Self imposed segregation. No different than HBCUs. Many groups lecture about how it is essential to have a diverse student body, but institutions like this seek to achieve the opposite. If diversity of ideas is a strength, then these institutions fail in that regard.
I would assume the percentages are small, but I have met a few white people who graduated from an HCBU.
"Systematically" discriminated against? You mean Admissions people sit around and say, "This person is a great candidate, but he's straight and white! That's so unfortunate!" It does not work that way, sir. Schools are striving for diversity and inclusiveness, worthy goals for any university student body and for society at large. If you want to say it's become more competitive for straight white (and Asian) males, go right ahead. But nobody is being systematically discriminated against, the way certain minorities were for decades in this country.
"ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS: Historically underrepresented populations in the finance industry include: Women, Hispanic, Black, Veterans, disabled, LGBTQ+, and first-generation college student populations. Undergrads with graduation dates between December 2025 – June 2026. Participation in Early Insights does not guarantee selection for the summer analyst program. Employment decisions at Morgan Stanley are based on merit and do not discriminate against any individual on the basis of their race, gender or other protected status."
It's funny that they claim they don't discriminate yet specifically exclude only straight white and Asian males.
to answer the guy questioning why the thread has any length, it's because cardboard cutout stereotype ideas do not equal THE NUMBERS BEING CITED ON PAGE 1. some people are responding to the stereotypes. some people are like the numbers are fake.
if you look up a rank of gay friendly schools the place listed #1 in one such ranking someone says maybe 20% or so gay there. the general population figure thrown around is like 10% or less. to then say oh 70% must be right is crazy. to say oh it's right and the result of some sort of liberal groupthink loop is adding bigotry to that crazy.
any skeptical person worth their salt including CONSERVATIVES should be responding like this is junk. the high # are bad, too high. the low # are bad, still at population norms at unfriendly institutions most gay people would avoid.
VIT - I think a rigorous liberal arts degree can be very valuable. But your explication completely ignores the very serious problem with student loan debt. Paying those debts is a significant burden to many, and the problem isn't with conservatives who use actual numbers. Low default rates are misleading in a sense. You are dealing with a responsible population with Oberlin grads. They get a great education by and large and have a sense of discipline. But having to pay loans which are issued on horrid terms is a real grind. Often a life changing grind. I started out in very severe single mother poverty, so I don't minimize the burdens that debt can cause. So value today is indeed very important. A gender studies from my school, a so-called high prestige school, is likely valuable at some point because of the communication skills obtained (I was a double major liberal arts person at this school). But moving forward often involves more school and more debt, at prices much much higher on a relative basis than in the past. You wrongly state the issue is the campaign against liberal arts. Sure, it exists but I think rather the rather the expensive cost is the problem, especially when you add in above everything else opportunity cost, which is not "free". This is not a conservative or liberal position - it is one that simply makes sense. My kids went to Princeton and I could afford it with no debt or discomfort. They didn't think of value, but they concede that they were in the extreme minority, especially since they knew the circumstances from which I sprung.
Trades do not belong to poor people. In fact, one of the trends in the suburb where i live is that middle class and higher young people are taking up trades. Many of them are not the least bit precarious and make a lot of sense in the labor market. A young man around the corner went to an excellent auto mechanics trade school. His mother persuaded him that given his slack study habits (a great kid by the way) and his penchant for all things mechanical trade school was a wise choice for him. His peers gave him a bit of a rough time - they share your unfounded perceptions. He sends them postcards from Germany when he travels there for mechanical training with the manufacturer. He is getting cross trained in EV's so your statement re precariousness doesn't make much sense to me. He is desirable in the dating market which makes me chuckle as I talk to his worrisome mother! The ROI for some trades is terrific - and they are not - as you wrong imply - jobs for the uneducated. I don't mean to sound harsh but the trades make far more sense than going away in directional U and majoring in animal house, with parents taking on parent plus loans and all that. The auto repair market is completely absurd. Every single shop is short on certified mechanics, meaning looking for a job is not difficult and good ones make over 100k. My high school friend's son (a runner) went to trade school and just had to live in Boulder (not sure I blame him). He is a mechanic at a well respected brand, owns a $600k house which he bought three years ago, and his major complaint is that there is such a shortage of labor he is cranking out too much overtime (they pay him, but working 6 days a week in the shop can grind on you, especially when a recall hits and he is doing major component replacements one after another). He is not in any way in a precarious position.His aunt who I dated in high school fusses about who he is dating. I remind her nephew has remarkably launched and does not need to worry about that for now! A true first world problem!
We are talking about a labor market here - not politics
you misunderstand my points. my point is to poor people a trade offers a solid middle-to-low class salary BUT in the big picture is a poor route to being a millionaire or elite in some sort of upper class field. it may "kind of" lift some folks up, but a trade qualifies you to do a specific job A and is generally not considered a ticket to also do trades B C D.
to middle class people college offers a limited undergraduate tool to a middle class job. it might be a little easier to try and be a millionaire with a business degree. but there are tons like you. a degree is seen as opening some lateral doors B C. such as teaching or other jobs that require a sheepskin. this is improvement over a trade as if your trade goes away -- coal mining -- you are stuck, but a business student can change businesses, become a teacher, get an office job. to me middle class folks these days -- reflected in republican ideas -- fetishize what they see as practical degrees. they are less concerned with preparing your overall mind, learning about the world, etc. there are still vestiges of training = job.
to wealthy people, as someone suggested on oberlin, daddy can afford school without help and bail out any failures so they are freer to pursue their interests, learn about the world, and pursue longer term strategies where they break in leading professions, not just a middle class business job that delivers them back to the suburbs. to point to what i mean --- the leading major at yale many years is history. which is the very sort of major many state schools are axeing as impractical. yale students doing that aren't all future history teachers. it reflects confidence everything will all work out and an assumption they are next off to grad school. so at undergrad they are thinking "preparation for life" as opposed to "job." and they will ironically GET BETTER JOBS afterwards.
desantis and his ilk should know better. desantis, on the way to law school, was a yale history major playing baseball. how is that practical, ron? it only prepared you to be a wealthy presidential candidate!
personally i see what is happening is rich folks grasp what matters is WHERE you go, while middle class folks who are bright enough to see education provides a better ladder up than a trade, often trip over the hurdle of INVESTING IN THEMSELVES. the last thing you skimp on is your ladder up.
i get what the poster is saying about how some kids at oberlin are going to turn out fine anyway. daddy has some money. it only gets worse at the ivies and i have some experience at this from a summer program there. everyone and their dog came across like they were from money. i have never felt so out of place from a class perspective. and to some extent to a stats mindset their success is foreordained. BUT to make the right sort of connections it helps to GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF IT ANYWAY. it is a confirmation of status. they can then choose whether to use that status for continued riches in certain fields, or to pursue the arts, or to teach, which might be less reliably wealth-creating.
those schools are actually the biggest ladder for middle and lower class, who are handed the golden ticket and can then use it like an upper class person if they want. they can major in history and go to yale law. they can major in math and do finance. they can major in liberal arts and know the worst case scenario is they go to their choice of grad school and get plum teaching jobs. do you want to be the boss on purpose or do you want to be the worker bee on purpose.
sorry but if my kid has talent they are going to as good a school as they can get in because that choice alone writes their ticket. you can skate yale -- like bush did -- and have a huge future. everything else is preparation to be an employee and to have to work your tail off to get made rich or a boss.
this is not dissing hard work. this is saying picking a trade guarantees a life of hard work to get by and to have any chance at wealth vs. a middle class degree choice makes you a dime a dozen but worthy of the suburbs vs. going to a good school and majoring in "whatever" sets you up to pick your ticket.
if your kid was lazy in school or has no interest in school, yeah, a trade is not a bad idea, you too might make the suburbs if you are lucky, but it also reflects your kid has set themselves up on a trajectory with a chunk of the country with/without a HS diploma who tend to have low average incomes. you may be the hard working lucky exception who makes their way in a trade but it's people trying to buck what is otherwise a low-or-mid-class trajectory for most people with that education level.
last i think there is a hefty bit of revisionist history going on. you goof through HS and have no interest in college, yeah, a trade is a way up. but your trajectory otherwise was poverty or mom's basement couch. i have no issue with selling that. but this new push to convince people who did ok in HS, you don't need college, that's not what the stats say, on average. and my personal experience is whatever education people think they need is probably less than what it takes to come out on top these days. i found getting a job in my field to be tough. i didn't get the sort of job i thought i was worthy of until i did a masters in my field. teaching people they need less education in that global job market reality is a borderline fib. you have to find some way to be unique to an employer. for most people it takes "more" and not "less" and you cannot legislate it away or fix it by dropping majors from your college.
How is this shocking? Super liberal colleges. And in general, a lot of kids now (not majority, but many more than I went to school in the ‘90s and ‘00s) identifying as bi or questioning. And at the end of the day, they’ll probably end up settling down with a partner of the opposite sex bc the bi or q was a “phase.”
i get what the poster is saying about how some kids at oberlin are going to turn out fine anyway. daddy has some money. it only gets worse at the ivies and i have some experience at this from a summer program there. everyone and their dog came across like they were from money. i have never felt so out of place from a class perspective. and to some extent to a stats mindset their success is foreordained. BUT to make the right sort of connections it helps to GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF IT ANYWAY. it is a confirmation of status. they can then choose whether to use that status for continued riches in certain fields, or to pursue the arts, or to teach, which might be less reliably wealth-creating.
those schools are actually the biggest ladder for middle and lower class, who are handed the golden ticket and can then use it like an upper class person if they want. they can major in history and go to yale law. they can major in math and do finance. they can major in liberal arts and know the worst case scenario is they go to their choice of grad school and get plum teaching jobs. do you want to be the boss on purpose or do you want to be the worker bee on purpose.
sorry but if my kid has talent they are going to as good a school as they can get in because that choice alone writes their ticket. you can skate yale -- like bush did -- and have a huge future. everything else is preparation to be an employee and to have to work your tail off to get made rich or a boss.
this is not dissing hard work. this is saying picking a trade guarantees a life of hard work to get by and to have any chance at wealth vs. a middle class degree choice makes you a dime a dozen but worthy of the suburbs vs. going to a good school and majoring in "whatever" sets you up to pick your ticket.
if your kid was lazy in school or has no interest in school, yeah, a trade is not a bad idea, you too might make the suburbs if you are lucky, but it also reflects your kid has set themselves up on a trajectory with a chunk of the country with/without a HS diploma who tend to have low average incomes. you may be the hard working lucky exception who makes their way in a trade but it's people trying to buck what is otherwise a low-or-mid-class trajectory for most people with that education level.
last i think there is a hefty bit of revisionist history going on. you goof through HS and have no interest in college, yeah, a trade is a way up. but your trajectory otherwise was poverty or mom's basement couch. i have no issue with selling that. but this new push to convince people who did ok in HS, you don't need college, that's not what the stats say, on average. and my personal experience is whatever education people think they need is probably less than what it takes to come out on top these days. i found getting a job in my field to be tough. i didn't get the sort of job i thought i was worthy of until i did a masters in my field. teaching people they need less education in that global job market reality is a borderline fib. you have to find some way to be unique to an employer. for most people it takes "more" and not "less" and you cannot legislate it away or fix it by dropping majors from your college.
In my firm, a 15,000 employee firm, it matters little where you go to school. The head of our $200 billion in assets under management group went to Iowa, hardly a privileged place. Our #2 went to USF. Numerous examples abound all over our firm.
One problem we have with degrees from schools that peddle prestige is the entitlement attitude of the graduates. It seems like it is the only politically correct joke that we can now tell at work. Everyone can make fun of the credentialist. I am not happy with how we want work ready employees on day one, but this is the trend. It turns out that early personal maturity and knowing WHAT to think about is as important as learning HOW to think. And what to think about? Well, we don't need someone who is into prestige or social causes or themselves but someone who thinks about clients from the start. The kid who tended bar through college while going to the State U has a better chance of having this attitude. BTW, seeing track/XC on a resume helps. It is a marker for both teamwork and discipline and a willingness to climb the ladder.
Doesn't surprise me at all. This is the school that got convicted of ganging up on a local bakery for false racism claims. Cost them something like $35m.
I went to a small liberal arts school in the Houston Valley (not Bard) and while we did make a hobby/sport of 'stealing' petty items from the school, we'd never have dreamed of stealing from local businesses. In fact, there was nothing we liked more than supporting them. The general idea seemed to be that the school was basically corrupt and feeding us corporate gruel that we were more-or-less forced to consume if we wanted to take part in the education. The small businesses, on the other hand, were a welcome alternative. Of course that wasn't entirely true and you could be avoid the SYSCO / Aramark trash by moving off campus -- something I did along with nearly half of the XC team. But this required a special application process and let's face it, liberal arts kids are mostly entitled snowflake convenience addicts who will do whatever is conventional as long as they're provided an alternative outlet for 'individuality'.
Seems like the Oberlin kids will do anything to be 'different' even if it includes bizarre role-playing sexual behavior and stealing from mom-and-pop businesses. True rebels. I look forward to a world where we can witness them trying to find the right hole fore decades to come.
Perhaps because people feel more comfortable around people like themselves. Have you been to the suburbs lately? They're 99% white; do you complain about that, too?
Which suburbs? There are plenty of suburbs where I live that are predominantly hispanic, black, and/or oriental. Actually I reckon the nicest suburban neighborhood in the area is predominantly black. Looks lIke a picture book out of the 1950s. Some people might be most comfortable around people who look like themselves, but I don't look like those black people and I'd sure as heck prefer living in that neighborhood. They keep the yards better and don't put up 'trust the science' laws signs. They know the government is hopelessly corrupt. For them it isn't an abstraction.
Anyway, straight people aren't in the minority in those colleges. Most of these kids will 'identify as' straight within 24 months of leaving there -- right around the time they realize that a life of hedonistic sexual escapades is as meaningless as their degrees. The straight people aren't in the minority, it is the entitled narcissists who are in the majority. It just happens to be the fashion among them at this point in time to call themselves gay and feign all kinds of sexual perversions. There was a time when the narcissists were pressured into fitting in. Was hard to notice them then. Now it is easy, only sometimes they are mistaken for actual homosexuals, which is sad for the homosexuals.
i get what the poster is saying about how some kids at oberlin are going to turn out fine anyway. daddy has some money. it only gets worse at the ivies and i have some experience at this from a summer program there. everyone and their dog came across like they were from money. i have never felt so out of place from a class perspective. and to some extent to a stats mindset their success is foreordained. BUT to make the right sort of connections it helps to GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS OF IT ANYWAY. it is a confirmation of status. they can then choose whether to use that status for continued riches in certain fields, or to pursue the arts, or to teach, which might be less reliably wealth-creating.
those schools are actually the biggest ladder for middle and lower class, who are handed the golden ticket and can then use it like an upper class person if they want. they can major in history and go to yale law. they can major in math and do finance. they can major in liberal arts and know the worst case scenario is they go to their choice of grad school and get plum teaching jobs. do you want to be the boss on purpose or do you want to be the worker bee on purpose.
sorry but if my kid has talent they are going to as good a school as they can get in because that choice alone writes their ticket. you can skate yale -- like bush did -- and have a huge future. everything else is preparation to be an employee and to have to work your tail off to get made rich or a boss.
this is not dissing hard work. this is saying picking a trade guarantees a life of hard work to get by and to have any chance at wealth vs. a middle class degree choice makes you a dime a dozen but worthy of the suburbs vs. going to a good school and majoring in "whatever" sets you up to pick your ticket.
if your kid was lazy in school or has no interest in school, yeah, a trade is not a bad idea, you too might make the suburbs if you are lucky, but it also reflects your kid has set themselves up on a trajectory with a chunk of the country with/without a HS diploma who tend to have low average incomes. you may be the hard working lucky exception who makes their way in a trade but it's people trying to buck what is otherwise a low-or-mid-class trajectory for most people with that education level.
last i think there is a hefty bit of revisionist history going on. you goof through HS and have no interest in college, yeah, a trade is a way up. but your trajectory otherwise was poverty or mom's basement couch. i have no issue with selling that. but this new push to convince people who did ok in HS, you don't need college, that's not what the stats say, on average. and my personal experience is whatever education people think they need is probably less than what it takes to come out on top these days. i found getting a job in my field to be tough. i didn't get the sort of job i thought i was worthy of until i did a masters in my field. teaching people they need less education in that global job market reality is a borderline fib. you have to find some way to be unique to an employer. for most people it takes "more" and not "less" and you cannot legislate it away or fix it by dropping majors from your college.
I went to one of these 'elite' feeder schools. And I have to say that their business model is a load of trash and I suspect that they'll wind up either having enough money to basically become trust funds directed by the confused people on their boards (this is already the case at Harvard and a few other mega-wealthy institutions), they'll get bailed out and become the fiefdoms of folks like Jeff Bezos (a la WaPo), or they'll disappear.
If the idea is that most of these kids will get some kind of 'golden ticket' by going to medical or law school, let me tell you that it didn't happen for most of my classmates. Sure, a couple got finance jobs and a few are medical doctors, but most paid $60k/year and didn't. And I'm not complaining about that, just saying that's how it is and it doesn't make a great case for the longevity of the business model.
The bigger issue is that most of the kids I went to school with wound up hopelessly confused and myopic. If the success story is being some kind of corporate foot soldier -- pushing pharmaceutical products or making private equity deals with other people's money, I'm not sure how it could be otherwise...
One thing is for sure: if any of these institutions like Oberlin still exist when my kids reach that age, they will not be participating. There are plenty of other better ways to make money if smart and talented. And if not smart and talented, folks are probably better off not selling their souls for a marginally better paycheck - or any paycheck.
I live about an hour from Oberlin and this does not surprise me. It is the weirdest strangest crunchiest city I've personally ever been to and that includes yellow springs.
Translation: It's nice.
I do really enjoy it when I go there. There is a rail trail through town I run maybe 10 times a year and the food options are good for a small town. My post wasn't a knock, just my observation.
In the other hand I couldn't live there. I don't want to live anywhere that far to either side. There is a general lack of law enforcement against petty crimes that you don't see in the center right place I live.
personally i see what is happening is rich folks grasp what matters is WHERE you go, while middle class folks who are bright enough to see education provides a better ladder up than a trade, often trip over the hurdle of INVESTING IN THEMSELVES. the last thing you skimp on is your ladder up.
I grew up in a nice but not extremely wealthy suburb of a relatively major city (I think its average income today is around $150k ± 10k). I agree that more well-off people tend to value education more, but there's also a sense of entitlement among their children, especially males. I know parents typically don't cultivate it, but I think growing up in such an environment causes people to think they're deserving of anything. I've seen a couple of people seem to imply it's their birthright (like they deserve it) to do something like go to Wharton --> Goldman Sachs --> KKR
Similarly, I've also seen people view schools like Vanderbilt, Rice, WashU, Notre Dame etc as subpar - and some even view Brown and Cornell as the same - and b!tch about having to attend them and try to transfer to a better college. While I don't think it's a bad mindset to always strive for the best you can get, it just reeks of entitlement to view schools like the ones I mentioned as inferior
a job where it doesn't matter where you went is probably a grinder job as opposed to a cutting edge or creative job. if you have a job where you can think for yourself you need the best, brightest, most creative. you don't just need someone who dutifully does their HW for 4 years. yeah, if it's just carry out the boss's wishes and template then USF and Iowa are probably fine. my job requires me to think on my feet, connect things other miss, and assess multidisciplinary ideas not strictly my field.
as computers advance ever more, being merely able to memorize or respond obviously is of less and less value. the internet, computer programs, and AI will increasingly do that for me. you need people who understand their field and can make leaps to the thing the computer can't guess, come up with innovative or artistic ideas for knowledge or presentation. my personal experience companies are rewarded by bringing in bright folks who ask questions and make jumps. if you hire basic grads to grind out obvious work and not complain, a computer will do that in 5 years and ask for even less salary. yes, bright folks will expect to be challenged and improvise in their own manner but sometimes you were missing ideas or conclusions. or anticipate the next big step, the next market.
a few times i have come up with ideas the rest of the business adopts, then competitors see and start copying. sorry but i'd rather be that guy. that leadership isn't trade school and it isn't i got a degree in spitting back precisely what is expected of me. that's go to a better school and let them hint at the future then send you out to find it.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.