Someone got her an interview for a state job, with great benefits. She bombed the interview. It hadn’t occurred to the person who set the interview up, that she also needed to teach this young woman how to interview for that job. In her privileged world, every young college graduate understands basic interview skills.
“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.”
In the broader scheme of things:
I think there is a lot of reverse snobbery, which is just as bad as snobbery.
This social class topic should have a thread on its own. I love this topic. 
The $250,000 a year income Michigan thread is discussing social class in a slightly different vein.
Less privileged people are always going to be … well, less privileged. That’s why they are less privileged.
What, precisely, should be “done” about that? The Obama and Gates kids have more privilege than my kids. Such is life. You can’t level the playing field completely flat.
PG: I really think you are finding offense and looking for an argument here where none exists.
Of course, none of us are going to forego helping our kids any way we can. On the other hand, we can acknowledge the privilege that exists in our world. As CF said, “we are swimming in it”
PG: Please get the book and read it and then we can discuss what to do about it. My book is coming Monday.
I reject the idea that every college should have exactly the same rules. As I mentioned above, states don’t have the same rules. If a guy wants to skate close to the line, it’s up to him to figure out where the line is. But he’d be better advised to stay far away from the line.
Paying for the Party is available on Kindle, for those who like instant gratification. I bought a hard copy because I thought there would be charts that wouldn’t render well on a Kindle, but there really aren’t.
Also, one can download a sample onto Kindle for free.
Absolutely we are swimming in it. No argument there! I’ll consider the book purchase, thanks for the suggestion.
I haven’t figured out how to activate my kindle, received as a gift some months back. The possibility of downloading the book to have quicker access may be the motivation I need. A friend offered to do it for me. I may take him up on that, if the weather improves to the point I can get out today. Or I could just suck it up and maybe read the instructions again.
I think that if you have an Amazon copy on its way, you can download the whole book for free right now. But I won’t swear to it.
I think CF’s #445 frames the issue that is really at the crux of this whole matter. On one hand we have posters claiming that women need to protect themselves. Drink less, be more circumspect about their choices of sexual partners and basically don’t be "silly girls"and depend on the kindness of strangers lest they suffer the consequences . But now there are rules in place regarding the issue of “consent” that are requiring that males think about those same issues lest suffer the consequences. I think the message the universities are trying to send with these definitions of “consent” is that engaging in sex with an intoxicated or otherwise incapacitated partner is going to have consequences for BOTH males and females.
So I agree with CF that the males need to know where the lines are (and certainly universities are investing in educating them on that issue) and stay far from the line. Not much different than what I am advising my own D and S.
Paying for the Party leaves me with a strong impression that Indiana is not doing right by the working class and lower middle class women in this study. They end up on the party floor because they don’t know enough to pick a dorm location that would be better for them (I wouldn’t have known that some dorms are party dorms when I was picking which area of campus I wanted to live on-- would you?). The poorly designed built environment leaves them few choices to socialize with men other than fraternity parties.
Most blameworthy, the terrible advising at Indiana leads these women to choose courses and majors that are a poor fit for their skills and their circumstances. It’s a scandal that Indiana has worse advising and worse outcomes for these women than cheap regional schools. The families of these kids, and the kids themselves, are paying a boatload of money for bad results, and Indiana University should be ashamed.
One of the working-class women in the study was funneled into a program that helped her navigate her college career, because her savvy dad knew to look for the program. Why does Indiana abandon the other working class kids?
It doesn’t sound like that school did much for anyone. The rich kids are still rich kids and the poor kids are washing dishes. At some point, though if you are not capable of presenting yourself well at an interview that is not somebody else’s fault for not teaching you, either. Yes, it’s a longer road if you start at the bottom, obviously.
If the point is going to a useless party school may not be a great idea if you actually need to earn a living after graduation that is no doubt true The rich kids are also still dummies, it just doesn’t matter as much. This sounds more like a major problem than a school problem, though. There are probably thousands of kids at my children’s schools enrolled in majors that are not going to lead directly to a clear career path some well-off, some not so much.
I’d hardly call Indiana a useless party school on any level but in recent years it has “attracted” more wealthy east coast kids who want the Big 10 experience but are shut out of Michigan and Wisconsin so you get that same “have” and “have not” student experience that you find at Michigan.
Sorry, nothing personal against Indiana. However, I’m not at all comfortable with the idea that we should have a separate list of majors for the kids on financial aid or something. But, sometimes I do miss the point on this forum.
I am just happy that people acknowledge there are class differences and students don’t have equal opportunities.
There have been threads in CC where people have argued that everybody has equal opportunity. That is bs.
I’m going to start a new thread for the book. All who have read the book, who intend to read the book, or who don’t read the book but who are interested in the subject, are invited to join me.
A friend’s son, solidly middle class, went to a very good LAC and came out with a business major (not finance or accounting, just business) and had a terrible time finding a job. Part of that was because the parents were not in business fields and did not have lots of connections, but part was his major. What should the college have told these girls to major in that would guarantee them a job? Engineering or computers? Not going to work if the kid is not so inclined.
Most colleges expect young people to make their own chances and take advantage of the opportunities offered. There is very little hand holding at big State Us. I absolutely think colleges of all sorts could do a much better job of advising students on the job prospects based on majors, but others would argue that college is about learning not about job preparation. I also think colleges should be much more upfront with less wealthy kids about what taking a large loan will mean for their lives. Plus many adults turn out to be successful from a wide variety of majors. I know quite a number of communication majors from large schools that got jobs or internships without parental help and have gone on to be reasonably successful adults.
The difficulty with the book is that it follows one group of students on one floor at one college. I find its findings interesting and will look into downloading to join the conversation, but certainly not enough data to draw broad conclusions.
And thanks CF for that information. One of the article clearly distorted their initial purpose, stating that they started out studying sexual assault.
All are invited to the new thread discussing Paying for the Party:
“I’d hardly call Indiana a useless party school on any level but in recent years it has “attracted” more wealthy east coast kids who want the Big 10 experience but are shut out of Michigan and Wisconsin so you get that same “have” and “have not” student experience that you find at Michigan.”
I have no dog in the Indiana fight and no experience other than having recently visited the campus (and found it lovely, and was overwhelmed by the scale of the Greek houses, which are set apart from the school - and I can see the danger of driving girls over there and having them make their way back). Having said that, what are schools that, IYE, do a good job of “smoothing over” have and have-not experiences - given the fact that haves are always going to have more options in life?