“I doubt they would be seeing quite the economic distribution as those that attend a school that is one of the 75 most expensive in the U.S. and thus would be less likely to be gunning for the pinnacle of consumerism that they might aim for at a school with folks who have more conspicuous consumption.”
I don’t think this is correct. I wish I could find the article- but it was written by a faculty member at a public U in the South (therefore- certainly not one of the 75 most expensive in the US) and how much the staff AND faculty resented the U’s current policies. In particular, the administration moved the faculty parking lot to the outskirts of campus to make it more convenient for students- and so professors every day trek past the student lot filled with fancy, late model, trucked out cars– so they can retrieve their aging Nissan’s and Hondas for the drive home. This particular faculty person blamed merit pricing for the dramatic demographic shift that had happened on his campus- money that could fund one needy student was now being spread out among 10 or 15 affluent students, whose parents got bragging rights “Little Tommy is so smart, they are PAYING him to attend college!”. The merit money isn’t terribly meaningful to any particular family, but it’s a lot cheaper to subsidize a rich kid than to make it possible for a poor kid to attend. And then the law of unexpected consequences- TONS of conspicuous consumption- new retailers opening near campus because these kids now need fancy workout clothes, sushi at all hours, etc.
It is paradoxical that a public U should have so much conspicuous consumption- but it tracks with what folks in many states have observed as well. I don’t know why you think “gunning for the pinnacle of consumerism” is a particular quality limited to expensive U’s when the “market” evidence seem to be everywhere. Someone is buying the $100 hoodies and fancy handbags- and if you believe the TikToks, it’s not where you think the money and the consumerism is living.
Dorm/sorority decorators?