<p>This thread is getting old. Bye.</p>
<p>"The top 20 universities and top 20 lacs according to US News... how many aren't made up of upper-middle class students?</p>
<p>The answer is zero."</p>
<p>Um, Berkeley is #20 on USNWR. One third of its students are low-income, second highest percentage of low-income students in Top 50, after UCLA. </p>
<p>I would say a significant percentage of the remaining 2/3rds at Cal are middle income students, though I can't find the figures for this assumption.</p>
<p>Personally, I think class is denoted by how one conducts themselves in life and towards others. I think of Eleanor Roosevelt when I think of class, not colleges nor wealth.</p>
<p>We are a high income family and my D will be going to Santa Barbara City College next year and I am thrilled. That said, my S's elite private HS has afforded him friendships that have the added bonus of trips to Europe and Hawaii gratis, floor seats at sporting events and many other social perks.</p>
<p>Who goes onto college in the first place, let alone a selective one has some to do with cost, but it has to do with lots of other factors. For one thing, parents' own educational background plays a part as well as how the parents/family values education. </p>
<p>As I said earlier, I can't pay for college or don't have it saved up but education is a prized value in my own upbringing/culture and one that was without question that I just knew my kids were gonna have whether I can afford it or not. My kids went to high school with many whose parents have blue collar jobs. Many would be considered low income. None were wealthy. Many were middle class. Lots of kids from poorer families are just as smart as the kids who are more well off. As well, I know lots of rich kids with very poor academics. Some of the local kids whose parents are either not educated or hold lower income jobs, aren't going onto college. I can think of a girl in my D's class who grew up in the trailer park, nice family, and she is already married at 20. Another girl whose parents own a farm, has just had a baby. These girls did not go onto college. Then my other D's really good friend lives in a subsidized apartment with a single mom and they were refugees back when she was in elem school. She graduated as salutatorian and I'm sure got lots of aid for college. Her mom values education. Several of the students in the hardest HS classes with my kids came from meager backgrounds. One of younger D's closest friends has a single parent, lives in a very small modular kind of home, mom has a low income job, but they value education and she will be going to college next fall. But lots of kids in the lowest track classes, or actually one third of our HS graduates, will not be going to college at all. Part may be cost but I think lots of it is a cultural thing to do with background of parents and also values. The very good students at our school whether middle OR lower income, however, are college bound. </p>
<p>Lots of opportunities have to do with one's upbringing and not just wealth. Some parents are into enrichment. Some are into preschool and early learning. Some are involved in providing activities for their kids to do. Some are very into learning and education. One opportunity can lead to another. Behind many accomplished kids are supportive parents who encouraged education, made certain opportunities a priority, and so forth. It isn't all about money. I know many parents of modest means who are very involved in their kids' upbringing and future goals. As the say, it takes a village. Not every kid is fortunate to have support systems, encouragement, guidance, and opportunities that lead to the next level. And I'm not talking money now. Though that helps :D. Priorities, values, cultural background, support...all matter. I know low income folks where higher education just is not something they aspire to for their kids. And I know other folks of modest means where that is very important for their offspring (wanting something better than they had, so to speak). I know others who are better off financially but have kids who are floundering with no direction. It really can cut both ways.</p>
<p>Is Berkeley 20? Oops.</p>
<p>I've heard good things about SBCC. Views fron the campus are beautiful.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Susan, Blossom, Marite, anybody, can you name me some schools where you can get a great education, are prestigious and filled primarily with middle and lower middle class kids?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>UC Berkeley, UCLA, UCSD, Michigan, Virginia, North Carolina.</p>
<p>"Nobody has answered my question (Or maybe I didn't ask it right? ). Why are all the prestigious schools filled with upper and upper middle class kids? If it was just about education, the schools would better reflect society."</p>
<p>But why shouldn't they be? (I don't mean that rhetorically.) They are private institutions, funded over a long period of generations by folks with money, who also, over a period of generations, provide the prestige. The schools are filled with such kids because the schools know full well where their bread is buttered, and act accordingly. Why would you expect them to act differently? They each will take a relatively smal number of poorer kids (I having been one of them) and those that can produce face diversity because they know that, over the long-term, some will contribute back to the institution, and in the shorter-term, they enhance the educational quality for their bread-and-butter clientele.</p>
<p>You asked "why", and I am trying to respond factually. But I think your "why" also contains an ethical critique. For that, my response would be there are other things in higher education worth getting more worked up about: the increasing difficulty for poor kids to access PUBLIC schools of any kind and the growing difficulty in being able to afford them, the increasing wealth of student bodies at flagship universities, the overcrowding of community colleges, the increasing use of standardized testing as screening mechanisms against the poor, the list could go on.</p>
<p>These prestige institutions enroll no more than 75,000 new kids a year (that may be an overestimate), half of them from the top 5% of the population economically speaking (and probably almost a quarter from the top 3%). If they disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, we would still be faced with much greater questions of equity and access.</p>
<p>("can you name me some schools where you can get a great education, are prestigious and filled primarily with middle and lower middle class kids?"</p>
<p>As I noted already - Smith - but it has cost them time, money, energy, and rankings over a long period of time to do it. And MIT.)</p>
<p>If you want to attack the agglomeration of wealth and power in this country, increasingly in the hands of smaller and smaller numbers of people, in a class system that has become more and more brittle, and as the bottom 20% falls further and further toward immiseration, as you know I'm with you on ramparts. But next to that, the question of who gets to attend Middlebury is awfully small potatoes - though nice if you can get it. ;)</p>
<p>(P.S. I'll only join you on the ramparts if I can't find anything more effective to do - currently, I'm busy! ;) You can PM me for details.)</p>
<p>Mini, of course you are right. There are bigger issues, both in education and elsewhere. </p>
<p>I was having a conversation with a couple of friends of mine and I mentioned that maybe my son would end up at SDSU and they told me I was nuts and he wouldn't make the "right connections" there. I should pay up.</p>
<p>So after reading some posts on CC over the years and after this conversation, I started this thread. </p>
<p>My observations are that most people do look at "social class" when deciding about college. Some people look at going to any college and hoping that will lift them up. Others, the 75,000, most of them are looking to reach a high social status.</p>
<p>Not everybody.</p>
<p>Most.</p>
<p>Even the people on this thread that are arguing that they didn't do this, know many people that are doing this or have done this. </p>
<p>I have never read so much about IB in my life as I have on CC. Or where schools rank. SAT scores, like they really mean anything important. I don't know my wife's SAT score. :) </p>
<p>I did notice my daughter's doctor got his undergraduate degree from NYU. At first, I thought great. NYU is a good school (Not as good as an IVY). Then I thought. Wait. NYU sucked 20 years ago when he graduated. Maybe, it is time to get a new doctor. :)</p>
<p>Anyway Mini, you are right, there are more important issues out there.</p>
<p>Mini, I'm beginning to wonder whether lust for those "prestige institutions" is driving some deplorable parenting practices. Last weekend we went to our 2nd grader's science fair. It was not a good experience. My husband's comment was that he saw about three 2nd grade projects and many parent projects. Our son's project consisted of a few childish drawings and a paragraph, written in pencil, about his topic, all nicely glued onto posterboard (by me). My husband supervised the "research", writing, and drawing. The children are expected to explain their projects to adults, some official "listeners", who come by. Our son could explain a few very simple concepts; he's 7, and that's where he is intellectually. (Our older son was doing much more sophisticated science projects at this age, but he is unusually talented in this area, and the projects were his, not ours.) He was also less interested in talking about his project than in socializing with his friends. We did not stay with him at his project, but went around looking at other projects. I am a physicist, and was an official listener.</p>
<p>The extreme example of what I consider almost abusive parenting was a child who had built a large and complex machine with his father, who is an engineer. Both parents are bright, and the child is quite bright as well. Behind this machine, which occupied a space about 10' x 12' on the floor (as opposed to 2' on a table, like the other projects), were pages and pages of complex information and data, and construction photos. Everything was professionally printed. The child had been trained to give a talk, which included a discussion of Newton's laws and how they applied to this mechanism, potential and kinetic energy (with equations), etc. He was extremely anxious and kept forgetting his speech; his mother hovered over him, wound tight as a drum. My heart was breaking for this child, and I wondered why his parents thought it was necessary that he use this as his project (rather than keeping it as a father-son project at home), and why they thought it was good for him to deliver the information that he couldn't possibly have understood, like a trained monkey. I also saw a 4th grade chemistry project that was at a college level, and the father actually elbowed the child aside to answer questions about it.</p>
<p>What could possibly be the motivation of these parents? Are they thinking about college already, and trying to ensure their child's place at HYP? </p>
<p>I came away wanting to move out of the neighborhood. I saw some parent-dominated projects a few years ago, when our 7th grader was this age, but it's much worse now. My husband was appalled, but his testosterone must have kicked in, because he was talking about making sure that our son's project next year was up to the prevailing standard. I hope he comes to his senses.</p>
<p>And I agree, Mini, about the larger problems. I am active in working to reverse the increasing disparities between rich and poor, and the diminishing "class" mobility in our society, in the way that I believe will be most effective, eventually (political action). But I can't help but be affected by what I see going on around me and, more importantly, around my children.</p>
<p>DStark, there are certainly students who take academics seriously at every institution. Which is a different question that the overall academic intensity, rigor, and richness at different institutions. Which in turn is completely a different question about the proportion in the student body of slackers from wealthy families. I think that these three questions get intertwined like strands of spaghetti and muddled in the conversational sauce together.</p>
<p>DStark notes that I myself graduated from UCSB. Back in the day, its intellectual atmosphere certainly wasn't as sharp as UCLA's is today and UCLA, for all that I love it, isn't quite in the same league as my D's LAC. However, over the past five years I've trolled for enough college info that I've come to the conclusion that an pricey private college per se doesn't guarantee a better intellectual atmosphere any more than an inexpensive state school forbids it; in each category, I would arrange schools along largely overlapping spectra. Certainly U/Michigan, U/Virginia, and UC's LA and Berkeley have more in common, imo, with U/Chicago, Swarthmore, and Wellesley than they do with some other public schools; conversely, there are a large number of high-priced schools that I regard as a waste of money, not that I would consciously blurt out their names on CC. And there are programs where "fit" would dictate a student take Cal State Long Beach or Humboldt State or Texas A&M (under-rated on this board, I think) over more allegedly prestigious schools.</p>
<p>it seems to me that very few people actually form a real understanding of how things work until college (if even then). i, personally, still encounter students who just don't see the big picture....beyond the books (in engineering classes in college!).</p>
<p>these people are the effect of the parenting you speak of.</p>
<p>DStark, I just want to say that I think you make a very good point. If you are feeling frustrated because of comments that have been made about SDSU-- all I can say is ignore them. They know not of what they speak. </p>
<p>I think some of what gets said is simple cognitive dissonance and rationalization for the mega-dollars spent on college these days. A CSU is $3200/year for California resident. The elite privates have tuitions that that are 10 times that much ... and if you have a kid who isn't Harvard material, but is bound for a 2nd tier LAC -- then you need to do a lot of rationalizing to justify the expense. So the CSU's get treated with disdain.</p>
<p>calmom,
2nd Tier? Try 3rd Tier. I've never understood why people in certain states with respectable State U's (CSU's, Rutgers, some of the SUNY's -- I'm sure there are many more examples) bother with the "private" label when the schools in question are populated mostly by mediocre students lacking ambition, & when academic standards are so compromised that a semi-rigorous high school is demanding by comparison. These tuitions approach HYP's. </p>
<p>I could justify that if family was dirt poor and
(1) student got full tuition (merit aid)
(2) no means of transportation, public or private, & college within walking distance (& also family was saving on housing, therefore)</p>
<p>I could also justify it if -- and there are some -- such college had a unique academic or training/vocational program, or the best of its kind in a particular pre-professional area. But those are rare.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was having a conversation with a couple of friends of mine and I mentioned that maybe my son would end up at SDSU and they told me I was nuts and he wouldn't make the "right connections" there.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is the sort of snobbery that drives ME nuts. Although my two Ss went to top 20 schools the schools were not chosen because they provided "connections." H and I attended a top school, too (on full scholarships). The only connections we have kept from those days are not in the least "useful." We've kept up those connections out of friendship, not some ulterior motive or financial interest. </p>
<p>If you think your son would get a good education at SDSU, then why the heck should YOU care what other people think or what kind of people he may or may not find useful to know?</p>
<p>Dstark--if I'm not mistaken, doesn't your D attend MIchigan, out of state? How is that different from chosing another "elite" school--the price is sure similar.</p>
<p>There are, in general, a lot of things I agree with you about, but on this thread you sure seem like you had your answer before you started asking your questions. I am sure a lot of people choose schools for class reasons, but this group of responders isn't them. I can't speak for other people. For my own kids? Well, no one who graduated from Wes that my D knows is doing more than scraping by two years after graduating--but whatever--they must be keeping those "connections" pretty secret, I guess. My S is a soph; I don't know where his friends will end up, but I do know he chose the school he chose for a particular academic experience that is really unduplicatible elsewhere, except at a few other equally priced schools (Mich was his second choice, but the Great Books program, though cool, did not have the extent that the Core Curriculum does.)</p>
<p>And I'm pretty sure, Mini, we're not in the top five percent of American families, and we are paying full fare, which is fine. There are more important places for other people's money to go, like fixing K-12 education, which is probably the main reason for who goes to which college.</p>
<p>I think a lot of the answer to the OP question depends on where you live (or want to live) and what you do.</p>
<p>As a native New Yorker who still read the NY Times, I think that class seems to make a difference there. Going to the right college and meeting the right people can affect social status in NYC, and have career implications. Of course, that assumes that you want to hang out with the people who go to all the "right" parties at the "right" clubs, etc. </p>
<p>I also think the importance of class and making the right connections comes to play more in certain professions and industries. Investment banking, entertainment, fashion and art come to mind. But if your goal is to be a family doctor in a small town, none of that matters.</p>
<p>My immediate family was very poor, (although we had a middle-income lifestyle thanks to grandparent support) and I was quite the innocent when I unpacked my bags in an Ivy League dorm. I learned about a slice of American life from those upper crust classmates. But I also learned about life in small-town Iowa. I tended to socialize with students from my socio-economic status, so my class didnt improve as a result of where I went to school. I suppose I could have hung out with a different crowd and perhaps moved up the ladder. </p>
<p>Frankly, I have to laugh about this discussion because where I live now, none of this matters. I could be part of the rich elite, a scion of an upper crust family, and it wouldnt make a bit of difference in my small town. For the most part, in Vermont a degree from HYP etc. is highly regarded but isnt going to make a difference in your life. Kids who get degrees from Johnson State College do quite well. Vermont Technical College has a 97% job placement record, and many of its graduates probably have starting salaries much higher than a humanities major from a prestigious LAC. </p>
<p>That said, Id rather my daughter get the degree from a prestigious LAC than VTC because of the experience in the classroom and the dorms. But it has absolutely nothing to do with advancing her social status, and everything to do with academic stimulation both in and out of the classroom, and diversity. And I do agree with the person who said that having a degree from a prestigious school can open doors but how far off the threshold you get depends on you.</p>
<p>Garland, I'm not making a value judgment when I say people choose colleges for social standing. I'm just saying they do and they don't talk about it. I don't know why people have a hard time with this issue.</p>
<p>Michigan is not full of lower- middle class people, is it? It is full of upper-middle class and middle class people. </p>
<p>My daughter chose the school with the most upper-middle class people, and the best reputation that she thought fit her. I'm not denying it. She never said social class was important, but deep down, it was.</p>
<p>If a person isn't into money, that doesn't meant that person doesn't care about social class. The person might not care, but he/she might.</p>
<p>In the Razor's Edge, the character that was always throwing parties and had to associate with the right people (Elliott ?). He didn't have money. But his social standing was very important to him. </p>
<p>And the whole social class thing is complex. (That's one reason I like this issue). If you met me and saw how I live, in some areas you would say, he cares about his social standing, and in other areas you would see that I could care less. As I get older, I consciously care less and less especially for myself. Subconsciuosly, who knows. I haven't sold everything and moved into
a monastery. :)</p>
<p>One area where I still care about social standing is my kids. I don't mean they have to be of a certain class. I want them to live the lives that they choose. I don't want to shut any doors. And if it is easier for them to live the lives they want by going to a particular kind of school, then that is what I want for them. I don't care what they do in life, I just hope they get the opportunity to do what they want, whatever that is.</p>
<p>That's enough about me.</p>
<p>Do you deny that getting a degree from an IVY League school gives somebody social standing? I'm not asking whether you care if this is true or not. I'm not asking you if that is the reason your son chose Columbia. There are many reasons to choose Columbia. Let me ask this in a different way. Do you deny that getting a degree from Columbia gives somebody social standing if that is what they want?</p>