Well, I for one am not doing any navigating and I have no social contacts at either of my kids schools. One I have never even seen. I don’t believe I even know what navigating is in practice. However, my not so big on partying daughter knew she wanted her own room and did not want to live in the dorms. The other kid does a fair share of partying and planned living arrangements accordingly. I was not involved beyond the check writing and signing stuff.
They were all of these things, at 3 in the morning.
1 Like
Unacceptable of course, but that’s unacceptable behavior from anyone and has nothing to do with rich vs poor or Greek vs not Greek.
Other than paying tuition, what are these barriers? Or is tuition/things related to tuition or other bills, the only barriers?
As for the party dorm, presumably that was chosen because it was the cheapest? Or purely they just didn’t object? If so, maybe it’s annoying for 1 year, then they move out. I guess I don’t see the big deal.
One of my kids went to a big State U and I had no idea about asking which were the party dorms - pretty much figured they all had a party presence. My son also did not decide on his college until close to the end of the decision period and so probably had less choice in terms of his dorm. He did not really make good friends in his dorm, but found his people elsewhere. I still have one really good friend from my hall at college, but did not really stay friends with most of the others. Some of it is just luck, regardless of whether it is a party dorm or not.
It has everything to do with the Greeks and the richer kids, because they were the ones doing it.
Mink or sable?
Re: #12, continuing #14
Just ran the net price calculators for Indiana - Bloomington and Purdue - WL (the presumed flagships of Indiana).
Assumptions: 3.50-3.59 HS GPA, 600/600/600 SAT, 28 ACT, Indiana 21st Century Scholar, Academic Honors Diploma, married parents with $25,000 income and $1,000 assets, no student income or assets or any special types of income or assets (e.g. farm).
Net price after grants and scholarships was $3,310 at IU-B and $2,582 at Purdue - WL. I.e. it appears that Indiana makes its flagships very financially accessible to good students from low income Indiana resident families. However, since the net price calculators do ask various academic merit questions, this presumably reflects aid that is a combination of need and merit based.
About 20% of IU-B students are Pell grant recipients, as are 22% of Purdue - WL students. Oddly, this does not seem to be particularly high, given the low net prices for good students from low income families.
I think my nephew is a good example here. He is a senior in high school right now and a product of the same school system and town I grew up in. It was not great then, and I don’t believe it has improved much.
He did not take any AP classes, but he has good grades, a 3.8 UW GPA. He plans to attend IU in the fall.
He was offered a scholarship at a small private which would actually make it cheaper than IU’s in-state tuition. IU offered him nothing for merit. He also applied to one of the lower-tier state schools, and was offered a full-tuition scholarship. But he would be commuting there.
Of course, he wants to go to IU. 
My brother and sister-in-law are middle-class and both college-educated. However, they don’t have enough saved for my nephew to pay for his full tuition and room and board at IU. Nephew wants to go away, and they want him to have that opportunity, so they would like him to pick the small private LAC because it is cheaper.
My mother and I suggested that he take the full ride at USI, let his parents help him out with an apartment, maybe, and then he transfer to IU, if he really wants to graduate from there. But he doesn’t want to do that either. It MUST be IU.
Having grown up in Indiana, some may not understand the allure and siren call of IU on many college-bound students in the state. Between the big ten sports and the legendary party status, the place’s reputation across the state is mythical. It’s crazy. Of course, it is a good school, pretty campus, nice college town, etc. but unless you are majoring in something that no other school around offers, a student could go to ISU or USI or Ball State,a nd still get a solid education. In fact, if those places offer Honors colleges to good students, you could shine much brighter than at IU, I’d think.
As for my nephew, his parents are allowing him to decide, while reminding him that he will have to take out more loans for IU. He doesn’t care. His decision is obviously emotional. He saw the campus, he loved it, and… his girlfriend will be attending as well.
Finally - again, there were places at IU when I was there that were definitely not crazy or loud. I lived in one of those places. It got a little loud on some weekends, but mostly, it didn’t.
I always assumed that most big publics are like that, as well. There are so many students there, there is bound to be some diversity among personality-types. There were also affluent kids who were not into sports or Greek life - or the parties. Some were there because they were from either coast and wanted to be someplace different, and their parents could afford it - and there were the kids, like myself, for whom it was one of the more affordable options. And they had the major I wanted that was not offered elsewhere.
But if it were my kid, and I were in the position where finances were tight - I’d encourage her to look at the lesser-tier state schools, and maybe, some lower-tier privates that give good merit aid. But only if the aid was substantial. I started out at a small private. I believe they really are better at hand-holding and making sure kids don’t fall through the cracks. But that’s another topic…
The issue in your last paragraph, BeeDAre, is what I wanted to get at. The hypothetical low-income kid is going to need more hand-holding from the college, because they have less parental hand-holding.
In the book, every single working class and lower middle class kid who was on that floor ended up socially isolated at the end of the year. That was not the right place for them. That doesn’t mean no place at IU was right for them, but that dorm floor was definitely wrong.
“As the isolates became invisible, socially integrated women took up more and more space-- shrieking, literally climbing the walls, coming back loud and drunk in the middle of the night, even at one point in time rollerblading around the floor. In doing so, and inevitably interfering with the sleep and study of the other women, these women communicated their social dominance and sense of entitlement. This dynamic intensified over the course of the year.”
What horrible people those socially dominant women are.
Yes, one of the barriers besides coming up with tuition and other costs, is that parents of low-income students often did not attend college themselves, and simply cannot give their student valuable advice about it.
I agree, a small LAC would be much better for many of them. And probably better for many higher-income kids as well…
However, a different dorm at IU would have made all the difference here, as well. It makes me sad that these young women did not know to request a dorm change, or that there were even other dorms that weren’t like this. Then again, housing there was tight and I’m sure it hasn’t changed - and I would guess it’s become worse.
Another possible barrier is that in high schools where few students go on to study toward bachelor’s degrees, the counselors may be unfamiliar with college, financial aid, and scholarship options that are available, so the high performing students in such high schools (commonly in lower income areas) may not realize that there are potentially affordable options besides the local community college or commuter university. The counselors at such schools may also not be as good at writing recommendations that positively influence admissions readers, and may not be as aware of various college-related tasks that students may want to do early (e.g. take the junior year PSAT for National Merit qualification, take SAT subject tests if needed by any possible schools to apply to, take SAT and ACT in junior year in order to have better information to make an application list and give a chance to retake if desired).
You’re right, ucbalum. In the case of the lower income students in the book, though, the missing parental advice during college is more salient. The students did get to Indiana University by hook or by crook, because there they are in the dorm floor at the beginning of Chapter One. But savvier parents could have steered them around minefields.
What hand-holding is needed?
I recommend you read the book. Then we’ll have a basis for discussion.
@ucbalumnus, it may be the authors of this book or another study who were of the opinion that a commuter school may be better for low-income kids than living in a party dorm at a big state U because the folks who are going to commuter school (many of them working adults) are there to to learn and get ahead in life, not just to party and cause havoc, as many of the kids in the party dorms (many of whom, yes, are from more well-to-do families and OOS) are going to college for.
I read this in Sept of 2013 when D was starting her freshman year at a private school. There was a thread at the time on CC. It was a book that caused me to be anxious about my daughter. Social isolation, as described in the book, had a negative impact on their academics, if I am remembering correctly. Just very discouraging.
“It has everything to do with the Greeks and the richer kids, because they were the ones doing it.”
Yes we know, CF. Rich people are inherently bad, stupid, loud, obnoxious and only interested in partying.
I stayed up and finished the whole thing (Kindle).
I found it extremely agenda-driven from the get-go. I think there are germs of truth in it, but the authors’ biases against well to do people, attractive people, people with social skills, the Greek system were strong. I love how in the conclusions they even talked about dismantling college sports, when sports had little to do with the whole premise.
Some of the strivers came from small town religiously conservative backgrounds and made disparaging comments about LGBT students, which didn’t earn them any points with the girls on the floor. Understandably. And the researchers stated that “this was in contradiction to the upper middle class political correctness that pervades American universities.” Oh please! These researchers were as politically correct liberal as they come! I call bs that they think that there shouldn’t have been social repercussions from intolerance towards LGBT students. Of course there should be. I sure as heck wouldn’t want to be friends with a dorm mate who said such things. But let’s paint it as “they were lower middle class and didn’t have the right clothing” rather than the truth - they were intolerant small minded people.
The snobbery towards certain majors (on the part of the researchers) is too much to bear. It’s ironic - if the rich girls had made the same comments, they’d be portrayed as snobs, but when the researchers say it, it’s ok.
It seems nothing would have pleased these researchers more than to have seen the rich girls fail spectacularly. Nothing would have pleased them more than if their daddies had lost their jobs and their long blonde hair fell out, and they’d been made to sling hash at the dining hall. So much resentment towards others’ good fortune.
I also found the description of “social isolate” interesting. You’re a social isolate if you don’t have more than one friend on your floor who proactively invites you to do mundane things with them? That’s an extrovert way of looking at the world. As an introvert, I had no need to have to have a buddy with me to go do my laundry or run an errand. These researchers assumed alone was bad. Very, very extrovert lens.
There’s $20 I’ll never get back and I’d have been better served by a good night’s sleep.
“As the isolates became invisible, socially integrated women took up more and more space-- shrieking, literally climbing the walls, coming back loud and drunk in the middle of the night, even at one point in time rollerblading around the floor. In doing so, and inevitably interfering with the sleep and study of the other women, these women communicated their social dominance and sense of entitlement. This dynamic intensified over the course of the year.”
Where were the RAs in all of this?
Being loud at 3 am in a dorm is unacceptable by anyone or for any reason, of course (unless you’re shouting fire). And by no means do I defend that behavior.
Otoh, there’s so much agenda in this book that it strikes me though that if the strivers had gone out together, returned and been loud at 3 am and the upper class girls had shushed them, I bet the researchers would have reported it as -
“the strivers were finally finding their voice and the entitled rich girls felt compelled to silence them because of their conformity to bourgeois notions of communal living in which one is expected to sacrifice individuality for the group, and the rich girls’ insistence on getting beauty sleep because of their oversized attachment to appearance as social currency.”