After reading the introduction and optional chapter from Armstrong and Hamilton's Paying for the Party and Rebekah Nathan's "Student Culture and 'Liminality'" from My Freshman Year, please reflect on one of the questions below regarding the way privatization exacerbates inequality. You may also use ONE of the readings from last time, especially for the second question.
Answer one of the following in the comments section below, making reference to two readings, and then respond to someone else for the full two points participation credit:
Question Option #1: To what extent and in what ways is college less of a 'liminal' space for self-discovery or personal transformation under privatization?
In the excerpt from her book My Freshman Year, Rebekah Nathan discusses how the cost of college seems to have changed the experience of today's students by making college less a place for free exploration and self-discovery and more a place to focus on preparing for the job market or worrying about money. And, with the rise in prices, the possibilities of social class mobility, which is another promise of "liminality," may be endangered. How does Nathan's argument connect to the story of a particular student or particular students from Armstrong and Hamilton's book, and what does their example suggest about Nathan's thesis? Is college no longer a 'liminal' space of freedom or transformation between childhood and adulthood? Is "the party pathway" one example of how students explore their liminal position or how they refuse real transformation? Is it still possible to make college a place where people can freely choose who they want to become or how they want to live -- or how they can think and live freely (which is the essential meaning of "the liberal arts")? How do "adult realities" intrude on the liminal space of college for some students, especially "strivers"? How does Amstrong and Hamilton's subtitle, "How College Maintains Inequality," speak to the way the institution of college participates in an increasing social stratification that inhibits mobility?
Question Option #2: How does privatization increase pressure on less affluent students and/or increase the value of family resources?
Who is most harmed by privatization? Who gains competitive advantage? And how exactly does that happen? Examine a particular case discussed by Armstrong and Hamilton that shows how less affluent students are affected by the increased pressures of college costs and/or how more affluent students are insulated from economic pressures and gain other economic advantages from their family wealth. If you want to carry your analysis of family resources further in preparation for the Analytic Essay, make a connection to Melinda Cooper's chapter that we read for last class. How does Cooper's argument about the increasing importance of family resources under privatization help to explain evidence from particular students discussed by Armstrong and Hamilton?
Respond to this question using the comments feature below, making direct reference to two of the readings in your comment, before we meet on Tuesday. Then comment on another student's comment by the end of the week.
Privatization of college allows for universities to raise prices and make college only affordable to certain people such as to the white and to the wealthy. For a middle class/lower class civilian or a minority to go to privatized colleges would mean that the student would need to work very long hours and have large amounts of debt. In My Freshman Year written by Rebekah Nathan, she addresses the subject by saying, “It is no wonder that students are increasingly attracted to majors with clearly associated job titles, that most students need to work while going to school, and that undergraduates’ priorities include getting good grades and positioning themselves or the labor force through internships and targeted volunteerism” (Nathan 151). College is no longer about the experience of finding yourself and transforming into an adult because you now need to focus on and only focus on your grades, your job, and your future. You have no time to do things for yourself and enjoy your life. Rather, you need to rely on your parents for college and highly stress over how you will finance your tuition and get good grades.
ReplyDeleteTouching off of the quote written by Rebekah Nathan again, she says that students are attracted to majors that correspond with jobs; students are no longer being “risky” and picking majors that they enjoy but instead, are picking majors that symbolize money and jobs.
Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Laura T. Hamilton show in their book Paying for the Party how privatization can affect a college students experience with self discovery and transformation by doing a study in a dormitory at MSU. They write, “Eighteen isolates were from less privileged families, including all working class and lower-middle class women on the floor and a few middle-class women,” she continues with, “these women were less likely to have the funds, time, social tastes, and knowledge necessary to successfully engage in college social life” (A&H 06). The effects of being from a lower economic class and attending college can be extremely stressful on an individual. You feel more privileged than anyone can imagine so you get the best of grades and work almost full time getting paid minimum wage. While trying to juggle a job and school at the same time, you lack the time for a social life or going on self adventures.
Privatization of colleges greatly affects the lives of minorities and lower class citizens. The wealthy will still be able to attend college and get the full “college experience” as they will not have to be concerned about how they will be financing their education.
I agree with your opinion on privatization of colleges having a correlation with the outcome of the population of minorities and certain socioeconomic classes. But how private can public universities get before they are not public? What is a problem with privatizing universities is that you are subject to the peaks and valleys of a business cycle. Currently the government and the banks are able to afford to give out billions to subsidize the cost for many students. The current market has been over extending its peak for too long and is due for some sort of draw back , and when that happens and many students can not afford to pay their loans , and tons of banks and the government are no longer able to afford to help with the monopoly of universities a new system will emerge. The market may take a more competitive bias, and it'll only be a matter of time before each university is offering you their education at a better rate than another. But I think the education recieved in school is not as important as the connections made. The old say, "its about who you know" . I believe and have seen enough examples where skill does not always mean success.
DeleteI think you point out an important phenomenon -- students who come from affluent backgrounds do not have to find ways to support themselves financially and can thus get the full college experience. Students who must find jobs on campus or commute to save money have to sacrifice the fun of college and replace it with concern about their future. I think that privatization definitely increases the divergence in the experiences of upper-middle-income students and middle-income or poor students.
DeleteI really like that you highlighted Nathan's point about students today choosing majors that have a guarantee to earn a lot of money. So, students might not be choosing majors that make them happy, but instead they are choosing majors that fill their bank account. During the important liminal time that is college, it is so important to students have the freedom to discover their own passions and interests, instead of having to worry about affording what makes them happy.
DeleteI greatly appreciate your insight on the matter and I think you make a great point that there is a growing need to focus on grades and one's future. We are told in high school and earlier on that college is a good way for one to find his or her meaning in life/pathway to success; however, there's and increasing amount of pressure applied to the student to do well and thus, obtain a job right after college. Instead of finding yourself early on in your adult life, you have to almost rush through life in early adulthood. Doing poorly in a semester or more is no longer "okay" due to the financial constraints of most students and needing a secure future. I can definitely relate to picking a major that would symbolize future success whereas in high school I wanted to major in psychology but it was not going to be a high paying job.
DeleteQuestion 2:
ReplyDeleteThe privatization of colleges and universities have made it very difficult for many students of lower socioeconomic statuses to attend and/or enjoy their college experiences. The college years are meant to be time of self-discovery and growth, but with the rising prices of tuition, it has become a challenge for today’s students to actually use their years for their own enjoyment and benefit. Instead, many students find themselves working tirelessly to have a job during college, and to pick majors that guarantee them to be able to pass of their student loans. In Rebekah Nathan’s piece, My Freshman Year, it was highlighted that “the average student is poorer than those in the past. And although scholarships and grants have increased with tuition hikes, the raises have not been proportional” (Nathan, 150). It it unfair to expect that families will have the financial means that match the rising tuition prices over the years, especially for families who are already struggling financially to afford household items. As a nation, it is our duty to make sure that student from all socioeconomic backgrounds have an equal opportunity to pursue and fulfill their academic goals.
In a similar light, in their piece “Paying for the Party,” Armstrong and Hamilton openly shed light upon drastically different opportunities for students from varying economic classes. For those who have grown up in a lower economic class, it is much more difficult to enjoy all that college has to offer, because they spend more of their time worrying about how to afford it. On the other hand, those who are in higher economic classes find themselves getting more involved in extra-curricular activities that focus on self-discovery because they have the means to afford not only college itself, but also it’s extra perks. In the introduction to “Paying for the Party,” the lives of two students were compared and ultimately their biggest difference came down to class: “Emma and Taylor were similarly well prepared and motivated at the outset of college… Here, relatively small class differences were magnified, sending them in different directions” (A&H, 2). So, it is an unfortunate reality that socioeconomic class differences can define a college experience, and what a student gets out of their years at college. On the same note, it can be assumed that those who are well-off financially are more likely to get involved with Greek life on campus, because they have the means to afford the membership into those organizations. Joining a fraternity or sorority during college is an expensive ordeal, and it is a huge time commitment. So, those who join are assumed to be able to spend time out of the library at chapter events, and to be able to pay their dues and fees on time/in full. In Chapter five of “Paying for the Party,” it is noted that “grades, work ethic, and major did not matter much to socialites, as long as they graduated. All were strategic about staying in good standing in order to remain at college and at the party” (A&H, 130). Therefore, those who have the financial resources to afford such experiences, college can indeed be a transformative, self-discovery period. However, those who do not have the financial resources to do so are often under much more stress and pressure to spend all of their free time working and studying in order to get a high-paying job after graduation. We must come to a point in which all students feel comfortable during their college years to be free to spend their time making their own decisions, rather than being bound to the financial chains that hold them back from exploring their true identities.
I'm glad that you mention Emma and Taylor, who clearly illustrate A&H's thesis. In Chapter 7 on "Achievers" on the "Professional Pathway" who have to maintain high GPAs to go to graduate school, the authors go into greater detail about Emma and Taylor's specific college experiences that led to their divergent outcomes. One point of interest for you may be that Emma joined a sorority and took a leadership position there, which was likely among the things that affected her grades-- and thus her chances for success on the professional pathway.
DeleteHi Rebecca, its great that you bring up the point that Rebekah Nathan addresses about tuition increasing and wages not. It seems that everything today is increasing but paychecks are not. It makes it unlivable with how high the prices of the necessities are. I would like to reiterate by saying the necessities because education is a necessity. Making education unaffordable and inaccessable for minorities and the poor is unacceptable and against the law. We need to address the inequality in our education system.
ReplyDeleteQuestion 2:
ReplyDeleteThe privatization of colleges and universities have made it very difficult for many students of lower socioeconomic statuses to attend and/or enjoy their college experiences. The college years are meant to be time of self-discovery and growth, but with the rising prices of tuition, it has become a challenge for today’s students to actually use their years for their own enjoyment and benefit. Instead, many students find themselves working tirelessly to have a job during college, and to pick majors that guarantee them to be able to pass of their student loans. In Rebekah Nathan’s piece, My Freshman Year, it was highlighted that “the average student is poorer than those in the past. And although scholarships and grants have increased with tuition hikes, the raises have not been proportional” (Nathan, 150). It it unfair to expect that families will have the financial means that match the rising tuition prices over the years, especially for families who are already struggling financially to afford household items. As a nation, it is our duty to make sure that student from all socioeconomic backgrounds have an equal opportunity to pursue and fulfill their academic goals.
In a similar light, in their piece “Paying for the Party,” Armstrong and Hamilton openly shed light upon drastically different opportunities for students from varying economic classes. For those who have grown up in a lower economic class, it is much more difficult to enjoy all that college has to offer, because they spend more of their time worrying about how to afford it. On the other hand, those who are in higher economic classes find themselves getting more involved in extra-curricular activities that focus on self-discovery because they have the means to afford not only college itself, but also it’s extra perks. In the introduction to “Paying for the Party,” the lives of two students were compared and ultimately their biggest difference came down to class: “Emma and Taylor were similarly well prepared and motivated at the outset of college… Here, relatively small class differences were magnified, sending them in different directions” (A&H, 2). So, it is an unfortunate reality that socioeconomic class differences can define a college experience, and what a student gets out of their years at college. On the same note, it can be assumed that those who are well-off financially are more likely to get involved with Greek life on campus, because they have the means to afford the membership into those organizations. Joining a fraternity or sorority during college is an expensive ordeal, and it is a huge time commitment. So, those who join are assumed to be able to spend time out of the library at chapter events, and to be able to pay their dues and fees on time/in full. In Chapter five of “Paying for the Party,” it is noted that “grades, work ethic, and major did not matter much to socialites, as long as they graduated. All were strategic about staying in good standing in order to remain at college and at the party” (A&H, 130). Therefore, those who have the financial resources to afford such experiences, college can indeed be a transformative, self-discovery period. However, those who do not have the financial resources to do so are often under much more stress and pressure to spend all of their free time working and studying in order to get a high-paying job after graduation. We must come to a point in which all students feel comfortable during their college years to be free to spend their time making their own decisions, rather than being bound to the financial chains that hold them back from exploring their true identities.
It seems very unfair that two equally achieving students can end up on two very different pathways because of their family's economic status. Even a slight difference in income can make a drastic difference between two individuals with the same degree as shown by Armstrong and Hamilton when they discuss Emma and Taylor. Although Emma is still a middle class citizen, she still faces difficulties based on her economic background that place her behind someone who was born into the upper-class.
DeleteIt is very sad that this is the reality in which we are currently living. The resources a student has while in college will determine their future. Many college students would wish to join greek life, to focus only in their classes and their social life. However, not many have the privilege to not work while in school. Hundreds of middle and lower class students find the necessity to work during college to pay their tuition and their living expenses. Sadly these two students with the same aspirations and capacity ended with such different outcomes.
DeleteOnce upon a time going away to college offered students the ability to enter a “liminal” state of their lives in which they could separate themselves and their from society temporarily while they discover themselves. The excerpt from “My Freshman Year” by Rebekah Nathan focuses on this liminal, ambiguous state, “liminal people who might otherwise have differential status in the society become equals” (Nathan 147). However, with the rising cost and privatization of college education this no longer seems to be the case. Armstrong and Hamilton study students at a university in their book, “Paying for the Party,” and come to the conclusion that students in this time period are not at all equals. They categorize students into three “pathways,” or academic and social experiences. “The party pathway is provisioned to support the affluent and socially oriented; the mobility pathway is designed for the pragmatic and vocationally oriented, and the professional pathway fits ambitious students from privileged families” (Armstrong & Hamilton 15).
ReplyDeleteIn “Paying for the Party,” I chose to read the chapter focusing on strivers, or individuals who are focused on social class mobility and success. The liminal state that Nathan discusses in her excerpt is non-existent in a striver’s college experience. Strivers have to worry about their grades while also worrying about the financial burden that attending university has on themselves. This causes many students to work part-time jobs, which in turn takes time away from their studies and can sometimes lead to compromised grades. This agrees with Nathan’s thesis that universities are losing their transformative qualities on their students because students are required to focus on their futures while still receiving an education, “Burdened as they were with real-life responsibilities, strivers lacked the same license for focusing on the self as the majority of their peers” (Armstrong & Hamilton 154). Unfortunately, with the rising price tag of a college education, it has become nearly impossible for those with lower economic status to enjoy the same freedom and self-discovery time that other students enjoy. Strivers must continue their strong work ethic throughout their college education just to attempt to achieve the same benefits that those with higher economic status are handed down. The subtitle “How College Maintains Inequality” is a very fair and true statement in today’s predicament because social mobility among classes has become nearly impossible.
Hi Jane, it’s great that you bring up the point that strivers much continue to work hard to achieve the same benefits as those who are in higher economic status. It certainly is difficult for students who will have to work and study at the same time. Although education is a necessity, colleges are increasing the price of tuition and those who come from lower-income must find other ways to slowly pay for the debt. There is high inequality in today’s knowledge-based economy and high variance in experience for those who work and those who don’t during the semester.
DeleteQuestion 1:
ReplyDeleteNathan's belief on the cost of college hurting what may be an almost outside reality, where students can frolic around and generate creative ideas is wrong, along with his thesis. The promise of “liminality” is not endangered, it never existed. It solely ever existed for the wealthy who have the luxury of enjoying “liminality”, regardless of where they attended. Armstrong and Hamilton quote the early 20th century president of Princeton university describing it as a “the finest country club in America”(A&H 11). The country club stands for a community only enjoyed by the wealthy. Armstrong and Hamilton tell the story of Taylor and Emma who are two Midwest University students who begin college in the same dorm, the findings by them highlight a major flaw in Nathans thesis. Taylor and Emma enter college both wanting to become dentists. Taylor is from a more affluent family so is able to afford more luxuries in college to ensure her success. Emma ends up falling through the cracks and seems to fall in socioeconomic status. When they first began school, due to the big difference in wealth, Emma was set to fail. She was a product of her circumstances, prior to entering college, so Nathan’s idea of an almost outside world is not true. Emma took the party pathway not because she was exploring her creativity, she did not know any better. At a big university, the place may feel like its enormous, and one may follow what they believe is the place where all students will be, sometimes that may be parties. Taylor may have been able to afford more clubs(as they all cost money) and was able to narrow the big university into various small communities where she may realize that not everyone is at the party, and she may choose to further improve herself. Another example of how more students are realizing how connected the two supposed worlds are, is following the death of a Penn State student. When everything hit the fan with a death it was a shock to many people, that if someone can die here, than it may not be a utopia and that they have a long life ahead to plan for. A major contradiction between the two literatures is Nathan believes “upward mobility is a privilege for the elite”(Nathan 151). While Armstrong and Hamilton believe “The mobility pathway provides vocational training to anyone who is willing to work hard to acquire it”(A&H 16). To argue against Nathan, one can ask how much more upward mobility is left for the elite? What would follow? Super Elite? Universities do not inhibit socioeconomic mobility but they certainly do not promote it.
In your last statement, you mention that you do not think that Universities inhibit socioeconomic mobility but rather they do not promote it-- and I can agree to a point that maybe a student coming from a low income family that is already enrolled in a University would probably have better chances of socioeconomic mobility. However, with Universities hiking up their tuition costs, I think its fair to say that a student who cannot afford to go to college would be inhibited from traditional socioeconomic mobility. Maybe the university itself does not inhibit the mobility, but the tuition cost surely could.
DeleteQuestion #1:
ReplyDeleteWith the cost of public universities constantly rising, there aren’t as many students that are able to both represent all social classes and races while still living a ‘care free’ lifestyle. The definition of ‘liminal’ is a descriptive word for an environment where a young adult doesn’t have to follow all the rules of a normal society. It used to be that college students were thrown into this environment that they had never experienced before, but they had every other freshman at the school to connect with and every new student was on an equal playing field going through the same changes of lifestyle. While many students here at Rutgers who experience college that way, there are still many kids that are now taking on multiple jobs while being a student and commuting to and from class that do not necessarily get the ‘traditional’ experience of the liminal college life. I would say that the price changes for universities has made the ‘playing field’ a lot less even. There is a divide in social and economic classes in college and I think its particularly relevant in sororities. Characters like Blair, the ‘wannabe’, in Armstrong and Hamiltons book, is set back in her ventures into her sorority because of her lack of purses and her inability to be carefree with her money. Blair’s college experience was a lot less ‘liminal’ because she recognized the gap between her and some of the others girls in her pledge class or sorority. I think college used to be a place where people could test out different paths that they may or may not want to take in life without having all of the consequences— it has turned into a place where people are so focused on working to pay of debt or trying to make sure their GPA is good enough to get a good paying job after college, that the boundaries has tightened on what a student can and cannot get away with. Your freshman year you connect with all of your floor mates and classmates, mainly because you are all going through the same thing. But each semester you break off from those people, you go your separate ways. The people who can afford to join Greek life do, the people who can afford graduate school go and the people who have connections tend to get good jobs easily. While it makes sense that college should be a ‘liminal’ space, that liminality doesn’t really last past freshman year and it doesn’t necessarily apply to everyone anymore. I think Armstrong and Hamilton’s subtitle, “How College Maintains Inequality”, calls out both college institutions and the outside world on how not everyone has an equal playing field no matter their talent and their GPA— which is what the idea of ‘liminality’ dismisses.
I agree and also think it's sad how students going in with equal qualifications will not get to have the same opportunities or experiences due to their financial situations. It's unfair how the experience of "liminal college life" isn't guaranteed to ever student. Like the example you highlighted about Blair not feeling like she could join a sorority due to her financial limitations, many other students probably have to struggle with similar constraints during their college experience.
DeleteAshley, I like how you used Blair as an example of how her college liminal experience was hurt by the pressures of Greek Life. It's ironic how something that is supposed to build relationships, and a sense of community, can also reinforce inequalities. Blair's 'wannabe' status as someone who lacks the financial freedom that her friends do can actually made her feel like an outsider to them. I agree that the liminal experience only truly lasts for the first few months of your freshman year. Freshman are finding their place, and are new to college. They meet a variety of people, looking to find true friends and they search for the majors they want to study and clubs that interest them. Once they find their place however, they stop exploring and stick to their comfort zones. This severely limits the liminal experience and shows how college can be a detriment to the transitional perieod.
DeleteIn most aspects, college is a ‘liminal’ space for self-discovery. The institution which students now go to gives freedom for individuals to truly express themselves and engage in new ideas to become better people. However, with the strain of privatization and growing economic concern of low-income families, college has become less of a place of freedom and has gotten more competitive. In Rebekah Nathan’s My Freshman Year, the author discusses the shifting college culture from a safe space to be with students of the same age group to colleges acting more like businesses. Nathan says, "It is no wonder that students are increasingly attracted to majors with clearly associated job titles, that most students need to work while going to school, and that undergraduates' priorities include getting good grades and positioning themselves for the labor force through internships and targeted volunteerism" (Nathan 150-151). True to this, college has once been a pathway to the middle class in this knowledge-based economy. Pressure to go college has increased over the years to which those who earn degrees in higher education earn significantly more than those who do not go to college. Students who are in economic pressure and choosing more pragmatic majors and are told that they will be less likely to be unemployed in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe cold reality is, with the privatization of college and increasing prices of tuition, students who come from low-income families, often work to pay for their own studies. In Armstrong and Hamilton’s “Paying for the Party”, chapter 6 includes an except about ‘strivers’ or students who work and study at the same time. The author includes the experiences of a college student, Amanda, who had to work to make ends meet. She describes that if she did not have to work while at college, her experience would have been completely different and able to go out more and have more fun (Armstrong, Hamilton 154). For students who have to work and study at the same time, college is no longer a rite of passage to becoming adults for them. With increasing demands to do well, I believe it is difficult to make college a place where low-income students can freely choose how they would like to live. In essence, “adult realities” have caught up to students who struggle to balance their work and school lives. Students are pushed to strive for practical studies that will allow them to have better resources for the future. Armstrong and Hamilton’s subtitle, “How College Maintains Inequality” holds true today of the increasing difficulty that students have to go through to have social mobility to reach the meaning of the “American Dream”.
Question 2: Privatization increases pressure on less affluent students by putting the added stress of money on them on top of the already competitive nature of school work. As Armstrong and Hamilton illustrate in their findings the women they studied that were from less privileged families were "less likely to have the funds, time, social tastes, and knowledge necessary to successfully engage in college social life" (pg. 6). This puts an increased value on family resources because students who come from affluent families basically come in with an advantage over the students without these resources. Students from less affluent families are the ones most harmed by privatization because they are the ones who will feel the financial burden that comes with privatization. They will have to figure out how to maintain a job, make high enough grades to be competitive with the rest of their class, and some how also try to have a successful social life where they can engages and gain connections.
ReplyDeleteThis also greats a divide among college students where some have a greater competitive advantage because students from affluent families are able to take more advantage of the resources provided to them both in college and outside of college because they don't have the financial burden of students from lower income families. Because these students don't have to stress about money they most likely won't have to maintain a job and will have to time to dedicate to additional programs outside of their studies such as Greek life or other clubs on campus. Also they will probably have the means to enjoy opportunities such as studying abroad and traveling which can be practically impossible for students who are already struggling to pay for their current tuition without the added expenses. All of these added experiences can ultimately give these more affluent students a competitive advantage when applying to graduate schools and post undergrad programs in order continuing their studies, which in the current job market, is necessary for high paying careers.
Hey Caroline,
DeleteI really liked your point about more affluent students being able to enjoy opportunities such as studying abroad. Opportunities like those are simply unavailable to less affluent students who do not have the funds to make them happen. I think this goes hand in hand with the decline of liminal space for the majority of college students. Opportunities like studying abroad are perfect examples of what should be involved in the college experience so young adults can find themselves and grow into mature adults in society. Unfortunately, the majority of students do not come from affluent families, and these types of experiences that help a person grow are unavailable to them.
Option #1:
ReplyDeleteUnder privatization, universities have completed shifted in terms of what a student takes away from their time spent as an undergrad. Whereas once the four undergraduate years were a chance to find yourself and a major that will keep you happy in the long run, now the average student is forced to focus on a practical major, or risk the possibility of regret. Nathan’s argument connects this idea to many of the ‘wannabes’ described in “Paying for the Party”. In particular a woman named Nicole who majored in public relations, found it impossible to find a job in her area of study post-graduation. She was later forced to go back to school for a degree in the more practical area of teaching. She was said to even be “repeating portions of her undergraduate degree” (Armstrong & Hamilton, 145). This suggests that had her priorities originally included “getting good grades and positioning [herself] for the labor force” (Nathan, 151), as supported by Nathan’s thesis, in her original undergraduate years she would not have been put into the position to be forced to go back to school. Many of the other ‘wannabes’ found themselves in similar situations. It is no coincidence that these so called ‘wannabes’ are made up of the middle class, whereas the ‘socialites’ are the upper class. College is no longer a liminal space of freedom and transformation as the average, middle class student is backed into a corner with such a select few majors that will lead to a promising future and that chance for upward mobility. The only students with a true chance to explore the liminality that is college are the affluent socialites. Their connections and parental support post-graduation lead to never having to worry about the risks of not choosing a practical major. Thus, the possibility of college once again becoming a place where people have options is dependent on a big change. In order to once again transform into that place, funding will once again need to shift to benefit all classes so that those who do not have connections or financial security can chose a path of study without worry for the future.
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteStudents that come from affluent families have a greater chance to do better academically and post university. This is a common theme that we have seen throughout the many decades of studies dealing with higher learning. Due to less affluent students doing worse than their counterparts, they are the ones who will be the most negatively affected by privatization. According to the article by Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura Hamilton, affluent students are so successful because of parental support. In Armstrong and Hamilton’s study, Taylor— came from an affluent family— was able to exercise mobility because she was successful in college and acquired a well paying job. Taylor does not depend on an outside source in the way that Emma does. Emma had to move because she acquired a low-paying job and her boyfriend who is in the military has a great deal of benefits which can help Emma if she were to marry him. The article goes on to say that “many other large schools currently organize the college experience systematically disadvantages all but the most affluent” (Armstrong and Hamilton 3). A high source of income from students’ families gives an advantage to affluent students in “college access, admission, performance, and graduation” (3). One may deduce that low-income students are most likely going to be the majority at community colleges since affluent families will be able to fund their child’s education. The article goes on to say that “Emma’s failure to persist in her pursuit of a dental career had everything to do with the structure of the pathways available to her” (8). With money, more and more pathways are available for one to succeed.
College has undoubtedly become less of a liminal space for self discovery and personal transformation under privatization, and more of a place to start building the foundation of your life: career, financial stability, and professional networking. Because students are focused on obligations that will ground them after college, they cannot afford to waste time on discovering themselves during this “liminal space”. Nathan describes this liminal space as undergraduate culture “where students bond with one another...explore their identities, wrestle with their parents’ world, and wonder about their future” (147). When taking a look at Emma and Taylor’s different situations in “Paying for the Party”, you can see the advantages that come with a student who has a better financial situation than those who come from low-income backgrounds. Emma’s low-income led her to depend on her boyfriend post her undergraduate career and Taylor, with a more comfortable financial situation, with parents “prepared to continue to cushion her transition to adulthood with substantial subsidies” (Armstrong, 2), was admitted into dental school with no rush to settle down with the intention of depending on a male for financial stability. Social class mobility limits a student in various ways, including limiting them from this liminal space one is expected to touch on during their college years. Students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds “dig deep into sparse family resources, take out loans, and work long hours to make college a possibility...these students seek practical majors and prioritize securing a credential leading to gainful employment” (Armstrong, 12). This centered focus on their schoolwork, lack of time, and very scarce monetary resources don’t allow them the leeway of self exploration during college because they’re too busy on making it. Adult realities intrude on liminal space because of this; “they work long hours to support themselves in the hope of completing a degree that would translate into secure employment” (Armstrong, 23). Therefore college no longer becomes this liminal space because too many students are at a disadvantage monetarily. It’s possible to make college a place where people can freely choose the pathway to their life, but this ability to choose may be guided by one’s financial situation.
ReplyDeleteThe minority races and people with less money are harmed by privatization. The white and wealthy students have the advantage during privatization of college. They are able to afford to go to great colleges and buy everything they need (books, tutors, extra help, etc). The less affluent students are affected by college costs, because they are not able to afford it. This causes students to have to work one or more jobs, and possibly their parents, trying to pay for tuition. This pressure is horrible because students already have to worry about their studies, and now costs of college. The huge amount of debt also weighs on the student because they have to worry about that as well. In ‘My Freshman Year’ by Rebekah Nathan, she talks about the pressure on students to study, get good grades, and work to have money. She says, “… that most students need to work while going to school, and that undergraduates’ priorities include getting good grades and positioning themselves or the labor force through internships and targeted volunteerism” (Nathan 151). There is a lot of pressure on the less affluent students because the goal is to get a great job out of college, but there is so much that needs to be done to get there, and its hard. In ‘Paying for the Party’, Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Laura T. Hamilton talk about and compare two students. They were both great girls but one got better grades than the other. They introduce these girls in the introduction saying, “Emma and Taylor were similarly well prepared and motivated at the outset of college… Here, relatively small class differences were magnified, sending them in different directions” (A&H, 2). What Armstrong and Hamilton meant by this, was that it was very unfortunate that because of their class and economic status, it affected their academics. One of the girls became very successful, while the other was not, and worked at a job she did not like. It is unfortunate that because of how much money a student has and what class they’re from, it affects their academics. This is not how it should be, in my personal opinion. I can personally relate to this as well, because I am putting myself through college basically, with the help of financial aid. I work a lot at my job to afford school, and work hard at college. I try to not let my job get in the way of my academics, because school is very important to me.
ReplyDeleteI think in a lot of ways, college is less of a liminal space for self-discovery and/or personal transformation under privatization. As the years progress, college only gets more and more expensive which makes it harder to afford. The main point of college is to get a degree and find a job to support yourself and your family in the future. Minor aspects of college are gaining independence, finding yourself, making friends, enjoying that part of life between being a teenager and an adult. Because college is only getting more expensive, students are highly focused on school and doing well. Nathan writes, “It is no wonder that students are increasingly attracted to majors with clearly associated job titles, and that students need to work while going to school, and that undergraduates priorities include getting good grades and positioning themselves for the labor force through internships and targeted volunteerism” (pg 151). Since students are focusing more on their studies, their jobs, and their internships, it makes it harder to focus on the minor aspects of college that I feel are just as important. There are only 24 hours in a day and 7 days in a week, finding time for EVERY aspect of college seems almost impossible. College is becoming more like an entry ticket into the job world and less of a time to explore yourself.
ReplyDeleteDorming on campus plays a huge role in helping students navigate through the minor aspects of college that are still important as the major ones as I mentioned previously. Dorming can either be an extremely positive or extremely negative experience, which can affect the rest of the college experience for a student. I read the chapter 4 “The Floor” of Paying for the Party. It was about how on this floor of a dormitory, one side was called “the social side” and the other side was called “the dark side” simply because they were isolates. But we learn in the chapter that the girls on the social side were a large part of why there was such a divide between the floor, since they would exclude the quiet girls. Armstrong and Hamilton mentioned how throughout the year, the girls who were never included became less sociable, slipped in and out quietly, and always kept their door shut, some might have become depressed. It’s really hard to focus on homework, exams, jobs, and internships when something major takes the place of those focuses. In chapter 4, they write, “Regardless, placement in a party dorm increased the odds of certain students finding themselves without social ties, and this, for some, reinforced or intensified existing issues” (pg 108). Some of these women had issues for the rest of college. Students do experience loneliness and depression on a college campus even if it’s a huge school, so social ties with others help avoid certain issues. Dealing with mental health issues, or friendship issues, or dorming issues, or life issues in general all take away from the major aspects of college and even the minor aspects. In present day, I truly think college is a much harder place for self-discovery and personal transformation because of privation and the social aspect of college.
I completely agree with you on the fact that college has minor aspects needing attention in order to grasp the understanding of one's identity. it is unfair that students are basically forced to follow the route of becoming a stem major because everything else is viewed as unsuccessful. people should be allowed to transform and follow their passion, not focus on becoming something they don't want to be.
DeleteQuestion 2:
ReplyDeleteThe privatization of colleges ever since the beginning has been harsh on those who do not come from a wealthy background. If an individual is more affluent and come from a wealthier background, they have a higher chance of going to a four year public or private college because they can afford to do so. But as a minority who isn't as wealthy, it is harder for a person to make the decision to accumulate a significant amount of debt over four years. At the same time, they would most likely have to work because they cannot rely on their family's support to survive by themselves when attending a four year university. In Rebekah Nathan's My Freshman Year, she explains that "To reduce running debt even higher, students must now work and go to school at the same time, which has the added corollary of compressing their academic activity into even smaller time slots." So Rebekah Nathan explains, not only are the poorer college students coming in with a disadvantage, they continue being at a disadvantage throughout their "liminal" state in college because they have to balance work with their academic studies.
In the introduction of Armstrong and Hamilton's, Paying of the Party, two college students with different backgrounds are compared to one another to see how they perform in their studies as well as their extracurricular activities. Each take different pathways to their success but the wealthy student with the support of her parents has an advantage in that she can enjoy her college experience more because she isn't being constrained by money, and in turn, time since working was not a necessity for her. In chapter 4, the girls are compared with one another through greek standards and when a girl was in the upper class, she didn't have to try as hard as her middle class floor mate to get into a sorority and have fun. For example Karen, an attractive female with everything but coming from a middle class background did not receive the bids to the house she wanted most likely because of her wealth which can be seen through her wardrobe and personality. Another middle class student, Blair, turned to alcohol when she didn't have the right guidance from her parent or wasn't as experienced as wealthy student in high school.
You can conclude that although it may seem like everyone starts off in the same position when they first get to college, there are many social factors that affects one's experience. As we read last week, Cooper states that since the privatization of colleges began, family dependence becomes increasingly higher, and this holds true more than ever today. With social and academic factors taken into consideration, family guidance will shape the individual's path through out college, which eventually shapes their careers after college.
College was once a place where students can figure out their identity and their sole purpose in society, but that all changed when the privatization of college came around. As children we were always told to find something we love doing and major on it because in the near future, if you don't love your career job then you will hate working and pretty much dislike everything. However, the task of "simply" finding that one thing is actually very complicated since majority of jobs are offered to stem majors and anything else barely receives recognition. The privatization of college limits the level of choosing for undergraduates and forces them to focus on majoring in either the mathematical or scientific fields of study. Anything else would be viewed as a waste of time and parental funding. As opposed to college being a state of expression, now college is a place where we breed doctors, engineers, etc. Only select majors guarantee jobs in the future, making it almost impossible to express yourself. Now instead of people identifying themselves, they are programmed to be like each other. The liminal life of college culture doesn't allow room for inspiration and a newly changed version of society. This division between lower income families and majority whites , stands as a reflection of the unfair and unjust ruling of human nature. Since when was college a place where someone is forced to act a certain way or else they will experience failure. In the reading "My freshman year" the rite of passage is used to describe the college experience. college is the only place in society where people should be allowed to express "because here people slip through the cracks of normal cultural classifications and roles, they get the chance to catch glimpses of themselves when not embedded in structure, unleashing uncanny new visions". Without new visions and new perspectives on society how does a society grow and shape new ideas for the better and become newly improved ?
ReplyDeleteQuestion Option #2:
ReplyDeleteThe privatization of higher education disproportionately affects students whose families either cannot or will not cover the cost of tuition. Students who receive increasingly selective merit scholarships or have families with the means to pay for college have a substantially easier time attending college. In Paying for the Party, Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Laura T. Hamilton describe two students who come from very similar backgrounds yet follow diverging trajectories after college. The student from an upper-middle-class background is able to maintain a competitive GPA and attend a reputable Dental School, putting her on the path to remaining in the upper-middle-class. The student from a middle-class background is not able to attend graduate school and has a greater student loan burden because her parents cannot help her pay for her undergraduate degree. Privatization reduces the amount of need-based and merit-based scholarship funds available to prospective college students, and directly affects their ability to compete with higher income, economically insulated peers. Privatization also disproportionately affects minorities, who are less likely to have the means to pay for college themselves. As Melinda Cooper points out in In Loco Parentis, “16 percent of whites held student loan debt, compared to 34 percent of African Americans and 28 percent of Hispanics” (Cooper 250). Privatization strengthens the economic disparity between students of different races, and erects barriers that prevent minorities from attending college.
During college those that gain competitive advantage are usually the white students who come from wealthy backgrounds. These wealthy students have the financial support of their families. They do not have the burden of having to find a job because their parents will support them while they are in college and in many cases, they will still support them once graduated. They are typically told to focus in doing good in school, in making connections, to stand out and to work on their degree. In the introduction of “Paying for the party” by Elizabeth A. Armstrong and Laura T. Hamilton, it is said, “generous parental support had allowed her (Taylor) to graduate with no debt, despite having to pay for out-of-state tuition. Her parents were prepared to continue to cushion her transition to adulthood with substantial subsidies.” Which shows how minimal stress Taylor a student aiming for dental school had to face when thinking about financial support. Taylor’s financial advantage allowed her to enjoy college, to discover herself and to decide what and how she would act during her 4 years. On the other hand, Emma her roommate had no other choice than to go back and live with her parents once she graduated. This shows us how the most harmed by privatization are the middle and lower-class students attending college. These students do not have the essentials given to them to succeed in college. They must work to remain in school. Usually they do not have the writing skills, the latest fashion clothing, shoes, or accessories, and especially they do not have a high balance account. These middle-class students rely on their parents to pay their tuition and to take loans. They are usually not able to go away for spring break or to join Greek life because of the high fees and dues. Or those who can meet the minimal requirements and do join Greek life typically face humiliations. In “Paying for the Party it is mentioned in chapter 5, “Both of these women eventually ended in the same low-ranking house, seemingly as a result of fairly minor social mistakes. Looks did not always make up for lack of money and lack of savvy.” Their background would always represent them and even though as hard as they tried to impress sorority girls the top sororities did not chose them. It is not true that every student has the same opportunities and not every organization promotes or accepts diversity. Therefore, privatization does increase pressure on less affluent students and it increases the value of the families resources.
ReplyDelete