Those are very interesting observations, Dun. Pardon me if I invite you to elucidate a bit. (Or take a pass on it if you prefer.)
What forms does this resentment take? Is it primarily about financial aid? Or are you suggesting that some affluent kids think their low income confreres are getting breaks in grading and other academic matters? The U of C is a demanding place, and some kids are always going to struggle, but are the rich now blaming the poor for their struggles? Have I got that right? If so, that’s hardly logical, and of course it’s hardly moral.
I hope that is not what you are saying. It would be very disappointing and very far from anything I recognize about the University of Chicago. A year or so ago a very long thread dealt quite exhaustively with some intriguing stats suggesting that Chicago had historically been very unlike its peer schools in its egalitarian ethic, lack of class consciousness and happy outcomes for those of its students in the lowest SES quintile. The statistics in question came from barely a decade ago. They certainly reflected my experience in that lower SES cohort in the more distant past.
You might be turning a rock over here. These things are seldom spoken of on this board or anywhere else. Perhaps only among students themselves far from parental ears.
I bet the students who think that way have parents who think that way, too.
There’s an awful lot of confirmation bias in marlowe1’s reading of the data discussed in that old thread. I don’t remember that data proving much of anything at all.
On the topic of this very interesting, but apparently heavily moderated thread, I definitely lean to the nothingburger side. Unless it turns out that (a) students in the SIC group were allocated a meaningful percentage of the new funding, and other students who applied for it were turned down, and/or (b) the Career office did not follow through on its stated intent to publicize the additional funds more broadly in a few days, this really seems like making a mountain out of a molehill. I missed the part where the Anonymous Disgruntled Advisor was told not to contact the students she had previously told no funding was available and ask if they were still interested. She was already invited to give their information to the person who would be allocating the funding.
The real problem is that kids who had to earn money over the summer probably had made their plans by the third week in May, so the additional funding was not likely to be useful to them. The non-problem is that students from families with the resources to get them on the SIC list are also unlikely to be up in the air about their summer plans on May 20, and precious few of them are likely to be using Metcalf grants anyway. I wonder who actually used the new funding?
Forbes published an article on February 27 detailing favoritism for children of wealthy donors at Brown University. While Chicago’s action does not rise to the same level, it does show that such practices may be by design.
One demographic which never gets any sympathy is middle class students who pay full or high percentage of sticker price. Unlike wealthy students, they can’t ask parents for more funding for internship or semester abroad or whatever, nor do they get access to free opportunities.
The Deputy Director (DD) did state that feedback so far suggested most of these SIC kids already had plans. Perhaps last minute funding is routinely used for PR. Presumably, one would have to apply and demonstrate some evidence of financial need (perhaps a sources and uses calculation or something like that). If all the SIC kids had financial means, they either wouldn’t have bothered applying or would have submitted a request for consideration like everyone else. There is a difference between a personal invitation to apply, and reserving the funds only for certain groups.
College kids think all sorts of thoughts about their peers. This year on CC was no exception in cataloging many lamentations over “weak” students of first gen or minority status who were selected for elite admissions while tippy top unhooked applicants were ignored. Have personally never run across any parent who isn’t shocked and appalled by such an outburst. However, the world is a big place and I dwell in but a very small corner of it. (And for all I know, polite company could be lying about what they truly think).
What actually sits wrong with me, personally, is not some dumb-headed opinion by an ignorant or bigoted undergrad in no particular position of authority at the College, but dumb-headed opinions by administrative members who ARE in such a position. That ADA was overtly presumptuous and displayed unapologetic prejudice against some kids in favor of others and it’s probably a good idea that he/she isn’t around advising students any longer. It just seemed that the ADA crossed the line somewhere in his/her comments to the Maroon. Wonder if there was even a thought as to how it came across.
To me this whole dust-up is so “UChicago” - even in the scandals, they aren’t quite up there with the Big Guys (yet).
I took Dun’s brief remarks as referring not to AA in admissions but to “attention” of unspecified kinds after admission given to low income students, which I took as including but going beyond the topic of this thread. His linkage of the resentments on that account to struggles that some affluent students blame on low-income ones was especially counter-intuitive. Perhaps I don’t get out enough, but I had not heard of such things at the U of C. Of course there are lots of idiosyncratic individuals in a big school, each full of fleeting angers, passions and occasional descents into self-pity. However, that these attitudes are anything as widespread as Dun appears to be suggesting came as a surprise.
^ @marlowe1 - I view them all as related complaints. Low income, first gen, “minoritized status” (to use the ADA’s terminology) - those kids might well have a bit of a target on their back once admitted. Dun will need to provide more detail, of course - I assumed he was referring to special resources made available to such students to assist them, including Odyssey I suppose. There might also be radical libertarians who view any type of assistance as encouraging free-loading LOL. We knew some such characters back in the day, but not in the College at the time (though I’m sure they existed). @DunBoyer - are they still there? Are they Econ. majors?
Meritocratic, I can believe that. But lack of class consciousness? I would slightly disagree. Every winter you will see an obvious divide - those wearing Canada Goose jackets, and those who don’t. It’s not a perfect correlation but that doesn’t matter, it’s obvious enough to highlight a real divide in class.