Discussion on Socioeconomic Status

If I were in the movie Inside Out, the interaction that I had this morning would be one that made a little mini island pop up outside of my brain control center. I kid you not; I had an out of body experience. Never in my life have I experienced such a blinding anger.

This class has been somewhat the bane of my Tuesday/Thursday existence all semester. It is an 8am discussion class, and a man who is the chair of the local Board of Democrats facilitates it. This is incredibly apparent in his facilitation "style." But, for the most part, he doesn't facilitate as much as ask leading questions.

For example: he will assert an idea as truth like "LinkedIn accounts and elevator pitches are dull and pointless" and then follow it up with a question that doesn't even allow us to disagree like "Why do you think that elevator pitches are dull and pointless?"

I have found several of our class discussions incredibly problematic. Most notably: our course discussion about diversity wherein the only people talking were the white people? And most recently, our discussion on socioeconomic status and the role it plays in an individual's cultural capital. (The functioning definition for this one seemed to be whether or not you were "cultured"/whether or not you could afford to go to the opera.)

I'm not entirely clear on what the end point of this discussion was supposed to be. All that I know is that the flow of conversation took us from the idea of cultural capital to socioeconomic status (and how that affects how much "social capital" you possess) to how much more susceptible college students of low socioeconomic statuses are to getting dragged into the party scene.

We were sourcing an excerpt that we had read from Paying for the Party by Elizabeth A. Armstrong.

Essentially, she had set up shop in McNutt (IU's notorious party dorm) to study sex and relationships in college, but ended up studying another cultural facet of college life here instead. They tracked several women who were placed in McNutt their freshman year, and saw where those individuals were five years later. The excerpt that we read essentially asserted that the women from low socioeconomic backgrounds were significantly more likely to get sucked into the party side of college.

In my own personal experience, this is not untrue. I have watched dozens of people from my high school and from my 21st Century Scholars program party too hard and burn out in the first year I've been here. I do not know why this is happening to my poor friends significantly more than my financially well off ones, but I am witness to this fact for sure. (I am also not saying that their decisions were good ones, but just that I don't think that their lack of structure or guidance on the matter is necessarily their fault, either.)

Being a first generation college student is hard. It is very cool, but it is harder. You're drastically less likely to finish a full four years, and there are programs in place that try to help us.

Before we launch into my interpretation of this discussion, I need to throw out there that I was raised in a low income family, and have a "poor" mindset. I do not feel like there is shame in having to go to the food pantry when you and your children are hungry. My mother taught us to understand that pride gets you nowhere in life.

I do feel, however, that someone who has never had to swallow their pride -- or watch their parents swallow theirs -- has no place to comment [at least not judgmentally] on the matter. Which posed a problem in this discussion class.

So it started off okay. I don't think that there is any topic that should not be discussed. I do think that it needs to be done right, though.

The conversation was centered around the difference in growing up in a lower income area vs. growing up wealthy. The conversation moved to a lack of common ground between the college educated and the "lower"/"working" classes. It began to take a turn, though, when the conversation took a turn and got into whether or not people who are poor have the time and money to go to "cultural events" or to read Shakespeare when they're dealing with abusive homes/a lack of food.

I found issue with this vast generalization, regardless of the intentions. Those speaking were attempting to empathize with the potential plights of the poor, but were not speaking about these people as if they were humans. We were sitting in our small classroom on the third floor of Ballantine Hall looking down on and dehumanizing real people.

Then, someone in my class who I often disagree with (student A) made a joke about the lack of potential for the poor to attend cultural events. They said "maybe they only have the opportunity to go to the free dance around the pole event in town." At which point I responded (with composure) that just because their experiences and events may be different from the wealthy's, it doesn't take away from their cultural value and importance.

Keeping that in mind, often traditionally low income areas are hubs for art and creativity. When (often white) people of higher socioeconomic statuses start noticing the art/music that is being created in places (like Detroit) they start moving in. Often, their food is more traditional, their music more original, and their experiences more individualized. It's the starting point for gentrification. It is literally why gentrification happens.

My instructor tried to smooth that over, and say that while that was correct, the point was that there is a difference between their experiences and ours. However, he could see my building frustration and directed the class to move to discuss Armstrong's Paying for the Party. Someone raised their hand to comment on a difference in risks. I appreciated the point, because it's a completely separate set of consequences. If someone who is here on need-based scholarships

Unfortunately, as soon as he had mentioned the reading, Student A's hand shot straight up. I sat back and tried to separate myself from the conversation. Student A began speaking. I failed.

Student A said they hated the people in the case study. That they would never be friends with those women. That they had been at college for two years and hadn't gone to any parties, so it wasn't that difficult to avoid. That their parents hadn't raised them to be responsible and make good life and/or financial decisions. That they were really just lazy.

And then all I really remembered was feeling my heart beating, and then only being able to hear my heart beating and then my entire body shaking. It was at that point that I just went off. I don't remember much of what I said, it was almost an out of body experience and I was not in control.

I do know, however, that I pointed out the elitism and how upsetting it was that the general air of the conversation was looking down upon the less wealthy.

The fundamental difference between a rich person messing up and partying too hard in college and a poor person doing the same thing is the level of risk involved. If someone is attending college on need-based scholarships, then that is most likely their only chance to do so. If they mess up, and don't maintain their grades or get caught breaking certain rules then they are out of luck. People from wealthier socioeconomic backgrounds can fall back on their parents, and hang around an extra semester to make up for bad grades - or they have more time on their hands because they don't have to work to pay for school. If your time isn't being spent working/doing your work studies, then maybe you can party and still have time to study. 

Honestly, I am sick and tired of the middle class and upper middle class kids treating the impoverished students there on scholarship as if they do not deserve to be there. I remember people in high school telling me that they "were so close to qualifying" for the program that I was in. I had dozens of people say that they had to "actually work for" their scholarships. 

Honestly, even applying to college when you're from a home where no one has gone to college/it was never financially feasible is hard. There is no one to tell you what college is like besides it's representations in the media. No one is there to guide you and tell you how many credit hours are normal. No one knows the ropes when move in day comes, and you're lucky if your parents come help you. 

I have never felt like I deserved the scholarships that I have, and I've worried that someone needed them more. The fact that these people walk around feeling like they deserve more of a discount on their college education is honestly just a testament to their entitlement.