<p>a) these are not the rich kids on “My Super Sweet 16.” By and large they are NOT idiots
b) you don’t go to meet rich kids, you go for other reasons-- but, voila, they are there and they inform the experience
c) It isn’t so much that they’re rich, its that they inhabit a world you might not have known existed-- and, via them, you learn about it
d) there are other kids too-- not mentioned so much on this thread… two very close friends of mine from college were much poorer than anyone I previously knew… like, ‘my mother is a cleaning lady who doesn’t speak english so well’ poor. Maybe those relationships never created a useful work connection for me, but they have (so far) lasted a lifetime.</p>
<p>well, we don’t indite all the poor for the actions of a few,…</p>
<p>SBmom:</p>
<p>I don’t know what My Super Sweet 16 is so I don’t get the reference. Other than that, I agree with you. I just objected to the idea that meeting rich kids is, well, enriching. It can be, and in totally non-monetary terms. My niece visited a friend in Manhattan whose dad collects modern art. There were Picassos and Matisses on the wall of the apartment. As my niece said, it feels very different seeing them in a private home as opposed to in a muserum. And the friend was extremely nice…But no one should wish to emulate Paris Hilton.</p>
<p>rorosen:</p>
<p>Of course, we don’t want to indict a whole group based on the action of a few. But there have been blanket statements made about the benefit of being among rich kids. It’s not a benefit if the rich kid expects you to pick up after him because that’s what he is used to at home.
It just goes to show that the elite schools are not full of “rich kids.”</p>
<p>actually, you may be describing ‘quite rich’ kids. There is a lot of resentment toward even 'slightly better off ’ kids, even when it is the case that their parents earned them into such a position. ‘High-achieving’ kids are likewise frequently condemned for their honest labor. Oh well, it’s easier to pull people back down into the swamp than to climb out,…</p>
<p>Super Sweet Sixteen is a revolting show on MTV where girls have $500K 16th birthday parties, Beyonce performs, Paris Hilton probably attends-- etc.</p>
<p>Wow (re: Super Sweet Sixteen)! And what do they have at their weddings???
And did you really mean 500K? I would have even been shocked at the 50K!</p>
<p>Yep, $500K.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At which one of their weddings? ;)</p>
<p>Well, I would not make a blanket statement about “quite rich” kids, either. My niece’s friend falls into that category; but niece (well-off but not rich or quite rich) was never made to feel self-conscious about her lack of Picassos on her walls.</p>
<p>And I don’t know enough “quite rich” kids to even make statements about how they are “on average” as some posters have said of students at elite schools. I just pointed to some rich kids whom it is not necessarily beneficial to know as a counterweight to several statements about the utility of attending elite schools because they are full of rich kids. I dislike blanket statements.</p>
<p>o.k. I am willing to hate anyone involved with a 500k party. even the waiters.</p>
<p>What is beneficial is diversity. It’s beneficial to meet all kinds of people --not especially rich ones. What, are they going to give me their money? After meeting so MANY rich people i can tell you this much: NOT. The very concept of aspiring to meet rich people makes me ill. I’ve been to homes where there are Picassos on the wall. Where entire Medieval churches have been imported from Europe and turned into the family room. The owners were not necessarily the most refined or educated individuals I knew, no matter how many countries they had been too --the books they read, their ability to analyze a film can easily be sub-par. The LATTER are the things I value more than ownership of a Degas. The richest person I know, one of the richest in the country, comes from the projects And a very smart and down-to-earth person he is too. What is unspoken here bothers me …btw, my son at Brown does not have a single rich friend, though of course many are the kids of professionals. If I told him to try to meet rich people to enhance his worldview or sense of self or increase his ability to dream big or aspire he would laugh me out of the room --at least I certainly hope that he would. I reject the idea that the rich have bigger dreams and visions, reject it absolutely having known many poor and, at this point, many wealthy people very well. The poorer people I have known have inspired me more with their dreams, their drives, and their accomplishments to date. Sending my kids to college to meet many kinds of people is exciting. In fact, to the degree that elite schools are diverse, it is an advantage. Sending them to meet the rich, alone, is a waste and i would not put my money behind it.</p>
<p>My younger daughter when she went to NYC/DC visited the grandmother of one of her friends who lived in a penthouse and not only had Picassos on the wall- but if I could remember her name you might know it since she and her artist husband traveled in the same circles as Picasso during the Paris years.
The kids were so not impressed- as they had just seen Picassos in the museum, but the teachers who came along were.
She did have lots of great stories though- and since she was actually a “step grandmother” she felt free to tell quite racy stories about Paris life to the kids even though they were just about 12-14 yrs- they apparently loved it though.
But as far as having “great art” on the walls with a capitol G, doesn’t impress me. I don’t care how much they paid for something- but great art can be seen in museums and some pretty amazing pieces can be found in your own community. The most famous artist I know, Gerry Tsutakawa, produces wonderful pieces- light years beyond in presence and meaning beyond the work that the Chihuly factories churn out- but Gerry is also one of the most down to earth, fun people, and far, far from wealthy if you are counting in dollars. However he has friends all over the world, and so I would consider him rich indeed.</p>
<p>Rorosen. Thank you for the compliment on my writing. It means a lot to me. I will tell you why as it is germane to this thread at the moment.</p>
<p>Here’s something that can happen to rich kids. They do feel that everything is possible. They do take unimaginable risks, because they won’t fall off the edge. They feel free to travel through India alone writing articles on Bollywood. They feel free to put off, for example, writing seriously, to do things because they are curious about them, for example, going to business school.</p>
<p>But it can happen that rich kids get caught by the same lack of fear that causes them to have adventurous lives. It can happen that rich kids grow up and realize at age 35 that the family fortune does have its limits, especially when no one adds to it for a generation. And then, even rich kids have to accept the limitations of earning a living. And sometimes they get stuck with a career they didn’t really mean to have, because they gotta make do with what they can get paid for.</p>
<p>It is also possible that rich kids, especially the type prone to questions, always wonder if their accomplishments are real, or only the result of having had no edge to fall off of. It’s not necessarily so. But it’s possible.</p>
<p>So like I said, thank you. And for anyone here who forgets to look past the sheen of a rich kid, hey, try it, you might get surprised.</p>
<p>I doubt any poor kid would attend Ivies to meet the rich. If anything, it’s an uncomfortable experience for most of the poor kids: mini’s first on-campus job involved serving dinner to his own roommate. In fact, I don’t think I would’ve even applied to the Ivies had I known that most of the kids come from affluent (by my standards anyway) families. I even know some kids from my high school who transfered out of the Ivies after their freshmen years because they were uncomfortable attending schools where the rich, if not the majority, dominate the social scenes.</p>
<p>But some people end up thinking “bigger” after attending the Ivies. A poor kid who had never heard of corporate raiders, venture capitalists, hedge fund managers, etc., might decide that he should join the ranks of the hardcore azzholles on Wall Street. The poor kid gets a glimpse of America’s power structure and inner workings of global capitalism all of which may help in his wheeling and dealing in the global capital markets down the road. He learns to plug in with the rich to exchange jobs and business tips with one another.</p>
<p>In the long run, attending the Ivies may have benefits many incoming freshmen are not even aware of.</p>
<p>Susan, from your post 990. </p>
<p>Dstark: “Susan, who is arguing with you over this statement?”</p>
<p>"I am sorry to not be able to dig back and find the posts but there are many who have argued that the top schools are not better as if those who like those schools or go there have an elitist attitude that they are the “best.”</p>
<p>I was saying that those who attend top schools or send their kids there do not perceive the schools as better schools but simply better matches for them or their children. We don’t think the top schools are superior. But I am coming across posts by some that seem to think that those who choose these schools believe they are better and speaking for myself, I don’t think that, nor do my kids."</p>
<p>There are people making different arguments than you about this on this thread and you say “we”. </p>
<p>“We don’t think the top schools are superior.”</p>
<p>I would be careful using the word we. Who are we?</p>
<p>There are plenty of posts on this thread that imply top schools are superior.</p>
<p>Some people come right out and say it.</p>
<p>Others use code.</p>
<p>What does a spectrum mean to you?</p>
<p>What does dissecting the motivation of kids who are engaged in ecs mean to you?</p>
<p>What does the listing of rankings of various schools and departments mean mean to you? Don’t rankings by definition mean some are better than others.</p>
<p>The whole-contemplating life stuff…</p>
<p>People may be trying to say that they have their own rankings of schools and they try to send their kids to the best school in their ranking, but it’s coming across differently to many of us. </p>
<p>And there are people that are saying the top schools are superior. Period.</p>
<p>I don’t think anybody is actually arguing with you about your opinion of schools on this thread.</p>
<p>^Obviously the “we” she is referring to is Ward, herself, Beaver, and Wally. It’s not some CC cabal or anything.</p>
<p>You make a very important point about motivation. I was one of those kids whom adults always found precocious. But I spent a lot of time just thinking about ideas. I was the kid on the playground who was watching everyone else and thinking, but not about the playground. Certainly, I got a lot of what some would call “validation” for “being smart” and “a nice kid”, but I had no ambition to achieve. I was not competitive with others or some grade-point-average standard, though I certainly see the value of being that way. I was just a quiet kid who lived in his head. I was a very reactive student. I worked hard when I had to, otherwise, I just kind of floated by on what is probably genetic, and did get good grades. In subjects I was interested in, I excelled, not because I worked hard, but because I thought more about them. In others, I tended to get an A minus. But what brought out excellent quality work from me was a kind of fear, that propelled me to work harder if I was afraid I was going to fail. In college, when I started to relax, I was put in some classes with students who had had far more experience in a subject, in some cases, at the graduate level. I think the powers that be were convinced that I knew a lot more than I did; I’m not sure why. I think they were confusing aptitude for learning with actual knowledge. I think I’ve ended up with a lot of academic, publishing, career, and research opportunities because of that confusion. Anyway, I began to realize late in high school that I needed to put myself in situations that would force me to sink or swim. So I began to seek out challenges, as a kind of survival mechanism. This included: taking 400 level classes as often as I could, working a lot at my job on top of my schoolwork, taking as many credit hours in hard classes as I could, et cetera. So putting myself in hard situations actually made me more alive, and passionate. In situations that seemed easy, I wouldn’t do a thing. I guess I procrastinated so much before that because I knew, deep down, that I could perform well at the last minute. I’m constantly choosing things that I’m interested in, but am average at, and getting better at them. The result is that the people whom I peg as mentors that I am amazed with, get into the back of my head somewhere. Within a few years, I seem to surpass them in the area in which I wanted to excel. It’s not really “discipline”, but rather, the passion to know more and get better at things. Unfortunately, many really bright kids or those that are talented in other ways (pity them their environments) are not challenged, so their ability to expand and handle challenges atrophies and dies. They are left with potential that will not be actualized. So sad. The sense of necessity has worked really well for me. We moved around with my dad’s job a fair bit, so I was always the new kid on the block. When we returned to the US, we settled in a nice homogeneous suburban town. My parents have made wise decisions in several key areas. One is that they gave my sister and I their opinions, but only set boundaries that they could argue on purely rational grounds. That made it rather difficult to rebel on a number of levels. The other is that they made sure that if we wanted something, we would earn it ourselves, and that we would contribute a large portion of our earnings to the household. In the town where we settled, this was anomalous; most kids were given fancy cars the day they passed their driver’s tests, and were given a lot without earning it. Heck, I bicycled to my job as the analytical department for the most successful day-trader of all time when I was 15. Why spend money on wheels if your job is only a few miles away? I also worked a disgusting, crappy job for 5 years because it was a job when there weren’t any around. But I became the best employee they ever had, and they would leave on many vacations and have me run the place. I figure, if you’re going to be there all day, you might as well figure out how to do it as well as possible.
Anyway, the problem with rich kids, smart kids, or anyone who has something, is that having it means they have no inclination to seek it. Without motivation, without the arrow of longing for the farther shore, nothing impels us to grow. So we shrink. A pity. When I work with students who are talented at something, I don’t belabor them with busywork; I try to stretch them, challenge them, and let them experience something to push against, to master.
A lack of drive is worse than a lack of means. For drive is the means by which we can attain. But without drive?</p>
<p>I agree that the mark of the educated individual is the ability to write. When students complain about the number of drafts they must submit, I tell them that they never had it so good. In college, in most majors (except math and science, to some degree) the ability to write papers is what determines your grades. If you write great papers, you’ll get A’s.
However, I disagree about your claim about the Ivies. It is certain that you cannot graduate from the Ivies without having <em>read</em> a great deal. And RIF; Reading Is Fundamental:) But hundreds of my students who attended Ivies have difficulty putting together a simple paragraph, supporting a position, or creating a cogent argument. Frankly, I don’t understand how any college can admit people who don’t have a vague knowledge of how to compose their thoughts. That these students are graduated from such “top schools” truly undermines the schools’ classification as such, in my opinion. I am far from an apologist for standardized tests, but I have to admit that the Writing essay on the SAT Reasoning Test does a rather better job of measuring what it claims to than any other part of that test, i.e. the ability to compose a rough draft under timed conditions.
So perhaps it will help the situation. We’ll see.</p>
<p>I second Montrose about many “Ivies” graduates not being able to write cogent prose. Many LACs put more emphasis on writing than do some Ivies. But then, I do not think that Ivies are ‘the best" nor do I think that meeting rich folks is a good reason to attend Ivies. Apparently, if the Phantom Prof is to be believed, SMU is more full of rich kids wearing Prada and driving Porsches than HYP. And in my neck of the country, when the Boston Globe wants to describe the rich students’ social scene, it usually refers to the rich students at BU, not Harvard.
Except for Cornell, which is larger, the Ivies occupy a nice middle ground between very large and quite small that they share with a few other institutions such as Stanford, Rice, Chicago (and please, the list is not meant to be exhaustive–some folks are literal-minded). That, to one S, has been an important feature (another S wanted smaller so he attended a LAC). </p>
<p>Okay, to lighten up: some friends from overseas took one of the trolley tours through Cambridge, and came to our house explaining that they’d been told there were four schools in the Ivy League. Four? Yes, the guide explained that IVY was just the pronunciation of the Roman numeral IV. Got it? Four. Luckily, the tour guide did not enumerate which four.</p>
<p>must be in your blood,…</p>
<p>Maybe that’s the basis of the legacy hook?</p>