Mom2and,
No…
And the difficult cases… Are difficult cases.
CF: do the authors discuss why they shifted to class issues instead of their original intent to talk about sexual assault? Are you impressed with the level of analysis or is some of it using the data to prove their hypothesis?
I haven’t purchases the book and not sure I will, but will certainly be interested in what you and Alh find out. Not surprising that kids from a less privileged background have a harder time gaining internships, employment etc. but not sure the blame is on the college. It sounds like (from the paper and the articles and interviews about the book), that the women on the party path to social success were not as welcoming to the lower social status women in this particular case. I wonder if the young women from less privileged backgrounds that have better natural social skills were better able to move up the social ladder. They may have been able to discern the appropriate way to dress or act in these settings more quickly. Do the authors talk about any women like that?
Mom2and…
You might find this interesting…
http://nij.gov/multimedia/presenter/presenter-campbell/Pages/presenter-campbell-transcript.aspx
I’m sorry DStark, but what was it about Halley’s article that you didn’t find valid? Not getting what you mean and want to understand.
I think the transcript you posted is great (although very wordy so I skimmed it). Absolutely that kind of training is critical for all. Allowing the victims time and space to tell their story as coherently as possible and not being interrogated as if they were the suspect. They talk about waiting 2 sleep cycles to allow memories to come back. Did not talk about waiting longer and there is other research talking about recovered memories and the shifting of memory after traumatic events that may be more applicable to cases where the charges come up months later. I certainly think her interview techniques would be useful for all involved. The real goal is to come to the truth.
I don’t think (and you may disagree) that this means that every incoherent story means that the guy was guilty, especially if there is other evidence that the woman drank voluntarily and was capable of and in fact did consent. Those are the cases I struggle with.
Of course, I don’t believe that every incoherent story means the guy is guilty. Do you really think I think that? Not that this matters because I think what I think. 
That is the section of the Hailey piece that is nonsensical. 
“Not surprising that kids from a less privileged background have a harder time gaining internships, employment etc. but not sure the blame is on the college. It sounds like (from the paper and the articles and interviews about the book), that the women on the party path to social success were not as welcoming to the lower social status women in this particular case. I wonder if the young women from less privileged backgrounds that have better natural social skills were better able to move up the social ladder.”
What does success in the “social ladder” in college have to do with life success though? Note: I’m distinguishing between developing good social skills, the ability to collaborate with others, make small talk, be friendly, etc. and “position” on a social ladder that seems of little interest other than to the people who are on the ladder themselves.
I have been thinking about Dstark’s police links with regard to this case. A college women wakes up missing 10 hours and in clothes that don’t belong to her. A friend takes her to the emergency room and calls 911 when she doesn’t think the situation if being taken seriously enough. I don’t know if the alleged drugged and raped victim was in shape to advocate for herself or not. Her friend seems to have done an excellent job.
“do the authors discuss why they shifted to class issues instead of their original intent”
Yes. I read the book and would love to discuss it with parents. (There was a book club discussion about it within my educational consultants’ organization.) I think it’s worth reading even if you interpret it as a case study rather than generalizable research. It did complicate my thinking about whether directional schools may have more advantages over some flagships as a choice for working-class kids than I had appreciated.
The article spoke of how the “social” women were able to get jobs through connections with family and friends. My question (not properly posed) was whether the less privileged women with better social skills were able to make their way into the social circles of the higher status women and thus have more access to those connections and were able to secure internships and jobs more easily. Again, haven’t read the book, but from the interview with the author and the reviews of the book, did not seem to be the case. But I have certainly seen that some kids from poor backgrounds have become very good friends with kids that start out much higher on the ladder, which can help with that first job or other connections. Of course, the kids that start out higher have many more connections to choose from.
In many cases you have to find the correct sticky notes in your brain to find your memories.
Looks like in this Duke case, the memories never occured…the hot chocolate prevented memories…
The Duke case is going to be interesting…
I believe police eventually raided the frat…
Kids from less privileged backgrounds have a harder time with everything. And, of course there will be snobby cliques where they may not fit in. So what? And, what does majoring in tourism have to do with getting raped at a frat party? And, why would the college adviser tell a young woman that because of her lack of social status she should choose another major? That strikes me as very odd to say the least. I do think it’s possible that some extremely unworldly 17-year old could run into problems with a bunch of mean frat boy bullies but for the most part les privileged does not mean less worldly at all. In fact, it’s often quite the opposite.
marie: it has to do with the possibility that marketable majors matter less to those from backgrounds where they don’t have family and social connections to get them post-college jobs. I know a young woman washing dishes in a restaurant with a BA in some sort of studio art/advertising major, from a very low tier college. She imagined she would be working for Disney or something. She still doesn’t understand what went wrong. A student from an upper class background might be working for Disney with that major.
I agree with your point less privileged may not mean less worldly overall. These young women may be able to protect themselves just fine in their home environments. College may be a new world. They may think fraternity boys are universally good guys. No one told them about the punch. Also they may be targeted. I don’t want to believe this. I think it might be true.
There was no original intent to talk about sexual assault. They said in one of the sexual assault papers that they wrote the paper about sexual assault because, to their surprise, they learned of so many sexual assaults in the course of the study. The introduction to the book says, “This study bridges scholarship on educational stratification and college cultures–research traditions that have remained largely separate. We use an ethnographic and longitudinal approach to develop a rich understanding of students’ experiences in a tiny slice of university life and situate this slice in the context of Midwest University’s [=Indiana] campus, MU’s campus within the larger postsecondary system, and the system as it is today with history.” That’s a good description.
We have to assume that they are reporting truthfully, but the distinctions they are making are by no means subtle.This is not numeric data analysis; it’s observations.
The book has snappy prose. It reads easily. I recommend getting it and reading it for yourself.
“why would the college adviser tell a young woman that because of her lack of social status she should choose another major?”
When I’ve heard a student express interest in a field where connections are critical, I quiz them about their connections and discuss how hard a climb they will face without them. This has come up for me when a prospective law student says they want to be a sports agent. Success in that industry is ALL about connections;
I always try to understand a student’s level of social and economic advantage when I am advising. I give very different advice to my high-need pro bono students and my well-off paying clients. That includes choices of majors as well as college and career plans. First-generation kids incurring debt need different guidance from start to finish. They face a different set of risks.
Alh. I get that but do we really want a college adviser telling tourism girl that she is not socially connected enough to succeed in that field. I don’t think so. And, she might do just fine. It is true that a lot of kids with BA’s and no parents to pull strings and to pay rent are stuck in losery jobs and basements but that has more to do with well off parents setting up their kids than anything else. There are some extremely naïve and unworldly rich girls in mom and dad subsidized NYC apartments but when they get in trouble and they do they get picked up more easily than the kid with no back up.
This is really getting off of the sexual assault issue, though. I do agree that rapists a or any other criminals target the easy prey. But, are we really saying take out loans and go to college but no you can’t be this or that because of your parents income?
How awful.
“There are some extremely naïve and unworldly rich girls in mom and dad subsidized NYC apartments but when they get in trouble and they do they get picked up more easily than the kid with no back up.”
Exactly. Which is why a different level of risk may be appropriate in the rich kid’s choices. Poor kids are wise to make more conservative decisions.
True. I agree until it starts to sounds like dream crushing. Most poor kids or true middle class kids are not as dumb as people seem to think. It’s the spoiled protected privileged kids who are frequently clueless. No, not always.
I think Hanna explained it perfectly in post #433. I think it is a fact in this country, at this point in time, that all college students do not have the same opportunities post-graduation. Ignoring that has the potential to seriously and unnecessarily disadvantage low SES students.
I would like to discuss this some more when I’ve had a chance to read the book.
oops… cross posted
The social skilled but less privileged women were not able to make their way into the social circles of the rich women. All of the women on the social pathway took easy majors that would prepare them for careers that value appearance, personality and social ties: careers in fashion, media and sports entertainment. The parents of the privileged women found them unpaid internships during college breaks; in one case, a father used his business connections to make a job for his daughter in a company that otherwise was laying off people. After graduation, the parents of the privileged women paid for them to live in large cities where they could use their parents’ social connections and their own to find low-paid media jobs.
But the parents of the less privileged women didn’t have the social connections to find their daughters jobs, the money to allow their daughters to take unpaid internships, or the money to support their daughters living in large cities on small salaries. The less privileged women on the social pathway ended up training for jobs that don’t exist where they were going to live after graduation. They graduated with loans to pay off, and no academic skills that would have aided them in finding higher paid jobs.
That was one part of the book that surprised me, too. I would have never guessed that transferring away from Indiana to a directional school would be the path to success for the working-class “strivers” who wanted to gain skills that would allow them to get jobs.