I'm happy this is here. Anytime affirmative action, race issues, etc is discussed, someone will always say "it's a class issue! What about poor white people?" Well, here's an article about that.
I was first from my family (poor) to attend a well known PUBLIC university in US. Like top 5 in US or world, in name recognition. I did not feel like I fit in.
Many of the kids at this public university just did not get into one of the ivys but definitely middle/upper-middle class.
Many kids in the school that came from poor families often went to a public high school where it was easier to get good enough grades to get into the university. Once they got in though, they were just not prepared for the rigorous competition to get good grades.
I grew up in Cupertino and went to UC Berkeley. I came from a well off family but I had to pay for school. I met a lot of the "work study" students while washing dishes in the cafeteria during my first semester. Wearing an uniform and a hairnet to serve fellow students doesn't give an 18 year old the best self esteem.
On the flip side, rich kids like my sister shadows their cousin during surgery, winter-breaks in Dubai, and studies abroad in France. It's a different life.
Assuming everything is the same, money still gives a stupid amount of advantages.
UoC? I went there for grad school, have a well paying job, and am from what I would call an upper middle class background... I didn't feel like I fit in. My peers were mostly from very wealthy families, a large majority of them treating the degree like a check mark on a resume to complement their other masters degrees.
There are no public universities in the top 5 in the US. The top three are Harvard, Yale and Princeton. Stanford is basically comparable. The fifth spot goes to either MIT or University of Chicago, both also private. That was pulled out of my ass but I just looked up the USNWR rankings and Berekeley is 20, and is the first public university on the list. The universities I mentioned form 6 of the top 7, along with Columbia.
"Disadvantaged students are accustomed to doing everything on their own because they rarely have parents educated enough to help them with things like homework or college applications, so they may be less likely to go to a writing center or ask a professor for extra help."
The author missed the much larger problem in this statement. The school system these students are from are often poor with incompetent staff[1]. The competent staff are mostly dealing with students with problems and leaving the bright students to look after themselves. Resource allocation is a harsh mistress.
1) as an example, $2,000 a year (1988 USD) down the tube because a school official couldn't be bothered to mail a letter.
I attended an elite UK university having had a poor upbringing. This article reads painfully to me. I don't have the words to describe why, but I can try.
The closest I can come is to say that this idea of inclusiveness is terminally broken. It's a sort of bandage over a huge chasm of differences.
For a poor person to become wealthy requires them to discard their baggage. Change the accent, the clothes, the pop culture references, the 'back home...' stories. Avoid the discussions about parents. The list goes on.
My transition into adulthood at present is essentially a game of throwing away my connections to that past. Not intentionally, but because living a double life is just too difficult. Visiting my hometown I feel like more of a tourist each time.
Money is a huge divider, the gulf between the working class and middle classes in this regard is enormous.
I am hardwired to assume that people cannot afford anything. My basic instinct is to design activities that are free.
Wealthier people do not always appreciate this. They might want to go and do something more expensive - and why not? They can.
Friendship groups.
I could waffle on seemingly forever but words can't really express how odd I find all of this.
> For a poor person to become wealthy requires them to discard their baggage.
Yes! Thank you for using the perfect word for how I feel. I'm sure rich people have "rich people baggage" but I believe they are either a) not a deal blocker or b) mitigated by their advantages.
Edit: I have a few 1% friends. As far as I can tell, rich people baggage is usually complaining about money.
>For a poor person to become wealthy requires them to discard their baggage. Change the accent, the clothes, the pop culture references, the 'back home...' stories. Avoid the discussions about parents. The list goes on.
This sounds like a perfect summary of Dick Whitman's transition into Don Draper.
I too also grew up poor, but find myself in a position where I have a very nice job, and I also have a hard time articulating to other's how warped I feel about money/status/etc.
The best I've ever found is John Cheese's Cracked articles on the topic which I felt were almost like he was writing from inside of my head.
If someone reads these, please understand that this is how I actually feel/act to this day, even though I make 100k+ a year. For example, I only own two pairs of shoes. My work sneakers, and my "nice" shoes. And I replace my sneakers only when they are completely busted, and I get the cheapest ones on sale I can find. Three pairs of shoes is literally crazy to me, and I feel bad about having 2 pairs of shoes since I never wear the "nice" ones.
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
Good shoes will save you money if you can put in the initial investment :)
Obviously a side note, but I did a test on a topic similar to this. My SO convinced me to try out a custom shoe place (highly reviewed, and recommended) on the theory that if I was only going to buy one pair of shoes, that I should at least have a quality pair to wear around.
The results from that (sole) experiment were that the shoes lasted longer but not so much so that they beat out multiple pairs of cheaper shoes on price. The quality shoes lasted about 4 years, and I buy a pair of sneakers about every 1.5 years. However, the quality shoes were at about a 10x markup from the sneakers. So I'd need those quality shoes to last 15 years or so.
So for my money, it sounds like great fiction, but not great reality.
If you're talking about dress shoes you don't expect the soles to last especially longer than those on cheap dress shoes. With the higher quality ones you can, and it is worth it to, resole and remanufacture them multiple times. My best dress shoes are ten years old, have been redone once, and are likely to last another 20 years.
That said, I don't think this accounts for rich people having more money
I own two pairs of sneaker-y leather shoes that look like Timberlands from the 1980s, both made by a cobbler back in Italy who has since retired. They are 6 and 8 years old respectively, and only needed resoling twice.
It sounds like you're comparing some kind of dress shoe to sneakers. For it to be an accurate comparison, you'd need to compare the custom dress shoes to cheap dress shoes. Also, it's pretty hard to beat the cost of sneakers for footwear if you have no need for dressier shoes.
I've done something similar, but with different results...
I wear down heels very fast, and used to get through mass-produced shoes with moulded soles far too quickly. It annoyed me hugely that I had to throw away a pair of shoes whose uppers were in perfect condition, but whose soles couldn't be replaced.
In the end, I bought a pair of decent leather-soled shoes for $350 and get them heeled regularly; that was 7 years ago, they're still going strong, and I estimate that they've saved me a ton of money.
And as a "third way", I've kept my eyes open in thrift (UK = charity) shops, and have managed to get excellent, repairable footwear for next to nothing. My current pair of oxblood brogues by Allen Edmonds cost me $25, has been going for 5 years now, and barring accidents will last me until I'm well past retirement...
When I was in my 20's, and I first started making "good money", I splurged on some $170 dress shoes. Those shoes lasted a good 15 years and they were the best shoes I ever owned.
I only own two pairs of shoes, my construction boots and a pair of representable shoes for visiting customers. I'll let you guess which ones I'm more comfortable in ;)
Nothing to be ashamed of, think about it this way: what you don't have you don't need to maintain or carry with you, stuff is vastly over-rated, having more doesn't equate automatically to feeling better.
I dunno. I went to a state uni and worked my way thru school. Yeah I get it, there were times your feel out of place. People able to go to nice places during holidays, etc. But my god, I didn't feel inferior just because I could not afford those things. Sure there were times dates consisted of taking a trip on mass transit somewhere you have never been just to see what's there.
But hell, you're going to school so you can make a better living in the future and afford some comfort later. I think the issue is you have to feel sure of yourself and not let peer envy infiltrate your thinking.
I also had no misgivings about asking for professor time --that's what they were there for.
I think you feel out of place if you somehow believe you must conform to the in crowd. I never liked joining formal groups etc. It's antithetical to me, even when I agree or have commonality with a group because ultimately it's you against the world and no ones going to help.
It's not inferiority, or lack of confidence. I didn't 'feel' out of place. I was out of place - the whole thing was out of place.
The article seems to focus on the 'bad', as if there's an injustice perpetrated against poor students.
But it doesn't work like that. The people just inhabit different worlds, the mutual understanding is limited, it requires effort rather than being automatic.
I would draw an analogy with being an immigrant. There's no real conspiracy, you're just different. Learning the local language, the customs, etc, will help you succeed. But in performing this act of assimilation, you lose a part of what was there before. The ones you left behind are different now.
I agree that not asking for professor time is just odd. I had no problem at all competing intellectually in my chosen field. It was just everything surrounding that.
UK elite universities are constantly railed on for not admitting more poor students, but part of the issue is that we simply have lower levels of attainment. Equality there is not possible without negative discrimination.
How do we fix wealth inequality? Well, we probably can't. But I do think we could go further towards providing necessities to all, which would solve a lot of the issues.
Simplified, some people have to worry about making the rent. Others own property outright. That's a massive gulf.
This reminds me of stories from the old USSR. There would be students of an ethnicity which excelled at math and sciences, so were overrepresented. In turn the system in no uncertain discriminatory terms would simply fail them in their entrance exams --even when they got everything correct and went above and beyond in providing proofs. "yes, its all correct, exceptional, but I have to fail you" would be the consolation in confidence.
That's probably not true. Poorer students may in general have lower attainment, true. But there are so many, many more of them - even a 1% rate of rich-student attainment means there are still an order of magnitude MORE qualified poor students wanting to attend college. No discrimination necessary to address the current imbalance - just blind admission.
Even if you accept that premise (I don't, because private schools in the UK are ridiculously far ahead of state schools), the poor kids don't even apply.
I didn't even know what University was. Oxford or Cambridge especially - it's like Hollywood, celebrities, it's a thing that exists that you're just not a part of.
I kind of grow tired of these discussions and just pop in every now and then because I feel like the gap in understanding is just so massive that it's fruitless.
The information asymmetry is enormous. A middle class person has friends and family that work in high status fields. They can directly see that you do A, B and C and end up with D.
Hyperbolic extreme analogy - imagine that you walk up to a remote tribe with an iPhone and tell them they could make a bunch of money making apps for it.
They don't have a clue, right? That was me at age 18. I didn't know how people became doctors or lawyers or computer programmers or whatever. That was for 'other people'..... everyone I knew worked in retail.
Really? No way to know what college was about. No media in the UK, no radio, no access to the internet for the poor? Ok, that's a culture gap I'm going to just have to take your word for.
The article was about posh universities going after poor students, and making education work for them. Like minorities, its important to seek out Qualified candidates (not just some quota system that allows anybody). So the 'no poor kids apply' hurdle is moot. The Uni is supposed to be looking for them.
And they do exist. There's absolutely no monopoly on brains among the upper class.
And about how far ahead 'private schools' are - some of that is true; some of that is mythology, perpetrated by TV. In the end, its the students that make the reputation - and by definition, public schools have poor students, and poor students underrepresent achievers.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear your experience, its not all that different from mine.
I don't think that it's easy to explain; there almost aren't words for it. Whenever I discuss this in person I tend to ramble and hope enough meaning gets across.
In the US do you have the notion of 'poshness'? For example, making fun of someone who speaks a certain way, or turns their nose up at e.g. fast food? That's a massive thing. We live in tribes... pronouncing words correctly is a thing that results in ostracization here.
It pains me to say this, but here we are:
I am wealthier than my parents and hometown friends because at some point I realised what was going on, and took an active decision to take a different path.
I had to internalize the notion that I am better than them. I will work harder and smarter and I will beat them. Do you see that?
I had to beat them in order to win. I have to compete against my fellow human beings.
I have to reject their customs and use the customs that winners use.
Do you get that? That it's not just 'do A B C'? That the actions I took and continue to take have the effect of further seperating me from my friends and family? Every time I pronounce an 'a' or an 'h' in their presence it's effectively me grandstanding the fact that I'm not 'one of them' now.
Reading this post makes me seem like a colossal dick, right? But it's just a written description of social 'mobility'.
I am not better or more deserving than them. I just play a game. A game of emulation. I was born with talents, arbitrarily, and somehow that means I win and they lose. Meh. I think you just have to live it.
Hm. In Iowa folks say 'aint' and pronounce 'washington' as 'warshington'. When I'm with locals, I do that too. When I'm at work, I don't.
Its just adaptation, not betrayal. Maybe the worst thing is feeling ashamed of it? I'm rather proud of where I came from, and like to introduce my colleagues to the phrases and pronunciations of my hometown. But in the American Midwest, everybody plays the game "where are your people from" and there are no winners. Just interesting background.
State university will have a lot more middle class people. And this whole issue isn't just money but also class. A broke middle class person fits in better than a child of a the lower class.
I imagine it is even worse in the UK where there is a much more rigid social structure.
This is about connections later in life that can have huge economic benefits. Connections to someone who's starting a business and needs a co-founder is much more "economically" valuable than someone who's going in as a regular software developer. Same person, same skillset, different connections, very very different economic outcomes.
The Chinese are fascinating in this regard. To some extent they can thinking term and are willing to sacrifice the present generation so that the future generation have an advantage. That's to say they are willing to toil and thole in this generation to step up one more rung and have next generation one run closer to the top.
Parents will live in penury in order that they afford their progeny a better future. This is not u heard of in the west, but it's less common. Culture has a lot to do with it.
Its hard to take the article very seriously from the title, but it does make for a slightly cringeworthy read.
As someone from a very poor background (actual poor - starving in africa poor, not US overprivileged 'I can eat for free out of bins' poor, but this is all relative...) I can sympathise somewhat too.
I agree with the point made here in this comment- personally, I never felt like I had the kind of disadvantages described in this article, and I'm sure its partly because I pass very well for an upper middle-class man thanks to a spiffing british accent I inherited from my mother - and partly down to a tremendous effort socially. I've always presented my background as exotic and interesting rather than woeful and sympathy-worthy.
All that being said, I am now doing quite well and earn a considerable amount of money, but still always find myself broke at the end of the month... its shameful.
A very rich man once said to me that if you act like a rich person eventually you would find yourself to be rich... I think there is an element of truth in that.
"I pass very well for an upper middle-class man thanks to a spiffing british accent I inherited from my mother"
Its amazing how a "upper crust" accent will play versus something something considered "low class". Its one of those hidden assumptions that adults make. I have a deep, loud voice that was tinged with a rez accent and quite a lot of slang.
Watch a kid react to Mater from Cars versus an adult. The story of the voice acting for that part worldwide is quite interesting.
looking at efforts spent on voices around the world in high quality productions is always interesting (in high quality dubs, even ambient background conversation is re-recorded, for example), and a strong reminder of how US-centric a lot of media is. people still build 'new' software with ansi strings after all... :)
> A very rich man once said to me that if you act like a rich person eventually you would find yourself to be rich... I think there is an element of truth in that.
Unfortunately, there is also truth in the idea that if you act like you're rich, you end up poor, because you wind up spending all you have (probably plus some).
true. its one to take carefully with consideration....
have you met many rich people who spend like there is no tomorrow? its about acting like a /rich person/ not as if you have a limitless supply of money and are actually rich. :)
Not the person you asked but: I have met people that became wealthy and acted like you describe and they usually ended up broke some years or decades later. I've also met some extremely wealthy people and they in fact were visually very modest (but worth more money than one could spend in a lifetime).
The contrast runs something like this: German dude, worth $10M made his money in real estate, started an online company, lost it all but bought Porsches and hired fancy places, in the end turned to crime in order to continue to finance his life-style.
American dude, worth > $50M (at one point...), spent money like it was toilet paper, golden taps in the bathroom, fancy Rolls-Royces (multiple...), used to be the #1 in a hotly contested tech field, lost it all when the market turned and he didn't adapt.
Swiss dude, worth >> $1B, modest house, drove a VW Golf (ok, a nice one), absolutely incorruptible.
They're nice examples to have and I understand that for someone worth that much there is no need to signal anything and that Germany guy may have had to keep up with his 'circle' in order to be seen as successful but still it makes you wonder how much pain there is behind all those frustrated faces in fancy cars living in expensive houses.
i never really took the advice that way. this is probably down to my stereotype of the rich person...
people who stay rich do not just spaff their money around left, right and centre. i think rich people call this 'new money' and using such a term would be an example of acting like a rich person.
Thats an example of new money vs old money. Those with old money tend to have a lot less anxiety about what they actually spend, because they know all their needs will be provided. New money is still under the illusion that the fancier things will make them happier.
The rich people who actually got rich themselves and not just inherited their money actually don't spend their money left & right. Check Warren Buffet.
> A very rich man once said to me that if you act like a rich person eventually you would find yourself to be rich... I think there is an element of truth in that.
People are criticizing this line but I think there's a lot of truth in it. Despite what most people believe, people who get and remain rich don't spend every dime they have. They live below their means, save, invest, and grow what they have.
Our family got on the Dave Ramsey plan years ago (2008/9?) and it radically changed our thinking and life in a matter of months. After a couple years, it radically changed our lives.
> For a poor person to become wealthy requires them to discard their baggage. Change the accent, the clothes, the pop culture references, the 'back home...' stories. Avoid the discussions about parents. The list goes on.
I feel terribly sad that I read this statement. Sure, you would want to discard your baggage have a better life for yourself and your family, and increasing your financial wealth will help you get there. However, it should not be the other way around. Becoming wealthy should not because of what you are discarding. Changing does not always means discarding.
> For a poor person to become wealthy requires them to discard their baggage.
That baggage is what makes so many upper class people despise being around poor people. It's also why every exclusive club interviews people under the guise of a "cultural fit" policy, or what they sometimes call a "no asshole rule" to avoid criticism, when in reality it's almost always just self-deluded bigotry.
The proof is in how homogeneously upper class, even when otherwise diverse, most "elite" organization are. If they were actually merit based, you would necessarily see incredible diversity in class. Instead, everywhere, you see organizations made up of the wealthy descendants of wealthy people.
> The closest I can come is to say that this idea of inclusiveness is terminally broken.
The term "inclusiveness" is utter bullshit. (no criticism towards you OP) The idea of "trying to include everyone with diverse backgrounds" was created by top leaders who wanted to prop themselves up even more by characterizing themselves as benevolent stewards. Hint - they're usually not. Let's face reality - we're naturally biased and we still don't have any definitive, scalable way to select (include) other human beings without our short-minded biases blinding us.
Thanks for this post. I'm debating applying to a state University right now. Coming from a poor background (and still being poor) I find it hard to relate to a lot of my peers. You speak of "dropping baggage", and for me, this is next to impossible because of my poor dental health. As soon as I open my mouth people assume I must be some meth head. My mom has dementia and can barely take care of her self and my dad is struggling with COPD. I'm not going to go further into my home life because I'm not looking for pity.
I'm one the best math students at my current school and calculus is fun for me. I'm the only person I know that knows how to program, none of the other students I've met are interested in computers at all.
The students that are performing at the same level as I am seem (to me) to be "elites". I find my self becoming more and more cynical each day listening to complaints about having an old model of iPhone or "having to go to Paris with dad" (someone really said this), when all I have is a flip phone and I've never ridden on a plane.
I told my self a few years ago I was going to learn to program because it seemed to be something that anyone could do (as long as you have a computer and internet access), seemed to be growing, and seemed to be high paying. I've gotten pretty good, but I still have a ways to go.
Now I'm at the point where I can leave my disabled parents for school and let my teeth continue to decay and deal with that social stigma, or I can get a job doing tech support and hopefully help my situation a little faster.
Hang in there! I don't mean to sound trite, but if your personal situation allows you to go to college, do it. It will pay off in the end. I stress personal situation. You'll always be able to fix your teeth later - after college you will be able to get a good job with good health insurance. (& that can help fix a lot of things) I'm not sure about your personal situation with your parents - I can't moralize on that. Good luck - it's tough to deal with.
Also may I say, as someone in a similar situation who chose to quickly get into work - do not only look at the economic benefits, but also the social benefits. You will meet so many people just going through college that are just like you, its a wonderful way to gain friends that will improve your whole life. In college the people you meet will be friends or at least acquaintances for a lot of your life. At work the second you or their leave a company you will likely not speak very much at all.
Of course, it depends on the person as well - but know that that friendships and meeting people like you is one of the biggest reasons to go to college and does factor into your decision. There aren't a lot of institutions out there where you'll be able to do that outside of a job. Of course, with student loans being as they are, I'm not quite sure whats worse.
Thanks. I think no matter what I'm going to at least try to further my education. I wasn't aware of the school medical/dental benefits being mentioned in this thread, so I'll keep that in mind when applying too.
Leave your teeth to decay? Clean your fucking teeth.
Grow up and do something about it.
You are now in control of your destiny. You can program, so you can make money if you can figure out how to get jobs. Pretty much the whole world is crying for programmers, get over your social anxiety and meet people who will pay you.
Presumably there's jawline issues (overbite) and the teeth aren't properly aligned, besides the hygiene. Those invariably require long-term dental intervention, as I have personally experienced.
You have stated exactly what the commenter needs to accomplish without a single consideration as to how to change their mind to do so, which in this case is likely the more pressing issue.
Instead of telling someone who is doing X and failing to stop doing X and start wining, it might be more helpful to suggest a realistic next action. In this case, perhaps apply to some very local universities for a CS degree, keep family close, and research community dental clinics with affordable payment plans.
I don't think cleaning them is going to make them grow back or reverse the decay that's already happened. My dental health is the result of not having dental insurance for most of my life.
I brush three times a day and I quit drinking soda and eating candy a while ago.
>Grow up and do something about it.
Uhh.. I am.
>get over your social anxiety and meet people who will pay you.
I'm doing what I can. I plan on building a "resume" over the summer.
Just so you're aware, even though it sounded like it, I was not complaining about my situation. I'm not looking for help, just thought I'd add my perspective to the thread.
I actually don't think I would change much about my early life at all. Part of me feels that if I hadn't struggled with being poor I would not have had the motivation to become a programmer, and I enjoy programming.
One thing to keep in mind is that there are many places around the world that have excellent dentists at far cheaper prices than you will get in the USA.
I know a few people in the UK who have travelled abroad for cosmetic dental work as it saved them thousands.
Thanks. I've considered traveling abroad to save money, but I'm weary of the quality of work that I'll get. Once I'm ready to have work done I plan on closely examining my options.
St Martin in the French Caribbean has a good reputation. Private dental work is very good in many places around the world. I know two people who had their teeth fixed while they were in India and they both had excellent work done.
edit - You could maybe find another reason to travel, one that you can get some sort of help with. Say you want to study the background of The Martians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_%28group%29 and try to blag a flight to Budapest.
Comments like yours deserve a lifetime ban. You seriously do not have to be so rude. You don't have to take it personally. And you don't have to make it personal.
I was in your situation 8 years ago. I decided to furlough my entrepreneurial endeavors and learn to code so I could get a high paying job with benefits and afford to get my teeth fixed. I went to a state school, hustled my way into the game industry and later the startup world, and have gotten +$40k in dental work done over the last 4 years.
It's not always easy, but if you're smart and work hard, it gets better. If I could have given myself advice back then, I would've told myself not to be afraid of medical loans or dental schools. I've had ~22k in work done at a really nice dental school in SF that would have cost +50k at private practice. The sooner you get in there, the less it will cost in the long run (trust me).
Also, regardless of the current state of your teeth, every day is still a battle for your oral health. Brush after meals and floss regularly. Email me (link in profile) and I'll hook you up with a Sonicare toothbrush.
Also be aware that many employers offer flex-spending accounts for healthcare, which allows you to pay for certain health-related expenses with pre-tax money. There can be downsides (e.g. "use it or lose it"), but for planned procedures it can reduce the bottom-line impact by quite a bit.
(Probably not relevant in GP's position, but hopefully someone finds it useful)
> I attended an elite UK university having had a poor upbringing. This article reads painfully to me. I don't have the words to describe why, but I can try.
It's difficult to understand why. If anything, one should feel great pride to be able to attend an elite school while coming from a less privileged family (even though, being smart because of your genes is basically as random as being born in a rich family, so there shouldn't be any pride or shame either way!!).
My experience of "an elite UK university" (quotes because I feel silly saying it) was different. Even amongst people from upper-middle class privileged backgrounds, I think there was a pretty large disparity between people whose parents gave them lots of money, and people whose parents expected them to live off their student loans entirely.
I'm not saying that there weren't wealthy people who spent absurd amounts of money. There were. But there were also plenty of people who budgeted aggressively, and made things like formal hall and pregaming before going to student clubnights on a Thursday night the highpoint of discretionary expenditure.
I don't come from a wealthy background. Because of when I started university, my parents were just outside the bracket that would have got be grants and bursaries (if I'd started a year later, they'd have been in it). Grew up in an ex-council house, dad worked down the mines, yadda yadda (I hate getting into the thing of "Look how working class MY upbringing was" but there you go). But I definitely didn't feel excluded. I suppose there probably were high-spending friendship groups that I didn't fit into. I can't say I felt like I missed out. You're never going to fit into every friendship group.
I'm assuming you went to Oxbridge. If not, maybe it is different. I certainly felt like there were a lot of fairly income independent activities that were applicable no matter your background. Pretty much everyone can go to formal hall, or to a bop, or even to events at the Union. At least in your first few years, those things are pretty central to social lives for a lot of students.
I don't know. I feel like my post is a little pointless: "I don't agree with your experience". Experiences aren't really up for debate. You experienced it, you felt it, it was real. I guess I just feel differently. Sometimes you have to say that.
I didn't have the sort of 'ski trip' nonsense. I mean it existed but didn't really affect me.
The subtle things do though. I had never met a middle class person in my age group before going to University. It's not just wealth. It's dinner, it's Radio 4, it's video games, it's national parks not Butlins. These things aren't really categorically 'superior', that's the thing. But they are kind of assumed in a way that doesn't happen for, say, immigrants.
(I grew up in a council house, not ex. but the african dude above has us both beat. :D)
The same thing happens just by attending college, as education is also a divider. I tend to associate with people who have degrees, and have lost touch with friends from my past who graduated high school and work in stockrooms. We simply live in different worlds.
I think any time you try to migrate to a different group you wind up leaving things behind. Gain something, lose something.
Which, I don't know, seems OK to me. Accents, clothes, and pop culture references might be dear to people for whom culture is all they have. But to me they hold no value by themselves. I wouldn't, for example, avoid an education just so I can cling to the culture I am currently in.
Also, at least among the people I know, a lot of us come from very different backgrounds. Nobody hides their family and their hometown but none of us can relate to eachother's childhoods, so we just don't talk about it a whole lot. Which is OK too.
Anyway, migrating groups I think is always a surreal experience, as is visiting groups you don't belong to.
Similar story here. South Wales steel town -> Oxford (Engineering Science). Late 1970s. I'm certainly wealthier than my parents and home town peers (you can still - easily - buy a reasonable 4 bedroom house there for 100K) but the baggage is still a burden. To misquote a popular aphorism: You can take a man out of the poverty, but you can never take the poverty out of a man.
I agree, and I have not even gone to an "elite" university.
I attend a standard university outside of the UK, so no one here even knows my upbringing, but it is still there.
Even though no one here is looking down on me, or cares what I wear, or thinks I sound a certain way (they all love that English accent ;) ), to me, I feel like I do not fit into their world.
Things I consider "posh" or "middle class" feel alien to me, and I am aware that I have a defensive response which means I try to make fun of people baking their own bread, or going on foraging sessions for food, even though I actually really wish I had the slightest idea how to do it, and did not feel like such an idiot for being a beginner at both. People are quite happy to teach me how to make bread from scratch, or how to recognise mushrooms, so the feeling awkward is all from my side, and I know it is a problem I need to deal with.
Coupled with the feeling uncomfortable in my new social environment is the comments I get from back home "Oh, so you think you are better than us now?". I spent 10 years prior to university pretending I could not do maths, and had no interest in intellectual subjects, and it is a hard learned behaviour to shake, and unfortunately, it took me several years at university to become comfortable discussing intellectual topics, without defaulting to my past behaviour.
For me, that, rather than money is the divider. Everyone at uni is on student income, so all relatively broke, and university here is free, with the government giving us money each month as well, but the attitudes I grew up with and around are a whole different story, and it is those which hold me back at times.
I would caution against too much class consciousness.
My parents came to the west in a boat, much like the ones that are sinking every day in the med. They scraped together a living and tuition fees running Chinese food joints.
When I arrived in Oxford, I did realise there were some interesting characters around. One guy with a posh accent stuck waved his chequebook outside his room during a tuition fee demonstration, offering to pay for everyone's tuition if he could just be allowed some peace. There are dudes walking the street in top hats. There are kids with sports cars.
But why should you feel alienated from them? You can be friends with the ones who want to be. They are just as curious about you. Some of them actually feel a bit guilty about having ridden into a top uni on their fathers' coattails. There's also people who've had it worse than you. One friend actually fled from shelling, and was lucky to miss a boat that got sunk by helicopters.
When you meet people, start with what you have in common. You're all young, and academically gifted. You're in the same place, you speak the same language.
I'm from east Europe, so the problem could not concern me as it has been written, as nobody here really flashes their money around like a clown. But I remember the feeling of being excluded as a student not coming from a top notch high school. The majority of the other people had nice groups of friends from day zero. But guess what - I graduated with a really good diploma, easily landed a job at a major tech company, and most of these people are now my friends or colleagues.
What matters in the end is your results, and your results only.
When I arrived in Oxford, I did realise there were some interesting characters around. One guy with a posh accent stuck waved his chequebook outside his room during a tuition fee demonstration, offering to pay for everyone's tuition if he could just be allowed some peace. There are dudes walking the street in top hats. There are kids with sports cars.
When were you in Oxford? In my day I never saw any top hats, barring the occasional actor; and even the richest kids didn't have cars, because (a) there was nowhere to park them, and (b) you could walk faster than you could drive anywhere.
99 to 03. You had to know which kids had the cars. There's not much in the way of parking, but now and again you'd see a flash car pull up outside a college.
Top hats are an eccentric thing. Kids did it to get mentioned on HN years later.
There was one particular Rolls driven by a prof who'd written THE book on Physical Chemistry, I remember seeing that quite often.
Did you not think people wore some strange clothes? I was back last week and saw loads of kids in suits. These days it just screams "first day at work".
This resonated with me - a poor farm kid from Iowa going to Stanford. I had my student loan plus zilch. Other students were off to Hawaii for vacation. Me, I had to bum a place to stay over breaks when the dorms were closed. I never asked questions; never used any tutors or talked to a professor; never studied in groups. It was a lonely life.
> I never asked questions; never used any tutors or talked to a professor;
I am a professor (albeit at a non-elite university). How do I persuade students such as yourself to ask questions, to use tutors, to show up to office hours, and to talk to me?
Hard. I would have evaded your attempts to talk to me. Anything to avoid standing out from the rest. Maybe if everyone had a regular TA one-on-one or something? So they could identify, in private, who needed help and get that scheduled.
25 years ago, at my university, the first thing in the first lecture the professor said was to form study groups. Those who didn't would feel the loneliness and pressure too overwhelming and would drop out. This was over on the old continent, not in America.
This is asking the students to show initiative, I don't know how well that would work with contemporary American kids.
Make it explicit. Stand at the front, where you usually do (I presume), and say in a big loud voice that you are aware that many of the students in front of you are used to doing everything themselves, without help and without asking for help. And that this does not carry over and here the rules are different and they are now expected to ask questions and seek to discuss, even if they already understand, because an academic tutorial is not just extra lecture time, but a socratic expansion of understanding that every - EVERY - student benefits from, and leaves knowing more than they did when they went in.
You might (will) have to say it more than once, and very explicitly, because they are used to hearing well-meaning similar statements that they have learned to ignore. But just say it, explicitly. They're not stupid; just conditioned. Breaking through that conditioning is hard, so hard. The rich kids see your office-hours as a right (and, as I expect you know, see extensions on deadlines and arguing their grades up and being entitled to second chances as a right), the poor kids don't really believe they exist. Breaking that conditioning is possible, so long as you can see it to hit it.
When I was in college I didn't even know what that conversation would sound like. I knew that I was supposed to go to office hours and start a relationship with my professors, but I pictured it as me standing in their doorway, not knowing what to say.
I recall that! I (once) went to the Engineering building during office hours, lurked in the hallway, peeked in his door. He was grading papers. So I didn't bother him and left. And that was it for me visiting during office hours.
If a student is struggling and does not use the available resources for catching up with the rest of the class, it may be for any of several reasons:
- Asking for help is a display of weakness, and that student has been conditioned to conceal his or her weaknesses.
- The student has feelings of inferiority that lead him or her to assume that they do not deserve additional assistance.
- The student has given his or her last pennies to the bursar and the bookseller, is literally living in a van and gleaning the trash to meet survival needs, and is avoiding peers and professors to conceal this lifestyle.
- The student has a job, and the work schedule interferes with your office hours. You don't pay them to show up, so you lose the conflict.
- The student is simply unaware that such resources are available in general, or available to him or her, specifically.
- The student has adopted compensation strategies to deal with an environment unsupportive of their goals. Being invisible and anonymous may be one of them. Wearing a "mask personality" in public may be another.
- The student is conditioned to believe that no one offers help without expecting something in return. In some cases, accepting help is actually dangerous. (Remember how I helped you out with your rent? Good. Hide this gun for me. You owe me.)
Just use your position of perceived authority, and order them to show up.
If you teach an intro-level class, draw lots, and assign every one of your students to visit you during your office hours in a specific, scheduled, 10-minute window prior to midterms. This is where you actually teach the student how to interact with professors outside the classroom. With each student, talk a little about your class, and a little about anything else. Make it a pass-fail item on the syllabus. Show up? Get some free course credit. Don't show? 0 points. (If you really kick ass at this, you can play "friend matchmaker" and try to coerce your students into befriending and helping each other.)
Remember, there are no classes in most public high schools on how to "do college". Those kids are learning it as they go.
Another reason: the student grew up in a rural community, and has rarely dealt with anyone they don't know and aren't related to, so are congenitally incapable of approaching a professor unintroduced.
One thing that helped me was the professor emphasizing email and the class forums on the crappy uni CMS. I know you'd probably prefer students showing up in person, but for people like me, email ensured I would stay in communication with the professor outside of class. I would feel like I was wasting the prof's time if I went to her office with a dumb question, but didn't feel the same pressure if I emailed the question.
I ended up having extended conversations with the majority of my professors this way, and ultimately built relationships which made me feel comfortable about dropping in during office hours.
> Other students were off to Hawaii for vacation. Me, I had to bum a place to stay over breaks when the dorms were closed.
So true. Having attended a few colleges in California, I got tired of everyone else going to their parent's cabin over break in Tahoe, Mammoth, or Big Bear. And the dorms would close for a week or two, so I couldn't concentrate fully on my finals while I worried about where I'd stay and not have to sleep a few nights in a park.
> never used any tutors or talked to a professor
I had a hard time talking to my professor, and I noticed others from blue-color backgrounds have difficulty as well. Upper middle-class kids never seemed to have a problem talking to their professors, which seemed to give them a significant advantage.
The most logistically frustrating part of the ordeal:
"Dining halls at some schools, for example, close for spring break, though some students can’t afford to leave campus."
Even during the semester, they didn't serve on Sunday. Presumably because you were all out with friends, eating at a pub or whatever. I just didn't eat on Sunday night.
Huh, I had completely forgotten about that. I had the same experience in Oxford -- my college served breakfast/lunch/dinner 6 days a week, but on Sunday there was just a brunch, and most weeks I ended up not eating dinner on Sunday.
The cook at the frat house went home after putting lunch out on Friday, and didn't come back until Monday morning. However we had a rule that the kitchen had to be stocked with bread, cheese, butter and Cinnamon toast shakers at all times. You can go all weekend eating grilled cheese and cinnamon toast sandwiches.I did it a few times, at least.
I don't think this is limited to schools. All through life you will find that there are people with more, or fewer, resources than you have and interactions may be adversely affected by that.
The example of going out to dinner and then catching a movie is a good one. In a mid to large sized metropolitan area that is an expenditure of $40 - $100 (depending) and that can represent anywhere from .1% to 10% of a person's take home pay. So people gravitate to socializing with folks who have the same sort of budget for recreational expenses.
And it can get even weirder when you're wildly different in available resources. Consider the following illustrative example
Bob is a very high net worth individual, he owns an interest in a Gulfstream jet. While folks are hanging out they hear about a restaurant in Santa Fe (over 1,000 miles away) that is really great. Bob thinks it would be a great place to go for dinner. So he invites folks to dinner, when they show up everyone gets on the plane and flys to Santa Fe and eats at this restaurant which has been reserved (entirely) for this dinner.
Bob is trying to be friendly and help everyone share the experience of a restaurant they were just talking about. Except that everyone on the plane that wasn't extremely wealthy felt really weird about the whole experience. (surreal might be better).
So its easy to be friends with Bob, he's a nice guy, but it is hard to "hang out" with Bob as his idea of a reasonable idea of what to do next, can sometimes collide with your idea of reality.
That goes all the way down to things like skiing (fun, but expensive to do for the day).
To avoid that you need communities of people with similar resource levels, and yes this means that things like the 1st generation outreach program mentioned in the article will collect all of the 'poor people' together, but it gives them a social structure to start from. And if they mix with the the 'not quite so poor' people they can start to move through the variations in strata. Once they graduate they are very likely to be at least part of the "middle" and their kids the "upper middle".
>Once they graduate they are very likely to be at least part of the "middle" and their kids the "upper middle".
This is an observation that I've come to as well, in that first generation success, no matter what level the financial success, will only move the person up maybe one notch in "class", because the old habits are hard to shake (this is both a good and bad thing).
The kids tend to be one notch farther up as a result of not having the extensive experience their parents went through. Again, for better or for worse.
There have been a number of studies of lottery winners along these lines. The observation has been made that people who acquire money slowly are more likely to have habits which maximizes retention and extracts the most value out of the capital they hold. Whereas people who are suddenly "rich" often will spend money on things which are expensive but not valuable, and do not provide any sort of "return" (either in capability or value) commensurate with the expenditure. The canonical example is the lottery winner who buys a new luxury car or SUV with all of the options with their winnings rather than buying a reliable economy car and investing the difference cost in either future education for their children or savings against future need. You have to be taught those habits and one way to learn them is to be in a group that is spending recklessly and not getting any value for what they spend money on (learning by observation rather than experience).
I am curious whether anybody else has experienced this in professional settings.
I make as much money as most of my peers at work, but fairly regularly I am made aware of the fact that my upbringing was less affluent than many of theirs. They have stories about exotic vacations they went on with their families, while my stories are about manual labor on farms. On some occasions somebody has made a crack at the expense of blue-collar workers, but I don't feel particularly far removed from that life.
I struggle with this all the time, even with my wife. Spring break? You mean catch up on math / work extra hours week?
Hey, I'm finally going to <insert location> next month! Oh, you've been there regularly since you were a kid? Then I suppose it would be boring.
Oh, did I pronounce another word funny? Sorry, I only ever learned it from reading, nobody ever said it. But you can't say that shit out loud; you have to just grin and bear the embarrassment.
I've learned to never ever bring up things like collecting cans/scrapping/etc.
I've definitely noticed that, though I think it varies by region and industry quite a bit. Engineering feels to me a little more "blue-collar" than the tech industry in its attitudes, even though engineers often don't make any less money. Some may have to do with where people come from, e.g. in large parts of engineering, the big "feeder schools" are good but not "elite" public schools: places like Purdue, Texas A&M, and Ohio State. People who at least sometimes work on-site in plants might also have more direct contact with blue-collar workers and feel more part of the same enterprise, though that is a minority of engineers.
In terms of region, SF, LA, and NYC are just about the worst for being full of "moneyed family" type attitudes. I lived some years in Indiana and it was far more tolerable on that front, despite what you might expect from the respective regions' politics.
Purdue graduate here, and I think that's a fair assessment. The rich kids seemed to be Management majors. They just needed a degree so that they could take over Daddy's company when he retired in a few years.
Its always amazing to me how otherwise fairly empathetic people can be 100% blind to how people below their social class live and what problems they have, and then I remember how little I know about the struggles of people in say west africa. The social glue that keeps people's friends in one class is pretty strong.
I attended Stanford business school on scholarship. I was brought up in a middle class household, not poor. I couldn't fit in with the rich kids, many of whom were sons/daughters of millionaire/billionaires, the bankers and the consultants. All the students were obsessed with networking and as a "lowly" engineer pursuing an MBA, my classmates never considered me worth getting to know. I tried but couldn't really forge any meaningful friendships.I felt like an outsider all the time. This was in sharp contrast to my experience in engineering school in India, where the only thing that mattered was how smart you are, irrespective of who your parents are.
Business school is another beast entirely, in my experience. I studied engineering at an Ivy League school and sure I didn't fit in with the main finance/consulting/billionaire's child crowd, but there was a sizeable minority of peers pursuing careers in academia, medicine, etc. that I bonded with.
In business school, the ratio of mainstream to sidestream was skewed so badly towards the mainstream that it was difficult to even keep my head above water amidst the torrent of "networkers" like you said.
- Even if you provide resources to students for finding jobs/internships, they don't come with the same connections or experience as their wealthier peers so I'm wondering how much these help. For example, technology companies are typically going to hire those computer science students with the most programming experience, outside of a few small programs run by the larger companies (Google, Microsoft, Facebook) specifically for disadvantaged students.
- Often you see stats on what percentage of students attending a university are low income (by some proxy like Pell grants), and what percentage of them graduate, but I have yet to see stats on career fields and income for these students. As someone from a blue collar middle class background getting an engineering degree I could count on one hand the number of students I met with backgrounds similar to mine (and this is at a fairly large school). I would expect these sorts of stats aren't very flattering to schools, but would love to see the numbers if they exist.
Maybe it was the company I hung out with but there was never really any talk of how rich anyone's background was (in fact it was kind of taboo) -- the same way no one ever talked about what their SAT scores were. It seemed petty.
There were several well off kids in my social circle (though not mega rich or anything) but there wasn't really any flaunting of wealth. In fact, many of the well off people I knew tried to save more money than some less well off people! There were also some poor kids around who people knew about but they were never really looked down upon.
+1 granted it was in the 80s but off the top of my head 40% on major financial aid and work-study, 40% upper middle class, maybe 20% were playing the wealth card and gentle mockery would usually keep'em in line. Not sure if times have changed that much or class consciousness is just a perennial trope for whinging.
Its more about what you do on spring break, on weekends, when not in class, that sort of thing. Those who can afford expensive outings naturally drift away from those who can't.
This very much reminds me of my time in Oxford. I was there on a Commonwealth scholarship (referred to by many at the time as "Rhodes light") which paid for my tuition plus about £550/month of living expenses; this was enough to keep me alive, but it certainly wasn't generous.
My friends were very obviously split into two groups -- poorer students from state schools who were first-generation Oxbridge attendees, and rich students from public (UK) or private (US) schools whose parents had been at Oxbridge or Ivy universities. Academically, I fit in well with the wealthier crowd -- my parents both have Oxford degrees and doctorates, and I was there on an academic scholarship -- but financially I was far closer to the first-generation students. On one memorable occasion I was invited to join a group for a weekend skiing in the Alps, and declined when I realized that it would cost me more than my rent for the month; and while all of my American friends flew home between terms (and often for long weekends in the middle of term), I stayed in Oxford over Christmas and Easter because the rent was cheaper than even the lowest-price plane tickets.
But I can't fault Oxford for any of this: Indeed, the reason these socioeconomic strata were so obvious is precisely because they're doing a good job of bringing in students from a wide range of backgrounds. I never saw the University of my College doing anything which stigmatized or isolated students based on their background; the stratification was entirely due to the differences students brought to the university in how they saw the world and their places in it.
>but financially I was far closer to the first-generation students
I suggest you have understated your relative wealth.
UK students at Oxford today are entitled to £478/month living expense (in 2015 money), which they get mostly as a student loan, to be repaid.
Taking into account inflation, or looking at the equivalent scholarship today, I believe you were almost twice as well-off as the typical student from a poorer background.
[I don't doubt there were students twice as rich again, but I question the suggestion that you weren't treated generously in this context]
You may be somewhat under-stating your relative wealth.
I was better off than most of the first-generation students, but not dramatically so.
Students today are entitled to £478/month living expense (in 2015 money), which they get mostly as a student loan.
The Oxford University website says that students typically spend between £951 and £1,405 per month on living expenses. When I arrived in Oxford (in 2001) I was told that students typically spent around £650/month (the scholarship administrator was very apologetic about the value of the living allowance).
I haven't been in the UK for over a decade, so I'm not familiar with the state of student financial aid, but from what you've said I suspect that either the government bursaries/loans have gotten smaller or they were being supplemented by significant University and College awards.
I think the article misses the point: the problem with poor people is they don't have money.
I'd know, I grew up poor. That's the problem, and ONLY problem.
'We can do more to be supportive' - JUST GIVE THEM MONEY. Oh they don't have to pay tuition, that's great. Do they have to pay rent and eat? Do they need to buy textbooks and clothes?
Give them money, end of story.
All this talk of self-esteem issues - please. Every 12-30 year old has self-esteem issues or ego-maniacal issues, time fixes all that. Just let them study and learn to fit in instead of washing dishes.
At the top ivy league schools, they do in fact also pay for rent, food, and even clothes (Harvard has a fund to pay for winter coats for students on certain levels of financial aid.) Harvard also has a fund to pay for some school-sponsored social events (like formal dances) as well as certain types of travel. There is still a notable class difference and there are still issues of money around different types of activities and behaviors, but it's not like they just pay tuition and call it a day.
(I mentioned Harvard specifically a few times because I went there and am familiar, but I believe the situation is the same at a couple of other top ivy league schools.)
If this is truly the case - I don't understand the notion of working part-time and studying at a top school. What is that all about?
If it is as you say it is - then this is just folks boo-hooing about the challenges of... well... being in challenging situations.
You are going to be put in those when it comes to your health, relationships and likely money, sooner or later. Everyone goes through that at some point in time - most come out alive :)
I think it's a bit unreasonable to describe it all as just "boo-hooing". Obviously everyone has challenges, but that doesn't mean that it isn't worth considering how these could be mitigated. There is a real problem of social stratification and isolation that affects many students at these top schools in a way that substantially impacts their experiences, and while it may be difficult to resolve, it's probably worth thinking about.
I came to the U.S. from Eastern Europe when I was 13. My father was an engineer, and the rather humble entry-level salary was just enough to support our family of 4. My parents chose to settle in a "middle-class" suburban area with a great school district, which immediately placed us at the relatively lowest "class" in the area.
Besides the obvious language barrier being a massive separator for some time, there were also plenty of instances where "class" came into play. We couldn't afford to purchase airfare, or to eat out for a while. I felt jealous, or angry at people who did not immediately understand that I won't receive cash from grandparents for christmas, or that I won't be able to get the latest toys and electronics.
Even though it was very hard at first, but I didn't crave community support or entitlement based on my class or language. I didn't want special treatment, because I knew that that would just alienate me even more. I wanted acceptance, just like everyone else who is "different", but instead of attempting to change people around me to tailor to my needs or feelings, I guided my own attitude and expectations to accept certain things as they are. I managed my own social anxiety and didn't expect anyone to tailor to it. I cultivated my own belonging naturally, without reliance on programs or groups that attempt to do it artificially. I even refused to take ESL class for a very long time, fearing that that would socially single me out.
I soon started to socialize and became friends with people of all "classes," and I never attempted to place myself in a group based on financial privilege -- I looked for more important qualities in my friends. Even when I got jealous or angry at someone's privilege, I understood that it is OK for them to be more fortunate, and that I shouldn't expect others to walk in my shoes. I assumed most people, even those that can never fully understand my situation, are good -- and expected nothing from them. After all, my goal was to achieve what they have, and I expected myself to someday enjoy the same privileges.
I attended an Ivy (Penn). Most of my friends were far from wealthy. Many from what most in the US would consider poor backgrounds. It's hard for me to speak on their behalf here, but it's quite obvious seeing them now how radically their lives have changed.
It seems that there are those who pursue greatness and success and use their challenges and circumstances as motivation to do better and those that see themselves as handicapped and disadvantaged.
Are there pompous kids? Sure. But I believe that exists anywhere and quite frankly, I felt that those kids were the ones who were missing out. Missing out on relationships with people who were not caught up on the superficial, either because they couldn't afford to be, or didn't care.
Great article. That story struck a chord with me. Some changes to the settings. Replace an American Ivy league with an elite IIT in India.
It was rare to find a first generation engineering student who came from a humble background. My peers were fairly affluent, upper-middle class or middle class at the least. Enjoyment was proportional to thickness of their wallet. They didn't do anything abnormal or flashy. But it was hard in so many ways. After all how do you justify skipping their fun events, trips and parties?
I wanted to write some more. But don't feel like reliving that past. So making an abrupt end.
153 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadI think everyone has their struggles, whether it be gender, race, or class based. I just like learning from other people's perspectives.
Many of the kids at this public university just did not get into one of the ivys but definitely middle/upper-middle class.
Many kids in the school that came from poor families often went to a public high school where it was easier to get good enough grades to get into the university. Once they got in though, they were just not prepared for the rigorous competition to get good grades.
On the flip side, rich kids like my sister shadows their cousin during surgery, winter-breaks in Dubai, and studies abroad in France. It's a different life.
Assuming everything is the same, money still gives a stupid amount of advantages.
The author missed the much larger problem in this statement. The school system these students are from are often poor with incompetent staff[1]. The competent staff are mostly dealing with students with problems and leaving the bright students to look after themselves. Resource allocation is a harsh mistress.
1) as an example, $2,000 a year (1988 USD) down the tube because a school official couldn't be bothered to mail a letter.
The closest I can come is to say that this idea of inclusiveness is terminally broken. It's a sort of bandage over a huge chasm of differences.
For a poor person to become wealthy requires them to discard their baggage. Change the accent, the clothes, the pop culture references, the 'back home...' stories. Avoid the discussions about parents. The list goes on.
My transition into adulthood at present is essentially a game of throwing away my connections to that past. Not intentionally, but because living a double life is just too difficult. Visiting my hometown I feel like more of a tourist each time.
Money is a huge divider, the gulf between the working class and middle classes in this regard is enormous.
I am hardwired to assume that people cannot afford anything. My basic instinct is to design activities that are free.
Wealthier people do not always appreciate this. They might want to go and do something more expensive - and why not? They can.
Friendship groups.
I could waffle on seemingly forever but words can't really express how odd I find all of this.
Different species...
Yes! Thank you for using the perfect word for how I feel. I'm sure rich people have "rich people baggage" but I believe they are either a) not a deal blocker or b) mitigated by their advantages.
Edit: I have a few 1% friends. As far as I can tell, rich people baggage is usually complaining about money.
This sounds like a perfect summary of Dick Whitman's transition into Don Draper.
The best I've ever found is John Cheese's Cracked articles on the topic which I felt were almost like he was writing from inside of my head.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-devel...
http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-5-stupidest-habits-you-devel...
If someone reads these, please understand that this is how I actually feel/act to this day, even though I make 100k+ a year. For example, I only own two pairs of shoes. My work sneakers, and my "nice" shoes. And I replace my sneakers only when they are completely busted, and I get the cheapest ones on sale I can find. Three pairs of shoes is literally crazy to me, and I feel bad about having 2 pairs of shoes since I never wear the "nice" ones.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
Good shoes will save you money if you can put in the initial investment :)
The results from that (sole) experiment were that the shoes lasted longer but not so much so that they beat out multiple pairs of cheaper shoes on price. The quality shoes lasted about 4 years, and I buy a pair of sneakers about every 1.5 years. However, the quality shoes were at about a 10x markup from the sneakers. So I'd need those quality shoes to last 15 years or so.
So for my money, it sounds like great fiction, but not great reality.
Does anyone have the name or any clips?
That said, I don't think this accounts for rich people having more money
If you want to beat sneakers in terms of price, switch to work boots like Red Wings or Chippewa.
2 - the modern world has dramatically increased the price-per-quality on the cheap stuff, shrinking the gap
I wear down heels very fast, and used to get through mass-produced shoes with moulded soles far too quickly. It annoyed me hugely that I had to throw away a pair of shoes whose uppers were in perfect condition, but whose soles couldn't be replaced.
In the end, I bought a pair of decent leather-soled shoes for $350 and get them heeled regularly; that was 7 years ago, they're still going strong, and I estimate that they've saved me a ton of money.
And as a "third way", I've kept my eyes open in thrift (UK = charity) shops, and have managed to get excellent, repairable footwear for next to nothing. My current pair of oxblood brogues by Allen Edmonds cost me $25, has been going for 5 years now, and barring accidents will last me until I'm well past retirement...
Nothing to be ashamed of, think about it this way: what you don't have you don't need to maintain or carry with you, stuff is vastly over-rated, having more doesn't equate automatically to feeling better.
But hell, you're going to school so you can make a better living in the future and afford some comfort later. I think the issue is you have to feel sure of yourself and not let peer envy infiltrate your thinking.
I also had no misgivings about asking for professor time --that's what they were there for.
I think you feel out of place if you somehow believe you must conform to the in crowd. I never liked joining formal groups etc. It's antithetical to me, even when I agree or have commonality with a group because ultimately it's you against the world and no ones going to help.
It's not inferiority, or lack of confidence. I didn't 'feel' out of place. I was out of place - the whole thing was out of place.
The article seems to focus on the 'bad', as if there's an injustice perpetrated against poor students.
But it doesn't work like that. The people just inhabit different worlds, the mutual understanding is limited, it requires effort rather than being automatic.
I would draw an analogy with being an immigrant. There's no real conspiracy, you're just different. Learning the local language, the customs, etc, will help you succeed. But in performing this act of assimilation, you lose a part of what was there before. The ones you left behind are different now.
I agree that not asking for professor time is just odd. I had no problem at all competing intellectually in my chosen field. It was just everything surrounding that.
UK elite universities are constantly railed on for not admitting more poor students, but part of the issue is that we simply have lower levels of attainment. Equality there is not possible without negative discrimination.
How do we fix wealth inequality? Well, we probably can't. But I do think we could go further towards providing necessities to all, which would solve a lot of the issues.
Simplified, some people have to worry about making the rent. Others own property outright. That's a massive gulf.
I didn't even know what University was. Oxford or Cambridge especially - it's like Hollywood, celebrities, it's a thing that exists that you're just not a part of.
I kind of grow tired of these discussions and just pop in every now and then because I feel like the gap in understanding is just so massive that it's fruitless.
The information asymmetry is enormous. A middle class person has friends and family that work in high status fields. They can directly see that you do A, B and C and end up with D.
Hyperbolic extreme analogy - imagine that you walk up to a remote tribe with an iPhone and tell them they could make a bunch of money making apps for it.
They don't have a clue, right? That was me at age 18. I didn't know how people became doctors or lawyers or computer programmers or whatever. That was for 'other people'..... everyone I knew worked in retail.
The article was about posh universities going after poor students, and making education work for them. Like minorities, its important to seek out Qualified candidates (not just some quota system that allows anybody). So the 'no poor kids apply' hurdle is moot. The Uni is supposed to be looking for them.
And they do exist. There's absolutely no monopoly on brains among the upper class.
And about how far ahead 'private schools' are - some of that is true; some of that is mythology, perpetrated by TV. In the end, its the students that make the reputation - and by definition, public schools have poor students, and poor students underrepresent achievers.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear your experience, its not all that different from mine.
In the US do you have the notion of 'poshness'? For example, making fun of someone who speaks a certain way, or turns their nose up at e.g. fast food? That's a massive thing. We live in tribes... pronouncing words correctly is a thing that results in ostracization here.
It pains me to say this, but here we are:
I am wealthier than my parents and hometown friends because at some point I realised what was going on, and took an active decision to take a different path.
I had to internalize the notion that I am better than them. I will work harder and smarter and I will beat them. Do you see that?
I had to beat them in order to win. I have to compete against my fellow human beings.
I have to reject their customs and use the customs that winners use.
Do you get that? That it's not just 'do A B C'? That the actions I took and continue to take have the effect of further seperating me from my friends and family? Every time I pronounce an 'a' or an 'h' in their presence it's effectively me grandstanding the fact that I'm not 'one of them' now.
Reading this post makes me seem like a colossal dick, right? But it's just a written description of social 'mobility'.
I am not better or more deserving than them. I just play a game. A game of emulation. I was born with talents, arbitrarily, and somehow that means I win and they lose. Meh. I think you just have to live it.
Its just adaptation, not betrayal. Maybe the worst thing is feeling ashamed of it? I'm rather proud of where I came from, and like to introduce my colleagues to the phrases and pronunciations of my hometown. But in the American Midwest, everybody plays the game "where are your people from" and there are no winners. Just interesting background.
I imagine it is even worse in the UK where there is a much more rigid social structure.
Parents will live in penury in order that they afford their progeny a better future. This is not u heard of in the west, but it's less common. Culture has a lot to do with it.
As someone from a very poor background (actual poor - starving in africa poor, not US overprivileged 'I can eat for free out of bins' poor, but this is all relative...) I can sympathise somewhat too.
I agree with the point made here in this comment- personally, I never felt like I had the kind of disadvantages described in this article, and I'm sure its partly because I pass very well for an upper middle-class man thanks to a spiffing british accent I inherited from my mother - and partly down to a tremendous effort socially. I've always presented my background as exotic and interesting rather than woeful and sympathy-worthy.
All that being said, I am now doing quite well and earn a considerable amount of money, but still always find myself broke at the end of the month... its shameful.
A very rich man once said to me that if you act like a rich person eventually you would find yourself to be rich... I think there is an element of truth in that.
Its amazing how a "upper crust" accent will play versus something something considered "low class". Its one of those hidden assumptions that adults make. I have a deep, loud voice that was tinged with a rez accent and quite a lot of slang.
Watch a kid react to Mater from Cars versus an adult. The story of the voice acting for that part worldwide is quite interesting.
looking at efforts spent on voices around the world in high quality productions is always interesting (in high quality dubs, even ambient background conversation is re-recorded, for example), and a strong reminder of how US-centric a lot of media is. people still build 'new' software with ansi strings after all... :)
Unfortunately, there is also truth in the idea that if you act like you're rich, you end up poor, because you wind up spending all you have (probably plus some).
have you met many rich people who spend like there is no tomorrow? its about acting like a /rich person/ not as if you have a limitless supply of money and are actually rich. :)
The contrast runs something like this: German dude, worth $10M made his money in real estate, started an online company, lost it all but bought Porsches and hired fancy places, in the end turned to crime in order to continue to finance his life-style.
American dude, worth > $50M (at one point...), spent money like it was toilet paper, golden taps in the bathroom, fancy Rolls-Royces (multiple...), used to be the #1 in a hotly contested tech field, lost it all when the market turned and he didn't adapt.
Swiss dude, worth >> $1B, modest house, drove a VW Golf (ok, a nice one), absolutely incorruptible.
They're nice examples to have and I understand that for someone worth that much there is no need to signal anything and that Germany guy may have had to keep up with his 'circle' in order to be seen as successful but still it makes you wonder how much pain there is behind all those frustrated faces in fancy cars living in expensive houses.
people who stay rich do not just spaff their money around left, right and centre. i think rich people call this 'new money' and using such a term would be an example of acting like a rich person.
People are criticizing this line but I think there's a lot of truth in it. Despite what most people believe, people who get and remain rich don't spend every dime they have. They live below their means, save, invest, and grow what they have.
Our family got on the Dave Ramsey plan years ago (2008/9?) and it radically changed our thinking and life in a matter of months. After a couple years, it radically changed our lives.
I feel terribly sad that I read this statement. Sure, you would want to discard your baggage have a better life for yourself and your family, and increasing your financial wealth will help you get there. However, it should not be the other way around. Becoming wealthy should not because of what you are discarding. Changing does not always means discarding.
That baggage is what makes so many upper class people despise being around poor people. It's also why every exclusive club interviews people under the guise of a "cultural fit" policy, or what they sometimes call a "no asshole rule" to avoid criticism, when in reality it's almost always just self-deluded bigotry.
The proof is in how homogeneously upper class, even when otherwise diverse, most "elite" organization are. If they were actually merit based, you would necessarily see incredible diversity in class. Instead, everywhere, you see organizations made up of the wealthy descendants of wealthy people.
The term "inclusiveness" is utter bullshit. (no criticism towards you OP) The idea of "trying to include everyone with diverse backgrounds" was created by top leaders who wanted to prop themselves up even more by characterizing themselves as benevolent stewards. Hint - they're usually not. Let's face reality - we're naturally biased and we still don't have any definitive, scalable way to select (include) other human beings without our short-minded biases blinding us.
I'm one the best math students at my current school and calculus is fun for me. I'm the only person I know that knows how to program, none of the other students I've met are interested in computers at all.
The students that are performing at the same level as I am seem (to me) to be "elites". I find my self becoming more and more cynical each day listening to complaints about having an old model of iPhone or "having to go to Paris with dad" (someone really said this), when all I have is a flip phone and I've never ridden on a plane.
I told my self a few years ago I was going to learn to program because it seemed to be something that anyone could do (as long as you have a computer and internet access), seemed to be growing, and seemed to be high paying. I've gotten pretty good, but I still have a ways to go.
Now I'm at the point where I can leave my disabled parents for school and let my teeth continue to decay and deal with that social stigma, or I can get a job doing tech support and hopefully help my situation a little faster.
We'll see..
Of course, it depends on the person as well - but know that that friendships and meeting people like you is one of the biggest reasons to go to college and does factor into your decision. There aren't a lot of institutions out there where you'll be able to do that outside of a job. Of course, with student loans being as they are, I'm not quite sure whats worse.
Grow up and do something about it.
You are now in control of your destiny. You can program, so you can make money if you can figure out how to get jobs. Pretty much the whole world is crying for programmers, get over your social anxiety and meet people who will pay you.
Stop being a victim.
Sigh.
Instead of telling someone who is doing X and failing to stop doing X and start wining, it might be more helpful to suggest a realistic next action. In this case, perhaps apply to some very local universities for a CS degree, keep family close, and research community dental clinics with affordable payment plans.
I brush three times a day and I quit drinking soda and eating candy a while ago.
>Grow up and do something about it.
Uhh.. I am.
>get over your social anxiety and meet people who will pay you.
I'm doing what I can. I plan on building a "resume" over the summer.
Just so you're aware, even though it sounded like it, I was not complaining about my situation. I'm not looking for help, just thought I'd add my perspective to the thread.
I actually don't think I would change much about my early life at all. Part of me feels that if I hadn't struggled with being poor I would not have had the motivation to become a programmer, and I enjoy programming.
I know a few people in the UK who have travelled abroad for cosmetic dental work as it saved them thousands.
Edit - here's the kind of prices you get in Eastern Europe http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/private-treatment-abroad/which-co...
Though it may be cheaper for you to try and find somewhere in Central America, or the Caribbean.
edit - You could maybe find another reason to travel, one that you can get some sort of help with. Say you want to study the background of The Martians http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_%28group%29 and try to blag a flight to Budapest.
It's not always easy, but if you're smart and work hard, it gets better. If I could have given myself advice back then, I would've told myself not to be afraid of medical loans or dental schools. I've had ~22k in work done at a really nice dental school in SF that would have cost +50k at private practice. The sooner you get in there, the less it will cost in the long run (trust me).
Also, regardless of the current state of your teeth, every day is still a battle for your oral health. Brush after meals and floss regularly. Email me (link in profile) and I'll hook you up with a Sonicare toothbrush.
(Probably not relevant in GP's position, but hopefully someone finds it useful)
Also, don't put it off. You can literally die from ignoring cavities.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/06/09/318212444/a-reaso...
A framework for understanding poverty: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1929229488/
Crossing the Tracks for Love: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/192922933X/
Hidden Rules of Class at Work: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1929229070/
In particular, she goes in to these very concerns about how on has to change their identity and mindset from their old world to be in the new world.
It's difficult to understand why. If anything, one should feel great pride to be able to attend an elite school while coming from a less privileged family (even though, being smart because of your genes is basically as random as being born in a rich family, so there shouldn't be any pride or shame either way!!).
I'm not saying that there weren't wealthy people who spent absurd amounts of money. There were. But there were also plenty of people who budgeted aggressively, and made things like formal hall and pregaming before going to student clubnights on a Thursday night the highpoint of discretionary expenditure.
I don't come from a wealthy background. Because of when I started university, my parents were just outside the bracket that would have got be grants and bursaries (if I'd started a year later, they'd have been in it). Grew up in an ex-council house, dad worked down the mines, yadda yadda (I hate getting into the thing of "Look how working class MY upbringing was" but there you go). But I definitely didn't feel excluded. I suppose there probably were high-spending friendship groups that I didn't fit into. I can't say I felt like I missed out. You're never going to fit into every friendship group.
I'm assuming you went to Oxbridge. If not, maybe it is different. I certainly felt like there were a lot of fairly income independent activities that were applicable no matter your background. Pretty much everyone can go to formal hall, or to a bop, or even to events at the Union. At least in your first few years, those things are pretty central to social lives for a lot of students.
I don't know. I feel like my post is a little pointless: "I don't agree with your experience". Experiences aren't really up for debate. You experienced it, you felt it, it was real. I guess I just feel differently. Sometimes you have to say that.
I didn't have the sort of 'ski trip' nonsense. I mean it existed but didn't really affect me.
The subtle things do though. I had never met a middle class person in my age group before going to University. It's not just wealth. It's dinner, it's Radio 4, it's video games, it's national parks not Butlins. These things aren't really categorically 'superior', that's the thing. But they are kind of assumed in a way that doesn't happen for, say, immigrants.
(I grew up in a council house, not ex. but the african dude above has us both beat. :D)
I think any time you try to migrate to a different group you wind up leaving things behind. Gain something, lose something.
Which, I don't know, seems OK to me. Accents, clothes, and pop culture references might be dear to people for whom culture is all they have. But to me they hold no value by themselves. I wouldn't, for example, avoid an education just so I can cling to the culture I am currently in.
Also, at least among the people I know, a lot of us come from very different backgrounds. Nobody hides their family and their hometown but none of us can relate to eachother's childhoods, so we just don't talk about it a whole lot. Which is OK too.
Anyway, migrating groups I think is always a surreal experience, as is visiting groups you don't belong to.
Even though no one here is looking down on me, or cares what I wear, or thinks I sound a certain way (they all love that English accent ;) ), to me, I feel like I do not fit into their world. Things I consider "posh" or "middle class" feel alien to me, and I am aware that I have a defensive response which means I try to make fun of people baking their own bread, or going on foraging sessions for food, even though I actually really wish I had the slightest idea how to do it, and did not feel like such an idiot for being a beginner at both. People are quite happy to teach me how to make bread from scratch, or how to recognise mushrooms, so the feeling awkward is all from my side, and I know it is a problem I need to deal with.
Coupled with the feeling uncomfortable in my new social environment is the comments I get from back home "Oh, so you think you are better than us now?". I spent 10 years prior to university pretending I could not do maths, and had no interest in intellectual subjects, and it is a hard learned behaviour to shake, and unfortunately, it took me several years at university to become comfortable discussing intellectual topics, without defaulting to my past behaviour.
For me, that, rather than money is the divider. Everyone at uni is on student income, so all relatively broke, and university here is free, with the government giving us money each month as well, but the attitudes I grew up with and around are a whole different story, and it is those which hold me back at times.
My parents came to the west in a boat, much like the ones that are sinking every day in the med. They scraped together a living and tuition fees running Chinese food joints.
When I arrived in Oxford, I did realise there were some interesting characters around. One guy with a posh accent stuck waved his chequebook outside his room during a tuition fee demonstration, offering to pay for everyone's tuition if he could just be allowed some peace. There are dudes walking the street in top hats. There are kids with sports cars.
But why should you feel alienated from them? You can be friends with the ones who want to be. They are just as curious about you. Some of them actually feel a bit guilty about having ridden into a top uni on their fathers' coattails. There's also people who've had it worse than you. One friend actually fled from shelling, and was lucky to miss a boat that got sunk by helicopters.
When you meet people, start with what you have in common. You're all young, and academically gifted. You're in the same place, you speak the same language.
What matters in the end is your results, and your results only.
When were you in Oxford? In my day I never saw any top hats, barring the occasional actor; and even the richest kids didn't have cars, because (a) there was nowhere to park them, and (b) you could walk faster than you could drive anywhere.
Top hats are an eccentric thing. Kids did it to get mentioned on HN years later.
I did see some fancy cars, but they were always driven by college fellows or other "adults" -- never anyone of student age.
Did you not think people wore some strange clothes? I was back last week and saw loads of kids in suits. These days it just screams "first day at work".
I am a professor (albeit at a non-elite university). How do I persuade students such as yourself to ask questions, to use tutors, to show up to office hours, and to talk to me?
This is asking the students to show initiative, I don't know how well that would work with contemporary American kids.
You might (will) have to say it more than once, and very explicitly, because they are used to hearing well-meaning similar statements that they have learned to ignore. But just say it, explicitly. They're not stupid; just conditioned. Breaking through that conditioning is hard, so hard. The rich kids see your office-hours as a right (and, as I expect you know, see extensions on deadlines and arguing their grades up and being entitled to second chances as a right), the poor kids don't really believe they exist. Breaking that conditioning is possible, so long as you can see it to hit it.
- Asking for help is a display of weakness, and that student has been conditioned to conceal his or her weaknesses.
- The student has feelings of inferiority that lead him or her to assume that they do not deserve additional assistance.
- The student has given his or her last pennies to the bursar and the bookseller, is literally living in a van and gleaning the trash to meet survival needs, and is avoiding peers and professors to conceal this lifestyle.
- The student has a job, and the work schedule interferes with your office hours. You don't pay them to show up, so you lose the conflict.
- The student is simply unaware that such resources are available in general, or available to him or her, specifically.
- The student has adopted compensation strategies to deal with an environment unsupportive of their goals. Being invisible and anonymous may be one of them. Wearing a "mask personality" in public may be another.
- The student is conditioned to believe that no one offers help without expecting something in return. In some cases, accepting help is actually dangerous. (Remember how I helped you out with your rent? Good. Hide this gun for me. You owe me.)
Just use your position of perceived authority, and order them to show up.
If you teach an intro-level class, draw lots, and assign every one of your students to visit you during your office hours in a specific, scheduled, 10-minute window prior to midterms. This is where you actually teach the student how to interact with professors outside the classroom. With each student, talk a little about your class, and a little about anything else. Make it a pass-fail item on the syllabus. Show up? Get some free course credit. Don't show? 0 points. (If you really kick ass at this, you can play "friend matchmaker" and try to coerce your students into befriending and helping each other.)
Remember, there are no classes in most public high schools on how to "do college". Those kids are learning it as they go.
I ended up having extended conversations with the majority of my professors this way, and ultimately built relationships which made me feel comfortable about dropping in during office hours.
So true. Having attended a few colleges in California, I got tired of everyone else going to their parent's cabin over break in Tahoe, Mammoth, or Big Bear. And the dorms would close for a week or two, so I couldn't concentrate fully on my finals while I worried about where I'd stay and not have to sleep a few nights in a park.
> never used any tutors or talked to a professor I had a hard time talking to my professor, and I noticed others from blue-color backgrounds have difficulty as well. Upper middle-class kids never seemed to have a problem talking to their professors, which seemed to give them a significant advantage.
Bottom line: If you are poor and can figure out this loophole, just do it. On the balance I'm very, very glad I did.
The example of going out to dinner and then catching a movie is a good one. In a mid to large sized metropolitan area that is an expenditure of $40 - $100 (depending) and that can represent anywhere from .1% to 10% of a person's take home pay. So people gravitate to socializing with folks who have the same sort of budget for recreational expenses.
And it can get even weirder when you're wildly different in available resources. Consider the following illustrative example
Bob is a very high net worth individual, he owns an interest in a Gulfstream jet. While folks are hanging out they hear about a restaurant in Santa Fe (over 1,000 miles away) that is really great. Bob thinks it would be a great place to go for dinner. So he invites folks to dinner, when they show up everyone gets on the plane and flys to Santa Fe and eats at this restaurant which has been reserved (entirely) for this dinner.
Bob is trying to be friendly and help everyone share the experience of a restaurant they were just talking about. Except that everyone on the plane that wasn't extremely wealthy felt really weird about the whole experience. (surreal might be better).
So its easy to be friends with Bob, he's a nice guy, but it is hard to "hang out" with Bob as his idea of a reasonable idea of what to do next, can sometimes collide with your idea of reality.
That goes all the way down to things like skiing (fun, but expensive to do for the day).
To avoid that you need communities of people with similar resource levels, and yes this means that things like the 1st generation outreach program mentioned in the article will collect all of the 'poor people' together, but it gives them a social structure to start from. And if they mix with the the 'not quite so poor' people they can start to move through the variations in strata. Once they graduate they are very likely to be at least part of the "middle" and their kids the "upper middle".
This is an observation that I've come to as well, in that first generation success, no matter what level the financial success, will only move the person up maybe one notch in "class", because the old habits are hard to shake (this is both a good and bad thing).
The kids tend to be one notch farther up as a result of not having the extensive experience their parents went through. Again, for better or for worse.
I make as much money as most of my peers at work, but fairly regularly I am made aware of the fact that my upbringing was less affluent than many of theirs. They have stories about exotic vacations they went on with their families, while my stories are about manual labor on farms. On some occasions somebody has made a crack at the expense of blue-collar workers, but I don't feel particularly far removed from that life.
In terms of region, SF, LA, and NYC are just about the worst for being full of "moneyed family" type attitudes. I lived some years in Indiana and it was far more tolerable on that front, despite what you might expect from the respective regions' politics.
"Hey you are a programmer? Want to make an app for me?"
In business school, the ratio of mainstream to sidestream was skewed so badly towards the mainstream that it was difficult to even keep my head above water amidst the torrent of "networkers" like you said.
- Even if you provide resources to students for finding jobs/internships, they don't come with the same connections or experience as their wealthier peers so I'm wondering how much these help. For example, technology companies are typically going to hire those computer science students with the most programming experience, outside of a few small programs run by the larger companies (Google, Microsoft, Facebook) specifically for disadvantaged students.
- Often you see stats on what percentage of students attending a university are low income (by some proxy like Pell grants), and what percentage of them graduate, but I have yet to see stats on career fields and income for these students. As someone from a blue collar middle class background getting an engineering degree I could count on one hand the number of students I met with backgrounds similar to mine (and this is at a fairly large school). I would expect these sorts of stats aren't very flattering to schools, but would love to see the numbers if they exist.
Maybe it was the company I hung out with but there was never really any talk of how rich anyone's background was (in fact it was kind of taboo) -- the same way no one ever talked about what their SAT scores were. It seemed petty.
There were several well off kids in my social circle (though not mega rich or anything) but there wasn't really any flaunting of wealth. In fact, many of the well off people I knew tried to save more money than some less well off people! There were also some poor kids around who people knew about but they were never really looked down upon.
My friends were very obviously split into two groups -- poorer students from state schools who were first-generation Oxbridge attendees, and rich students from public (UK) or private (US) schools whose parents had been at Oxbridge or Ivy universities. Academically, I fit in well with the wealthier crowd -- my parents both have Oxford degrees and doctorates, and I was there on an academic scholarship -- but financially I was far closer to the first-generation students. On one memorable occasion I was invited to join a group for a weekend skiing in the Alps, and declined when I realized that it would cost me more than my rent for the month; and while all of my American friends flew home between terms (and often for long weekends in the middle of term), I stayed in Oxford over Christmas and Easter because the rent was cheaper than even the lowest-price plane tickets.
But I can't fault Oxford for any of this: Indeed, the reason these socioeconomic strata were so obvious is precisely because they're doing a good job of bringing in students from a wide range of backgrounds. I never saw the University of my College doing anything which stigmatized or isolated students based on their background; the stratification was entirely due to the differences students brought to the university in how they saw the world and their places in it.
I suggest you have understated your relative wealth.
UK students at Oxford today are entitled to £478/month living expense (in 2015 money), which they get mostly as a student loan, to be repaid.
Taking into account inflation, or looking at the equivalent scholarship today, I believe you were almost twice as well-off as the typical student from a poorer background.
[I don't doubt there were students twice as rich again, but I question the suggestion that you weren't treated generously in this context]
I was better off than most of the first-generation students, but not dramatically so.
Students today are entitled to £478/month living expense (in 2015 money), which they get mostly as a student loan.
The Oxford University website says that students typically spend between £951 and £1,405 per month on living expenses. When I arrived in Oxford (in 2001) I was told that students typically spent around £650/month (the scholarship administrator was very apologetic about the value of the living allowance).
I haven't been in the UK for over a decade, so I'm not familiar with the state of student financial aid, but from what you've said I suspect that either the government bursaries/loans have gotten smaller or they were being supplemented by significant University and College awards.
I'd know, I grew up poor. That's the problem, and ONLY problem.
'We can do more to be supportive' - JUST GIVE THEM MONEY. Oh they don't have to pay tuition, that's great. Do they have to pay rent and eat? Do they need to buy textbooks and clothes?
Give them money, end of story.
All this talk of self-esteem issues - please. Every 12-30 year old has self-esteem issues or ego-maniacal issues, time fixes all that. Just let them study and learn to fit in instead of washing dishes.
(I mentioned Harvard specifically a few times because I went there and am familiar, but I believe the situation is the same at a couple of other top ivy league schools.)
If it is as you say it is - then this is just folks boo-hooing about the challenges of... well... being in challenging situations.
You are going to be put in those when it comes to your health, relationships and likely money, sooner or later. Everyone goes through that at some point in time - most come out alive :)
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2005/09/03/being-poor/
Besides the obvious language barrier being a massive separator for some time, there were also plenty of instances where "class" came into play. We couldn't afford to purchase airfare, or to eat out for a while. I felt jealous, or angry at people who did not immediately understand that I won't receive cash from grandparents for christmas, or that I won't be able to get the latest toys and electronics.
Even though it was very hard at first, but I didn't crave community support or entitlement based on my class or language. I didn't want special treatment, because I knew that that would just alienate me even more. I wanted acceptance, just like everyone else who is "different", but instead of attempting to change people around me to tailor to my needs or feelings, I guided my own attitude and expectations to accept certain things as they are. I managed my own social anxiety and didn't expect anyone to tailor to it. I cultivated my own belonging naturally, without reliance on programs or groups that attempt to do it artificially. I even refused to take ESL class for a very long time, fearing that that would socially single me out.
I soon started to socialize and became friends with people of all "classes," and I never attempted to place myself in a group based on financial privilege -- I looked for more important qualities in my friends. Even when I got jealous or angry at someone's privilege, I understood that it is OK for them to be more fortunate, and that I shouldn't expect others to walk in my shoes. I assumed most people, even those that can never fully understand my situation, are good -- and expected nothing from them. After all, my goal was to achieve what they have, and I expected myself to someday enjoy the same privileges.
Here is a recent story that was fairly typical in my experience : http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2423782-left-parentless-a...
It seems that there are those who pursue greatness and success and use their challenges and circumstances as motivation to do better and those that see themselves as handicapped and disadvantaged.
Are there pompous kids? Sure. But I believe that exists anywhere and quite frankly, I felt that those kids were the ones who were missing out. Missing out on relationships with people who were not caught up on the superficial, either because they couldn't afford to be, or didn't care.
Anyway, just my perspective, FWIW.
It was rare to find a first generation engineering student who came from a humble background. My peers were fairly affluent, upper-middle class or middle class at the least. Enjoyment was proportional to thickness of their wallet. They didn't do anything abnormal or flashy. But it was hard in so many ways. After all how do you justify skipping their fun events, trips and parties?
I wanted to write some more. But don't feel like reliving that past. So making an abrupt end.
This surprised me - I expected someone in this situation to pursue a vocational subject like engineering or medicine.