as multifaceted individuals, but as low-income, “needy” students. These fabrications have the potential to cause dismissal more than they do to evoke productive dialogue. </p>
<p>But this skewed and stereotypical depiction is more problematic than it appears. The author applies the forced images of the interviewed students on all low-income students. This distortion of truth can be used to support the argument that low-income students are commonly unqualified, ill-equipped, and unfit for a place like Harvard. It can lead some to believe that Harvard’s Financial Aid Initiatives are unsuccessful and that minority recruitment efforts are futile. Quite the contrary, however, Dean Fitzsimons and Senior Admissions Officer David Evans, have frequently stated that the recent minority recruitment efforts, and new financial aid initiatives have led to the formation of the “most academically gifted classes in the history of Harvard College”. </p>
<p>Needless to say, the article’s focus on laundry and tuxedos is trivial and silly (aside: I actually enjoy doing laundry and most of us rent tuxedos, if needed), but let’s not ignore the issue at hand—the fact is that socioeconomic, immigrant, and transitional issues have been historically overlooked at Harvard. These unaddressed issues have led students, due to misunderstandings and feelings of isolation, to categorize based on class and race. In addition, Harvard has had, until very recently, one of the lowest low-income student enrollment rates among the Ivies. However, this enrollment issue is NOT exclusive to Harvard.</p>
<p>Largely overlooked is the fact that American universities with the largest endowments continue to do a poor job in enrolling low-income students. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education’s data shows that, as of 2008, over the past 23 years, eight of the 10 universities with the largest endowments have shown a decline in the percentage of low-income students in their student bodies. Over the past five years, many of these universities have virtually eliminated the cost of attending these institutions for students from families earning under $60,000. Yet, over the most recent two-year period, the percentage of low-income students has declined at eight of the 10 universities with the largest endowments. Clearly, there is more work to be done.</p>
<p>But Harvard’s pioneering financial aid initiatives—which provide money for tuition, books, housing, etc—have caused a dramatic increase in low-income applicants and students. In the past ten years, the percentage of federal Pell-Grant qualifying students (of family incomes typically below $40,000) at Harvard has increased almost ten percent. But diversity is more than putting everyone in the same room.</p>
<p>Very little has been done to address the different needs that these students bring with them to campus. Financial aid policies are not enough to ensure success and should be complemented with a range of support systems. Multicultural centers, Women’s studies centers, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organizations are commonplace on college campuses. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that, similar to other minorities, students from different socioeconomic backgrounds arrive to campus with different needs? It’s time to acknowledge, support, and celebrate one more form of diversity that is mostly ignored: socioeconomic diversity.</p>
<p>The successful “I am Harvard” campaign spearheaded by the Association of Black Harvard Women and the Black Men’s Forum in 2007 intended to bring the campus together through a series of events to question the conception of what a Harvard student should look and act like. The “campaign served as an affirmation of minorities” rightful presence at the University. But the issues of class and race are not mutually exclusive and often intersect. Shouldn’t all minority groups, including underrepresented socioeconomic groups, have the right to assert their presence and identity at Harvard? Is it not possible to be grateful towards Harvard’s unmatched generosity while still fearlessly expressive of constructive criticism? </p>
<p>Misunderstandings, lack of information, inflammatory articles, and avoidance of sensitive issues create fruitless tensions. The mistake of the Globe article is not that it spoke of socioeconomic issues on campus but that it made it seem as if Harvard was making no efforts to address the issues. The article intended to perpetuate old images of the place that everyone loves to criticize. But I do think that we should acknowledge the distinct and uncomfortable challenges that low-income students face on campus. We should acknowledge that the issues of classism, while less overt than depicted in the story, are real. Most importantly, we should work towards addressing these issues and finding solutions.</p>
<p>Investing in the welfare, comfort, and education of all Harvard students will make the campus a more enriching place for students of all socioeconomic statuses, races, countries of origin, sexual orientations, and religious beliefs. We can choose to dismiss the article as sensationalist, unfounded, and inflammatory and pretend that the issue of class does not exist, or we can open up to engaging in productive dialogue and by doing so, make the first steps towards narrowing the silent yet present class divisions on campus. We must work together to build a community in which everyone "is Harvard”.</p>
<p>In many ways, Harvard is a microcosm that contains and reflects all the problems and divisions of the larger society. But Harvard is more than that, because we not only mirror the present, we have a hand in shaping the future. I believe we each have an obligation to help make Harvard a living and learning community marked by pluralism and mutual respect.</p>
<p>Miguel Garcia</p>
<p>^^Thanks for posting that. I enjoyed it much more than I did the Boston Globe article.</p>
<p>Thanks for posting the follow-up comments by Mr. Garcia.</p>
<p>So well written. I have faith in Harvard</p>