[lbo-talk] teaching the pampered rich at Harvard

Jim Straub rustbeltjacobin at gmail.com
Wed Jul 23 12:20:18 PDT 2008



>
Although I argue the opposite, I must say that your statement doesn't 'ring true' to me as an accurate generalization of students at either type of college. Working people, as well as their offspring in post- secondary education, don't in my experience have any lesser (or greater) likelihood of being assholes. Electrical engineers, truck drivers, nurses aides, waitresses, teachers and security guards--- and their kids--- are as capable of rude, self-centered, mean, bigoted or otherwise prickish behavior as anyone else. Most occupations and social statuses in my experience contain the full spectrum of personality. Maybe I don't have as much personal exposure to the rich, but idealizations of working people have always struck me as unrealistic. Although it does seem to me that working people are more likely to be down to earth and less likely to be pretentious or act entitled.

For instance, OSU in Columbus is an enormous state school, whose student population is from mostly lower and middle income backgrounds around Ohio. I can't speak to the classroom environment there as the only times I've been on campus has been when I've had temp jobs on the grounds, but I live a couple blocks from the student ghetto so I'm around that alot. I'm often annoyed or disgusted at the frat-like, party culture: the stench of axe body spray, the ubiquity of tramp- stamp tats, the hooting and grunting and binge drinking and trashed lawns and broken bottles everywhere. It seems sometimes to me that it is simply impossible to get the cops called on you if you are white in the student neighborhood and causing a ruckus, and I get really livid about the idiots breaking bottles because then residents kids can't play barefoot in front of their houses. On the other hand, they're just mainstream 20 year olds, partying it up like they see on MTV and 'reality' shows, and most of them probably see college as a time when they can first assert their independence rock out alot with their peers before they graduate and have to start a lifetime of drudgery paying student loan or mortgage debt.

Across town is a 2 year associates college, basically a vocational tech college, where the student body is from low income backgrounds or is already in the workforce, maybe has a young kid or family, and mostly have a full time job already and is going to school part time to get a skill they can parlay into a decent wage. In that sense the tech school kids are a lot more realistic and savvier about the realities of life, and are alot more straightforward in pursuing their training to a specific end, rather than going to have fun and party and cheer on the football team. Those are overwhelmingly the people I know I'll be housecalling on union organizing campaigns in healthcare worksites later in their life. Then there's also an art school in town, and I've always found those folks to be (no surprise here) both sensitive, nice, creative and interesting, but also incredibly pretentious, deluded about reality and unprepared to survive in the workforce.

I think maybe Doug's time at UVA puts him in a good spot to call the prickishness of elite students but in a bad position to be realistic about the character of nonelite students. Of course, I used to date a UVA grad who was from a blue-collar background, who got a scholarship to UVA on account of her mom being a clerical employee there, who had a great time at the college and was politicized by its student-labor alliance, and went on to be a communist and union organizer. Life's funny.


> No. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. But I'll try this.
> The children of the rich who attend elite colleges are generally
> entitled pricks. The children of the working class who go to nonelite
> colleges aren't.
>
> Doug



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list