This might be what it is, as those majors can often be where all the slackers go. And yet I wonder to what extent we could import high standards, semi-standardized curriculum into humanities. Perhaps not necessarily a massive standardization of the curriculum, but certain standards of competence for making written and oral arguments, for research, and for synthesizing information. Perhaps it’s time to ensure that anyone who has a college degree can be considered to be competent in their field at at least a basic level. Otherwise, attendance of an elite school becomes that de facto measure of competence.
TwoinOne- some of the students taking Russian Lit were doing so because it didn’t meet on Fridays and nobody likes a class on Friday. Some of the students taking Russian Lit were doing so because it was the only humanities class they could get into to fulfill their Gen Ed requirement which still had slots since they had failed to pre-register. And yes- some of them were taking it because they loved literature and had never read Mayakovsky or Tolstoy and wanted to.
But it’s certainly a weird form of elitism to assert that NOT knowing anything about European History (because you went to a crappy HS, surely not your fault in any way) ENHANCES the experience of reading Tolstoy. Yes, there are timeless nuggets of wisdom in Tolstoy. Yes, there are some universal themes in post WW2 Russian Lit. But not knowing anything about Czarist Russia and what it led to surely doesn’t ENHANCE one’s ability to understand and comment on a piece of 19th or 20th century Russian Lit.
Your comment baffles me. One doesn’t need to have visited Moscow to have a basic grounding in 20th century history.
@Hanna & etc., I have to say, looking back at the seminars I participated in (even at an elite private), other than a handful of examples, the other undergrads did not raise points I hadn’t thought of. The profs and grad students, though, were on another level.
If you really want seminars that make you think differently, sign up for grad-level seminars (at a university that is elite at the grad level).
“Maybe the poor who didn’t go to an Ivy should be grateful that they are poor in the United States and not in Chad or Syria. And in fact they should be, because it’s a huge blessing. And yet it’s not unreasonable to pay attention to issues that they actually have and have to deal with.”
I will give you this: you’re a lot better with rhetoric than several posters I’ve encountered here.
Your reasoning follows mine technically. I can’t fault it on those grounds.
However, though a US poor person’s issues might pale by comparison to a Syrian poor person’s issues, they still represent real human suffering the likes of which most of us, however jaded (me), can get our heads around.
Take the poor person, send him/her to Columbia on a full ride, grant him/her the best education money can buy and a very real ticket out of poverty and, if they choose, into the upper class, and buy it with someone else’s money. You now have a privileged person relative to a good % of the population, including, as we read ad nauseam on this forum, the so called middle class, who complain they can’t reasonably afford to educate their children at Columbia.
That there are wealthy children at Columbia who sneak off for swiss ski vacations and sip champagne in Baccarat flutes (do they really do this? I don’t remember it at Stanford or Penn, but whatever) does not diminish how lucky, in absolute terms, the poor kid is to be there on the free.
Compare and contrast with the two comparator groups of the poor. Not having access to basic healthcare and living a marginalized life as compared to not being able to take a walk without being blown up are degrees of bad. There is no good in either; one is just less bad than the other.
Back to our Columbia cry baby? Again, you weren’t going to Switzerland before, and you’re not now. But you will likely be able to in the future.
Really, the only “problem” I see here is that now, unlike before, it’s in your face.
Oh well. I think I could handle it without whining.
"I keep looking at the title of this thread and agree that for the poor in the ivy league, a full ride isn’t always what they imagined.
Some students thought that they’d have an easier time than they do making ends meet. I agree that, for some, they think it will be easy and it is not."
Yeah, well, it happens. We all underestimate something or other at some point. It’s not really a problem if they were really poor before.
I know from experience. When you’ve REALLY been poor, staying poor usually doesn’t suck that much. And it sucks a lot less when someone is handing you a chance, opening the door, for you to leave that life behind. All you have to do is walk through.
That’s what I did, and believe me, I was probably one of the most poor people in Palo Alto for several years. I stayed that way in West Philly for another three years.
In both cases (being poor in the US, being poor at Columbia U), they’ve received something that most people would be quite grateful to have in their place. And yet I think we could find a few points on which we could sympathize with the full-ride at Ivy U on. They have to send money back home because they are worried their folks might not have enough, and there might not be a home to go back to after they’re done. They are cut off from some of the opportunities that are available at the school because of one factor or other related to their low relative wealth. They have to watch everyone around them be better off than they are. I absolutely can see those issues as significant human issues that people care about.
I suppose where we really diverge is that I don’t really see it as whining to talk about those issues. Yes, they’ve been given a tremendous opportunity. Yes, it’s an opportunity that many others would be grateful to have had in their place. And yet it’s not a golden ticket to Willy Wonka’s Magical Candy Factory, which will make all your dreams come true. It’s an opportunity you have to take, and you have to make the best of. I don’t really think it’s whining to come to that realization, it’s just a realization that you have to work quite hard to turn the opportunities you are given into real, tangible results. The same could be said for, say, an immigrant from Chad to the US living in conditions that most of us would find less-than-ideal.
"In both cases (being poor in the US, being poor at Columbia U), they’ve received something that most people would be quite grateful to have in their place. And yet I think we could find a few points on which we could sympathize with the full-ride at Ivy U on. They have to send money back home because they are worried their folks might not have enough, and there might not be a home to go back to after they’re done. They are cut off from some of the opportunities that are available at the school because of one factor or other related to their low relative wealth. They have to watch everyone around them be better off than they are. I absolutely can see those issues as significant human issues that people care about.
I suppose where we really diverge is that I don’t really see it as whining to talk about those issues. Yes, they’ve been given a tremendous opportunity. Yes, it’s an opportunity that many others would be grateful to have had in their place. And yet it’s not a golden ticket to Willy Wonka’s Magical Candy Factory, which will make all your dreams come true. It’s an opportunity you have to take, and you have to make the best of. I don’t really think it’s whining to come to that realization, it’s just a realization that you have to work quite hard to turn the opportunities you are given into real, tangible results. The same could be said for, say, an immigrant from Chad to the US living in conditions that most of us would find less-than-ideal."
Again, the structure of your argument - the analogy you draw - is technically sound. Where we really diverge is in our respective qualitative assessments of the discrete issue of being poor on campus at Columbia and having to see what you don’t (and never did) have.
To be clear, I agree that being poor sucks. I know. I did it … for a long, long time. Talking about THOSE issues is fair game, of course. How could I hold another view?
But it is hair splitting, I think, to lend any weight to the issue as it relates distinctly to navigating your way through an Ivy League campus. Being poor sucks. I agree. In fact, it sucks everywhere.
But it sucks a lot less when you know it’s temporary for you. It is, in fact, a golden ticket relative to what you had before if you let it be. But it’s the “[t]hey have to watch everyone around them be better off” point you raise that really smacks of whining to me. You were poor before, and are no less poor now (well, actually you are because of what’s being invested in you). All the issues you listed were, presumably, going to be there regardless of whether you are or are not at Columbia.
Being poor at Columbia sucks because being poor sucks. At least at Columbia there is a clear path out of it.
I had almost a full FA to a top LAC and full ride plus stipend to attend my state U. My father told me to go to the LAC. It was probably the best gift my father ever given me. I didn’t much spending money and my clothes were not preppy, but the education I received was top notch. My brother and sister went to ivies on FA (I was the black sheep). I don’t think our kids could be full pay students today if we didn’t go to those schools. My father was an immigrant who worked in a restaurant and factory while putting himself through school. I am very grateful for the opportunity I was given, and no, I do not understand all the whining. And I don’t think one can compare a top notch education with an expensive car.
Where? What school is full of Sports Management majors taking Russian Lit because it is offered on T/R?
My daughter is an Art History major at a school not known for art history. The basic classes do have students just taking it for the credit (not many, there are plenty of easier classes to take). Doesn’t change my daughter’s experience of discussing her interests with others, with professors. In the lower level courses, those with the most interest in art history did drive the bus in the discussions and group work (including my daughter), and I’m sure those sports management (and physics and education and engineering) majors using it for core credits didn’t get as much out of the class. And I’m sure each and every student at Amherst who takes art history doesn’t really have an interest in the Masters either - unless we’re talking about the one held at a country club in Georgia.
I didn’t claim not having a background in european history is better than not having had AP Euro, just that it doesn’t make the discussion automatically superior, especially if the experiences and backgrounds of all those in the discussion are exactly the same. I like more variety in the background in discussions, like having a number of different views. I think Harvard is a fine law school. I think Yale is a fine law school. I don’t think 9 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices should come from only two school. IMHO, the court would be better to have more opinions from those educated at other schools with perhaps, just perhaps, a different view.
“they have read the material”
How do you know? This certainly wasn’t true at my fancy, expensive high school.
In this Russian literature example, would you be referring to a lower level or upper level course?
As a somewhat related topic, I might wonder how true this is. Not that Columbia wouldn’t open doors for them, but I wonder how it would differ if they just went to a state school with a strong program. It’s an important consideration because in one narrative, they received a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to succeed in life, while in the other they simply had to seize what was within their reach the whole time. My experience is more in line with the latter.
Perhaps the most important thing you gain from school, beyond a credential that says that you finished it, is an appreciation for lifelong learning. There really is nothing in college that you couldn’t learn elsewhere, if you really wanted. But realistically, if you never learn the value of education, you will never bother to learn more. This may perhaps explain why many of the staunchest anti-education politicians are themselves not college educated. On the other hand, if there is material that you cover in Elite U but not in State U, there is generally nothing that stops a talented student from making up the difference on their own.
I don’t know how true it is that elite schools provide a strictly better education - they probably won’t provide a bad one, but they don’t have a monopoly on great education either. Perhaps there is some value in being around others who achieve great things, and I do hear this justification a lot. I think that that may be true for some people. I don’t think that it is necessarily true - there are plenty of high achievers outside of those circles, and not everyone is motivated by the people who surround them (some do resent the feeling that no matter what they do, they aren’t good enough).
At the end of the day, it’s probably mostly a matter of culture. If you come from a culture that doesn’t really value learning and education (e.g. most of the multi-generational poor), then maybe cultural osmosis is what really makes all of the difference. If you are poor but come from a culture that already values that (e.g. immigrants from countries that value education), it might not be such a profound effect. What really helps to bring people out of poverty, when the opportunities for advancement are there for the taking, is the ability to appreciate what is in front of them and to seize the opportunity. Whether or not that requires Elite U, is perhaps the real question.
I think it is the proximity to such enormous wealth that jars some people’s psyche. But it is no reason to be a whining baby.
These articles are just click bait full of exaggerations, imo. I really don’t know how you can feel “poor” at an Ivy, in Manhattan, surrounded by the smartest peers in the world, living in a $100M dorm, eating in massive dining halls full of organic food.
Bingo. Ivy kids in Manhattan can secure lucrative summer internships as early as the summer following freshman year. The girl featured is a engineering junior; this summer she should be making at least $1,000 per week, on her way to a full time offer of $70,000. That is not poor.
I am a National College Match Scholarship recipient at Rice who just completed freshman year, and I have been able to notice a few differences between “the wealthy” and me.
One of my friends (from Texas) completed a week-long externship in California during winter break and will be in Spain for six weeks this summer. Another will go to Argentina for a language immersion program.
Myself? I barely afforded health insurance for the year and will be grateful if I can get a job waiting tables this summer!
Frankly, though, that’s just how life is, and I’ve already gotten used to being at the lowest end of SES at the schools I’ve attended. My parents always sacrificed a lot to pay for private elementary, middle, and high school tuition. Even in high school I turned down a trip to Cancun organized by my graduating class that would have cost my family over $1,600, and for prom I wore my father’s tuxedo (which, strangely enough, fit me perfectly).
Despite the differences between “the wealthy” and kids like me, this opportunity to attend a university like Rice is ultimately a blessing. I’ve seen exceptional course design with clear lists of tutors and office hours. I constantly see emails regarding internship opportunities for STEM majors. And I know that three or four years from now, I’ll graduate with a degree in Chemical Engineering.
Overall, I don’t think the article is representative of low-income student experiences at top universities. Sure, differences do exist, but they don’t have to dominate our lives.
The contentions in this thread are ridiculous! You play the hand your dealt, you work hard and live from a perspective of gratitude for the opportunities you have been given.
Feeling bad for a young person who has been given the opportunity of a life time? I don’t think so! If they don’t appreciate it take it away from them and give it to someone who will appreciate it.
Since when has accomplishment come without sacrifice?
This article and some of the expressed attitudes here are insulting to anyone who has worked their tail off to amount to something.
@neodynium , as you to first question, Columbia vs. the strong state program, and subsequent comments that elites don’t have the market cornered on great educations, there is a 26 page thread, closed down now, that dives into that question. All I will say (because I’m bored and weary of that particular debate) is that, at bare minimum, the Columbia experience will put you in a chair next to hard-driving, smart, intellectually curious and capable people. That, alone, gives Columbia a BIG advantage in terms of the substantive quality in education you’ll receive as compared to, say, Washington State University.
There are very smart kids at Wazzu. There are very smart kids at community college. There are very smart kids who don’t graduate from high school. There are very smart kids everywhere. Everyone has a story. But Wazzu graduates people by the 1,000s every year who don’t have a fundamental grasp of the English language, who are uninformed and who lack intellectual curiosity. They are in college for the sole purpose of “checking the Bachelor’s degree box” and extending their high school life. Columbia, I dare say, does not graduate even one person who meets that general description.
Is there a solid education to be realized at the Wazzus of the world? I’m sure. But there will be at least that one piece missing: overall quality of peers, and one learns and one is pushed to raise one’s game based on the people with which one is surrounded. It is next to indisputable that who you attend school with influences the quality and rigor of the education you can come away with. It’s not just the knowledge in the book. Text books and college course work are not instruction manuals. It is an intellectual exercise.
It’s like running track on a team with fast runners as compared to running on a team with a bunch of fat people. One will push you more than the other, regardless of how serious you are about your event. If you’re particularly gifted, it won’t matter. Fast is fast. But if you’re not, then the experience of trying to run with a lot of capable and hard working people is bound to do more for you athletically than the other folks. Wazzu is the fat track team.
I agree with every word you wrote about family culture. That is why breaking the cycle is so hard. Maybe that argues in favor of Columbia. Maybe, like a foreign language, you need immersion. Maybe going to Wazzu, where a kid from such a family will find plenty of people who don’t really give a damn about anything, will provide that kid with a comfort zone that he/she really could do better without.
So, to your final question, does it require elite school to pull a kid out of poverty? Clearly, we can all reference our own anecdotal experience and say, “no”. But in my view, it’s a much better context and I think very likely ups the odds that it’ll happen … that the cycle will be broken.
“These articles are just click bait full of exaggerations, imo.”
@oldfashioned , I agree. Very much so. I’ve really come to dislike the internet headline.
But not in the same concentration. And a concentration of very smart students is a magnet for top professors who like to teach. The research facilities also attract top professors. The day to day experience for a student is just a lot different.
Like Hanna, I think the Ivies are more egalitarian in economic terms than many big state Us are. Sure it’s been a while…but consider the Bush twins. One went to UTexas-Austin, an outstanding public U. While there, she lived in a sorority house. My understanding is that her sorority was considered the “best” one–read, hardest to get into. An article about it at the time said that most of the members were legacies, i.e., their mothers were UT grads who had belonged. If you’ve ever read the descriptions of rush on Greek sites, you know that you are expected to wear certain clothes for rush and you can’t buy them at Target. The article I read about Jenna’s sorority also said that the parking lot for the sorority was filled with expensive recent year cars, BMWs, Mercedes, etc. and that many of the young women were the children of top oil company executives.
Barbara went to Yale and lived in a residential college. The way Yale works, it’s probable that her first year roommate was on financial aid. She ate her meals in the college’s dining hall–the same dining hall students on heavy fin aid living in the same college ate. At least one of her close friends was a URM from a dirt poor family.
The truth is if you were a poor kid attending Yale you had a much better chance of meeting Barbara Bush in a non-classroom situation than a poor kid attending UTexas-Austin would have of meeting Jenna Bush in a non-classroom situation.
Now sometimes that causes problems. I read an article about a girl from Virginia who went to Yale because it gave her a much better financial aid package than UVa. She was assigned the daughter of Jane Pauley and Gary Trudeau as her roommate and she was not comfortable with that. The fin aid kid said in an article that she felt more socially comfortable with the workers in the dining hall where she had a work study job than with Ms. Trudeau. However, I have to admit that when I read the article, I felt a lot of sympathy for Ms. Trudeau, who had tried hard to befriend her roommate and been rebuffed at every turn. (And remember, the article was based solely on the reporter’s conversations with the roommate.)
I went to high school in the Midwest and the flagship state U was like that in “Paying for the Party.” There was no question that you could get a fine education there, especially if you were in the honors program. But socially, if you came from a family with very little money, you were frozen out of the Greek scene. My high school was lily white but financially diverse. Almost three-quarters of my class went off to the state flagship. My classmates who couldn’t afford Greek life were totally ignored by their wealthier high school classmates who went Greek. I got back in touch years later with one of my classmates–someone near the top of our class in high school. She said that when she skipped rush, our wealthier classmates stopped saying “hi” to her when they crossed paths walking across campus or even when they ended up a few seats apart in large lectures. She transferred out after two years and went to Boston University. She did it in part because her older boyfriend was in the Northeast, but she admits that having our wealthier high school classmates–whom she had run rings around academically in high school—look straight through her when their paths happened to cross on campus was another incentive to leave.
Yes, it be less comfortable for a kid without money at an Ivy…but part of the reason is that (s)he will actually meet the kids with money. SOME–not all, but SOME–state Us are incredibly segregated by family income.
“But not in the same concentration.”
Yes, that was the point of my post.