NYT article on how college maintains class inequalities

There was a very interesting article in the NYT today about research that showed how college is not necessarily the ticket up to the middle class that we might think it is.  Sociologists at Indiana moved into a dorm room and a well-known "party dorm", and studied the incoming class for five years.  Not one of the students from less-affluent families graduated with five years, but all of the affluent students did.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/elizabeth-a-armstrong-on-her-book-paying-for-the-party.html

 

This raises all kind of interesting follow-up questions:  Is this just the case in the so-called "party dorms"?  Is it typical for the big-state-U they studied (Indiana University)?  Is the situation better at LACs or the Ivies?  They only studied girls, does this break down along gender lines?

[regentrude]

I find some of the statements in the article VERY peculiar:

 

About the affluent students:

 

 

Since none of them had loans, they could afford to live on their own, and were positioned to meet and interact with men who were marriageable.

 

Huh? What is "marriageable", why does one have to live alone in order to meet those, and how on earth is this supposed to be an indicator for success?

 

I am also not sure that i understand correctly what exactly they were investigating.

 

 

 

In the process, they made some sobering discoveries about the party culture that dominates large flagship universities and how it reinforces differences of social class. Although only about a third of the young women were “socialites†or wannabes, everyone, they found, was affected by the party culture.

 

 

People assume there’s a benign pluralism, with the athletes over here, the vegans there, the sorority types over here, so students pick and choose whom to affiliate with. But our less advantaged women couldn’t see the possibilities.

 

So, do I understand correctly that she is saying the "less advantaged women" do not know that some students do not party and that it is possible to associate with those and opt out of the "party culture"? This begs the question: why would they have such a notion of college?

 

One more thing struck me as peculiar:

 

 

or wanting to get away from those rich girls.

The RICH girls do not go to the public state university. They attend small private LACs. State universities have a very diverse population, because they are public and less expensive.

 

Maybe she needs to study guys, and maybe she needs to study students who are not taking fashion or interior design. The climate at an engineering school will be very different.

 

 

 

So, do I understand correctly that she is saying the "less advantaged women" do not know that some students do not party and that it is possible to associate with those and opt out of the "party culture"? This begs the question: why would they have such a notion of college?

 

I think the first-generation college students often have a very abstract notion of college.

 

 

The RICH girls do not go to the public state university. They attend small private LACs. State universities have a very diverse population, because they are public and less expensive.

 

 

"RICH" is almost always relative to where you are.

[Caroline]

 

 

Maybe she needs to study guys, and maybe she needs to study students who are not taking fashion or interior design. The climate at an engineering school will be very different.

 

Having graduated from engineering schools and taught at an engineering school, I know that students coming from a poverty background drop out of engineering school in huge numbers. It is tough to be the first family member to go to college. A lot of these kids are the first family member to even attend high school, let alone graduate high school and go to college. They don't know what to expect. You might  be surprised at the binge drinking that goes on at the top engineering universities, private or public.

 

I also think you might be surprised at how many "rich" kids are at public universities, especially in engineering schools. Many of the top engineering schools are public--Michigan, Georgia Tech, Berkeley, Purdue, Illinois, University of Texas. In the South, a rich kid in engineering is very likely to go to Georgia Tech because his daddy and granddaddy went to school there. 

[8filltheheart]

I think the researchers saw what they wanted to see.   

 

Graduating vs. not could also  be as simple as being on a very large campus and not knowing how to seek out resources for tutoring/help.   Kids with more highly educated parents are more likely to be aware of resources.  

 

And.....there are lots of kids on campus that don't like to party or frat/sorority type lifestyles.   There are lots of niches that don't have the "party" influence.   Connecting with honors programs, study groups, different religious groups on campus, etc is definitely a possibility on a large campus. (that was me and neither of my parents were college graduates.   My mom didn't have beyond an 8th grade education (I am the youngest of a large family and my parents had me when they were older themselves.   Dropping out of school and working was the norm in her Irish culture.)

 

 

[regentrude]

 

Having graduated from engineering schools and taught at an engineering school, I know that students coming from a poverty background drop out of engineering school in huge numbers. It is tough to be the first family member to go to college. A lot of these kids are the first family member to even attend high school, let alone graduate high school and go to college. They don't know what to expect. You might  be surprised at the binge drinking that goes on at the top engineering universities, private or public.

 

No, I would not be surprised at the binge drinking, since I am teaching at such a school. It has, however, been my experience that this is extremely compartmentalized: some students are heavily involved in the party culture, while others have absolutely nothing to do with it. Usually this is correlated with performance.

My point about guys and engineering schools was that there is a different group dynamic with males on one hand, and with nerds on the other. The course load of a comp sci who spends his nights writing code necessarily reduces the available time for partying.

 

 

I also think you might be surprised at how many "rich" kids are at public universities, especially in engineering schools. Many of the top engineering schools are public--Michigan, Georgia Tech, Berkeley, Purdue, Illinois, University of Texas. In the South, a rich kid in engineering is very likely to go to Georgia Tech because his daddy and granddaddy went to school there. 

 

I can see that for the engineering schools, but the article specifically mentioned a non-specialized school.

Teaching at a public university, the only truly "rich" students I encounter are the ones for the middle East where daddy's backyard oil well pays for college in the US. Or I should better say: the only truly rich kids who let it hang out.  As an instructor, I do not encounter conspicuous display of wealth or attitude otherwise, so maybe there are very rich American students, but they don't make it known; at least not to their professors. I am not privy to the student-to-student interactions; I have, however, never had students complain, or sneer at, or otherwise mention, rich entitled class mates.

 

[Julie in MN]

I think the first-generation college students often have a very abstract notion of college.

 

I think this is very key.  We have a ton of first-generation college students (and even first-generation high school grads) on one side of the family.  Their comments about school in general are often vague, and they don't go in having any idea what they want to major in.  They will say very loose things like "I heard Business was the best thing" or "I want to be in computers" without a real understanding or way to gauge their potential, just the pie-in-the-sky idea that college will get them somewhere, even if all they are taking are classes like fencing.  Sometimes they wander in and out of college. 

 

Is this a problem?  Or is this just the way the first generation learns, and the following generation progresses from there ("Son, this is what I did, don't do that.")?  Will it help to get all serious and dire with them about costs and competition and grim realities?  I have chatted and even tutored in one instance, but in the end I think it's probably just a learning curve they need to go through in many cases (not all, by any means).  And I think a lot of it has to do with the general idea now that high school won't get you anywhere, you "must" go to college, whereas most of these kids wouldn't have even thought of college in my generation.

 

Some of those students will benefit just from having "some college" on their resumes, at least in comparison to their peers who don't.  Yes, they are saddled with college debts, but some of their peers are saddled with even sillier debts (e,g, took out a $10,00 loan to get a car, decided to get some other stuff, now has no car and no college and just as big of a debt as the one who "wasted it" on college...).

 

Maybe I'm cynical, but the author(s) seems kind of pie-in-the-sky to me, herself, at least regarding people.

Julie

P.S. I really don't like that colleges are pushing dorms on every freshman these days.  Dorms continue the high school mentality, to me (even though my oldest son is pro-dorm LOL).

[regentrude]

. I really don't like that colleges are pushing dorms on every freshman these days.  Dorms continue the high school mentality, to me (even though my oldest son is pro-dorm LOL).

 

I don't like it either, but I feel that this may partly have to do with the mentality that the students are not "real" adults and need supervision. Parents don't treat their 18 y/olds as adults, and want colleges to "keep an eye on them". And schools get in trouble if stuff "happens".

[Julie in MN]

I don't like it either, but I feel that this may partly have to do with the mentality that the students are not "real" adults and need supervision. Parents don't treat their 18 y/olds as adults, and want colleges to "keep an eye on them". And schools get in trouble if stuff "happens".

 

That's interesting.  Maybe it's true, I've been at some public high school meetings where parents are pushing for the strangest things.

 

As if dorms are safe, hmm.  Way more exposure to the most likely dangers to young people, but less exposure to the very rare dangers, I suppose.

 

But how can colleges think they will get in less trouble?  What about that article on Yale rapes posted recently?  Maybe they just think they have more power to cover things up when it's their turf?

 

Julie

[Caroline]

No, I would not be surprised at the binge drinking, since I am teaching at such a school. It has, however, been my experience that this is extremely compartmentalized: some students are heavily involved in the party culture, while others have absolutely nothing to do with it. Usually this is correlated with performance.

My point about guys and engineering schools was that there is a different group dynamic with males on one hand, and with nerds on the other. The course load of a comp sci who spends his nights writing code necessarily reduces the available time for partying.

 

 

 

I can see that for the engineering schools, but the article specifically mentioned a non-specialized school.

Teaching at a public university, the only truly "rich" students I encounter are the ones for the middle East where daddy's backyard oil well pays for college in the US. Or I should better say: the only truly rich kids who let it hang out.  As an instructor, I do not encounter conspicuous display of wealth or attitude otherwise, so maybe there are very rich American students, but they don't make it known; at least not to their professors. I am not privy to the student-to-student interactions; I have, however, never had students complain, or sneer at, or otherwise mention, rich entitled class mates.

 

 

Engineering schools are not full of nerds. We party, a lot. We really do. I think you might not realize what your students are doing after you go home at night.

 

And about the rich kids, well, most very rich Americans don't let it all hang out. You wouldn't notice them walking down the mall or the street. They aren't conspicuous. You wouldn't notice them in class. That is why I said you might be surprised. 

[regentrude]

As if dorms are safe, hmm.  Way more exposure to the most likely dangers to young people, but less exposure to the very rare dangers, I suppose.

 

But how can colleges think they will get in less trouble?  What about that article on Yale rapes posted recently?

 

I would guess the rationale is that colleges can impose rules and sanctions on behavior in dorms, whereas they can not do so for students who live off campus. For example, a dorm may be designated alcohol free (yes, I know, stuff gets smuggled in, but the school can impose consequences).

 

One other aspect is that student success and retention is correlated to to what extent students feel part of the campus community. It is much more difficult for a commuter student to participate in activities, late night study sessions etc than for students who live on campus. I see that frequently students who commute feel isolated and disconnected and have a harder time making friends. Under this aspect I can see why schools would consider it beneficial to mandate dorm residency.

 

[regentrude]

Engineering schools are not full of nerds. We party, a lot. We really do. I think you might not realize what your students are doing after you go home at night.

Granted. I don't see the party. But I have pretty good clues as to who the heaviest partiers are.

I see who is in class, alert and prepared and with homework done, at 8am the next morning ;-) If they partied the night before, they knew when to stop.

And I see who misses every class during the week of the university's drinking heavy traditional festival. Strangely enough, these are usually students who fail my class.

 

But this is off topic. My initial question still stands: why don't the students realize they have the option NOT to party?

[8filltheheart]

 My initial question still stands: why don't the students realize they have the option NOT to party?

 

As far as living on campus, supposedly research shows that students that live on campus are more likely to graduate and be more involved in campus activities.   I personally think it is $$ that is the reason (several of the schools we have looked at have room and board charges that are outrageous.....$12000......that is more than we pd for our oldest's room/board/and tuition!!   And these are state schools.

 

As far as your question, obviously any individual with any sense of personal responsibility vs. follow the crowd mentality,  and financial responsibility (knowing exactly how much they have to work to pay for the classes) are going to know that partying is NOT an obligation.

 

That spurred another thought--I wonder how many of partying students had zero financial investment in the outcome.   I was working 2 jobs to pay for my tuition.   I knew lots of kids that were partying.   They mostly fell into 2 categories--parents were paying their tuition or they were there on scholarship or grant $$.   I would never skip class b/c I had worked way too many hrs to pay for it!

 

[Julie in MN]

I would guess the rationale is that colleges can impose rules and sanctions on behavior in dorms, whereas they can not do so for students who live off campus. For example, a dorm may be designated alcohol free (yes, I know, stuff gets smuggled in, but the school can impose consequences).

 

One other aspect is that student success and retention is correlated to to what extent students feel part of the campus community. It is much more difficult for a commuter student to participate in activities, late night study sessions etc than for students who live on campus. I see that frequently students who commute feel isolated and disconnected and have a harder time making friends. Under this aspect I can see why schools would consider it beneficial to mandate dorm residency.

 

I guess I'm always the square peg in the round hole.

 

I see a kid in a gang of other kids as being FAR, FAR more likely to drink, to engage in promiscuous activity, go on dangerous "spring break" expeditions, etc.  I see a kid who has an apartment to upkeep like a grown-up, or who lives at home, as being far, far LESS likely to be in so much danger.  And in the end, all hose kids miss is high-school-type activities and popularity competitions, with really no connection to adult life.

 

I never lived in a dorm and I didn't drop out.  I rented a bedroom (in a house where each bedroom was your own rental) and then shared an apartment and then lived in an efficiency apartment of my own.  I felt I was much more headed towards adulthood, and the folks I knew in those environment were much more adult.  A lot of them were older, but some of them were "escapees" from dorms or sororities/fraternities, where their experience was that no learning was able to be accomplished.  They never saw those study groups actually study.

 

I think the dorm thing might be a self-fulfilling prophecy - promise kids a high school environment, popularity, friends, etc., and that's what kids who go there are wanting.

 

Oh well, it's probably just me.  I don't want that.  Never did.  Yes, I had my years as a partier-type teen, but at that point, I thought education was lame and wouldn't have imagined a college would cater to that lifestyle.  I don't seek that for my kids (even if they do sometimes).  And don't think it's a promise that can every be fulfilled for more than a few.  It's the same thing I tell folks who ask how my homeschoolers will ever find friends -- there's no guarantee they will ever have friends in the hord of kids at public school, and how lonely is that.  I think the same for the dorms, from what I hear. 

 

Julie

[*LC]

I find some of the statements in the article VERY peculiar:

 

....

 

The RICH girls do not go to the public state university. They attend small private LACs. State universities have a very diverse population, because they are public and less expensive.

 

 

 

I agree that many of the statements in the article were peculiar. I wonder if I would have made the same statements if I had read the whole study. In addition to some you mentioned, I'm confused by the idea of a party dorm. When I went to a large state university, the parties were not in the dorms. 

 

However, I disagree with the statement about RICH girls not going to public state university. Maybe this varies by region, but where I live RICH kids, who would be RICH by anyone's definition, go to large state universities.

 

In the past 10 years, I have met numerous times the close relative of a good friend. This family is the kind of rich who has multiple vacation homes & cars around the country; kids went to expensive private school; vacation in Europe multiple times a year, etc. The youngest relative is an incoming freshman at an in-state, large public university, where her older sibling attends. Dad went to law school there, but he went to a public Ivy for undergrad.

 

In talking about her orientation at a large out-of-state public university this summer, my daughter mentioned everyone taking pictures with the dad of one of their fellow incoming freshmen. When I asked why, she replied, "He is a celebrity, but you probably don't know him." Actually, I did "know" him, because he has been on television for 3 decades and he was famous before that. Of course, I do not know his finances, but there is no reason for him not to be RICH. Actually, he is public and well-known enough, that even I, who knows nothing about celebrities, "know" that the typical things that can cause celebrities to lose their wealth are not factors with this family.

 

On the other side of the spectrum, I do know this state university has programs designed especially for the first generation college student. So, schools are recognizing that getting these kids into college isn't enough to make them successful.

I'm confused by the idea of a party dorm. When I went to a large state university, the parties were not in the dorms. 

 

I think the designation "party dorm" isn't that the parties are happening there, but that it is inhabited by students with a larger-than-average desire to spend their free time at parties, which generally happen elsewhere.

One other aspect is that student success and retention is correlated to to what extent students feel part of the campus community. It is much more difficult for a commuter student to participate in activities, late night study sessions etc than for students who live on campus. 

 

Ironically, one thesis of this work is that the many of the students in the dorms who aren't connected to the party culture, aren't connected to any part of the campus community.  It wasn't the students who were partying too much who suffered the most. Rather, the students who couldn't connect to any campus groups (especially the off-campus parties) felt isolated, lonely, and homesick, and often ended up dropping out for basically non-academic reasons.

[Arcadia]

But this is off topic. My initial question still stands: why don't the students realize they have the option NOT to party?

I stayed in the university hostel. Not partying would render me an "outcast". I did the friday nights parties and hang out with my engineering/architecture hostelmates and we cram for exams together. So nobody's grades suffer despite partying.

There are people who party excessively regardless of whether they stay in dorms, offsite or home.

[Serenade]

I think the researchers saw what they wanted to see.   

 

 

 

Definitely.

[Janice in NJ]

I have read the book; I recommend it.

 

I just started typing a huge post. Twice. I've deleted.

 

I recommend the book. It was worth reading.

 

Peace,

Janice

I have read the book; I recommend it.

 

I just started typing a huge post. Twice. I've deleted.

 

I recommend the book. It was worth reading.

 

Peace,

Janice

 

I'm genuinely curious as to the full contents of their book, and I'm sorry that you've deleted your posts.  I would be very interested in the comments of someone who has read their book. Did the short interview capture the book?  Did their research seem genuine?  Did it change in any way what you would tell a college-bound student?

[Janice in NJ]

Hi G,

 

Did the short interview capture the book?

No. Interview made the conclusions seem arbitrary and unsupported. I posted after reading the responses to the article. I know a lot of the gals who responded here, and I suspect that while they seemed to take issue with the conclusions they drew from the article, I suspect they might strongly agree with the actual conclusions drawn in the book. This leads me to this evaluation: Good book. Poor article.

 

Did their research seem genuine?

Yes. Conclusions were well-supported.

 

Did it change in any way what you would tell a college-bound student?

Yes. I had my dd read several chapters. I plan to return to the ideas with her after she has had the chance to live on a college campus for a couple of months. I'm suspecting a few ,"Oh. I get it. That makes sense now."

 

Peace,

Janice

[Matryoshka]

Y'know, individual choices also mean a lot.  I went to a huge state school with a big reputation for partying.  I knew I wanted to stay as far away from that as possible, and it was easy.  I joined the honors program and requested an "academic" corridor.  Yes, there was still some drinking and some drugs, but I wasn't interested and no one pushed it on me ever.  There were a few parties, but not super-frequent, not out of control and nothing that would distract me from my studies.  My friends didn't "party" or go on "spring break".  I didn't even have a single sip of alcohol till I was legally of age.  But I did live in the dorms, on a co-ed floor with even a co-ed bathroom (which was a complete non-issue).

 

Yes, down in another part of campus you heard the stories of kiddie-pools of booze.  A friend and I wandered in and right back out of a Frat party once, just out of curiosity.  Ewww.   It's true I would have been miserable in one of the party dorms, but even at a big party school, not everyone parties. 

 

 

[FairProspects]

Rich kids at the state university? Absolutely. It depends on where the state university is located. Some of these kids & families have more money than God (and they still do).  Private jets, yachts, vacation homes, galas on the 76th floor, friends who danced with the President over winter break - encountered all of these at my public university. It was definitely an adjustment.

[8filltheheart]

Y'know, individual choices also mean a lot. I went to a huge state school with a big reputation for partying. I knew I wanted to stay as far away from that as possible, and it was easy. I joined the honors program and requested an "academic" corridor. Yes, there was still some drinking and some drugs, but I wasn't interested and no one pushed it on me ever. There were a few parties, but not super-frequent, not out of control and nothing that would distract me from my studies. My friends didn't "party" or go on "spring break". I didn't even have a single sip of alcohol till I was legally of age. But I did live in the dorms, on a co-ed floor with even a co-ed bathroom (which was a complete non-issue).

 

Yes, down in another part of campus you heard the stories of kiddie-pools of booze. A friend and I wandered in and right back out of a Frat party once, just out of curiosity. Ewww. It's true I would have been miserable in one of the party dorms, but even at a big party school, not everyone parties.

This was my experience almost exactly except our dorm was coed by suites and suites had their own bathrooms.

 

My best friend from 2nd grade was my roommate and when we got to campus, we took very different paths. She went to frat parties, bars, etc. I joined the Christian group on campus,etc. One time when she got really upset with me bc she complained I wasn't doing stuff with her, I went with her to a bar. After being there for about 5 mins and hearing some guys referring to me as "fresh meat," I left immediately. Ewwwww just about sums my thoughts up. Blech.

 

It really wasn't surprising in many respects. During high school a group of us would often debate moral issues and I was typically on a different side of the issues. In high school the debates were really theoretical in nature bc we lived in a rural area and all of us had gone to school together since we were little and everyone knew everyone and everyone's business. ;). In college, they became real options without parental knowledge, etc.

 

(But we remained good friends, regardless, and she was my maid of honor at my wedding. We just learned to respect that we were both going to be who we were and we had very different values and made very different choices.)

[swimmermom3]

I'm genuinely curious as to the full contents of their book, and I'm sorry that you've deleted your posts.  I would be very interested in the comments of someone who has read their book. Did the short interview capture the book?  Did their research seem genuine?  Did it change in any way what you would tell a college-bound student?

 

Thank you for asking these questions. The short review left me wondering if the quality of reviews in the NYT were in decline or if academic research was suffering from the same problem. I wondered if 8Fillthe Heart was right in that the researchers saw what they wanted to see, especially after I read this blurb on Publisher's Weekly,

 

"The preface describes the authors' experiences of "studying up"—learning about a more elite population—which compelled Armstrong to purchase new clothes on her way to interviews and Hamilton to grow out her hair."

 

From this I want to know how the study was set up. Perhaps my memories from college fail me. I don't remember there being "wealthy dorms." Yet, the researchers had to study up on a "more elite population? I guess besides knowing the study's parameters, I would be curious to know what well-respected peers  of Hamilton's thought of the methodology.

 

Hi G,

 

Did the short interview capture the book?

No. Interview made the conclusions seem arbitrary and unsupported. I posted after reading the responses to the article. I know a lot of the gals who responded here, and I suspect that while they seemed to take issue with the conclusions they drew from the article, I suspect they might strongly agree with the actual conclusions drawn in the book. This leads me to this evaluation: Good book. Poor article.

 

Did their research seem genuine?

Yes. Conclusions were well-supported.

 

Did it change in any way what you would tell a college-bound student?

Yes. I had my dd read several chapters. I plan to return to the ideas with her after she has had the chance to live on a college campus for a couple of months. I'm suspecting a few ,"Oh. I get it. That makes sense now."

 

Peace,

Janice

 

 

Thanks for writing this Janice. Maybe I spent too much time during the elections tracking information back to its source and then trying to check the source's credibility.

 

To me, the review as written seems too simplistic, too stereotypical, and too sensational (inflammatory? Whatever would sell a $35 book?) to be credible.

 

Did the research really tell you anything new, Janice?

I don't remember there being "wealthy dorms." Yet, the researchers had to study up on a "more elite population?

 

Yet another big change from the dark ages when I went to school:  I just checked the web site of my alma mater, and apparently, changing roommates or dorms is trivial now.  Just fill out an online form, and they'll let you know your new room in a few days.  When I went to school, we were strongly urged to stick it out, that learning to live with someone you didn't like was part of the college experience, and it seemed like they would only allow changes under the most dire of situations. I wonder how common the former policy was in those days, and how common the more liberal policy is now.  Seems like if it is really easy to switch dorms, it is possible for various groups to self-associate.

[Arcadia]

This I see even in public high school. The affluent girls know the  markers of the other affluent and they gravitate to each other, if they didn't already go to the same private preschool or church.

......

 The people I met at first in college were from major cities, and were used to partying excessively.

In Asia, the affluent girls would be hanging out at the "high end" country clubs with their parents. I used to shop at Giorgio Armani and Salvatore Ferragamo at the malls with my girlfriends.  Hubby had a sticker shock even though I forewarned him before he step into the stores. 

In California, I see similar trends.

 

I had always lived in major cities and I agree there is a party culture. However by the time I went to college at 18, I was tired of the party scene and only go "partying" to network.  It is possible to meet headhunters at "parties". As a "city girl", we know which night clubs attract which kind of clientele.

 

 

Big State U here does not require frosh to live on campus. It seems just as common now as when I was in college though for the wealthy to just purchase a condo or a home in the college town and then have their child rent the other bedrooms out if they aren't going the frat route. They use the vehicle they were given for their 16th bday.

My neighborhood has quite a few townhomes ($600k and up) that are bought for college kids by their parents with cash. The kid has the whole townhome and parents just stay there when they visit.

Vehicle is another obvious indicator, the kids get brand new pricy cars as their first car.

 

ETA:

Just to clarify, I am not for class warfare.  I had to "put up with it" since birth and my current neighborhood still indulge in it :( Our previous neighborhood which is near where hubby works has police activity every day.

Unfortunately all of hubby's possible employers are in class warfare "zones".  The bright side is my boy's German school is relatively free of class warfare even though it is further away than another German school which is "snobbish"

[8filltheheart]

In Asia, the affluent girls would be hanging out at the "high end" country clubs with their parents. I used to shop at Giorgio Armani and Salvatore Ferragamo at the malls with my girlfriends. Hubby had a sticker shock even though I forewarned him before he step into the stores.

In California, I see similar trends.

 

I had always lived in major cities and I agree there is a party culture. However by the time I went to college at 18, I was tired of the party scene and only go "partying" to network. It is possible to meet headhunters at "parties". As a "city girl", we know which night clubs attract which kind of clientele.

 

 

My neighborhood has quite a few townhomes ($600k and up) that are bought for college kids by their parents with cash. The kid has the whole townhome and parents just stay there when they visit.

Vehicle is another obvious indicator, the kids get brand new pricy cars as their first car.

These pts would be counter to the argument of the article. If these kids are socializing at exclusive clubs and living off campus then they are not going to represent the majority on a large public campus.

 

Regardless.....I still don't see how the "rich" segment of the student body impacts the "poorer" students. It sounds like high school cliques and feeding class warfare to me. If the purpose of attending college is simple socialization....maybe. If it is going to college as an adult for an education.....it is what they make it.

 

I'm sorry, but the only image I can see is Legally Blonde as being representative of the only world of reality. :p

[Ravin]

My first thought is that if they only looked at 18yo's going straight out of high school, things would be skewed. The people I know of who have pulled themselves out of poverty and into the middle class via college mostly did so as non-traditionally-aged students. I give myself as an example, and my DH. Many students who attend college on the G.I.Bill would also be examples. Adult students are often more focused and motivated and have clearer goals going into Uni. Many successful people coming from low-income backgrounds would also be missed by this study because they wouldn't live in the dorms (living at home, or attended community college first and transfered in as upperclassmen who don't have to live in the dorm).

 

it sounds like it's more "this particular subculture of students at party schools upholds class barriers."

[Sebastian (a lady)]

I'm curious about the question of mismatch of student to university.  Did the women observed have similar test scores, grades and academic backgrounds coming into college?  A quick look at IU's admissions requirements and profile doesn't lead me to think they are very selective.

 

How far back do we go in a student's life to find foundations laid or mislaid?  How much in the way of foundational habits and ability do we expect even an attentive college to overcome?  Did one family expect and ensure that high school summer reading assignments were completed while the other didn't realize anything had been assigned?  Did one family read aloud to their little kids, restrict television and model reading behavior?  Did one family have a family culture of thinking that college wasn't really necessary because the previous generation had done fine without it?

 

Or possibilities from another angle.  Did one set of students have little experience with self-discipline because there was always someone there to smooth things over?  Did one set struggle with mastering daily functions like laundry, because they were new responsibilities?  Did one set have a pattern of making excuses for uncompleted work?

 

I've asked my library to buy the book, because it sounds interesting.  But having read My Freshman Year and I'm the Teacher, You're the Student, it seems like there are many students who don't behave like responsible adults in college.  Many who make foolish choices and don't understand why their choices have consequences.  That might be the girl who parties without studying, or the guy who games all night and skips class, or the girl who takes a week off of school to go on a trip, or the guy who focuses on athletics not academics.

 

People make choices.  Maybe some don't have the parents at home to ping on them about what are good choices.  But I'm having a little trouble with the premise of the book as I understand it - that college is somehow unfair to girls of less means.

 

 

[teachermom2834]

I went to this university. While I'm not going to debate the definition of rich I do know that fancy spring break trips, constant shopping trips, weekend getaways at swanky hotels, etc. were common with girls in my dorm. If your roommate is jetting off in a private plane over break and you are scraping for gas money to drive home it can feel like you are surrounded by rich girls.

 

There were a lot of girls who seemed rich from out of state. IU is a nice school. Perhaps a landing spot for wealthy kids without top grades? It seemed like that 20 years ago.

 

My roommate said to me once "You fly commercial? I'd never do that."

 

I did somehow make it through and graduate but sometimes I am surprised I did. It was not particularly easy to navigate the large school and party scene. It obviously can be done but I can also see how easy it is to get off track. I'm encouraging my kids to look at smaller schools or really know what path they choose to take to find their place in a large school.

[creekland]

Rich kids at the state university? Absolutely. It depends on where the state university is located. Some of these kids & families have more money than God (and they still do).  Private jets, yachts, vacation homes, galas on the 76th floor, friends who danced with the President over winter break - encountered all of these at my public university. It was definitely an adjustment.

There are definitely rich kids at public Us... there are just a lot more of them (esp proportionately) at many private Us.  Been there, seen that at both, but for any who want "facts" more than a small personal anecdote, just look at how many students are full pay at each (no need based aid) and remember the differences in cost between state schools and public schools (fewer will qualify for need based aid at public schools due to lower costs).

 

38% did not apply for need-based aid at IU (College board source) 75% of those who did apply were judged to have need.

 

Compare that to private schools of your choice.  (Some private schools attract more "rich" than others.)

 

 If your roommate is jetting off in a private plane over break and you are scraping for gas money to drive home it can feel like you are surrounded by rich girls.

 

 

This is definitely true - no matter what your school choice is.

 

First generation students can easily feel out of place, out of their league, or whatever words you choose to use.  Life IS different among the socioeconomic classes (always exceptions of course), but when some can rent a cruise ship and private island for a wedding and others are scraping by in their backyard or church basement... it's just different.  Couple this with what they can be hearing "back home."  Many (not all) do not have supportive families back home either.  I've heard parents telling their kids that college is a waste of time, a waste of money, a place where kids go to learn how to drink, full of elite snobs, and oodles of similar comments.  When college gets "tough" (either academic or homesickness) these kids don't have a cheerleading section back home to lean on. 

 

There is no easy solution.  I wish there were.  There are some talented kids who have troubles making the switch (between economic classes).  I really admire those who can push through and do it - esp when they don't look down upon their roots (even when their roots were horrific as sometimes happens).

[Sebastian (a lady)]

 

First generation students can easily feel out of place, out of their league, or whatever words you choose to use.  Life IS different among the socioeconomic classes (always exceptions of course), but when some can rent a cruise ship and private island for a wedding and others are scraping by in their backyard or church basement... it's just different.  Couple this with what they can be hearing "back home."  Many (not all) do not have supportive families back home either.  I've heard parents telling their kids that college is a waste of time, a waste of money, a place where kids go to learn how to drink, full of elite snobs, and oodles of similar comments.  When college gets "tough" (either academic or homesickness) these kids don't have a cheerleading section back home to lean on. 

 

 

 

I agree with the above.  But I also think that with teens in general, we often fail to convey to them that lots of people feel uncertain and out of place.  That most people have something about which they are sensitive.

 

So when they do feel beleaguered or have some failures, they think that it is indicative of an innate inferiority on their part rather than a short term condition that they can get through.  This is actually one reason why I really like kids reading lots of fiction.  It can give them the idea that they are not alone in living through challenges, while also giving them an example of someone who survived.  For students coming out of challenging personal circumstances, this might be doubly important.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

One other factor I'd love to see contrasted would be faith backgrounds and habits.  Not that I think there is a straight correlation, but I can remember a couple times in my more stressful academy days when I clung to the words of a song or Bible verse as if it were a lifeline.  There were also a few Bible studies and Christian groups that gave me a safe place to talk about problems without feeling that I was going to be judged as a failure or a fraud as a student.  Since some of the groups had adult staff members, there was also a cadre of grown ups with a longer perspective on life and school who could give advice or just a shoulder to cry on.

 

To be fair, there were some similar group outlets in my sports and through the sponsor program, where any interested mid is placed with a local community family.  The family has them over on weekends for a meal, some down time and just general family life.  The college tour we took at WVU had a guide that mentioned each dorm had a faculty family that lived next door.  The family would have ice cream socials and try to help with transition to college.  Our guide mentioned going over to walk and snuggle their dog, when she was feeling in need.

 I've heard parents telling their kids that college is a waste of time, a waste of money, a place where kids go to learn how to drink, full of elite snobs, and oodles of similar comments.  

 

 

I'm in the queue for the book at my library, so I haven't read it yet, but I think the above is an important part of their thesis, and is true, at least for a subset of the students.  They say that the upper-class girls realize that academics don't matter much for their career plans, rather, their objective is to network and meet other upper-class families that will hire them, regardless of their major and GPA.  So, for them, the partying is a critical part of their strategy.

[DavidArchuletaFan]

I was the first one in my family to graduate highschool. I'm also the only one so far to have even attended and then graduate University. I come from a poor, working class background and always felt like it was my secret shame. I did have extra.obstacles to overcome in my education but they weren't anything significant enough to blame success or failure on.

 

I have definitely seen in many working class families and even in my own family with my younger siblings the tendency to minimise the importance of a university education. I think this is perhaps the most significant factor in why lower socio-economic people graduate at consistently lower rates than high socio economic classes. It's the expectations and conditioning they receive at home.

 

I never partied - never was my thing, ever - and I associated with people, who had similar standards to me, regardless of economic background.

 

As an adult, I have definitely risen out of the poverty I grew up in. As a female I think the man I married played an important part in that. He too was the first to graduate university in his family (although his brother did also concurrently). However, I believe I attracted him to me and I was attracted to him because we were 'like each other'.

 

I believe we attract and are attracted to people 'like us' and that also plays into the poverty cycle. I knew I wanted to marry within my faith. Where I lived, most young men within my faith were of a different ethnic and cultural background to me and most had only graduated high school, and probably not very successfully. Is it just coincidence that I married one of the few men who were of the same ethnic, cultural background as me and who was also one of the few to have graduated university, like me? I doubt it. Not that I was being discriminatory in any way, just that people feel comfortable and can relate best to people 'like them'.

 

It was my grandmother - who dropped out of school in the 8th grade - that taught me to want a higher education and to have the drive to succeed. It was also her who instilled in me throughout the years, the belief that despite my lack of money and background, I was just as good socially, morally, academically etc as anyone with money. And despite my secret shame for being poor, I always felt that I could and would associate with anyone of any class. Perhaps SHE was my support at home that the rich kids have and the poor kids lack. She was probably the REAL reason I was able to rise above my poor background.

[creekland]

It was my grandmother - who dropped out of school in the 8th grade - that taught me to want a higher education and to have the drive to succeed. It was also her who instilled in me throughout the years, the belief that despite my lack of money and background, I was just as good socially, morally, academically etc as anyone with money. And despite my secret shame for being poor, I always felt that I could and would associate with anyone of any class. Perhaps SHE was my support at home that the rich kids have and the poor kids lack. She was probably the REAL reason I was able to rise above my poor background.

 

Your whole post resonated with me as it describes perfectly what I see often, but this last part I do think is the key.  It really, really helps if there is SOMEONE as a cheerleader for the student reminding them both that they are worthy and can do it.

 

My parents were first gen college (and high school) in my family line.  It was my grandmothers who inspired them even though they never went beyond 4th or 8th grade (one each).  I applaud the grandmothers out there who do this (even if it's not grandma - whoever fills that role).

 

I'm around people of all socioeconomic classes both family and in my life circle (at school, church, etc).  There is NOT a worth difference.  There are worthy and not-so-worthy (based upon actions) in both high and low economic cultures (and in between).  I wish everyone could have a varied background to see it, but most don't (or they see through colored glasses).  Most do have an informal caste system they use.

 

So... maybe this is also just "birds of a feather flocking together" akin to what you mention in the rest of your post, but kudos to you both for being successful and being willing to still truly associate with anyone.  That's the way the world should work IMO.  I wish it did more often.  ;)

 

[Janice in NJ]

Duplicate

[Janice in NJ]

Duplicate

[Janice in NJ]

Checking in again.

 

IMO, the book doesn't so much answer the question, "Does college maintain class inequality?" Instead it is the best answer I have found to the "How?" question.

 

I arrived at the "Yes, in general college does maintain class inequality" conclusion quite a while ago. This is a broad brush, to be sure. But I found that denying it is a terribly difficult position to defend. Unless ignoring the truth is just too terribly painful. If so, I understand why discussing the outliers is a more pleasant way to spend our time.

 

Yes, there are outliers.

 

As far as boot-strapping your way out of a social class, there is a big difference between majoring in mechanical engineering and some of the majors listed in the article. The book is not about the kids in the math department who live in the honors dorm- the ones who study hard and are thankful for every opportunity that comes their way. Wrong book. But we know those kids are already the outliers in the undergrad population of IU.

 

The book is not about the partiers vs. the studious. The book is about the kids with money who party vs. kids without money who think they can have the same exciting life because college existence makes all things seem possible/ equal. It's a mirage. Equality is a mirage.

 

Even our grocery carts reflect our resources vs. our abilities. Shop at Save a Lot and then shop at Whole Foods. A clever cook with a good eye for value can turn a Save a Lot bag into a gorgeous meal and the Whole Foods gal can serve up a pile o' mush. But in general, the gal cruising the pre-prepped aisle at Whole Foods has a better shot at elegant entertaining with time to spare to get her nails and her hair done than the gal who needs a quarter to use the shopping cart. Rummaging through her purse with the strap that keeps coming unhooked. Dang! Seriously? There MUST be one in here.

 

My dh calls Whole Foods "Whole Paycheck."

 

So the book accepts class inequality at college as a given. Because it is. A given. Everywhere. But it's sneaky in college because everyone lives in the same block cell, and - to the untrained eye - everyone seems to carry the same book bag.

 

Everything seems equal until things go wrong. If the book bags are stolen, one student is stuck in the library waiting for the text book she needs to be returned to the reserve desk. The other student has a new bag with new books delivered via next day service. She didn't even order the new pens. They just appeared. After all, you NEED pens.

 

Student B can't really relate to student A's anxiety either. In her mind, student A is materialistic. It is wrong to be so bent on things. Student A acts like everyone is a thief now; she worries about her stuff all the time. She should focus on more important things like people and relationships. Stuff can be replaced. And, after all, if student A placed more of a priority on her education, she would buy new books. After all, you can't do well in college if you don't have books. Doesn't she know that?

 

In the end, one of the gals grows up and heads to Whole Foods when it's time to entertain. She may not know the first thing about cooking, but she knows how to put together a beautiful meal. You want people to feel special and welcomed when they come to your house, don't you?

 

Life is grand!!

 

Peace,

Janice

 

Enjoy your little people

Enjoy your journey

[StephanieZ]

Depending on how you define it, I see more and more 'rich' families sending kids to large public schools. If you define rich as top 1% of assets, or even top 1% of income, I guess those wealthiest families most likely rarely consider cost for education.

 

However, IME, families in the upper 2-5% of income brackets generally qualify for zero need based aid, and at 55-60k/yr, even families making 200-250k/yr cannot afford to pay that, so private and out of state schools are often out of reach. I know 250k/yr income may sound rich, but, I promise, it does not make 60k/yr times a few kids and a few years each affordable at all.

 

Realistically, most families with college age kids have not been making that high income many years, so are likely still carrying educational or business debt or even consumer debt from leaner years, especially if they had their kids fairly young. Also, tax brackets for those higher incomes are often close to 50% all combined, and they have long since lost all th deductions lower earners enjoy . . . So scraping up 60k would likely, truly, eat up 100k+ worth of that pretax income.

 

Yah, yah, I know, tiny violins. . . But, really, this is a huge driver for higher income families to stick with the good public schools in place of private or out of state. I know many families making this choice right now.

 

I personally know someone whose kid had to turn down Stanford this year in favor of another very good but much, much less expensive school. Purely for $$ reason as the expected contribution for this family was completely unrealistic.

[Heather in WI]

Thank you for your comments, Janice. I just requested the book from the library. :-)

[Nan in Mass]

The first generation students I know who have dropped out of college have done so because they weren't properly prepared in high school, began doing poorly, didn't know how to overcome some bad grades by efficiently navigating through the university system by using add-drop, tutoring, going to the prof, or even asking one's roommate for help.  They either don't know the help is available or if they do, they are afraid that if they need it, it is a sign that they really don't belong in college.  Doing poorly begins to multiply the way it does if you don't do something about it early on, and next thing they know, they are faced with a disaster.  Their family and friends, having disliked school themselves, sees that they are unhappy and says something along the lines of: "Well, college isn't for everyone, you know.  So-and-so is hiring.  Go apply there."  When I contrast that to the non-first-generation students I know who got into trouble in college, it is pretty easy to see why this is a factor in graduation rate.  There, a student who complains to family or friends about having trouble is likely to receive specific directions about what to do to fix the situation.  Quitting isn't considered an option.  There would be a huge ruckus and a lot of shame if they did.  They don't see any way out of going to college, either.  What sort of life will they have if they quit?  They'll wind up working at McDonalds for the rest of their life and starving.  They usually don't have the resources to come up with a viable alternative plan.  Asking for help is considered the sensible thing to do, more a reflection on their previous teachers or some sort of mistake rather than a reflection on their own capabilities.  Is it any wonder they are more likely to graduate?  What other choice do they have?  My experience with this is very limited, though.

 

My experience at university was that it was perfectly possible not to get caught up in the party scene - frat parties eeeewww, bars really boring if you have no interest in drinking, coed dorms and bathrooms a total non-issue, no problems not partying since it looked so utterly stupid and yucky, no particular pressure to drink if you avoided the frats.  There seemed to be plenty of things to do if you didn't want to party.  The dorms were pretty noisy and it was better to study elsewhere.

 

I think community colleges can be a great bridge for first generation college students.  It STILL is hard, but at least there are other people there who know how hard is might be and the lower classes that build up to the higher ones start much lower.

 

Nan

My copy of this book finally came in from the library, and I just started reading it.  Even having not finished the book,  I would recommend it to anyone with kids on track to go to college.  

 

First interesting point:  There are very wealthy students at this college (University of Indiana), very wealthy meaning their fathers are CEOs and CFOs of large multinational companies, who fly around on private jets.  This is because the university goes out its way to recruit them, especially from out of state: they pay full price, need no scholarships, generally have higher-than-average standardized test scores, making the University look better, tend to be good alumni givers after graduation, and they generally don't ask for lab classes or other expensive, specialized training.  Often these girls are the least academically gifted in their families.  While they need a college degree to "succeed" later in life, any degree will do, and it is more important for them to leverage their existing social connections and spend their college years developing a large social network with the families of other upper class students, who will be in a position to hire them after graduation.   The authors call this the "Party Pathway", one of three strategies college students select, but I think that's a bit of a misnomer, it is really more of the "Social Pathway".  These kids come into school knowing a lot about the social issues there, and the first thing they do is select to live with each other in a "party dorm".  Often first generation students don't have this background, pick a dorm randomly, and end up accidentally in the "party dorm".

 

IU caters to the party pathway's needs by offering "cakewalk" majors in subjects like communications, event planning, recreation management, hospitality, etc.  One way in which this hurts the lower class "strivers" is that no one tells them, out-and-out, that these majors are mainly useful for upper class kids.  For example, one lower class girl majors in "Event Planning", thinking that wedding planning would be a fun career path.  What no one tells her, is that only the wealthy hire wedding planners, and they don't look for a college degree, they generally want a wedding planner who was steeped in the consumerism and brandism of the upper class.  They don't care if you have a BA in Wedding Planning, they want someone who is familiar with high fashion, which isn't what a farm girl from rural Indiana is going to present.

[MamaSprout]

I don't like it either, but I feel that this may partly have to do with the mentality that the students are not "real" adults and need supervision. Parents don't treat their 18 y/olds as adults, and want colleges to "keep an eye on them". And schools get in trouble if stuff "happens".

 

I have three in college, and none are in dorms. We treat our kids as adults and the whole dorm thing was a disaster.

[momma2three]

My copy of this book finally came in from the library, and I just started reading it.  Even having not finished the book,  I would recommend it to anyone with kids on track to go to college.  

 

First interesting point:  There are very wealthy students at this college (University of Indiana), very wealthy meaning their fathers are CEOs and CFOs of large multinational companies, who fly around on private jets.  This is because the university goes out its way to recruit them, especially from out of state: they pay full price, need no scholarships, generally have higher-than-average standardized test scores, making the University look better, tend to be good alumni givers after graduation, and they generally don't ask for lab classes or other expensive, specialized training.  Often these girls are the least academically gifted in their families.  While they need a college degree to "succeed" later in life, any degree will do, and it is more important for them to leverage their existing social connections and spend their college years developing a large social network with the families of other upper class students, who will be in a position to hire them after graduation.   The authors call this the "Party Pathway", one of three strategies college students select, but I think that's a bit of a misnomer, it is really more of the "Social Pathway".  These kids come into school knowing a lot about the social issues there, and the first thing they do is select to live with each other in a "party dorm".  Often first generation students don't have this background, pick a dorm randomly, and end up accidentally in the "party dorm".

 

IU caters to the party pathway's needs by offering "cakewalk" majors in subjects like communications, event planning, recreation management, hospitality, etc.  One way in which this hurts the lower class "strivers" is that no one tells them, out-and-out, that these majors are mainly useful for upper class kids.  For example, one lower class girl majors in "Event Planning", thinking that wedding planning would be a fun career path.  What no one tells her, is that only the wealthy hire wedding planners, and they don't look for a college degree, they generally want a wedding planner who was steeped in the consumerism and brandism of the upper class.  They don't care if you have a BA in Wedding Planning, they want someone who is familiar with high fashion, which isn't what a farm girl from rural Indiana is going to present.

 

How fascinating.  It's interesting how taboo this is to talk about in America, where we're so steeped in the patriotic propaganda that "you can do anything!"  I can definitely see how the last paragraph would happen... if anyone HAD warned the woman in the last paragraph "oh that's only a major for rich girls," it would have been pooh pooh'd as telling the woman that she wasn't good enough, or something like that.  When it is true: nobody hiring a wedding planner is looking for a BA in wedding planning, they're looking for someone steeped in the traditions and experience of upscale weddings from childhood.  Who spend their childhood and young adulthood hearing older relatives dissect what's expected, what's "tacky," and what's elastic from listening to older relatives talk about weddings that they (the future rich wedding planner) attended.  You're also more likely to entrust your wedding to someone you "know," and even if that doesn't mean that you're besties with them personally, it makes use of the sort of webs of contacts that the upper class makes sure their kids develop through a childhood full of sending their kids to the same 50 summer camps, vacationing at the same elite spots, private schools, boarding schools, and colleges.

 

The fact is that the US has less social mobility than any other western country, I think excluding the UK... and IMO a lot of the reason for that is because people aren't allowed to talk about it... best case scenario they just come off as tacky (because talking about money is crass), or worst case they come off as leveling snotty ad hominem attacks ("that woman should never have majored in wedding planning, she isn't rich or connected enough!")  And so the upper class remains secure in their web of contacts, and everyone else just doesn't really understand why we're excluded and what people aren't telling us.

I have three in college, and none are in dorms. We treat our kids as adults and the whole dorm thing was a disaster.

 

Again, from the book, it seems like the University is much more concerned about minimizing its legal liability than doing what is best for the students.  For example, alcohol is absolutely forbidden in the dorms, and this rule is strongly enforced.  There is almost no drinking in the dorm rooms.  However, what this means is that the kids go out most every night, usually to frat parties to drink.  It was striking to read how the dorms were dead silent at midnight, when most of the kids were out at parties, but when they returned at 2am, plastered, it was incredibly boisterous for hours, even on school nights.  The University knows this, and there is only token enforcement of underage drinking at the frats.  Obviously, this is much less safe than allowing the kids to drink, under some supervision of their RAs, in their dorm rooms, but if anything bad happens, the University can deflect any liability onto the frats, who are legally separate entities.

[creekland]

My older two are in dorms and haven't had issues... they've enjoyed it - and neither are into partying.  One just has to find their niche in college IME.  When in the correct niche, college can be a very enjoyable and rewarding experience.

[MamaSprout]

My older two are in dorms and haven't had issues... they've enjoyed it - and neither are into partying.  One just has to find their niche in college IME.  When in the correct niche, college can be a very enjoyable and rewarding experience.

 

I'm pretty sure they weren't studying the married student dorm for this study....

 

In most major universities, you have no say about which dorm you are in, or who your roommates are. They give a form to fill out, but I think the only part of it they look at is if you prefer a smoking or nonsmoking roommate. I actually had one of my kids assigned to a mop closet (no lock on the door) with 2 roommates who spoke absolutely no English. We're pretty open minded, but one would expect your child to have at least the amenities a prisoner would have while incarcerated.