[lbo-talk] teaching the pampered rich at Harvard

[Jim Straub]

>
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