What matters? Abilities or Connections? And where does social class fit in?

<p>Is it what you know or who you know?</p>

<p>If it is what you know, then it doesn't matter where you get the information.</p>

<p>If it is connections? Then the people you meet are very important. </p>

<p>If it is connections, can you only make them in certain places? Places like Ivy schools? Top 20 schools? Schools where most of the kids come from rich backgrounds?</p>

<p>And where does social class fit in? It looks to me like social class is very important in the "where to go to college question", but it is unspoken. Parents want to send their kids to school where the kids will meet people of their own social class or higher. I rarely hear of an upper-middle class parent saying, I'm going to send my kid to San Diego State, when they can afford the University of San Diego. Let's face it. Neither school has the awe factor. One school is made up of lower-middle class and middle class students, the other is made up of upper-middle class and upper class students. </p>

<p>Why don't we tell the truth? Choosing a college is about choosing the potential social class of your kid. That is one of the main reasons you see the
intense competition to get into certain schools.</p>

<p>And I'm not saying I'm above this. :( I know that if I locked my son in a closet for 10 years, he would come out of it intelligent, just like many students in this BB. I would hate to think that if I sent my son to San Diego State, I am limiting his potential social class ranking.</p>

<p>It is going to be different for different people, and as the class system in the U.S. has hardened significantly in the past 30 years, it might make more difference today than it did then. (and I think the data would show that many if not most of the prestige institutions are less economically diverse than they were 25 years ago.)</p>

<p>My own experience, which I've written about previously, is somewhat instructive. I came from a relatively poor background and went to what can only be called a very rich man's college. I never really fit in, and felt the class distinctions keenly (and was made to feel them, sometimes consciously, and sometimes not - waiting on tables and washing dishes for the rich kids while attending the same classes was a bewildering experience - and I got jobs off campus just as soon as I could), though I would have been unable to voice this unease when I was a teenager (and much less self-aware than I am today.) I did extraordinarily well academically; I don't remember being particularly happy there (other than in the superb academics), but I didn't know any other college environment, and I did know that my friends at H. were very jealous of the academic opportunities afforded to me.</p>

<p>Having said that, however, my exposure to the upper classes had a profound and positive effect on me. I met folks who spoke many languages fluently (often because of the nanny, or the summer house in the south of France), carried themselves with great ease, traveled freely, and assumed with a grace I could barely imagine that the entire world was their oyster (including some of them choosing to devote their lives and fortunes to making the oyster a better place.) And there is no question that lots of this rubbed off on me, and I have spent almost the last four decades becoming the kind of world citizen that I imagined (rightly or wrongly) that the best of "their kind" represented. </p>

<p>And for this I am eternally grateful. My income has, in college terms, remained low (though I never feel poor except when I look at college list prices), and I have devoted my resources to other things besides personal comfort (or the kids' college tuitions, for which we never saved a penny), but I have a network of friends and companions worldwide that is the envy of most everyone I know, and lots of good, meaningful work that makes my heart sing. It has been a good life, and for some of it I have the rich man's college to thank.</p>

<p>I think it is who you know (to get your foot in the door). Once the door is opened, it is what you know as well as who you know.</p>

<p>mini - Your posts always have a way of reminding me what is important. This one ^^ is no exception. Well done.</p>

<p>It is who you know. It is all about people and exchanging information. You can't learn in a vacuum. But, and it's a big But, they don't have to have money in the bank to teach you lessons, give you advice, enrich your life with ideas, encourage you, inspire you. They can have money in the bank, lots of it. It is all about people. And a big benefit and key in success is to be able to cross classes, cross cultures to see through the surface to the individual underneath no matter where you meet. Not to hold a big bank account or a small one against anyone. And college in this mix....Education and death are the great levelers. Get thee to a good teacher or two. I don't think it matters where. It matters what you do with what you get, like my mother always said.</p>

<p>Mini:</p>

<p>What a wonderful post!</p>

<p>

I think, as you say, that this is the real benefit of an 'elite' education. I also appreciate your point of view that rich does not equal evil -- sometimes just thoughlessness, perhaps. I also came from a low income background and view education as the most life-changing event possible. </p>

<p>As to the OP's question, I think it's a combination of things. Being brilliant in a vacuum does not lead to happiness or success, so strategic connections can be important. But if one is dull, unkind, or just an unpleasant person, it won't help to know all of the 'right' people -- in fact, it may hurt.</p>

<p>I know I might be pushing some buttons, but I feel that there are plenty of unkind people that "get ahead". Many are manipulative and know how to be kind to the "right people". There are also many kind people that "get ahead" too.</p>

<p>I also believe that connections do not need to be worldwide, though they can be very benificial. Connections of any type are key.</p>

<p>This is only about womens' education, but in my parents' day, women were sent to certain colleges because they'd have a better chance of meeting a "suitable" husband. I'm sure some people still think that way.</p>

<p>It's both what you know: being kind and generous, making relationships - which takes skill (some have it come much more naturally to them than others); and who you know.</p>

<p>I too came from very modest means, and had never set foot inside a private school, until my 2nd graduate program - at an Ivy League B-school. I learned a LOT in two years - both inside and outside the classroom.</p>

<p>There are certainly many bonds made in college that last a lifetime. Not everyone takes advantage of those opportunities, but with the cost of almost ANY college now, it's sure something I hope my sons don't ignore when they go away to school. I'd rather have them get a well-rounded education (in the sense of availing themselves of cultural and extracurricular opportunities, and meeting people) than be bookworms, just to maximize grades.</p>

<p>dke, That should push some buttons, and I agree with you. Sad as it is, I do think that plenty of people think this way. They may never say it, but still think it. Unreal!</p>

<p>"Choosing a college is about choosing the potential social class of your kid." Yes, I believe that parents' involvement in the whole admissions process has a lot to do with the awareness that it is about social engineering, among other things.</p>

<p>Wow, mini, are you my evil twin? I also went to an Ivy on scholarship, worked in the dining hall and overheard some incredibly arrogant conversations as I worked for my classmates who feared that scholarship students dragged down the tone of the place. ;) I didn't have a great time and made sure my Federally funded job took me off campus to work with poor new immigrants. But in the thirty years since, I have had work, social and travel experiences that I doubt I would ever have enjoyed as a graduate of our local (not-so-great) State U. The degree has opened doors and continues to do so to this day. For me it has never been about becoming a multimillionaire; I was genuinely hungry to learn and grow among intellectual peers and to taste more of a world I had only glimpsed as the daughter of first-generation immigrants who loved education and the arts. Glad I went. Glad my kids, who know much better how to navigate this sort of privileged setting (anybody read Brooks's column on how upper-middle class parents raise their kids differently from working-class parents? I'm not a fan of his but this one was interesting and rang a bell with me <a href="http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/opinion/09brooks.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/09/opinion/09brooks.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fColumnists%2fDavid%20Brooks&lt;/a&gt;) than I did at their age.</p>

<p>I guess the only difference is that, in my case, with the exception of the fellowship I received from College #1, the degree itself never opened a single door. In fact, I can say for a fact that I have never had an employer who had even heard of the place - either on the east coast, center of the country, or west coast. But what I internalized from the experience certainly has, and what it allowed me to do as a result even more (even as my relative income level is actually not too much different from that of my parents, and for years it was lower - though as a matter of choice.)</p>

<p>Well, I will say it. </p>

<p>Forget the 'right' college, finding a 'suitable' mate is the linchpin to adult happiness and success. My sons hear that advice all the time.</p>

<p>I am a professional with my own practice and two nearly grown sons. I have so enjoyed family life and working life--raising those boys and reaching for the top in my career. Frankly, I could have gotten my degree from twenty other places, but not one minute would have been possible without my darling, very suitable husband. </p>

<p>For me, a suitable mate was a man who had already travelled solo to far away places as I, the dreamy reader, so longed to do. A suitable mate for me was a man with a wicked sense of humour, a wide open intellect and an easy going nature--someone who could sell you the Brooklyn Bridge and make you feel like it was a bargain.</p>

<p>Would I have found him in any old college? Unlikely. Though he didn't go to the same university, (we met in a post grad program), interestingly, he went to a similar type of university; a large private university with students from all over the country located in a vibrant city.</p>

<p>For us, for our creative, wanderlusting family, that's the type of school where we are most likely to find the higest percentage of 'our people'.</p>

<p>So: Shoot me. I will die happy.</p>

<p>I also believe that right or wrong, and in many cases, it's WRONG, the reality of the world is that it is, indeed, many times who you know, in addition to what you know. I forget the statistic, but I once read that an incredibly large number of job placements are done through word of mouth recommendation alone. Head hunters or the traditional recruiting routes are never even needed -- and networking saves the companies a fortune in head hunter fees. School affiliation is certainly one avenue for that.</p>

<p>If the college admission game is really about social class, then why not say it is about social class?</p>

<p>Why do I constantly read about students and parents looking for fit? Come on, there are hundreds of places where people can fit. Why not just tell the truth?</p>

<p>Why not say, I am looking for the best place for my kid (or me)to maintain or increase his/her social rank? </p>

<p>One of the best ways to insure a high social ranking is to say I went to Harvard (Or similar schools). Hell, you can be a bag lady, but if you went to Harvard, you will be a highly socially-ranked bag lady. </p>

<p>So again, why not be honest? Why all the speak in code?</p>

<p>Cheers is honest. Wants to hang around people of a certain social rank.</p>

<p>Mini, you are one of the most honest posters out there, so I always enjoy reading your posts.</p>

<p>Overseas, I am finding I really like yours too. :)</p>

<p>I have been on this BB for years now. I am waiting for somebody to start a thread. </p>

<p>"Where should my kid go so he has the best chance to maintain or move up in social class?" </p>

<p>Then I can leave this board.</p>

<p>Until then, so, should I send my kid to SDSU or should I pay up so he has a batter chance to maintain his social class?</p>

<p>Hey, Bush is a moron-plain and simple, yet he was elected president.</p>

<p>His grades and SATs were mediocre, but he attended Yale Undergrad and I think Harvard Law or grad school.</p>

<p>Connections WAY overshadow abilities. This is not to say that having strong abilities help,but having connections, money and people skills will allow you to go MUCH further.</p>

<p>Look at how quickly Sonia Coppola made it in directing. Look at how young Michael Douglas was when he made his first picture, and I could go on and on. Yes, these people had talent but so do thousands of other folks. However,with their father's connections, they go in the door and had the right training.</p>

<p>Look at even Donald Trump. Yes, he made himself a billionaire; HOWEVER, he had substantial assets from his had to work with, not to mention had lots of banking connections that resulted from working with his father.</p>

<p>The only places that I can see ability being more important would be in art, music and sports. For just about anything else, connections is the golden key to making it at the top. Ability will let you keep that job. If you don't have connections, you will rarely make it to the top of any field not noted above. You will, however, make it to midlevel or even upper mid level positions.</p>

<p>Any questions?</p>

<p>The OP's question and Mini's post brought to mind a quote from the movie "The Emperor's Club". It went something like this: </p>

<p>"A man's character determines his fate."</p>

<p>At my D's non-selective private high school, she's had the opportunity to meet many poor, middleclass, upper-middle class, wealthy, and super wealthy kids. I'd have to say that economic status has no bearing on the quality of the character of her classmates or who she's chosen to have as friends. One of the poorest boys has the biggest plans for his life and the wealthiest boy is the first to show up for hands-on community service and the last one you'd think had a dime in his pocket.</p>

<p>Will social class dictate success or happiness for these kids or the young women they marry? I guess it depends on how and what you measure.</p>

<p>Yeah, but that is in the small scope of things. I mean who knows the names of the presidents? They are a long list of mostly nobodies with a Lincoln here and a Roosevelt there. I want my kid to do something like Rosa Parks. I mean if I have a dream, that is the type of dream I have.</p>

<p>"If the college admission game is really about social class, then why not say it is about social class?</p>

<p>"Why do I constantly read about students and parents looking for fit? Come on, there are hundreds of places where people can fit. Why not just tell the truth?"</p>

<p>It might depend on the definition of "social class." For me what matters is some sort of "educational class" or "cultural class" (along with the best possible academic talent). I will tell the truth. I want my child to go to college where the predominate background is of the right class in that sense. Wealth, income, country club membership, and vacation homes have nothing to do with it. If SDSU doesn't come up to snuff my this standard than I will gladly pay (a lot) for him to go somewhere else.</p>