11 ms·

Lower middle class (and even uneducated pedigree upper middle class) is where the brutalism is for competitive schools, but lower middle class has state schools

by prpl 4y ago

Lower middle class (and even uneducated pedigree upper middle class) is where the brutalism is for competitive schools, but lower middle class has state schools (if in California, Cal State schools) or community college- and almost always finishes high school with a middle-of-the-pack education, thanks both to average public scholar and average home lives. So, generally they are fine. I wish the obsession with top-tier colleges would go away. It’s not hard to get into a public research university, where there always an opportunity to shine, even if the average student is, well, average. The real tragedy here though is costs have gone up quite a bit for state educations and the true top-tier educations have so many scholarships available that an average education costs more than a premium one. I went to a state school but have spent far more of my life working at and with people from Princeton, Caltech, Stanford, etc…

WalterBright 4y ago
When I attended Caltech, there was no evidence that it was a rich kids school. For example, very few students had a car. The ones that did had a Bug or an old Ford pickup. I don't recall anyone wearing tailored clothes, the students mostly wore completely unremarkable stuff. When I'd meet their parents, they were perfectly ordinary people.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jadengeller 4y ago
  I don't think the data supports this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/california-institute-of-technology https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit... I do think it's true that Caltech students are all very passionate about STEM, so the average family wealth is less apparent.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    > the data Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. One obvious change is their mission statement has changed drastically. In the 1978 "Caltech Information for Students" pg 105 it says simply: > The primary purpose of the undergraduate school of the California Institute of Technology, as stated by the Trustees, is "to provide a collegiate education which will best train the creative type of scientist or engineer so urgently needed in our educational, governmental, and industrial development."
    - ridgeguy 4y ago
      >Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. Late 60s, Page, for me. I was lower middle class, which seemed to be the great majority. I recall only one House contemporary who was from serious wealth. Would never have known but for developing a friendship. As you say, I doubt things are similar today.
    - umvi 4y ago
      Caltech is very different today than it was 50 years ago. Modern Caltech recently cancelled Robert Millikan (the founder)
      - red-iron-pine 4y ago
        explain
      - everybodyknows 4y ago
        Millikan as in the oil drop experiment, foundational to quantum physics?
      - markdown 4y ago
        Looks like he was a rabid racist and eugenecist. Glad to see that modern Caltech has progressed.
        4y ago
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  What house were you in? When I was there, there were huge income disparities between the houses. You may have had that experience in one of the less-well-off houses if you didn't socialize outside of that environment much. There are a lot of rich kids at the school, but it's less pretentious than Harvard or others.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Page, in the 1970s. I did not notice any disparity among the houses. Freshmen were initially assigned to houses at random, and then they'd go through "rotation" where they'd have dinner at each house in turn. After that, the houses would each make a rank of who they wanted, and the freshmen would say yes or no to the selection. I don't recall anyone, ever, talking about their social/wealth background in this process. > There are a lot of rich kids at the school They must have hid it well, because I didn't notice any. I never heard anyone mention skiing in Aspen. Nobody had even an upper class car. Nobody had an expensively outfitted dorm room. As for me, I come from a lower middle class family, and managed to get a modest loan in aid, which I paid off after graduation.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      P.S. It's possible I was simply blind to the upper class signalling. Things like word choice, manner, etc.
      - 77pt77 4y ago
        If you are an outsider you are usually completely oblivious to all the subtle shibboleths. But the insiders can clearly tell you're not one of them.
      - pclmulqdq 4y ago
        I was one of the richer kids in what was one of the more "bohemian" houses, as another commenter referred to them. Page was actually toward the top of the wealth spectrum when I was there (recently). There was also a lot of wealth disparity within each house, too, by the way. However, the signals are more subtle than you think. Things like being happy to go out to eat on weekends, having a big wardrobe, having technical toys, and having a car (at all) were all signs of wealth. A few particular sports were also indicators. "Rich people cars" are usually not given to kids in their 20's, even by wealthy parents. More subtly, there are a lot of social things, like asking what your parents do and asking about your last vacation. Most rich kids know how to read the room enough not to brag about expensive vacations directly, but will ask assuming you recently had one. Having parents who fly in for things and flying out for short vacations is a dead giveaway. Also, at Caltech in particular, being well-read was a sign of wealth, but I assume that doesn't translate to non-science schools. And it would never come up in rotation, but certain house cultures just are more attractive to certain types of people. I think that's the source of the disparity, not any sort of rotation-related thing.
yieldcrv 4y ago
> I wish the obsession with top-tier colleges would go away. Until the ceiling of utility goes away the obsession wont go away. If your goal is to climb the corporate ladder, all schools have nearly the same utility. Maybe industry specific, but I contend that its not different enough. If your goal is to skip the corporate ladder, only top tier schools get you in the room. And only if the pedigree is used in very specific ways. Still not a silver bullet by any means. But not being there is basically the same as having no ammunition.
faeriechangling 4y ago
I mostly agree, it's a fleetingly small amount of the population for which entering these elite colleges is even a possibility to begin with, what matters to the average Joe is their access to things like community college, tech schools, state schools, and so on. Sure the elite schools matter because they control access to the levers of mass societal power but it seems to be a MAJORITY of what is talked about which seems disproportionate.

by prpl 4y ago

WalterBright 4y ago

When I attended Caltech, there was no evidence that it was a rich kids school. For example, very few students had a car. The ones that did had a Bug or an old Ford pickup. I don't recall anyone wearing tailored clothes, the students mostly wore completely unremarkable stuff. When I'd meet their parents, they were perfectly ordinary people.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jadengeller 4y ago
I don't think the data supports this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobility/california-institute-of-technology https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/college-mobilit... I do think it's true that Caltech students are all very passionate about STEM, so the average family wealth is less apparent.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  > the data Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. One obvious change is their mission statement has changed drastically. In the 1978 "Caltech Information for Students" pg 105 it says simply: > The primary purpose of the undergraduate school of the California Institute of Technology, as stated by the Trustees, is "to provide a collegiate education which will best train the creative type of scientist or engineer so urgently needed in our educational, governmental, and industrial development."
  - ridgeguy 4y ago
    >Keep in mind that I attended in the 70s. Nothing stays the same. I have little idea if Caltech is the same today as then, and rather doubt it. Late 60s, Page, for me. I was lower middle class, which seemed to be the great majority. I recall only one House contemporary who was from serious wealth. Would never have known but for developing a friendship. As you say, I doubt things are similar today.
  - umvi 4y ago
    Caltech is very different today than it was 50 years ago. Modern Caltech recently cancelled Robert Millikan (the founder)
    - red-iron-pine 4y ago
      explain
    - everybodyknows 4y ago
      Millikan as in the oil drop experiment, foundational to quantum physics?
    - markdown 4y ago
      Looks like he was a rabid racist and eugenecist. Glad to see that modern Caltech has progressed.
      - 4y ago
pclmulqdq 4y ago
What house were you in? When I was there, there were huge income disparities between the houses. You may have had that experience in one of the less-well-off houses if you didn't socialize outside of that environment much. There are a lot of rich kids at the school, but it's less pretentious than Harvard or others.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Page, in the 1970s. I did not notice any disparity among the houses. Freshmen were initially assigned to houses at random, and then they'd go through "rotation" where they'd have dinner at each house in turn. After that, the houses would each make a rank of who they wanted, and the freshmen would say yes or no to the selection. I don't recall anyone, ever, talking about their social/wealth background in this process. > There are a lot of rich kids at the school They must have hid it well, because I didn't notice any. I never heard anyone mention skiing in Aspen. Nobody had even an upper class car. Nobody had an expensively outfitted dorm room. As for me, I come from a lower middle class family, and managed to get a modest loan in aid, which I paid off after graduation.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    P.S. It's possible I was simply blind to the upper class signalling. Things like word choice, manner, etc.
    - 77pt77 4y ago
      If you are an outsider you are usually completely oblivious to all the subtle shibboleths. But the insiders can clearly tell you're not one of them.
    - pclmulqdq 4y ago
      I was one of the richer kids in what was one of the more "bohemian" houses, as another commenter referred to them. Page was actually toward the top of the wealth spectrum when I was there (recently). There was also a lot of wealth disparity within each house, too, by the way. However, the signals are more subtle than you think. Things like being happy to go out to eat on weekends, having a big wardrobe, having technical toys, and having a car (at all) were all signs of wealth. A few particular sports were also indicators. "Rich people cars" are usually not given to kids in their 20's, even by wealthy parents. More subtly, there are a lot of social things, like asking what your parents do and asking about your last vacation. Most rich kids know how to read the room enough not to brag about expensive vacations directly, but will ask assuming you recently had one. Having parents who fly in for things and flying out for short vacations is a dead giveaway. Also, at Caltech in particular, being well-read was a sign of wealth, but I assume that doesn't translate to non-science schools. And it would never come up in rotation, but certain house cultures just are more attractive to certain types of people. I think that's the source of the disparity, not any sort of rotation-related thing.

yieldcrv 4y ago

> I wish the obsession with top-tier colleges would go away. Until the ceiling of utility goes away the obsession wont go away. If your goal is to climb the corporate ladder, all schools have nearly the same utility. Maybe industry specific, but I contend that its not different enough. If your goal is to skip the corporate ladder, only top tier schools get you in the room. And only if the pedigree is used in very specific ways. Still not a silver bullet by any means. But not being there is basically the same as having no ammunition.

faeriechangling 4y ago

I mostly agree, it's a fleetingly small amount of the population for which entering these elite colleges is even a possibility to begin with, what matters to the average Joe is their access to things like community college, tech schools, state schools, and so on. Sure the elite schools matter because they control access to the levers of mass societal power but it seems to be a MAJORITY of what is talked about which seems disproportionate.