<p>Not all “rich white people” wear it on their bodies and dress in platted Polo shorts with pink button down shirts every time they leave their house, and not all strut around campus in a drunken haze hitting on every female they come within a ten mile radius of. This is the impression some people seem to have of ‘rich white people’, and it’s ridiculous, myopic, and pathetic on a certain level. People like that are a small, small minority of all white people. In fact, at any elite university, you probably know a few ‘rich white people’ without realizing that is what they are. PtonGrad2000’s experience seems to corroborate this. Generalized thinking about ‘rich white people’ is as biased and unfounded as the stereotypes about any one socioeconomic group of people. People tend to let it slide because ‘rich white people’ have never been oppressed in American society, but such stereotypes are as divisive and bigoted as those about any other socioeconomic class in America. </p>
<p>Sorry for the rant, but somebody had to say it.</p>
<p>PtonGrad, thanks for looking into that. It’d be nice to get some specific information directly from the university so that we don’t have to make all these inferences from general statistics. And I’m sure the OP and possibly others reading this thread will take comfort in the fact that you were not made to feel class-conscious at Princeton.</p>
<p>This is really more of a cultural argument rather than a socioeconomic argument. Yes, WASPs exist from a statistical standpoint, and they may make up a large portion of students at the school. Do they act like snobs, and scoff at those that ado not have as much money as their families? I doubt it. </p>
<p>Even if these type of people do exist, the things you are going to be talking about in a conversation with them probably won’t revolve around the latest designer handbag they bought or their next Caribbean vacation. After all, they did get accepted into Princeton. Their social skills should expand beyond the paltry bragging rights of their wealth. </p>
<p>As a student coming from an upper-middle class background, and one who knows both the wildly wealthy and ashamed poor, I can say with confidence that socioeconomic status does not define a person unless they want it to. I can also say that wealth is much more conspicuous than poverty at any school you would go to. The topic of “How rich so-and-so is” comes up much more frequently than the taboo “How poor so-and-so is.” It all comes down to your own personal comfort with the topic.</p>
<p>Wealth is a little like knowledge. The richer (or smarter) you are, the more conscious you are of previously undiscovered people who are still richer (or smarter) than you. So a lot of times the richest (or smartest) kids can be quiet and unassuming about their wealth (or knowledge).</p>
<p>You’re right that this is really an argument about culture, but we can use statistics about socioeconomic status to make inferences about culture, just as we can use statistics about nationality to make inferences about culture. This involves making generalizations, of course, but some carefully-made generalizations are useful in the absence of more specific knowledge. I would never say, for instance, that all wealthy students are stuck-up, polo-playing snobs, but I would say that most wealthy students lack a genuine understanding of the condition of the poor. </p>
<p>That being said, I would not be worried about wealthy students “acting like snobs” so much as I would be worried about wealthy students not understanding (and consequently making erroneous assumptions about) why a student can’t go to New York with them this weekend, why a student keeps declining their invitations to dinner, why a student’s dorm room looks so bland, or why a student smokes cigarettes or cannabis. The point, in case it isn’t clear, is that all of these behaviours arise from the student’s socioeconomic status and might be considered weird or anti-social by those students who aren’t accustomed to “lower-class living.” And that can make for an awkward social life.</p>
<p>^ Interesting point. I see where you’re coming from, and I think it’s true to a certain point. While some wealthy individuals may not initially realize why a student declines an invitation to dinner at an expensive restaurant, I think most wealthy college students are ‘college students’ first and ‘wealthy second’, and would not want to just grab a bite in a high-end place. And most students at Princeton, I would hope and imagine, are intelligent and self-aware enough to realize why a student may decline that invitation. There will always be a small minority of ‘rich white people’, though, that is wealthy to the extreme and have trouble moving out of the shell they have lived in their entire lives. That’s really their loss in the end, but it does harm to all parties. BTW, many of the wealthy people I know are heavy marijuana users, and they certainly do not look down on it. They have the means, so if they have the desire…</p>
<p>This is a very interesting thread. Diverse and interesting perspectives presented in a mature and sincere manner.</p>
<p>Point well taken, Mustafah. But this debate was being argued from a purely statistical point of view from some commenters, which is the wrong way to look at it. I am completely aware of the inferences one can make from certain statistics, I just wanted to point out that there is more than facts and figures to this entire argument; the cultural aspect was largely being ignored.</p>
<p>With your point being made, the most accurate statistic that could be used would be the percentage of wealthy students who are sensitive to the issues lower-class students face with concerns to spending and money. Because that statistic does not exist (and would be rather hard to map out anyways) there are other things from which we can gauge this level and gauge the level of comfort a poorer student may feel at Princeton.</p>
<p>For one, Princeton is well known for financial aid, even beyond the initial full ride that lower class students recieve. There are numerous social opportunites that students can take advantage of if they come from a poor background. Financial aid exists for eating clubs. There are numerous university-sponsored trips to NYC, for Broadway shows and such, that are either free or come at a reduced price to the student. And many social opportunities, such as extracurriculars or parties, come at no cost or very minimal cost to the student. </p>
<p>With your point about a “bland” dormroom, (and other pieces of evidence that a student does not have money, such as clothing or technology) I can tell you this: Creativity is free. I know that my parents aren’t going to want to spend $1000+ on furniture and decorations for my dorm. The only solution is to be creative- along the same lines that a starving artist would be creative. Equate it to fashion: you can buy style at both Bergdorf’s and The Salvation Army. The execution of your resources is more important than the cost it took to obtain them.</p>
<p>If a student is truly concerned about being socially outcast due to their financial situation, and if they are bothered by a friend who keeps making comments on certain things or asks why they won’t go out, then there should be no reason to be ashamed of telling them your situation. Which comes back to my original point: The wealthy students at Princeton probably are not snobs when it comes to wealth. They may not completely comprehend the extent of your personal situation, but they will be (or at least should be) understanding of it.</p>
<p>And HarvardHopeful#1: Of course there are: “diverse and interesting perspectives presented in a mature and sincere manner.” We are all applying to Princeton, after all.</p>
<p>Actually, the biggest thing I was worried about WASPs was that, from personal experience, they tend to cling together in a huge WASP orgy and not associate with different minority groups.</p>
<p>I know, I know, MINORITY GROUPS cling to each other like MADDDDD - and mostly internationals sticking with internationals (ex. Koreans). But on the whole, I feel that American-raised minorities try harder to be more diverse and are more open, while WASPs stay in their cliques…</p>
<p>You’d be surprised at how self-segregating American-raised minorities can be at Princeton. </p>
<p>From what I’ve seen, it seems that WASPs don’t stay in their cliques b/c they wish to exclude you - they stay in their cliques b/c individuals of minority descent don’t make a very strong effort to hang out with them. Trust me, if you’re a cool person and you make it a goal to hang out with the WASPs, they’ll hang out with you.</p>
<p>Yeah I know it sounds wrong and I am not saying it is my goal nor am I seriously advocating it, I’m just saying that if it’s really that important to you to test the exclusivity of WASPs, you’ll find that they aren’t as exclusive as you think.</p>
<p>^ This is extremely true. The reason WASP’s and minorities do not hang out together is not some racial thing, really. It’s just that they both tend to self-segregate by evolutionary default, so it takes a certain amount of individual initiative to break the cycle, initiative that is rare in people at almost all institution.</p>