NYT article on how college maintains class inequalities

I finally finished the book, and would recommended it.  While the authors presented plenty of evidence that there is a "party pathway" through school, that is almost required for the kinds of success that upper class girls are looking for, I'm not sure they presented their case that this party pathway is detrimental to those who are trying to use college to improve their station.

 

Something they don't mention, but that I found sad, was the institutionalized sexism of the upper classes.  When talking about their families, it was always talking about their fathers' high-paying occupation, not once did they mention the role of their mothers.  These girls didn't feel the need to be smart, or to do well in college, or find a career of any kind.  They just wanted to live in the style to which they were accustomed, and eventually marry into wealth.  Not a single one aspired to be a CEO or CFO, or own their own company, or have any degree of independence; they all wanted to marry into it.  They are certainly not looking for the "Mrs. degree", because they know that men who do well in college aren't necessarily super-successful afterwards, and want to wait until their 30s to marry, so they can be sure of their husband's career path.  Often, after college, they take jobs that are very low paying, but relatively high-status (such as being an administrative aid for a politically correct charity), living poshly in an expensive city, and rely on financial support from their parents until marriage.  Presumably these men are going to the well-regarded IU business school, which is hard, and presumably requires a lot of studying.  I would have liked to see how the boys' lives differ.

 

Another big question I had is "how typical is this particular dorm floor".  My guess is, not at all.  The authors claim that, of the 53 girls living there, only 2 are majoring in "quantitative fields", whatever that means.  I consider Calculus as the typical college level math class, but I don't think this word appeared once in the whole book.  There were lots of girls taking remedial math classes of all levels. Looking at Indiana's math department's web page, I'm shocked at how many levels of math they offer before Calc, many of which don't count for college credit.  One girl attributed her low GPA to bad advice from her adviser: to take "Finite Math" her freshmen year.  "No one takes that class freshman year", she complained.  And it sounds like she got a D in it, for it brought down her GPA for years.  I wasn't sure what subjects are considered "Finite Math", so I looked online, and discovered that the prerequisites for this class are understanding fractions (!) and basic high school algebra.  This is the highest level math class mentioned in the book.

 

If I were sending my kids to college soon, and had to put them in dorms, the one question I'd like to ask is "what is the graduation rate of freshmen who start out on this floor, and how does that compare to other dorms?".  From what I've read here, that graduation rate will vary tremendously, and what dorm you are in may make a huge difference in your college experience.  It seems clear that there is a high correlation between dorm floor and college success, but I'm not sure the causation is due to the partying class.  Wasn't there another thread quoting a statistic that said something like "only 18% of those students who start in remedial Math and English ever graduate?"  Maybe that's what's going on here.

 

 

 

 

 

[Crimson Wife]

Something they don't mention, but that I found sad, was the institutionalized sexism of the upper classes.  When talking about their families, it was always talking about their fathers' high-paying occupation, not once did they mention the role of their mothers.  These girls didn't feel the need to be smart, or to do well in college, or find a career of any kind.  They just wanted to live in the style to which they were accustomed, and eventually marry into wealth.  Not a single one aspired to be a CEO or CFO, or own their own company, or have any degree of independence; they all wanted to marry into it.  They are certainly not looking for the "Mrs. degree", because they know that men who do well in college aren't necessarily super-successful afterwards, and want to wait until their 30s to marry, so they can be sure of their husband's career path.  Often, after college, they take jobs that are very low paying, but relatively high-status (such as being an administrative aid for a politically correct charity), living poshly in an expensive city, and rely on financial support from their parents until marriage.  Presumably these men are going to the well-regarded IU business school, which is hard, and presumably requires a lot of studying.

I grew up around "old money" (though my parents were just regular upper-middle-class) and went to college with a bunch of rich kids. The above was not my experience at all. The girls were absolutely expected to go to a selective college and often grad school as well. It is true there was the assumption that they would not need to support themselves so it was often for things like art history or interior design, or a humanities degree like literature or French. The more altruistic would do things like the Peace Corps or Teach for America or environmental activism, etc. But a high level of accomplishment was expected- only getting into a relatively unselective state school like Indiana would've been seen as a failure (a "public ivy" like UC Berkeley, Michigan-Ann Arbor, UVA, or William & Mary was seen as acceptable).

 The girls were absolutely expected to go to a selective college and often grad school as well. It is true there was the assumption that they would not need to support themselves so it was often for things like art history or interior design, or a humanities degree like literature or French. 

 

Note that this cohort is the self-described "dumb ones of the family", whose smarter siblings are going to selective schools.

[MamaSprout]

I grew up around "old money" (though my parents were just regular upper-middle-class) and went to college with a bunch of rich kids. The above was not my experience at all. The girls were absolutely expected to go to a selective college and often grad school as well. It is true there was the assumption that they would not need to support themselves so it was often for things like art history or interior design, or a humanities degree like literature or French. The more altruistic would do things like the Peace Corps or Teach for America or environmental activism, etc. But a high level of accomplishment was expected- only getting into a relatively unselective state school like Indiana would've been seen as a failure (a "public ivy" like UC Berkeley, Michigan-Ann Arbor, UVA, or William & Mary was seen as acceptable).

 

IU is much more selective these days. I know more than one Indiana resident in the top 10 of their class who did not get in.

[MamaSprout]

 

Another big question I had is "how typical is this particular dorm floor".  My guess is, not at all.  The authors claim that, of the 53 girls living there, only 2 are majoring in "quantitative fields", whatever that means.  I consider Calculus as the typical college level math class, but I don't think this word appeared once in the whole book.  There were lots of girls taking remedial math classes of all levels. Looking at Indiana's math department's web page, I'm shocked at how many levels of math they offer before Calc, many of which don't count for college credit.  One girl attributed her low GPA to bad advice from her adviser: to take "Finite Math" her freshmen year.  "No one takes that class freshman year", she complained.  And it sounds like she got a D in it, for it brought down her GPA for years.  I wasn't sure what subjects are considered "Finite Math", so I looked online, and discovered that the prerequisites for this class are understanding fractions (!) and basic high school algebra.  This is the highest level math class mentioned in the book.

 

 

 

I'm not sure if something has changed in the last maybe 2 years, but for the most part, IU and Purdue are no longer are allowed to offer the super-remedial math classes. The non-degree classes, for the most part, are supposed to be taken at Ivy Tech (the state run community college). There was a big blow up over this, because apparently teaching 7th grade math at college is really profitable.

 

I live in Indiana (as I'm sure is pretty obvious by my comments.) None of my kiddos went to IU, although all 3 who are in college looked at it. The information I hear second hand from the book does sound like IU- but more like IU 10 years ago. There are serious parties at most schools, but IU had a special reputation for it for a while.

 

As I'm sure is the case at most universities, the landscape has changed dramatically as people have dropped out of the work force and into college. I was a college instructor at a CC for 13 years. The last 4 or 5, the quality of many of my students decreased dramatically (although oddly, their math competency did improve with the addition of a stronger remedial math program). I am no longer teaching at the CC because the "spark" was gone. It was, "Tell me what I need to do to get the piece of paper, and I'll just barely do that much."

 

As for dorms, my fourth dc will not ever live in large university college dorm, and all of my big kids are in off-campus rentals.

[creekland]

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.

Neither of mine were married freshmen year (oldest just got married this past summer after junior year and now lives off campus, but he was unmarried and in dorms his first three years).  Neither selected their dorm nor roommate - though middle had originally selected his roommate, but unfortunately, that young lad passed away from an accident over the summer before college.  He got assigned a random roommate, and while not BFF, they got along just fine without any issues.  His roommate was also not a partier.

 

 

Another big question I had is "how typical is this particular dorm floor".  My guess is, not at all.  

That's my guess too.  Just like you have all types in life, you have all types in college.  The key to success in life (not necessarily monetary) is to find your niche and enjoy it while not getting drawn into "other" paths.  This can happen in high school, college, or adult life IME.  It all depends upon the person.

 

To me, a large part of college that I want mine to enjoy is dorm life - and that doesn't include "party life" for any of us at this point.  There is so much else out there to be experienced - sharing lives with others from all socioeconomic classes, worldviews, likes/dislikes, experiences/backgrounds, etc.  To me, it's priceless.  My guys have benefitted from it tremendously.   As usual YMMV.

 

(Parties and partiers are out there, of course - in life as well as college, but some seem to think they're the only groups out there.  It's just not true if one looks around and/or picks the right school(s.))

In most major universities, you have no say about which dorm you are in, or who your roommates are. 

 

I'm not sure how universal this is.  It seems like one reason this dorm floor at Indiana was so extreme, in addition to the self-selection, was that it had no students in the honors program: they are all in the special honors dorm.  There's also a special dorm for foreign language speakers, for women in STEM fields, etc., etc.  None of these students were represented in the "party dorm", they all had their special residential location.

[MamaSprout]

I'm not sure how universal this is.  It seems like one reason this dorm floor at Indiana was so extreme, in addition to the self-selection, was that it had no students in the honors program: they are all in the special honors dorm.  There's also a special dorm for foreign language speakers, for women in STEM fields, etc., etc.  None of these students were represented in the "party dorm", they all had their special residential location.

 

Most of the time the special dorms are for upperclassmen (at least at the 5-6 universities in the Midwest my kids considered). I think there is a notion students make more friends if you just throw them all in together the first year. (Sort of the same faulty logic as "everyone will even out by third grade".)

 

I think it would be better for all the students if they did allow them to have more choice based in interest and habits. You'd think there could be a computer program written for this; create code for specific "interest traits" and class schedules then match roommates and dorms based on those.

 

When I said earlier one of my kids ended up in a mop closet, I wasn't just saying it sarcastically. She literally was housed in a converted storage room with a drain on the floor. Her brother knew that because he visited the same dorm regularly the previous year. We only got her moved when we threatened to post video to You Tube and call the Board of Health.

 

That said, I think the IU study sounds very narrow, and not really worth drawing any sweeping conclusions from. Sort of the college life equivalent of a sound bite.

 

I realize students go to college and have lovely dorm experiences. So far, our family's luck with Big 10 University housing has been sub-par.

[In The Great White North]

If I were sending my kids to college soon, and had to put them in dorms, the one question I'd like to ask is "what is the graduation rate of freshmen who start out on this floor, and how does that compare to other dorms?".

Do colleges actually provide this info?

[creekland]

Do colleges actually provide this info?

I seriously doubt it.  I seriously doubt they even think about tracking it.  But I'm guessing...

[creekland]

 

All of the snobby stuff I never encountered in college, but I never knew anyone who was super rich either. 

I knew some who were super rich - one who was super, super rich, but they weren't snobby.

I seriously doubt it.  I seriously doubt they even think about tracking it.  But I'm guessing...

 

I think that if we start asking about it, there's more of a chance that it will be tracked.  But, even if the colleges don't formally track these things, I think that you can ask existing students informally, and they will know which dorms are the "party dorms", and which ones are the "serious student" dorms.

[creekland]

I think that if we start asking about it, there's more of a chance that it will be tracked.  But, even if the colleges don't formally track these things, I think that you can ask existing students informally, and they will know which dorms are the "party dorms", and which ones are the "serious student" dorms.

But students don't always stay in the same dorms each year at many colleges, and even in the same dorm, one floor might be a party floor while the next one (up or down) could not be.  Next year it might be different.

 

Middle son opted to be one of the upperclassmen working with freshmen this year.  We both seriously hoped he'd get great freshmen who weren't into partying.  He did.  His partner on the other hall  (same floor - different wing) wasn't quite so lucky.

 

Many times it's luck of the draw - then who you choose to hang out with.

[Caroline]

I think that if we start asking about it, there's more of a chance that it will be tracked.  But, even if the colleges don't formally track these things, I think that you can ask existing students informally, and they will know which dorms are the "party dorms", and which ones are the "serious student" dorms.

 

I think at most schools the data would be meaningless. Who lives in O'Shag one year may be very different from who lives in O'Shag the next year, to use an example from my alma mater.

[Crimson Wife]

My alma mater did some survey that found alumni who had live in all-freshman dorms their 1st year were significantly more generous donors to the school after graduation than those who had lived in 4-class dorms their 1st year. So sometime in the past 10-15 years the school added more all-frosh dorms.

My alma mater did some survey that found alumni who had live in all-freshman dorms their 1st year were significantly more generous donors to the school after graduation than those who had lived in 4-class dorms their 1st year. So sometime in the past 10-15 years the school added more all-frosh dorms.

 

Well, there's a surprising correlation.  Was there any suggestion as to the cause of this correlation?

 

And, interesting that they may not track GPAs or graduation rate by dorm, but they do track alumni giving...

[Caroline]

Well, there's a surprising correlation.  Was there any suggestion as to the cause of this correlation?

 

And, interesting that they may not track GPAs or graduation rate by dorm, but they do track alumni giving...

 

My guess is that they didn't track it. They did a survey after the fact. And I bet the survey only went to people who graduated.

[mommaduck]

Two keys are family educational background and support.

 

I'm from a large sibling group with various parents (half siblings different ways).

 

Group 1) The one that has a four year degree had a mother with an Associates, a father who got his degrees post retirement, and his father paid ALL of his living expenses AND went half a million dollars into debt to pay for his education. The other from the same set of parents is mentally disabled.

 

Group 2) Of those of us that had one parent with an Associates and one drop out, we have two of us with GEDs working toward college degrees and the other one is a dropout with no interest in a college education.

 

Group 3) Of those of us that had one parent with an Associates and one unknown education from a foreign country, we have two with diplomas and working towards college degrees, and the other one is a  dropout with no interest in a college education.

 

Group 4) The one with one parent with an 8th grade education and unknown education in the other parent is either a dropout or diploma with no interest in a college education.

 

 

Only two of us siblings are pushing our children towards diplomas and college education...we fall under Group 2. Those in Group 1 have no children nor intend to that we can tell. Those in Group 3 do not have children old enough yet. Group 4 already has two dropouts.

[momma2three]

I think at most schools the data would be meaningless. Who lives in O'Shag one year may be very different from who lives in O'Shag the next year, to use an example from my alma mater.

 

At the college I went to there was always a rumor that they put the freshman who were going to be the hardest partiers in a revolving circuit of freshman dorms every year, to cut down on wear and tear.  Which doesn't make much sense when you think about it, because I'm pretty sure there wasn't a question on the dorm survey about "On a scale of 1-10, please mark how hammered you plan on getting every night of the week."

 

I believe that the dorm situation freshman year can really influence all 4 years of college, and even how you feel about college afterwards.  All of the freshmen lived in freshman-only dorms at my school, most of them around the freshman quad, and it definitely made it easier to make friends and acquaintances with people your year.  And I definitely see the plus side to that... most of my best friends were a year older than me, which meant I actually had a pretty lonely senior year.  They'd all graduated, and I was so busy on my senior projects I didn't have tons of time to make a new circle of tight friends.  I still had plenty of people to hang out with, and my best friend was my year so I spent a lot of time with her, but I no longer was part of a large-but-tight circle.  And since reunions are just done by class, I'm always kind of bummed because I'd have to go to the reunion of the class ahead of me to see a lot of people that I miss.

[Crimson Wife]

Well, there's a surprising correlation.  Was there any suggestion as to the cause of this correlation?

 

And, interesting that they may not track GPAs or graduation rate by dorm, but they do track alumni giving...

The graduation rate is very high (95% according to the 2012 Common Data Set figures), so I don't think the school worries about it except for certain subgroups like athletes and "underrepresented" minorities. The alumni donations OTOH they monitor pretty closely as that makes up a significant percentage of the budget (in 2012 it raised over $1 *BILLION* from its alumni).

I think at most schools the data would be meaningless. Who lives in O'Shag one year may be very different from who lives in O'Shag the next year, to use an example from my alma mater.

 

If you allowed to pick your dorm, though, certain dorms develop reputations, and the partiers tend to congregate there.

[Heather in WI]

I just finished the book and found it fascinating. I've returned the book to the library, but will try to remember off the top of my head the things that struck me.

 

The dorm picked for the research was known as a 'party dorm'.  Some students requested this dorm, and some were put into it randomly.

 

The girls were placed into six basic categories:

 

Those who hope to succeed socially - socialites vs. wannabees

Those who hope to use college to become upwardly mobile - those who stayed at the school vs. those who left for another path (AA degree, another college, etc.)

Those who hope to succeed professionally - achievers vs. underachievers

 

The ones who requested the dorm tended to be in the social group, while the ones placed into it randomly were in the other groups. This proved catastrophic for many of the girls in the non-social group that didn't have parents or older siblings/friends who could help them navigate how to switch dorms or make other living arrangements. 

 

The girls in the first group were the stereotypical upper class sorority girls who went to college for "the college experience". This group was divided between those that had a lot of money those that didn't.  The ones with money got high level internships during college and then well-paying jobs afterward through parental connections. Even the ones who didn't get well paying jobs were fine because they were supported by their parents in nice apartments in places like NY or LA. The girls in the second group had difficulty getting internships and jobs after college. They tended to move back home or to smaller cities with lower paying jobs with high loans to pay back.

 

Those in the second group were the ones most at risk from lack of parental involvement / parental educational experience. These were the girls who had to work to support themselves during school, had bad advice from college advisers, and often got lost in the shuffle. One girl from this group had very high university support while none of the others did. These girls were often influenced by hometown blue collar boyfriends that were antagonistic or non-supportive of the college experience. They tended to make little personal connection to people on campus and instead bonded with co-workers at workplaces like "big box stores." The girls that left this particular college for a different pathway (another college or a technical degree) ended up much better financially and career-wise than those that stayed.

 

The third group was a range of what I would call upper to lower middle class girls and was made up of those that hoped to succeed professionally. The achievers were the ones who had involved parents that encouraged them to get into (and stay in) more difficult majors and study(!) while the underachievers were less prepared for college and often switched to less desirable/easier majors. The achievers were able to get into grad schools while the underachievers didn't. Most of the underachievers ended up moving back home and paying back loans while working jobs that didn't require a college degree. 

 

It is not a book I would typically pick up and read. What I took away from it, was that it is important for parents to stay involved and available as kids go to college. I guess that's not particularly insightful, but the book brought up a lot of scenarios that I hadn't considered before.

 

 These were the girls who had to work to support themselves during school, had bad advice from college advisers, and often got lost in the shuffle. 

 

This was (yet another) thing that really struck me about the book:  how universally awful the advice all the girls got from the University's advising service.  I wonder if when we're looking at colleges if there's a good way to check out how good the college's advisers are.  Or, is this a natural function of the enormous University:  if the institution offers thousands of majors, and you are undecided, advising is just a really hard problem?

[regentrude]

This was (yet another) thing that really struck me about the book:  how universally awful the advice all the girls got from the University's advising service.  I wonder if when we're looking at colleges if there's a good way to check out how good the college's advisers are. 

 

You could ask students (tour guide and students you meet on campus):

how often do they meet with their advisor?

Do they find the advisor helpful?

How often during the four years on campus have they changed advisors?

 

I have seen great differences in advising quality. Some advisors take it very seriously, while others see it as an additional chore on top of their work load and don't invest much effort. Some think they know everything and can overwrite rules (such as telling students that it's OK to take a course without the prerequisite)

In our department, for example, the advisor meets with every major once a semester before class signup; we go over their course sheet with them and point out which classes they are still lacking for their requirements, discuss what the student is planning, suggest electives to fill those spots, and then sign off on their proposed course schedule.

 

All this said: you should make it clear to your student that it will ultimately be his responsibility to read the course catalog carefully, to find out what the requirements of his major are, to keep track of his progress, to check with the course instructor if in doubt about prerequisites - because in the end the student will be the one whose schedule is messed up by bad advising. "But my advisor told me to..." is not getting them into any classes, is not waiving them any requirements, etc.

A student who goes to college with realistic expectations about advising and a clear idea of his own responsibilities will be in a better position than a student who takes the advisor's word for the gospel and does not bother to verify that he has been counseled correctly.

[kiana]

To concur with what regentrude is saying - keep your own common sense. For example, if the advisor says 'you do not need that prerequisite, I will add you anyway', it would be a really good idea to ask the instructor of the course if that's a good idea. This applies especially if the advisor is not in that department.

 

For a specific example: One of my students at a different school somehow was told that he could take calc-based physics even though he was only enrolled in precalculus. He was doing well in precalculus but floundering in physics. I have no idea what the hell that advisor was thinking.

 

Sometimes you can skip them. Someone I know, who was a very strong math student, concurrently enrolled in calc II and multivariable calculus, and got A's in both. But most of the time it's a really good idea to ask the instructor.

[Sebastian (a lady)]

You could ask students (tour guide and students you meet on campus):

how often do they meet with their advisor?

Do they find the advisor helpful?

How often during the four years on campus have they changed advisors?

 

I have seen great differences in advising quality. Some advisors take it very seriously, while others see it as an additional chore on top of their work load and don't invest much effort. Some think they know everything and can overwrite rules (such as telling students that it's OK to take a course without the prerequisite)

In our department, for example, the advisor meets with every major once a semester before class signup; we go over their course sheet with them and point out which classes they are still lacking for their requirements, discuss what the student is planning, suggest electives to fill those spots, and then sign off on their proposed course schedule.

 

All this said: you should make it clear to your student that it will ultimately be his responsibility to read the course catalog carefully, to find out what the requirements of his major are, to keep track of his progress, to check with the course instructor if in doubt about prerequisites - because in the end the student will be the one whose schedule is messed up by bad advising. "But my advisor told me to..." is not getting them into any classes, is not waiving them any requirements, etc.

A student who goes to college with realistic expectations about advising and a clear idea of his own responsibilities will be in a better position than a student who takes the advisor's word for the gospel and does not bother to verify that he has been counseled correctly.

 

I don't think this is new.  Both dh and I at very different schools found that it was very important to stay on top of our own situation.  I had an official advisor assigned by my major. He wasn't particularly helpful. He seemed more focused on helping me to meet minimums rather than giving me strong advice based on my actual situation.  (For example, I was one of a very small number of people to validate any of the English requirements or foreign language requirements. I could have taken better advantage of this opening in the schedule.  He also wasn't very helpful in guiding me with any courses outside the major.)  Fortunately, my freshman year English professor was a great teacher, who cheerfully sat down with me each semester to chat about how I was doing and what courses I ought to take. Then I'd walk the paper down the hallway to the official advisor, who would sign off what I'd mapped out.

 

DH very methodically went through the degree requirements and course catalogs each year. This attention to detail along with some AP based credits helped him graduate with two majors.

[Catherine]

I'm just an n of one, I realize, but I want to chime in to say that I definitely witnessed the dynamic this book describes when I was in a small LAC 25 (30?) years ago. It was on a smaller scale, to be sure, because our school did not offer "event planning" as a major, but it did offer liberal arts degrees that required minimal rigor if one's only goal was to graduate. IOW, like IU, there was a wide range of academic options available to students there, and those of us with a plan and ambition could certainly leverage it and find success, but by the same token, students could choose to major in history, take plenty of dance, sociology and intro government, econ, or language courses and graduate with a low C average and a genuine BA. Plus know plenty of future CEOs, plastic surgeons, and bankers.

 

A girl from my decidedly rural, non-college-prep HS also attended my college a couple of years after me. She did not graduate, despite a quite high graduation rate and plentiful help available for struggling students. I think a big part of the difficulty for such a student is not having a clear, firm plan when starting off. The rich girls have no plan, of course, but for them, that doesn't matter. Once again, I am grateful to my parents for instilling in me the belief that I was an outsider. Not sure how they did this but it allowed me to stay on the periphery of a lot of negative and unproductive stuff and stay focused.

[Susan in TN]

Well I'm really sad that my library doesn't have the book. It is particularly interesting to me because ds has recently told me he wants to apply to the Jacobs School at IU. I honestly believe he would hate it there, but unless he changes his mind in the next week, he'll apply and hopefully have the opportunity to audition and visit the campus in Feb.