In their book Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality, sociologists Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton describe how college magnifies relatively small differences in family background and income, so that students from less affluent families find themselves at a disadvantage in making social connections, gaining membership in Greek life, affording time for academics, and successfully pursuing the most challenging professional pathways (where support from parents is practically essential).
Choose ONE of the following questions and use ideas related to the rise of privatization (Newfiled) or the fall of public support (Carlson) to help explain a specific example from Armstrong and Hamilton's study that illustrates that idea. Try to make an original connection between two of the readings in your comment. Then post a comment on another student's connection.
1. Privatization and Social Engagement or Isolation.
How might privatization compound the problems faced by less affluent students in making lasting social connections at college and why does that matter? Some related questions you might consider: How does social class background impact how well students fit in socially? How does successful social engagement translate to academic success in college and economic success after college? What are the downsides of too much social engagement, and why do some students suffer those downsides more than others?
2. Privatization and Social Reproduction or Mobility.
How exactly do private resources impact who will have the most academic success at college and the most long-term gains in income because of that? Armstrong and Hamilton suggest that social and economic backgrounds seem to foretell who will or will not reproduce the social class of their parents or, even more challenging, achieve social mobility. How exactly do private resources or a lack of public support make the difference here?
Use the comments feature below and make direct reference to the readings in your comment (which must be posted before we meet on Tuesday). Then respond to another student's comment (you may need to come back later and the second comment is due by 24 hours after we meet as a class). You must post and comment to receive the full two points participation credit. Note: if you post anonymously, please sign your post with at least your first name.
Post comments below and remember to return later to comment on someone else's post to get the full 2 points participation credit. Note: if you post anonymously, please sign your post with at least your first name.
ReplyDeletePlease note: sometimes the comment feature can give students trouble, as it can time-out or have technical problems that lead to losing your work (though it is often not lost if you immediately click the back button). For this reason, it is a good idea to at least "Copy" anything you write to the clipboard before posting. Or draft your comment in a word processing program and then copy and paste into the comments so that you have a back-up.
DeleteAfter reading this week's readings, I have chosen question one as my focal point. Privatization is making it so that public university gives students less while expecting them to pay more. This is especially problematic for less affluent students. In relation to A and H's piece, it seems that university has become more about being social, and making connections rather than receiving an education. White, affluent students perceive that joining a fraternity or sorority is more beneficial than acquiring a high GPA or undergoing a challenging major because of the connections that come with those associations, like finding a potential mate that comes from the same background. Isolates are more prone to depression, alcoholism, and drug abuse, as mentioned by A and H. This is certainly a compounding factor along with privatization that disallows less affluent students to succeed. Lastly, some downsides of too much social engagement could include a low GPA, very harsh and judgmental personalities, and wasting of money, as some affluent students take their situation for granted and do not care as heavily about their academics or future successes when mom and/or dad are/is paying for their college.
ReplyDeleteI found it very interesting how you focused on the negatives that affluent students may encounter during college. Armstrong and Hamilton made it seem like it was hard to fall from an advantageous situation such as not having to pay your own tuition or work a part-time job, but you listed plenty of reasons how this could happen. Since you brought it up in your response I have become interested in seeing whether people who obtain jobs straight out of college think their social networking or high GPA was the contributing factor. Then we could see which one really is more important.
DeleteIn their book, Paying for the Party , Armstrong and Hamilton describe how the social lives of students coming from various financial backgrounds differ. They explain that the college experience is disadvantageous to less affluent students, while those coming from wealthy families are able to improve their social lives by joining sororities and fraternities and in turn focus more time on forming relationships. Meanwhile, those who are not as financially fortunate, find themselves isolated in the college environment.
ReplyDeleteThis idea is further enhanced by the privatization of higher education as is explained by Scott Carlson in his piece, When College Was a Public Good. He brings it to our attention that less and less people are in favor of public support for education because it is believed to benefit minorities the most. This mindset, in which “the elite” feel as though supporting public education programs is a waste or perhaps even unfair, is leading to even greater privatization and a greater struggle for less affluent students to create strong and lasting connections with others. Because, without financial help, they will not be relieved of the stresses of creating and maintaining a balanced social life on top of financial issues.
As seen in the two pieces, affluent students are at a social advantage while less well off students find themselves socially isolated in many ways. With withering public support for higher level education an instead further privatization, this trend will continue to divide students based on financial status and a level playing field may never be reached.
I found it very interesting that you mentioned Carlson's idea that the affect of less affluent families had an affect not only directly academically, but socially as well. The side issues such as the stress of paying tuition or doing well enough to keep their tuition at a steady rate are not issues of those who come from affluent families. They are free from this burden, thus are able to excel in fields the less affluent students cannot.
DeleteAs brought out from Armstrong and Hamilton's piece, "relative small class differences were magnified" in the case of Emma and Taylor. Although these two students were not far separated when it came to family affluence, Taylor had the upper hand once after college, and this changed the course of her future compared to the other. Being able to attend Med school most likely thanks to her lack of loans and her parents' willingness to pitch in for that helped her to have bigger doors open once she got there. Her future "above-wage" salary would be highly due to the connections made open to her by this school, and the reputation it carried, as prospective employers probably flocked there first for the lucrative positions. Emma, however, did not receive all these perks maybe partly due to her full-time student ways and part-time worker. She may not have had the opportunities to study as much as Taylor to get in the Med school, and therefore she was not introduced to as many people who could help her land a "dream job" where she could also find financial stability. This happens on a regular basis, and it's just getting worse actually.
ReplyDeleteI find your insight at the end of the comment to be a looming thought that everyone should consider. I agree with your opinion. The idea that it is getting worse does not bode well for anyone who cannot make the full use of their university time towards making connections for the future, with regards to potential employment opportunities. Taylor had the upper edge from the beginning simply due to her parents helping her with her college fees. Although Taylor and Emma had similar high school experiences and grades, the fact the Taylor's family was more affluent determined where she would end up, essentially. The same held true for Emma.
DeleteIn the book by Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton entitled, Paying For the Party, the reader is presented with research that shows how female students integrated into the college social scene their freshman year. Chapter four focuses on how these students developed friendships and how their social class played a major role. The evidence collected in the research showed that the more affluent students had a better chance of establishing social ties because they could afford the party lifestyle. The less fortunate students who had to pay for themselves chose to focus more on academics instead of frat parties. As a result of this the upper class students distanced themselves from the lower class ones and sometimes even ridiculed them. After a certain amount of time these students gave up on making social connections and accepted their place in isolation. In some cases this isolation led to a decline in grades, lack of opportunities across campus, and even depression. Privatization is a contributing factor to this problem. Scott Carlson pointed out in his essay, When College Was a Public Good, that funding cuts and big increases in tuition has forced more families to rely on student loans. Recently it has even begun to affect higher income families. In a generation where a college degree is necessary to get a good paying job, the expansion of privatization will lead to students taking out loans and holding part-time jobs during the semester. These factors will diminish their chances for social growth.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting how you explained the differences between the social lives of affluent students opposed to those who are not as fortunate. It is almost like the amount of money you come in with sets you up for a continuing cycle of either a balanced academic and social life with strong relationships, or one that is difficult to establish at all.
DeleteOne of the major issues college students face today is the inability or challenge to achieve social mobility due to private resources. The social and economic backgrounds of a college student and their parents directly affect their ability to pay for their education. This means that a student with an upper class background will be able to go to a more expensive university with better resources and will be less in debt out of college than a student who is less affluent. In the essay “The Price of Privatization”, Christopher Newfield explains that “poor students borrow as much as do affluent students but with far less capacity to pay it off” (19). This directly impacts a student’s long term success due to the fact they might have to apply to public or community schools, take on a full time job during school, or take out loans. Armstrong and Hamilton further explain that parents, more specifically parents with affluent backgrounds nowadays are spending more time and money to ensure their child’s success. Their private resources ensure that their child is admitted into the best college, they get an internship, and land an impressive job outside of college. This social class divide puts other less fortunate students behind and requires them to work much harder than students from privileged families solely because of private resources.
ReplyDeleteIt is very interesting how the concept of privatization comes full circle. Privatization isn't only on the school scale. When you hear the word, you think about privatization of an actual school, but not the privatization of people. For less affluent students, they do not get the privilege of using private funds. So the more private it gets, they worse off they are. But as you said, for affluent families, not only are they going to private schools, but their way of paying is being more privatized. They are using their own means and not doing things like taking out loans, getting grants, etc. But as privatization furthers, they need for less affluent students to borrow only gets higher. So it is getting worse day by day, but not for affluent families. This is where the issue begins.
DeleteI like that you connected the privatization of college to not only the students who can't afford the same colleges as the students who have higher income families, but also the effect that the loans lower income students have to take out has on their future. The impact of the increasing amount of loans that privatizing colleges has had on student's hugely effects how in debt they are after college and what kind of job they are wiling to accept. It raises the question of how important is it really for a lower income student to take out hundreds of dollars in loans for college to just land a middle class job and take years to pay it off?
DeleteIf you are interested in investigating the way that private/parental resources become magnified due to privatization, you should look at Armstrong and Hamilton's Chapter 7, "Achievers, Underachievers, and the Professional Pathway." As A+H argue, the difference between success or failure (and gradations in between) on the professional pathway is completely determined by parental resources and inherited cultural and social capital. They write: "By rewarding only those who were already polished, the professional pathway effectively outsourced to parents much of the work involved in producing professionals" (181). They go on to show that by revisiting the story of Taylor and Emma with whom they open the book (on page 1). Taylor got such useful advice from her parents, both of whom held advanced degrees, that when she got to grad school she was among the youngest in her class and probably among the best prepared (with internships, shadowing, and lots of knowledge) and best supported (she had a nice apartment). Meanwhile, though Emma's parents were college grads, they did not know much about how to prepare for success in professional areas that required advanced degrees, so their advice was not always helpful. And because they had a financial set-back while Emma was in school (184), they were not able to help her after she completed her undergraduate degree.
DeleteAs society has progressed through time, so has society's proclivity to embrace capitalism and pursue higher echelons of academia. This combination of advancing in education and society's drive to privatize has essentially created a paradox for adolescents pursuing,and families financing, a collegiate career. The paradox therein lies with the idea that families who are less financially stable have more difficulty to, yet have the overwhelming societal pressure to pay for college for the kids of the family. As stated in Scott Carlson's article, When College was a Public Good, he emphasizes how important college is in citing a "Mr Carnevale" from Georgetown. In this, it is understood that, "'All the returns to the economy are coming from higher education now,' he says. 'Our ability to expand that is key.'" The privatization of college has in a sense hampered this phenomenon of creating an opportunity to foster growth for people who want to attend college. Regardless of how necessary society makes college seem, America's fervor to privatize has capacitated this. Furthermore, this traces to Armstrong and Hamiliton's work, Paying for the Party. In this, they depict how once students arrive at college, essentially their financial affluence dictates the kind of experience they will have. Extrapolating further, this is manifested in the idea that students with lower financial clout and affluence with live a life of isolation from others, lacking a healthy social experience; whereas this idea is contradicted by students who can afford the leisures of college will have a thriving social life and maximize their time in college. In addition to this, financial stability in college can also affect grades earned, whereby having money can assist in purchasing books, tutors, and other materials necessary to succeed. Overall, college nowadays has been transformed from a place which promotes learning and advancement for all people who have the drive for it, to a privatized tool for capitalistic, corporate gain. Ultimately, this hampers the growth for people who are less financially affluent and inhibits those who have already made it to college, forcing them into a sort of isolation.
ReplyDelete-Jason Mitchell
You write:
Delete"'All the returns to the economy are coming from higher education now,' [Carnevale] says. 'Our ability to expand that is key.'" The privatization of college has in a sense hampered this phenomenon of creating an opportunity to foster growth for people who want to attend college..."
I point to this discussion, because when Carnevale speaks of "returns to the economy," he means shared returns for people in the whole state or the whole country. The more people we have going to college, the better will be the overall "public good" that comes of that. Yes, individuals will benefit, and people in the community will benefit from better funding for college, but he is really saying that the more college graduates that a state has, the better it will be for everyone in the state -- because higher-paying industries looking for college grads will relocate there, college grads (especially those without debt) will be better prepared to be. Success for some translates to start a business that employs others, etc. Not to mention that the community will have better educated parents, citizens, leaders, etc. Funding college lifts all boats and has all sorts of positive side effects and communal benefits.
Less affluent students struggle with college at baseline. Living on campus can be very expensive and aid is always limited, but commuting is extremely expensive when wrapped up with parking costs, gas, car repairs and travel time. Along with this, they don’t get all of the opportunities to get involved on campus with social outlets like Greek life, etc., organizations that are extremely popular on campus. Being in these kinds of organizations that involve money are very good for a student. It can keep them involved and structured while providing them with a social foundation. They also get many opportunities to make connections involving their chosen career path. This leads to higher student satisfaction and motivation, thus more success in school and in future endeavors beyond college. So from the very start, there are a much larger amount of stressors put on lower economic standing students. While college is currently build to benefit those whoa re extremely affluent, they don’t always get those benefits. Because of schooling being in their favor, many of these students tend to participate in more social activates than they do academic activities, This is because they feel safe due to their cushion at home. So in the end, these students end up earning ‘mediocre’ degrees because their focus was social interactions. Adding privatization to these already existing issues is even more detrimental. In “Paying for the Party,” Armstrong and Hamilton explain that while private schools are on the rise, the attention needs to be put on public schools. These schools are the ones who are geared to help those improve their lives. Ivy League and private schools are away on their own little island, to which they refer to as the “Ivy Island.” Here these schools function on their own spectrum and do not cater to those of lower affluence. Tuition is much more, housing is much more, and they do not have as much supervision over how they structure and charge things. This is because they do not have the funding from the government. So they do not have to give as much money to students. If a student of a lower income enters a private school, they face much more pressure to do well. They are usually on scholarships that they must maintain to be in school and have to work to keep up with the costs. And they do not get to participate as much socially, all in the name of a strong degree. For affluent students that go to these private schools, they tend to get involved with the party track more. It is almost structured so it is unavoidable. Because their end goal isn’t money, something they already have, they strive for the party track and receive less weight degrees. It is very detrimental for public schools to begin to go private. These are the few places that less affluent kids can get government funding that help them pay for school without restrictions. This way they can be social, do well and have a bright future.
ReplyDeleteThe accessibility to private resources directly impacts both the academic success and a student’s long term gains in income. More specifically, the private resources of wealth or family financial support show to have an effect on a student’s academic achievement tremendously. This inequality is demonstrated in Newfield’s essay as he claims that the rise of privatization promotes the idea that students with low income are expected to pay for the schooling of themselves, even though they cannot afford it, and are still not granted higher education in return of higher tuition. With higher education, comes academic success. Carlson also mentions the difference it makes in a student’s academic achievement due to financial disadvantages as he says that due to the decline of public investment to education, less affluent students are forced to be dependent on the government’s financial loans as the increase of diversity continues. Although these two essays show the scope of the higher class vs the lower class, Armstrong and Hamilton’s essay focuses on the effect of family financial support on academic achievement within just the upper middle class. The authors compare two students who had the same motives to become dentists, but ended up in two different social, financial, and academic circumstances due to their initial financial situation of their families. Taylor, who had a slightly more affluent family, graduated with a higher GPA, thus granting her an admission to Medical School, whereas Emma, the student who was still considered upper middle class but had a slightly less affluent family, was denied any post graduate programs and was working a job that she did not need a bachelor degree for. She had a lower GPA and was paid far less than what Taylor was going to be paid. Armstrong and Hamilton explain the purpose of this major difference as, “Small class differences were magnified, sending them in different directions” (2). The slight difference in wealth created the greatest differences in their social life (outlook on marriage), financial life (difference in income), and their academic life (different GPAs).
ReplyDeleteIt is extremely unsettling that even though prices are going up for college due to privatization, the quality of education is not improving. This causes a cycle because since prices are going up students will need to take out loans and grants. However, since the quality of education is not improving, it makes it more difficult for students to do well in school and subsequently get good jobs and attain social success. Their children will face the same issues, and the cycle will be never ending.
DeleteAs discussed in Paying for the Party students from affluent backgrounds with more abundant resources have an automatic leg up. They have the means to pay for college, but not take it as seriously, and still succeed in society. In contrast, students from lower income backgrounds must work extremely hard in order to achieve higher social class or even just maintain the social class of their parents. Armstrong and Hamilton write about “Socialites and Wannabes”. Socialites tend to be from the upper class and just naturally fit in in social situations, which allows them to make connections and pave their future whereas socialites try to form these same connections but still don’t feel like they belong frequently because they don’t have the means fully fit in. Private resources allow higher income students to attain success by forming connections and associating themselves with the right people. Wannabes may want to take this approach however don't have the means to do so. Hamilton and Armstrong write that “wannabes had to work to achieve what was seemingly second nature to socialites”. Private resources assure that socialites can maintain their status however socialites are not the majority. In When College Was a Public Good, Carlson writes that we are making it harder for people with less private resources to get college educations, at a time when these people are in the majority. At a time when most jobs require college degrees, privatizing colleges, is making it harder for many students to succeed. Requiring students to take out loans and work part time jobs makes it harder for these students to do well, and achieve social success.
ReplyDeleteIt is unsettling to me reading from Carlson’s essay that, “we are making it harder for people with less private resources to get college educations, at a time when these people are in the majority”. Students who come from lower income families have a major disadvantage when applying to college because they were born into the social class of their parents and may not be able to afford higher quality universities or private schools. To me, it is completely unfair for those students not to get the same opportunities as those who are wealthier because it will prevent them from achieving social mobility. Although hard work can go a long way; private resources will make college acceptance easier and will support a student in the long run. Even worse to consider, those students who are wealthier than others may not be as hardworking and dedicated as a less affluent student, but since they have more money they have wiggle room to slack off. A student who is less fortunate would be a better candidate for acceptance in this scenario because they have the motivation to work extra hard for their success and will not take it for granted.
DeleteI agree that socialites tend to be from higher income families and that the students from lower income families have a harder time fitting in. However, both families have worked just as hard to get their children to where they need to be. There is a difference in the way that they see the position that they find themselves in and how they work hard for their success. Students from lower income families know that their parents struggled to put money together in order to pay for their high income institutions and they also rely on scholarships and grant money to pay for tuition. While the more affluent families easily paid for their tuition and other activities that their child wants to join, for example greek life.
DeleteI believe that Carlson's article gave a great explanation of privatization. Along with Carly, I agree that this is extremely unsettling. It is not fair that students who are working hard to obtain a college degree might no longer have his opportunity.The students will have to work very long hours to afford their education, taking time away from their studies. It's obvious that people from different social classes come to college with different mindsets. Instead of creating a larger gap between the two, I feel like state colleges should be worker harder to make the gap smaller. The act of privatizing most colleges will take away opportunities from prospective students who are trying to create a better life for themselves.
Delete-Shayla Carroll
The social disparity between the affluent and less-affluent's college experiences can be undeniable under many different circumstances. Armstrong and Hamilton's "Paying For the Party" mentions the 'party pathway' and how social class affects students' experiences at college. The party pathway is realized predominantly by affluent students whose families are generally well-to-do, and those who come from these backgrounds tend to join "social clubs" at school-- popularly known as fraternities and sororities. The term 'party pathway' coins the notion that these respective students attend school to receive a degree in a field, or as Steve Brint likes to call it "the practical arts" (A&H 16), that is not as challenging but allows them the freedom to socialize and party more than students with less affluence and/or a heavier course load. Many affluent families push this agenda upon their children because "for example, appearance, personality, and social ties matter at least as much--if not more--than GPA for media, sports, or fashion careers" (A&H 16). Due to the students wealth and status, jobs out of college for them generally come easier than most. Furthermore, under the right circumstances, this method for going about the college experience is great for those fortunate enough to be on the "party pathway", but what about the less privileged students who don't have the money, family, etc. to help them get a head start on this so-called "pathway" that many universities like to see their students undertake? This is where some anecdotes from Newfield's piece about the "Price of Privatization" come into play. Although a certain individual may have more drive and intellect when it comes to their studies, their financial situation hinders personal opportunities for them that others who come from affluent backgrounds have at their disposal. These underprivileged students have the ability to pay for their schooling, but it usually comes at a steep price. The debt they find themselves in after completing their degree is vast and their social lives tend to take a hit due to the privatization of resources these social clubs could potentially offer to them (fraternities, sororities, etc). Lastly, it must also be noted that those who are able to use their social status to their advantage and benefit from the 'party pathway' may not have the drive that someone who finds themselves in an opposite predicament has. Isolation of the less affluent in terms of having to pay off monstrous debt and landing a job after school is extremely prevalent in today's day and age, but with the attitude held by some of the more privileged students can have an inverse affect on their future-- no matter how much money they come from.
ReplyDeletePrivate resources impact who has the most academic success through gap-widening "pathways" that Armstrong/Hamilton bring up as their main focus in "Paying for College"." "Commercialism", "financialism", and "marketization" are symptoms caused by privatization as pointed out by Newfield. With more affluent families having a widening affect on college students' careers, privatization plays a role in that only affluent families can afford the money required to invest in their children to maximize human capital. Newfield mentions Kantian ethics, implying students should have the moral obligation to maximize their happiness by doing their responsibilities as students. However due to the privatization of college, students are looking to maximize their human capital (basically potential lifetime income). Emma, the girl who became much worse off than Taylor despite having similar high school statistics and age/ethnicity demographics, suffered from privatization amplifying the effects of the "pathways" described by Armstrong/Hamilton. An example of a pathway is the "party pathway", where affluent students can afford the glamorous lifestyle of Greek life, eating out, and partying. "Socialites" are those that had the capabilities of having this lifestyle in college so they benefited from the privatization amplifying the effects of their past GPA/grades upbringing. Meanwhile, "wannabes", those who happened to be in the lifestyle came from not-as affluent families and the privatization gap pushed them down from the socialites.
ReplyDeleteHey Mark, I wanted to highlight what you stated about the points of marketization and commercialism being tools for privatization. These factors are being exploited in an ever-privitizing economy and is being reflected upon the privatization of academic establishments. I completely agree with the comparison you made from factors of privatization to how that translates inside the collegiate setting. The fact that financial affluence dictates the lifestyle students live and they way students operate in college is amplified by the privatizing of college. This concept is completely unfair in our current society and you touched upon it nicely.
Delete-Jason Mitchell
After I read “The Price of Privatization” and chapter 5 from “Pay for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality” I chose question one to focus my connection on. Armstrong and Hamilton focused their work on tracking the paths of less privileged students and their experience in the social world at college compared to students from high-income families and that of their more privileged social track and lifestyle. Throughout the reading, the authors explain that colleges recruit students who can pay more but who aren’t necessarily in it for the academics – in that case they would've been recruited to a school like Harvard. The “party pathway” follows these higher income students who view college as a requirement to be able to go out every weekend and encompass their socialite dream. Yet still, those students who have significant family resources and connections just enable them to act that way and be set up for high end jobs after education regardless of how there college credentials turned out, using their low effort majors.
ReplyDeleteChristopher Hamilton talks about how the privatizing of public colleges has made them seemingly more expensive for students without raising their educational value. He also states that privatization usually increases the inequality of educational resources for each student.
As explained by all of the authors, your social class background has a huge effect on how you fit in socially at college. The privatization of college makes it financially harder for low income students to attend school. With loans and grants, once they make it there they are categorized as “wanna-be’s” who obviously are not on the same social track as the “socialites,” who are over privileged because of their affordability to college, their material items and how they were raised. The connection between the privatization of college and its raising cost from what it used to be has a direct connection with the party pathway a student is destined to have in college.
Anne Choi
DeleteIt's discerning how the cycle of poverty and social inclusivity relate. Those who choose the party pathway are able to experience college in a very different manner than of those who don't have the resources to gain the same experience. it seems unfair that this is a common occurrence, but that being said some students are able to recognize their privilege and utilize their advantages. However, as you wrote, there are students who just use their connections to be set up with high end jobs using their low effort majors.
Anne Choi
ReplyDeleteSociologists Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton explicate how the miniscule differences between the college experiences of 53 different women can spawn drastic outcomes upon graduation. These relatively small experiences all coincide to generate an array of events that ultimately lead to different results for each student. As a result, the systematic reliance of resources leaves less affluent students at a disadvantage. Armstrong and Hamilton “provide a concrete summary of the ways in which class projects, college pathways, and organizational imperatives intersect to shape the flow of students through the university” (Armstrong & Hamilton, 8). So how does the privatization of resources affect social life? Unfortunately, social class background does impact a student’s success in college engagement, academic success, and economic success.
Public universities carry the connotation that because it is cheaper than private universities, it will provide a lower quality education when in reality the privatization of universities merely mean that the “control shifts from public officials to private interests” (Newfield, 28). The reductionism of economic stance and its affect on socialization in turn shifts the idea of social engagement between students. As the affluent students make lasting social connections, the students with a lower social class background have a harder time fitting in socially causing stress and social deprivation, which can hinder the academic process, ultimately leading to a lower levels of economic success. As the privatization of universities continues, the cycle remains the same.
Socializing is a central point of college and naturally people want a successful inner circle with similar backgrounds, or even social engagements with people of better social and economic standings. Thus, the “key to this form o social reproduction is isolation from less privileges others during years in which cultural tastes, social styles, friendships, and marital relationships are formed and solidified” (Armstrong & Hamilton, 11). So, while the relationships between the more affluent solidify, the divide between those with more resources and those with less increase.
The aspects of universities have focused more on the social status while steering away from education. In the reading by A and H, students are becoming more involved with who they identify with at college rather then their academic experience. The reading gave several examples of female students and their transition into college. Every incoming student is worried about fitting in and finding themselves. Therefore, they join sororities and fraternities to find their home away from home. For example, “They engaged heavily in the party scene, enjoyed hookups, and formed relationships with high-status men on campus,” (A and H 119). This became a priority to these students because it was the stereotypical college experience that was depicted in media. This ties in with the privatization of colleges. As the tuition was higher, more students had to find other ways to pay for their college expenses. Financial aid did not cover the entire tuition for some students so they found jobs to pay for tuition. However, working a part time job takes time from their social lives. Students who paid for their own tuition would also not be able to afford the cost of greek life.
ReplyDeleteIt is kinda of sad how this happens. All students deserve to get the same experience out of college but unfortunately, the less affluent are not able to do so. The cost of greek life and social engagements are too high on top of the rising tuition costs. This is where students start to feel lonely as they are forced to focus only on grades and academics because they cannot afford anything else.
DeleteThe privatization of higher education in the United States is becoming a more prominent issue in the sense that is hurts less affluent students who are already at a disadvantage compared to their more affluent counterparts. In their book Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality, Armstrong and Hamilton point out that affluent students tend to join other affluent students in social organizations that allow themselves to expand their social and professional networks. In order to fit in socially among these organizations, coming from an affluent family is almost necessary, “High levels of parental funding are required, as full immersion allows little time fro paid employment” (11). The fact that college is becoming more privatized really widens this gap, giving the less affluent students more disadvantages. Social engagement in college, to a certain degree, can also translate to academic success in the sense that students and friends will help one another out. Personally, I have seen that it is beneficial to go through class having someone I know in class. I can compare notes with my peers, ask for help when needed outside of the classroom, and study with them when exam are approaching. When taking a class where I don’t know anyone, I sometimes find it harder to succeed. Being social and involved in extracurricular activities in college can be a huge advantage when done so appropriately, so the fact the the privatization of college makes it harder to less affluent students to get involved in social organizations, only worsens their chances of success.
ReplyDeleteFrancesca Pucciarelli
I agree, privatization of colleges enhances the gap between students even with slightly different affluent backgrounds as pointed out by the two college girls example, where one ends up with a 3.6 GPA and the other a 3.0 GPA with much less job prospects because of the pathway she went. The "party" pathway is reserved for those who can afford an expensive lifestyle to exponentially enhance their social skills while those who are less affluent do not benefit as much following the same path.
DeleteIn today's competitive academic world private resources give already wealthy established families the upper hand over middle to lower class families. The reason for that being is upper class families can pay for different types of private resources that better prepare their children for college. These resources can increase the students grades, SAT scores, and in addition make the student more marketable to the college because they can pay off the tuition. Armstrong and Hamilton explain that "universities are sometimes forced to choose between admitting qualified students who cannot pay and less qualified students who can" (21). Due to the fact that a student may be more wealthy than another already puts them at an advantage over a student who may be more qualified. Then once this wealthier student gets into school they meet people similar to themselves and make more connections increasing their chances of succeeding once they graduate. This puts the students who get into college but that can barely afford it at a disadvantage. Even though they are receiving the same education. They do not have the same free time the richer students have to socialize because they are working to pay off their tuition. This puts them at a disadvantage because now they cannot make the same connections as the wealthier students, and connections can be just as if not more important than grades. The social and economic backgrounds of these students have a large impact on their futures. It is harder for the low income families to move up in the world due to restrictions on paying for college and other disadvantages. In Carlson's article he discusses how a lot of low income minorities want to get higher education but there are a lot less opportunities for them. That is why the wealthier upper class is dominated by whites. They have strong roots in our society and are able to pay off college easily. Allowing their kids to have more opportunists than the lower income minority families.
ReplyDeleteIn his essay, “The Price of Privatization”, Christopher Newfield argues that the privatization of public higher education in America is the reason for our growing unsuccessful education system. The shift from state funding of public higher education institutions to private funding via tuition is causing major problems for students going into college as well as coming out of college. Students and families now have to pay out of pocket via the rising costs of tuition in order to go to college. Once they do this, as Armstrong and Hamilton argue, the differences in income of different students are suddenly magnified to a point where the college experience is suddenly a lot different between those who are affluent and those who are not. As Hamilton and Armstrong describe, the social aspect of college is crucial. As the affluent are able to partake in Greek life and all the social connections that come out of it including networks and job opportunity, the less affluent are not able to do so. Because the families of the less affluent spent so much money already on tuition, they might not be able to afford the cost of social engagements such as Greek Life. Furthermore, those students might not have time for social engagements as they are working part time to offset the cost of their tuition. This all leads to students graduation on two different ends of the spectrum: ones who graduated with great social connections and others who did not because they could not afford social engagements. Some may argue that college is the best time to build a network of friends who will support you. Unfortunately, the privatization of public higher education has nearly made it impossible for the less affluent students to do so. Instead of participating in social engagements, they are forced to work in order to make ends meet. Maybe things would be different is there was still a significant amount of funding from the state but that has not been the case nor will it be anytime in the near future.
ReplyDelete-Himang Patel
Students who have greater private resources have greater opportunity to become involved in the social aspects of college, including greek life, as you said. I do think it is interesting to note that because some students receive greater financial aid from their parents and become more involved in their social lives, some perform more poorly in courses or even switch to a major that might be considered "easier" or "riskier" because they can. This, in turn, could benefit those lower-income students because it eliminates some of their competition, although I am sure this does not happen very often-- just something interesting to think about.
DeletePublic support is vital for students coming from low or lower-middle class backgrounds in achieving upward social mobility. Because these students are not afforded a financial "cushion" from parents, they must depend solely upon themselves and upon public university schooling, where they can receive government funding without restrictions. We see evidence of this in the stories of Emma and Taylor from Armstrong and Hamilton's "Paying for the Party". Although both Emma and Taylor come from middle to upper-middle class backgrounds, the financial support Taylor received from her parents allowed her to leave college debt-free, thus she was not tied down or limited in her job prospects or where she could relocate. Emma, on the other hand, was forced to move back home, $10,000 in student debt. This financial limitation would ultimately create a negative ripple to travel through many areas of her life, and would affect each of her choices, resulting in downward social mobility. Taylor was more fortunate. (2) This example shows how even the slightest of differences in private resources amongst students from seemingly identical social backgrounds affects their social reproduction or mobility, not only because it affects their income levels directly, but because it affects the decisions they make in other areas due to their financial situations, that prevent them from any real long-term gains. In Christopher Newfield's, "The Price of Privatization" he writes that "the decline of public funding is casually connected to the simultaneous stagnation of attainment" (19). Privatization is dangerous for the prosperity of our students and, in turn, our nation as a whole. Cutting public funding and making education increasingly unattainable for lower income students creates a vicious cycle that is all too familiar in America's class system-- the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think the connection you make between Armstrong and Hamilton's, "Paying for the Party" and Newfield's "The Price of Privatization is interesting. Both these pieces draw attention to an ongoing issue that the privatization of public universities is only worsening. Less affluent students are at higher risk of dropping out, or not doing well in college, and the fact that tuition continues to rise only makes this risk higher. Because tuition is more costly, students from lower income families have to get part-time jobs while being full-time students. Ultimately these students who have to work in addition to taking classes, tend to either choose "easier" or less rewarding majors, or simply cannot excel in the "harder", more rewarding majors simply because they do not have as much time to study. What's most fascinating about Emma and Taylor is that although they were only slightly different financially, it really affected them in the long-run. The idea that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is a direct consequence of the privatization of college.
DeleteArmstrong and Hamilton follow female undergraduates in their journey and give evidence as to why students who come form a more affluent background tend to excel in college, as well as the work force. When it came to Taylor and Emma it is said, “without highly educated and well-informed parents like Taylor’s, it was hard for Emma to entirely avoid the lure of the robust party pathway a MU” (Armstrong and Hamilton, 8). Taylor did well in college, ending with an amazing job to reflect that. However, Emma has been facing challenges ever since graduation. A potential reason as to why Taylor ended up better off than Emma is explained in “When College Was a Public Good” by Scott Carlson. Teens coming from an affluent background with college-educated parents are set up to succeed. On the other hand, teens from less affluent backgrounds tend to start from nothing, meaning they typically rely on grants. Carlson expresses that the majority, the whites, can afford college without as many grants as minorities, the Hispanics and Blacks. Because of this, people who are more affluent have a problem with their tax money going to the minorities instead of people who are most similar to them.
ReplyDeleteAll of this ties together to conclude that less affluent students need to work harder to attend college. With the privatization of colleges on the rise, Armstrong and Hamilton explain that minorities need to work long hours at work, as well as stay on top of their grades, which can hinder social connections. They miss out on social aspects of college, such as Greek life, because they can simply not afford it. Because these students lack many social connections, they are looked at as “nerds.” In an extreme way of summarizing this, I can say that less affluent students are set up to be ostracized by the privatization of higher education. On the other hand, affluent students tend to party more because they typically do not spend heir free time working. Extreme partying can cause them to be kicked out school, and even some kind of addiction. However, these people usually have their parents to fall back on. Both affluent and less affluent students face struggles in college, I just believe that less affluent students have way more to lose.