I forgot about this path, you're right. A friend of a friend graduated from Penn with a degree in some fairly specific humanities field. English Comp or something like that (the point is that it was much more specific than "Psychology" or something). He worked at the school for a brief time, maybe a year, then got a graduate degree then went to Wall Street.
The data show quite the opposite: the degree matters more than the institution. An engineering degree from a top 50 school has a higher return than an arts/humanities degree from a top 5 institution.
Even being a poor grad student at an Ivy feels like this. The undergrads are wealthy and the grad students cherish every dollar of their ~$30k salary while still sometimes do side work to get by since city's have rents set for the higher income undergrads.
There was some resentment we had for our students to say the least.
This article suggests that schools are taking an interesting step to avoid such resentment:
White appreciates, for example, that Harvard gives low-income students free tickets to the freshman formal, but they have to pick up the tickets in a different line from everyone else. “It’s clear who is getting free/reduced tickets and who isn’t,” he says...
This seems like it might be an effective strategy. Take the people who are living on the largess of others (e.g. grad students on a stipend, poor undergrads on financial aid) and give them constant reminders that they are there thanks to the contributions of others. Then perhaps they'll feel gratitude instead.
In much the same way, my CEO likes to remind us that annoying as customers can sometimes be, that's where our salaries are coming from.
The undergraduates with rich parents are also technically living off of the largess of others. A family probably feels more of an obligation to support their own children but it's not like the majority of undergraduates paying tuition are "self-made."
Speaking from personal experience, this would cause more resentment rather than gratitude. I worked more hours to ensure that I didn't have to wait in these types of lines wherever possible. I found that people with money were less likely to want to associate with you once they found out that your family didn't have any because it made them feel awkward.
Guys, yummyfajitas is kidding. Of course he wouldn't consider a grad student stipend "living on the largess of others". Right? This is Poe's Law, right?
I was on a stipend during grad school. And I was grateful, rather than resentful, towards the undergraduates and taxpayers (in my case, far more of the latter than the former) who paid for it.
I enjoy exploring ideas that are emotionally unpleasant, but which it's hard to construct a logical argument against. Some unpleasant ideas turn out to be correct!
It's fine to be grateful, but a grad school stipend is not charity. You are being paid to perform a service. If the undergraduates (or more commonly, their parents) and taxpayers did not think research and teaching were useful, they wouldn't pay you.
The majority of poor students already know that they're getting a free ride; shoving it down their throats in public helps no one. Actually, it would likely lead to even more resentment which would probably even leak into the classroom environment. On the other hand, I would argue that the vast majority of rich students don't appreciate their position at all.
Aren't students with wealthy families literally attending school thanks to the contributions of others? I say this as someone fortunate enough to have parents who saved their whole life to pay my tuition - I understand I am fortunate for that, I didn't literally earn that money in any way before attending school and performing well to justify it being spent, and I still can't argue that in any way is the same as literally working for that money. On the other hand I knew classmates who basically worked like slaves for four years at terrible, thankless jobs, struggling to pay rent in an area full of luxury housing targeted at the wealthy, just trying to pay their tuition after loans and aid. This at a school where Greek house membership fees run into the thousands, literally engineering a class divide in the student social life.
I'd say "constantly reminding" someone and their surrounding peers of the fact that they are of lower stature economically is a recipe to divide the student base and breed resentment. You would be less likely to feel resentment standing in a separate line from most of your peers, looking at a bunch of students with outfits worth more than a month's rent, singled out for getting "handouts" from your school? Don't grad students typically earn a stipend working a job anyway? I don't see that as any more "living on the largess of others" than going to school on your family's money.
Aren't students with wealthy families literally attending school thanks to the contributions of others?
It would be ungrateful and counterproductive if such students felt resentment towards their parents, no?
Don't grad students typically earn a stipend working a job anyway?
I earn a salary by working a job which aims to make customers happy (same as when I was in grad school on a stipend). However, I don't feel resentment toward those customers - that would be counterproductive and harmful.
I don't remotely follow the logic you're applying here. I did not suggest anywhere that these students feel resentment to their sources of financial support, but rather that highlighting class divisions in a university will breed resentful attitudes among students towards each other. Do poor students somehow owe something to wealthier ones just for attending the same school? Please describe in clear terms exactly what kind of logic you're applying here because to me it mostly seems like something an undergrad with a swiss watch would be boistering about in the dining hall.
Did you somehow get the impression I think grad students should be resentful towards the university because of their stipends? I think most of them are grateful - I meant to convey that it's disingenuous to think of a grad student's stipend as some kind of handout, I really can't understand how you interpreted that as you did.
Wealthy students (or their parents) pay full price, supporting the university and all it's operations. Many of them pay more than full price via donations and such. One of the things they are paying for is support/scholarships/etc for the poorer students.
I don't think a grad student's stipend is a handout, just as I don't think my salary is. Nevertheless, grad students should be grateful to the undergrads/taxpayers who are supporting them, and I should be grateful to my employer's customers (I am).
I just want to point out that poor student are absolutely not at the mercy of rich students.
Poor students are needed at these schools to maintain the prestige and reputation of these schools. If they only allowed those who could afford to pay, a lot of great talent would end up elsewhere and then the reputation of the school would suffer.
In terms of real scarcity, it is actually the rich students who are the most easily replaceable. If those poor students went somewhere else, they would still do well and within a decade the new schools would start challenging the reputation of these elite school.
It's weird how people who claim to like exploring "edgy" ideas never doubt the concept of property. Rich students exist on the largesse of grad students, not the other way around; the institution they attend would not exist without them.
My daughter attends an expensive prep school and gets a chunk of it covered by financial aid. I am indeed grateful, but I would suggest there's another possible way to frame it, which is that the wealthy parents of my daughter's classmates are paying extra to place their own children with the smartest, hardest-working students, regardless of socio-economic background (which in turn creates a more diverse student body, which is also a benefit). So while I respect that there is a charitable component, I also believe there is a transaction taking place that benefits all parties. Consequently, singling financial aid kids out as somehow special or lesser would, I think, be as unfair as either customers or wait staff in a restaurant to somehow be made feel inferior to one another.
Meh, I usually agree with your comments, but in this case the resentment is towards people who have a lot of money and haven't earned it (not that they're bad people, they've simply been dealt a good starting hand).
I'm a poor grad student at an ivy, and I have to say that I find just under 30k a year far more than enough for myself. The whole starving grad student just doesn't hold up in rich private institutes. I live in a cheap house with four others, but my peers have apartments in some of the nicest buildings around. I cook my own food most of the time, but many grad students eat out twice a day, even if only at a food truck.
Now I won't pretend that 30k is much to raise a family with, or much if you have to help out your parents or siblings. But I'm saving a sizeable chunk of my income and I'm not even supplementing it with tutoring the rich undergrads, which can net you two hundred plus a week for a few hours of work.
My offers for stem PhD programs at ivy-type private research institutions were about 30k, one was more like 35k. At university of California schools, the stipend was more like 19k (and a higher cost of living). My current stipend is the standard here and not due to unusual scholarships or grant money. We're supposed to ask permission for outside work, but the department will actively help you find people to tutor.
Humanities grad students have a _much_ worse deal than STEM ones, typically.
From what I've seen, for STEM, the assumption is that your tuition is covered, you get a stipend that you can actually live on, your medical insurance is covered. For humanities, the working assumption is that none of that is true, and if some of it happens to be true, you're in luck.
Oh, and the humanities degrees often take longer too.
I worked for a physics professor at an ivy league school, not as a grad student, but as a software engineer on his team. I was working on a project with a database that contained all the personnel information -- everyone was getting between $30 and $35k.
There's a "web" link under the submission title. Click that, and then the first result should be what you want. Using an incognito window seems to be best.
When I was accepted to one of the best universities in the UK I applied for the standard loans and grants from the government.
I didn't get a grant: my parents earned about £1000 more than the threshold for one. I lived and socialised with people who did get grants. If anything, they seemed to have slightly more spare cash than I did.
In any case, there were plenty of students with a similar amount of not-much-money. I couldn't afford to go backpacking round Central America, but I could go to occasional big rock concerts or a music festival. We couldn't afford to go to the fancy clubs in central London, but we could afford to go to the... less fancy ones, where drinks were £1 and your shoes stick to the floor. That was just as much fun :)
Yep. I remember my parents spending more time talking to cafeteria workers, I didn't even think it was appropriate for them to meet my professors, nor did I think it was an option. Being weeded out from social circles was also painful. "Let's go downtown for dinner Saturday night", "Nope I'll meet up with you guys later, I've got something else going on."
That's what struck me hard as well. I was a poor kid in a largely wealthy Ivy league school, there on scholarships and a whole lot of debt.
There's no difference between you and the wealthy folks in class, your brain works the same as theirs.
Socially, it's a whole other story. I could never afford to go out, and all my evenings were spent working at either a cafeteria or as a lab assistant, anything to pay the minimum payments on my loans. My classmates would invite me out with them for dinners and trips, but I never went, and eventually they stopped asking. My social circle became other students in similar situations, but it definitely made me feel like I didn't belong.
This social stratification was also present in class, when people had to form up for groups for group projects, since those groups tended to form along social group boundaries.
I don't regret going one bit, though. I have a great degree, paid off my debt, and have been working in preeminent silicon valley companies for more than 20 years now.
Should rich kids make an effort to help poor kids feel welcome, yes. However, the net feelings of everybody at Harvard should be excitement for the probably awesome future that they have after college and focus on getting the education that will make that more likely.
Daily interaction with people who are clearly in very different socioeconomic circles than you is so godamn exhausting. I studied with a bunch of rich kids when I was a child and I still have self-esteem problems 20 years later.
Harvard is overrated anyway. You're not going to get a better education, you're just going to be around a lot of rich people.
I can relate to this, though my situation is a little weirder than most. My parents were immigrants and we were very poor when I was younger. They became doctors sometime around middle school, so we effectively shifted up to upper-middle class. Our quality of life changed in a few ways - didn't have to think about the cost of healthcare or school. But we also didn't start buying fancy clothes, cars, or food. My parents have never gone to fancy galas, and they don't exactly rub shoulders with the wealthy.
I remember feeling very jarred when I first met "rich white people" in high school. It blew my mind. What did these people do? What are their families like? It truly fascinated me. This continued well into college where I met even more people from very, very wealthy backgrounds. I dated someone whose father was a dean of the school we went to, and I was extremely nervous when I visited their... mansion.
Because I met a bunch of "rich white people" in high school, I became fairly acclimated to them. It really does taking meeting someone face-to-face to realize that they're not so different from you. I imagine it's the same when rich people meet very poor people.
It makes me think that the issue isn't that poor students feel uncomfortable around rich students, but rather that the first time they ever meet rich students is in college. If they met earlier - perhaps in elementary or middle school - this discomfort would not be there.
What's your definition of rich white people? Just curious. AFAIK I've never met any "rich white people" of the type portrayed in nearly every Hollywood movie about school (high school or collage). I'm not saying they don't exist just that I haven't met any so I'm wondering if maybe I did and didn't know it.
I certainly didn't met any kids in high school that had any kind of money to flash (a fancy car or other expensive things to show off).
I worked near a 'nice' high school whose parking lot was filled with BMW's. Which is not really 'rich' but dual income in that area often meant 300+k family income by the time kids where in high school. Economically this meant a 5 year old car that might have been 50k new was not really unusual.
In many ways the gap between 30k / year and 300k/year is larger than the gap between 300k / year and 3 million per year.
PS: I actually know several people that inhered low to mid 7 figures. But, they are really more upper middle class than the kind of 'Rich' you see in a Hollywood film. But, plenty of people would consider that rich.
Considering the median salary in the USA is $51939, which is the equivalent of 5.1% return on $1M cash, I would say the plenty of people who consider that more than "upper middle class" are correct.
5.1% return above average but still reasonable. However, inflation is ~2.5 - 3%. So, unless your spending principle that's 21k/year ignoring taxes. Also, many people get discounts on health insurance and other benefits that don't apply.
Sure, you can burn down your principle based on life expectancy. But that's only really useful if your old. At 40 even 1% in your first year will probably cause you to run out of money.
Long term returns on the S&P 500 have averaged ~7% real returns including dividends. In personal finance there's a "4% Rule" which is supposed to be your target annual withdrawal if you're living off the money as a retiree. The 3% spread allows for market crashes, long periods of stagnancy in returns and a small increase in living standards as you age, however, if you're young I do agree a smaller 2-3% withdrawal level is appropriate.
Good point, though the S&P has not averaged 7% annual returns if you consider reverse cost dollar averaging. There where two decades when the S&P went negative in real terms including dividend reinvestment. It's actually tricky to find what percentage you could take out every year from 1950 to now and have the same amount adjusted for inflation at the end, and that's assuming things don't get worse.
Basically, you take out a lower percentage of your money on good years than bad. Further, you need to take taxes out to cover inflation. Aka, you pay taxes on 7% even if your real return was only 4%.
PS: There is a reason many institutions are ok with a very steady 3.5% ROI there is a lot of risk going for more.
You're not putting 100% of your portfolio in equities if you're living off its cash flow [1]. ZIRP means your fixed income can flow is weak. Things to consider when allocating as a retiree.
[1] imo it's okay to do this while you're in the workforce since you're salary effectively acts as your fixed income portion of the portfolio.
My prior comment may not have been 100% correct. I believe the specific research that lead to the so called 4% rule did include a mix of stocks and bonds. As you point out, you would tend to roll back your risk tolerance as you reach retirement. Here's more on it for anyone interested:
In old movies, you definitely see "millionaires" as the definition of "rich". $1m in 1950 is about $10m today, so that seems like a pretty safe bet for "Hollywood rich".
1950 1m as the gateway for millionaire ~= 10m today so having 6m is close, but not quite there yet.
Considering there are 1,810+ billionaires globally you have not heard of most of these people. But, if someone is defined as unusually rich not just 'comfortable' that seems to be the new movie millionaire.
Tbh, my definition would be based less on fact than feeling. I lived in Brooklyn, and not terribly nice area of Brooklyn, so to me, "rich white people" were the ones who lived in nice apartments in Manhattan, or in really nice neighborhoods in Brooklyn. So I'd doubt all of their parents made more than 1mil/year, but I'm sure some did. If I had to ballpark, they probably made ~500k/year on average.
> I certainly didn't met any kids in high school that had any kind of money to flash (a fancy car or other expensive things to show off).
I've never met anyone that's similar to Hollywood movie characters. I'm not sure they really "flashed" their money, but it was clear they had access to nice things. Their clothes were definitely nicer, their parents would take them out to plays and expensive dinners.
It's possible this is the case because I grew up in NYC as opposed to the suburbs. The stereotypical "rich white person" in New York is exorbitantly rich. Maybe I'm just referring to those who were upper-middle class
Your story is another fantastic example of how social class is culture, and that money alone isn't enough to advance from one social class to the next, you have to be able to put on the performance of the higher class as well, which is something you simply have to learn.
> It really does taking meeting someone face-to-face to realize that they're not so different from you
Idk, from my Ivy league experience many of them are in fact completely different from you. Many of them are not, but many are. "Oh we're all the same" is too much of a generalization. I'll jog my memory a bit, although many are extreme data points that still come to mind years after...
I had a friend (guy) who would enjoy sitting and making fun of people for the way they dressed, which was usually just them looking poor or working class. To me that was new, the idea that some guys at 18, 19, 20 spend a lot on clothes and snark at the way other guys dress.
I had another friend who would invite a huge group of us to VIP bottle service at a club every so often, dropping maybe 4, 5, 6 thousand on a Saturday, but then would occasionally point at someone, usually someone he didn't like, and say "Hey - why don't you chip in" and put them on the hook for 800 dollars.
I remember staring in disbelief when I learned some guy in my building would order in sushi in the mornings to his room instead of going to the dining hall. (Of course, dropping $35 on a Postmates delivery for one is not unusual for tech workers in SF today, but at 18/19, and many years before Postmates, it felt like they were living on another planet). Another would just take off to Tokyo for a weekend if he felt like he 'needed a break', and other students, usually rich girls, would fawn over how "deep" he must be, his feeling the need to fly off to Tokyo, etc.. Someone else in that building also installed a stripper pole in his room, and not surprisingly a lot of girls who were attracted to his levels of "richness" and "lifestyle" actually went over to indulge him.
They formed their own "fraternities" although some were kicked off campus because, of course, cocaine. (Cocaine and richness is another topic). Additionally one of the super rich guy frats was one that had the roofie reputation. Another had the asshole reputation. I just remember going to one of their parties for 'rush' freshmen year and basically getting laughed at for the cheap suit I was wearing.
That all said, of course there were many jovial, standup guys from rich families who try to relate to everyone, who maintain an ironic distance from their "richness"... but my Ivy experience (which was maybe more unique to this particular Ivy), which I enjoyed very much, still exposed me to a lot of guys I could never relate to nor would want to.
> usually rich girls, would fawn over how "deep" he must be, his feeling the need to fly off to Tokyo, etc.. Someone else in that building also installed a stripper pole in his room, and not surprisingly a lot of girls who were attracted to his levels of "richness" and "lifestyle" actually went over to indulge him.
It's pretty well known that a lot of girls at universities are there not only for academic purposes, but also to lock down a 'nice' future husband. Biology is what it is..
Edit: be PC and downvote all you want, but its a pretty obvious truth for anyone that did actually attend university.
This is one of the reasons why I do love the system here in Belgium. I studied at a university which is at the moment number 40 in the world university rankings (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/world-university-rankin...) which is pretty good if you ask me.
And the price I paid for each year was about 700 euro plus whatever the books cost. Came to a total of about 4500 euro (books included) for the 5 years that I studied there.
I'm glad that I did not have to pay the rediculous prices they do in the UK or in the US, because my parents would not have been able to afford that.
EDIT: And there is actually a system for parents whom do not meet the minimum income either, that the university covers part, or all, of the cost. I do not have experience with that though because even though my parents did not attend a university, their income was above the minimum to apply for that.
At elite schools in the US, the money spent on college is not the significant gap between those from wealthy or poor families, but the money spent before college (i.e., the background experiences they come in with) and the money spent outside of college (i.e., the experiences you can't engage in while your there.)
To be clear, affording college is a real struggle for lots of Americans, but if you get into a top Ivy school, it's usually a much smaller burden than a second-tier one. They have big financial aid programs; I have a friend going to Harvard from a lower-class background, and their tuition is essentially nothing, but they feel extremely out of place.
If you are social, if you are smart, not a selfish asshole... people will like you, accept you, and most people realize that we don't pick our parents -- how much money you have in college doesn't matter. Going to an Ivy... it's not the academics that sets the alumni apart, it's the networking. You learn to judge your peers based on who has potential and who doesn't -- this is the elitism that a lot of people talk about. Some of that is based on money (clearly a kid who has billionaires for parents has a leg up), but a lot of it is based on the individual person. If you feel like a lack of money will hold you back... then it'll hold you back. If you don't... it won't.
So how this plays out... mind you this was 20 years ago... but in my fraternity (which wasn't one that asked for parents' financial records) we had a checkbox on the form you turned in along with your dues, and it simply said, "I can't pay my dues this semester." I don't recall anyone scamming the system, and it was in place because we didn't want to discriminate against brothers who didn't have as much money, or who were going through a rough patch. I remember talking to a guy who had come to a bunch of our parties... he was dead set against rushing... I pulled him aside 1:1 and asked if it was a money thing... once we got past that he was in and became one of the officers a few years later. (I probably wouldn't recommend everyone join a fraternity, but they can offer a sort of extended family / support structure that's nice when you're away from home for the first time.)
Another example... I had a weekly poker group... we started off playing for $20 in chips. We would invite people based on who we wanted to hang out with, smoke cigars with, drink with... and someone ended up bringing his roommate. Cool guy, we all loved him. He said he didn't have $20 to spare. Rather than just give him $20 (which would have solved the issue but made him feel like he didn't belong or was beholden to someone else) we just dropped the entrance fee and played for chores. 5 guys... The winner got 2 chores from the person in 5th place, and 1 from the person in 4th, and 3 from the person in 2nd. And similar allotments... I had to vacuum that kid's apartment and do his laundry after he beat me (and he had to do the same for me when I won). If you wanted to "buy back in" you could, but it cost you some outlandish dare... basically everyone would get to humiliate you in exchange for more chips. In the end the money wasn't at all important, we were still all just playing for pride.
Final example... Textbooks have always been a bitch. Even 20 years ago. I'm sure it's worse now... but back then we'd line up classes with friends, form study groups (typically these transcended semesters), and then we could buy one book for 2-3 people. The added perk of this was we could share notes, do less work... cultivate that whole networking thing that was so important. If you were smart, took good notes... everyone wanted you in their study cluster. You could negotiate... if you had money or not... "Let's do this, just the 3 of us... I'll take notes 1/3 of the time but I don't want to pay for the book..." and the guy who took sloppy notes would say, "Sure, but how about you take notes 2/5ths of the time and I'll buy the books..." And anyway I remember a lot of people having little deals like this.
Is every school different, sure. But I think it all goes back to internal perceptions. If you define yourself as ugly and fat... you won't get a date. If you define yourself as stupid and slow... you will get bad grades. If you define yourself as poor or struggling... life will be hard. But if you can just not think about that stuff... then you realize that nobody else cares about that stuff either. We're all too busy focusing on...
I can relate. I did not go to an Ivy League (though, maybe I should have at least applied). I grew up poor and outside of town. No school activities, ever. I could barely get rides to AP exams and SATs. I had a kid at 15. I would steal food from the cafeteria and sell it cheaper to other students so I could afford to eat that night. I believed my only way out of poverty was a college degree. I worked my ass off over the summers to help float me through the year and kept a 4.2 GPA in high school. Got full ride scholarship to a local university. Got married. Got an apartment. Wife worked as a waitress, I scored a job as a student graphic designer working with the university's lead graphic designer in the media department.
University for me: no activities. Ever. No traveling. Go to class. Go to work. Go home. Ace tests (mostly). Rinse, repeat for 4 years. I did not hang out with university classmates once. I could not afford to (I could hang out with childhood friends because "going out" was not in our shared vocabulary). The times spent on projects and small talk let me know how much of an outsider I was.
I managed to finally get a beat up truck (could only be pop-started, electronics only worked in a hard left hand turn, and more awesomeness) by my second year, as opposed to the new Lexuses and BMWs that many of my classmates drove.
I did miss out on something that I wish I would have been told more explicitly: university is not just about an education, it is about networking. I got zero networking done. I got the degree and got out. Because of my lack of networking, I believe my career was slower to build.
Fast forward a bit. I'm doing fantastic. My oldest kid is now starting college (we have two others), I'm still with her mom, I make over 6 figures, and I have a job I throughly enjoy (I look forward to Mondays). My degree was important for me and I think was a large part of helping me get out of poverty. I never felt that I was a part of the university I attended. I enjoy my life story and it helps me appreciate the life I lead.
> I did miss out on something that I wish I would have been told more explicitly: university is not just about an education, it is about networking. I got zero networking done. I got the degree and got out. Because of my lack of networking, I believe my career was slower to build.
Strange, when did you go to college? When I first arrived in college in 2012 the commonly held knowledge among students was that "while the education you'll learn here is important, but the chance you have to grow in the 4 years as a person and network with others is priority #1"
I started way back in 2001 :) I'm sure they mentioned something about networking, but I think it may not have been as explicitly told to me as I required at the time.
I started college in 2010 and I didn't understand this. (Middle class school district in the US). I expected to get all of that from my actual jobs, and in the end I did.
I wasn't as hard up as you, but I definitely relate to being on the lower end of the economic scale as well as having parents who were not able to give me any guidance at all WRT a path through college. I think it's hard to understand what "networking" even is if you don't have someone who you can emulate.
I'm having a hard time understanding the issue or being empathetic. If somebody invites you to go to dinner and a movie, why cant you explain that you cant afford it or would rather not spend the money?
Would you rather them not invite you? I've always found that rich people are not trying to put you down by talking about their boats, clothes, or businesses. They just live with a different set of parameters that people can't relate to.
I think it's wrong to expect Harvard to provide a "safe space" for poor people. We should instead expect everyone to respect each others differences. Rich, poor, jamaican, colombian... People are people. Instead of being self-conscious about what makes you different, embrace the differences and expand your world view.
I admitted at an Ivy League gathering that I had gone to state school and my conversational partner looked at me as if I had suddenly changed, turned, and walked away without another word.
Sure, it didn't hurt too bad at 25 with a good job and a mortgage. At 18 I can see that smarting a bit more than it did and I'm telling this to you almost a decade after the fact. Allowing people to form a club for people like them is completely okay, as is trying to not label them as "the poor kids".
I don't disagree that people should strive to overcome but a large number of folks entering college are less prepared that you would hope for the social changes generally and I imagine that for the poor kid in the literal halls of power that would be enormously challenging and a little support isn't going to bankrupt the ivy league or hurt anyone getting some help to blend in.
> I think it's wrong to expect Harvard to provide a "safe space" for poor people.
Is anyone asking for this? What a disingenuous comment.
> Instead of being self-conscious about what makes you different, embrace the differences and expand your world view.
Sure. But that can be a risky endeavor. Embracing differences isn't all sunshine and roses. So what might practicing this mean in practice for the poor student.
"Sure, I'll go socialize with you tonight and expand my world view!"
Oh fuck, now I'm broke and can't pay for housing anymore.
"Ok I'll party with you and do coke with you and expand my world view!"
Wow we both bombed our finals, but my scholarship won't support me with this lower GPA, guess I won't see you in class next semester, bye.
> Is anyone asking for this? What a disingenuous comment.
I suppose I should have used a less politically charged term despite the nature of my intention. Maybe the quotation marks triggered your response. Safe space was simply a convenient term to describe:
> the First Generation Student Union, pushing for a better understanding of challenges financially disadvantaged students face.
I kind of see your point, but OTOH, retention is a huge issue throughout higher education. Some of this is due to the expansion of college compared to the 50s and 60s, but not all. State schools have something like this, though maybe by a different name. Scholarship athletes also have direct help in order to keep their grades up to snuff, but also because a large portion of them are also first generation college students.
If you have 12% or more of your first year class dropping out because of preparedness, then the institution has a big problem regardless of whether it is a state school or an ivy league. And if a high portion of that group is lower income, that's a huge black eye for some of the wealthiest and most prestigious institutions in the world.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but I think part of the issue is not just that you can't afford to "go to dinner and a movie"; some aspects of the Ivys' cultures are built upon wealth and being poor inherently sets you apart.
Anecdote: at my wife's Ivy medical school, there are several events each semester in which students are encouraged to drop several thousand dollars in a single 4 hour event. One example is a charity auction in which faculty auction off experiences like a boat trip or tours of their wine cellar to students. Some of these items go for 5 figure dollar amounts. Events like these specifically exclude poor students or students with families by design. While attendance isn't mandatory, the events are planned and executed by the student body via assignment or election, so it is difficult to not be included in some form or another. I can understand how, after attending for a few semesters, one would feel that wealth defines the culture there and that being poor excludes you from that culture.
Edit: it's also important that while all ages and socioeconomic statues attend the Ivys, the vast majority of undergraduates are 18-22. As someone 10 years older and who has an adopted daughter that age, what you suggest isn't advice that will be widely adopted by people of that age group.
I suppose it is naive of me to expect 18 year olds to have the maturity to understand the differences between people.
I'm just hopeful that the poor kids would understand that the merit of their hard work has at least placed them on equal footing with the rich kids when it comes to educational opportunity and resume credentials.
I hope that there is a mentor on campus who can show them that this is something to be proud of.
I think the problem is just that already-insecure teenagers from background they feel insecure about are at institutions that make them feel even more insecure.
I agree we should be more open about money, but I think it's just hard when you're at that point in life.
It's from a starting point of privilege now that I make a good living, but I make it a point to say "I'm not sure I want to spend that much money" if friends talk about plans that don't strike me as worth it... rather than make some other excuse.
I went to a very high ranking, but not "Ivy League" MBA school, with a good mix of economic classes represented. There were the usual "in" and "out" groups you find in any institution. The cliques were, broadly:
1. Not-rich American students with massive loans to finance everything
2. International students
3. Already fairly wealthy consultants and bankers there just to "get their ticket punched"
4. A tiny handful of ultra-wealthy-and-well-connected
Group 1 (me) and 2 tended to hang out together, spend all the time studying, clipped coupons, ate ramen noodles, never went out, and got ulcers worrying about whether they'd ever get a job after graduation that could pay off this gamble.
Group 3 spent and partied more and really only worried that the cushy banking job they would inevitably get was less prestigious than the cushy banking job their peers would inevitably get. They would occasionally interact with us commoners.
I have no idea what group 4 did, as they didn't have anything to do with any of us, but they seemed pretty nice and didn't seem to be worried about anything. Kind of aloof but not assholes.
As someone who grew up in a rural mining town, I didn't exactly feel uncomfortable but there was definitely a sense that I was getting a glimpse into an alternate, parallel universe. Mostly people were really cool and there was a lot less "snootiness" than I expected. Just not a lot to talk about with someone who's economic situation was vastly different than yours, so people naturally gravitated towards others who were similar. I guess I learned that rich people aren't cartoon villains looking down on us while twirling their superior mustaches. They just live in a different world from us and they understand as little about our lives as we understand about theirs.
Oh how not true. It may feel like a disadvantage but everyone has some disadvantages.
A kept child that never had to contribute to meeting their families bills can never understand what that is like. To not have the backstop of a bank account.
Poor is not a indicator of effort for ivy-ers but a badge of success no kept young adult can ever experience.
Just like families where the marriage failed, the children will never know a happy home. And the mostly unsaid sense of decision failure associated with divorces. Everyone has some disadvantages. Turn them into advantages.
So my "advice" to a poor student is take your experience as a one-up to those around you that will never be able to know poor-mess. Most likely you earned your good future as it won't be given to you.
I went to Stanford. I was poor. I think young people are bad at peeling through the layers of superficial bullshit that mask most human interactions.
Rich, Middle Class and Poor can all have screwed up (or awesome) lives in different ways...
If you get to the core of it we all struggle but yes the day to day is different. I think you can always find "pockets" of people in all classes that are curious free thinkers trying to relate to people from different backgrounds -- especially at Ivy League schools. Unfortunately kids who are young are also insecure about surface things.
We need to just push diversity in the dorms and fraternities/sororities because I don't think "economics" really has much to do with it unless you make your whole life about buying $200 shirts or going to fancy restaurants.
I also think the high end universities should give poorer kids a social stipend -- it is a really bad thing if all the rich kids hang out together and all the poor kids hang out together.
The whole point of the Ivy League is to put the best minds together and to build a bridge between old school wealth and talented youth.
Colleges should probably offer a summer class before freshman year to teach low income students the common sense ways to do well. The class should be taught by seniors who are also low income.
I would recommend those interested in an international perspective on this to watch the below debate at the Oxford Union, which deals with class at Oxford.
101 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 224 ms ] threadEdit: I didn't mean that to be as critical as it sounded.
Graduate --> 2 years at Wall Street / Management Consulting --> MBA --> Silicon Valley / Startups
http://sociology.ucdavis.edu/undergraduate-program/career-op...
Degree doesn't matter as much as people think. Institutions matter more IMO.
http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/images/p...
Most ivy schools have an acceptance rate lower than 10%
There was some resentment we had for our students to say the least.
White appreciates, for example, that Harvard gives low-income students free tickets to the freshman formal, but they have to pick up the tickets in a different line from everyone else. “It’s clear who is getting free/reduced tickets and who isn’t,” he says...
This seems like it might be an effective strategy. Take the people who are living on the largess of others (e.g. grad students on a stipend, poor undergrads on financial aid) and give them constant reminders that they are there thanks to the contributions of others. Then perhaps they'll feel gratitude instead.
In much the same way, my CEO likes to remind us that annoying as customers can sometimes be, that's where our salaries are coming from.
Of course students on financial aid, etc., should feel gratitude. Surely other students shouldn't be high on the list of recipients.
It does sound like an effective strategy - but for class reinforcement. It's a good way to generate resentment, not gratitude.
Although I think he was referring to financial aid rather than graduate stipends.
I enjoy exploring ideas that are emotionally unpleasant, but which it's hard to construct a logical argument against. Some unpleasant ideas turn out to be correct!
I'd say "constantly reminding" someone and their surrounding peers of the fact that they are of lower stature economically is a recipe to divide the student base and breed resentment. You would be less likely to feel resentment standing in a separate line from most of your peers, looking at a bunch of students with outfits worth more than a month's rent, singled out for getting "handouts" from your school? Don't grad students typically earn a stipend working a job anyway? I don't see that as any more "living on the largess of others" than going to school on your family's money.
It would be ungrateful and counterproductive if such students felt resentment towards their parents, no?
Don't grad students typically earn a stipend working a job anyway?
I earn a salary by working a job which aims to make customers happy (same as when I was in grad school on a stipend). However, I don't feel resentment toward those customers - that would be counterproductive and harmful.
Did you somehow get the impression I think grad students should be resentful towards the university because of their stipends? I think most of them are grateful - I meant to convey that it's disingenuous to think of a grad student's stipend as some kind of handout, I really can't understand how you interpreted that as you did.
I don't think a grad student's stipend is a handout, just as I don't think my salary is. Nevertheless, grad students should be grateful to the undergrads/taxpayers who are supporting them, and I should be grateful to my employer's customers (I am).
Poor students are needed at these schools to maintain the prestige and reputation of these schools. If they only allowed those who could afford to pay, a lot of great talent would end up elsewhere and then the reputation of the school would suffer.
In terms of real scarcity, it is actually the rich students who are the most easily replaceable. If those poor students went somewhere else, they would still do well and within a decade the new schools would start challenging the reputation of these elite school.
Graduate students at schools like this are funded primarily through grant money and sometimes endowment money, not undergraduate tuition.
Undergraduates on financial aid are never funded through others' tuition. That's 100% donations and endowment.
> and give them constant reminders that they are there thanks to the contributions of others
I suppose we should also have a special line for everyone who's using daddy's credit card?
Now I won't pretend that 30k is much to raise a family with, or much if you have to help out your parents or siblings. But I'm saving a sizeable chunk of my income and I'm not even supplementing it with tutoring the rich undergrads, which can net you two hundred plus a week for a few hours of work.
From what I've seen, for STEM, the assumption is that your tuition is covered, you get a stipend that you can actually live on, your medical insurance is covered. For humanities, the working assumption is that none of that is true, and if some of it happens to be true, you're in luck.
Oh, and the humanities degrees often take longer too.
I didn't get a grant: my parents earned about £1000 more than the threshold for one. I lived and socialised with people who did get grants. If anything, they seemed to have slightly more spare cash than I did.
In any case, there were plenty of students with a similar amount of not-much-money. I couldn't afford to go backpacking round Central America, but I could go to occasional big rock concerts or a music festival. We couldn't afford to go to the fancy clubs in central London, but we could afford to go to the... less fancy ones, where drinks were £1 and your shoes stick to the floor. That was just as much fun :)
There's no difference between you and the wealthy folks in class, your brain works the same as theirs.
Socially, it's a whole other story. I could never afford to go out, and all my evenings were spent working at either a cafeteria or as a lab assistant, anything to pay the minimum payments on my loans. My classmates would invite me out with them for dinners and trips, but I never went, and eventually they stopped asking. My social circle became other students in similar situations, but it definitely made me feel like I didn't belong.
This social stratification was also present in class, when people had to form up for groups for group projects, since those groups tended to form along social group boundaries.
I don't regret going one bit, though. I have a great degree, paid off my debt, and have been working in preeminent silicon valley companies for more than 20 years now.
Harvard is overrated anyway. You're not going to get a better education, you're just going to be around a lot of rich people.
I remember feeling very jarred when I first met "rich white people" in high school. It blew my mind. What did these people do? What are their families like? It truly fascinated me. This continued well into college where I met even more people from very, very wealthy backgrounds. I dated someone whose father was a dean of the school we went to, and I was extremely nervous when I visited their... mansion.
Because I met a bunch of "rich white people" in high school, I became fairly acclimated to them. It really does taking meeting someone face-to-face to realize that they're not so different from you. I imagine it's the same when rich people meet very poor people.
It makes me think that the issue isn't that poor students feel uncomfortable around rich students, but rather that the first time they ever meet rich students is in college. If they met earlier - perhaps in elementary or middle school - this discomfort would not be there.
I certainly didn't met any kids in high school that had any kind of money to flash (a fancy car or other expensive things to show off).
In many ways the gap between 30k / year and 300k/year is larger than the gap between 300k / year and 3 million per year.
PS: I actually know several people that inhered low to mid 7 figures. But, they are really more upper middle class than the kind of 'Rich' you see in a Hollywood film. But, plenty of people would consider that rich.
Sure, you can burn down your principle based on life expectancy. But that's only really useful if your old. At 40 even 1% in your first year will probably cause you to run out of money.
source: http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042415/what-average-...
Basically, you take out a lower percentage of your money on good years than bad. Further, you need to take taxes out to cover inflation. Aka, you pay taxes on 7% even if your real return was only 4%.
PS: There is a reason many institutions are ok with a very steady 3.5% ROI there is a lot of risk going for more.
[1] imo it's okay to do this while you're in the workforce since you're salary effectively acts as your fixed income portion of the portfolio.
http://blog.cordantwealth.com/how-much-can-i-spend-in-retire...?
Considering there are 1,810+ billionaires globally you have not heard of most of these people. But, if someone is defined as unusually rich not just 'comfortable' that seems to be the new movie millionaire.
> I certainly didn't met any kids in high school that had any kind of money to flash (a fancy car or other expensive things to show off).
I've never met anyone that's similar to Hollywood movie characters. I'm not sure they really "flashed" their money, but it was clear they had access to nice things. Their clothes were definitely nicer, their parents would take them out to plays and expensive dinners.
It's possible this is the case because I grew up in NYC as opposed to the suburbs. The stereotypical "rich white person" in New York is exorbitantly rich. Maybe I'm just referring to those who were upper-middle class
I highly recommend this piece about social class in the US: http://siderea.livejournal.com/1260265.html?format=light
Idk, from my Ivy league experience many of them are in fact completely different from you. Many of them are not, but many are. "Oh we're all the same" is too much of a generalization. I'll jog my memory a bit, although many are extreme data points that still come to mind years after...
I had a friend (guy) who would enjoy sitting and making fun of people for the way they dressed, which was usually just them looking poor or working class. To me that was new, the idea that some guys at 18, 19, 20 spend a lot on clothes and snark at the way other guys dress.
I had another friend who would invite a huge group of us to VIP bottle service at a club every so often, dropping maybe 4, 5, 6 thousand on a Saturday, but then would occasionally point at someone, usually someone he didn't like, and say "Hey - why don't you chip in" and put them on the hook for 800 dollars.
I remember staring in disbelief when I learned some guy in my building would order in sushi in the mornings to his room instead of going to the dining hall. (Of course, dropping $35 on a Postmates delivery for one is not unusual for tech workers in SF today, but at 18/19, and many years before Postmates, it felt like they were living on another planet). Another would just take off to Tokyo for a weekend if he felt like he 'needed a break', and other students, usually rich girls, would fawn over how "deep" he must be, his feeling the need to fly off to Tokyo, etc.. Someone else in that building also installed a stripper pole in his room, and not surprisingly a lot of girls who were attracted to his levels of "richness" and "lifestyle" actually went over to indulge him.
They formed their own "fraternities" although some were kicked off campus because, of course, cocaine. (Cocaine and richness is another topic). Additionally one of the super rich guy frats was one that had the roofie reputation. Another had the asshole reputation. I just remember going to one of their parties for 'rush' freshmen year and basically getting laughed at for the cheap suit I was wearing.
That all said, of course there were many jovial, standup guys from rich families who try to relate to everyone, who maintain an ironic distance from their "richness"... but my Ivy experience (which was maybe more unique to this particular Ivy), which I enjoyed very much, still exposed me to a lot of guys I could never relate to nor would want to.
It's pretty well known that a lot of girls at universities are there not only for academic purposes, but also to lock down a 'nice' future husband. Biology is what it is..
Edit: be PC and downvote all you want, but its a pretty obvious truth for anyone that did actually attend university.
When you start looking for this shit, it's everywhere.
You tend to find it, even if it isn't there.
And the price I paid for each year was about 700 euro plus whatever the books cost. Came to a total of about 4500 euro (books included) for the 5 years that I studied there.
I'm glad that I did not have to pay the rediculous prices they do in the UK or in the US, because my parents would not have been able to afford that.
EDIT: And there is actually a system for parents whom do not meet the minimum income either, that the university covers part, or all, of the cost. I do not have experience with that though because even though my parents did not attend a university, their income was above the minimum to apply for that.
To be clear, affording college is a real struggle for lots of Americans, but if you get into a top Ivy school, it's usually a much smaller burden than a second-tier one. They have big financial aid programs; I have a friend going to Harvard from a lower-class background, and their tuition is essentially nothing, but they feel extremely out of place.
If you are social, if you are smart, not a selfish asshole... people will like you, accept you, and most people realize that we don't pick our parents -- how much money you have in college doesn't matter. Going to an Ivy... it's not the academics that sets the alumni apart, it's the networking. You learn to judge your peers based on who has potential and who doesn't -- this is the elitism that a lot of people talk about. Some of that is based on money (clearly a kid who has billionaires for parents has a leg up), but a lot of it is based on the individual person. If you feel like a lack of money will hold you back... then it'll hold you back. If you don't... it won't.
So how this plays out... mind you this was 20 years ago... but in my fraternity (which wasn't one that asked for parents' financial records) we had a checkbox on the form you turned in along with your dues, and it simply said, "I can't pay my dues this semester." I don't recall anyone scamming the system, and it was in place because we didn't want to discriminate against brothers who didn't have as much money, or who were going through a rough patch. I remember talking to a guy who had come to a bunch of our parties... he was dead set against rushing... I pulled him aside 1:1 and asked if it was a money thing... once we got past that he was in and became one of the officers a few years later. (I probably wouldn't recommend everyone join a fraternity, but they can offer a sort of extended family / support structure that's nice when you're away from home for the first time.)
Another example... I had a weekly poker group... we started off playing for $20 in chips. We would invite people based on who we wanted to hang out with, smoke cigars with, drink with... and someone ended up bringing his roommate. Cool guy, we all loved him. He said he didn't have $20 to spare. Rather than just give him $20 (which would have solved the issue but made him feel like he didn't belong or was beholden to someone else) we just dropped the entrance fee and played for chores. 5 guys... The winner got 2 chores from the person in 5th place, and 1 from the person in 4th, and 3 from the person in 2nd. And similar allotments... I had to vacuum that kid's apartment and do his laundry after he beat me (and he had to do the same for me when I won). If you wanted to "buy back in" you could, but it cost you some outlandish dare... basically everyone would get to humiliate you in exchange for more chips. In the end the money wasn't at all important, we were still all just playing for pride.
Final example... Textbooks have always been a bitch. Even 20 years ago. I'm sure it's worse now... but back then we'd line up classes with friends, form study groups (typically these transcended semesters), and then we could buy one book for 2-3 people. The added perk of this was we could share notes, do less work... cultivate that whole networking thing that was so important. If you were smart, took good notes... everyone wanted you in their study cluster. You could negotiate... if you had money or not... "Let's do this, just the 3 of us... I'll take notes 1/3 of the time but I don't want to pay for the book..." and the guy who took sloppy notes would say, "Sure, but how about you take notes 2/5ths of the time and I'll buy the books..." And anyway I remember a lot of people having little deals like this.
Is every school different, sure. But I think it all goes back to internal perceptions. If you define yourself as ugly and fat... you won't get a date. If you define yourself as stupid and slow... you will get bad grades. If you define yourself as poor or struggling... life will be hard. But if you can just not think about that stuff... then you realize that nobody else cares about that stuff either. We're all too busy focusing on...
YES.
University for me: no activities. Ever. No traveling. Go to class. Go to work. Go home. Ace tests (mostly). Rinse, repeat for 4 years. I did not hang out with university classmates once. I could not afford to (I could hang out with childhood friends because "going out" was not in our shared vocabulary). The times spent on projects and small talk let me know how much of an outsider I was.
I managed to finally get a beat up truck (could only be pop-started, electronics only worked in a hard left hand turn, and more awesomeness) by my second year, as opposed to the new Lexuses and BMWs that many of my classmates drove.
I did miss out on something that I wish I would have been told more explicitly: university is not just about an education, it is about networking. I got zero networking done. I got the degree and got out. Because of my lack of networking, I believe my career was slower to build.
Fast forward a bit. I'm doing fantastic. My oldest kid is now starting college (we have two others), I'm still with her mom, I make over 6 figures, and I have a job I throughly enjoy (I look forward to Mondays). My degree was important for me and I think was a large part of helping me get out of poverty. I never felt that I was a part of the university I attended. I enjoy my life story and it helps me appreciate the life I lead.
To get some more context, can I ask a few questions?
1) What part of the country was this in? 2) Population of town or metro area? 3) Your ethnicity and sex? 4) Are you religious?
Strange, when did you go to college? When I first arrived in college in 2012 the commonly held knowledge among students was that "while the education you'll learn here is important, but the chance you have to grow in the 4 years as a person and network with others is priority #1"
Would you rather them not invite you? I've always found that rich people are not trying to put you down by talking about their boats, clothes, or businesses. They just live with a different set of parameters that people can't relate to.
I think it's wrong to expect Harvard to provide a "safe space" for poor people. We should instead expect everyone to respect each others differences. Rich, poor, jamaican, colombian... People are people. Instead of being self-conscious about what makes you different, embrace the differences and expand your world view.
I admitted at an Ivy League gathering that I had gone to state school and my conversational partner looked at me as if I had suddenly changed, turned, and walked away without another word.
Sure, it didn't hurt too bad at 25 with a good job and a mortgage. At 18 I can see that smarting a bit more than it did and I'm telling this to you almost a decade after the fact. Allowing people to form a club for people like them is completely okay, as is trying to not label them as "the poor kids".
I don't disagree that people should strive to overcome but a large number of folks entering college are less prepared that you would hope for the social changes generally and I imagine that for the poor kid in the literal halls of power that would be enormously challenging and a little support isn't going to bankrupt the ivy league or hurt anyone getting some help to blend in.
Is anyone asking for this? What a disingenuous comment.
> Instead of being self-conscious about what makes you different, embrace the differences and expand your world view.
Sure. But that can be a risky endeavor. Embracing differences isn't all sunshine and roses. So what might practicing this mean in practice for the poor student.
"Sure, I'll go socialize with you tonight and expand my world view!" Oh fuck, now I'm broke and can't pay for housing anymore.
"Ok I'll party with you and do coke with you and expand my world view!" Wow we both bombed our finals, but my scholarship won't support me with this lower GPA, guess I won't see you in class next semester, bye.
I suppose I should have used a less politically charged term despite the nature of my intention. Maybe the quotation marks triggered your response. Safe space was simply a convenient term to describe:
> the First Generation Student Union, pushing for a better understanding of challenges financially disadvantaged students face.
If you have 12% or more of your first year class dropping out because of preparedness, then the institution has a big problem regardless of whether it is a state school or an ivy league. And if a high portion of that group is lower income, that's a huge black eye for some of the wealthiest and most prestigious institutions in the world.
Anecdote: at my wife's Ivy medical school, there are several events each semester in which students are encouraged to drop several thousand dollars in a single 4 hour event. One example is a charity auction in which faculty auction off experiences like a boat trip or tours of their wine cellar to students. Some of these items go for 5 figure dollar amounts. Events like these specifically exclude poor students or students with families by design. While attendance isn't mandatory, the events are planned and executed by the student body via assignment or election, so it is difficult to not be included in some form or another. I can understand how, after attending for a few semesters, one would feel that wealth defines the culture there and that being poor excludes you from that culture.
Edit: it's also important that while all ages and socioeconomic statues attend the Ivys, the vast majority of undergraduates are 18-22. As someone 10 years older and who has an adopted daughter that age, what you suggest isn't advice that will be widely adopted by people of that age group.
I'm just hopeful that the poor kids would understand that the merit of their hard work has at least placed them on equal footing with the rich kids when it comes to educational opportunity and resume credentials.
I hope that there is a mentor on campus who can show them that this is something to be proud of.
Except minus all that awesome networking and shoulder-rubbing. Which is, arguably, the actual value proposition of an ivy league vs a state school.
I agree we should be more open about money, but I think it's just hard when you're at that point in life.
It's from a starting point of privilege now that I make a good living, but I make it a point to say "I'm not sure I want to spend that much money" if friends talk about plans that don't strike me as worth it... rather than make some other excuse.
Group 1 (me) and 2 tended to hang out together, spend all the time studying, clipped coupons, ate ramen noodles, never went out, and got ulcers worrying about whether they'd ever get a job after graduation that could pay off this gamble.
Group 3 spent and partied more and really only worried that the cushy banking job they would inevitably get was less prestigious than the cushy banking job their peers would inevitably get. They would occasionally interact with us commoners.
I have no idea what group 4 did, as they didn't have anything to do with any of us, but they seemed pretty nice and didn't seem to be worried about anything. Kind of aloof but not assholes.
As someone who grew up in a rural mining town, I didn't exactly feel uncomfortable but there was definitely a sense that I was getting a glimpse into an alternate, parallel universe. Mostly people were really cool and there was a lot less "snootiness" than I expected. Just not a lot to talk about with someone who's economic situation was vastly different than yours, so people naturally gravitated towards others who were similar. I guess I learned that rich people aren't cartoon villains looking down on us while twirling their superior mustaches. They just live in a different world from us and they understand as little about our lives as we understand about theirs.
<poor kids sense their disadvantage.
Oh how not true. It may feel like a disadvantage but everyone has some disadvantages.
A kept child that never had to contribute to meeting their families bills can never understand what that is like. To not have the backstop of a bank account.
Poor is not a indicator of effort for ivy-ers but a badge of success no kept young adult can ever experience.
Just like families where the marriage failed, the children will never know a happy home. And the mostly unsaid sense of decision failure associated with divorces. Everyone has some disadvantages. Turn them into advantages.
So my "advice" to a poor student is take your experience as a one-up to those around you that will never be able to know poor-mess. Most likely you earned your good future as it won't be given to you.
Rich, Middle Class and Poor can all have screwed up (or awesome) lives in different ways...
If you get to the core of it we all struggle but yes the day to day is different. I think you can always find "pockets" of people in all classes that are curious free thinkers trying to relate to people from different backgrounds -- especially at Ivy League schools. Unfortunately kids who are young are also insecure about surface things.
We need to just push diversity in the dorms and fraternities/sororities because I don't think "economics" really has much to do with it unless you make your whole life about buying $200 shirts or going to fancy restaurants.
I also think the high end universities should give poorer kids a social stipend -- it is a really bad thing if all the rich kids hang out together and all the poor kids hang out together. The whole point of the Ivy League is to put the best minds together and to build a bridge between old school wealth and talented youth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IM6PGwjBSc&t=312s