Can you define this constellation of traits I've often found at top schools?

September 22, 2009 8:52 AM

There's a certain trait that I've been calling "top-school-ish", but I'm wondering if there's a better word for it. I'm talking about those people who are extremely smart, well-organized, calm, extremely nice, have an optimistic attitude about the future and have lived a kind of sheltered existence.

They say things like "I'm a risk-taker. After going to Dartmouth for undergrad, I went against everyone's advice and took a risk and went to Stanford for grad school instead of Harvard."

I'm not talking about arrogance. This isn't about being a jerk. These people are nice and friendly and helpful, really giving of their time and energy, and often do-gooders in the extreme.

They say things like "I value good food, great company, and being a bit ridiculous." And they do value those things -- but they also have, for example, an MD from Yale. And being a bit ridiculous does not involve getting screaming drunk and running around naked, but perhaps making cookies without a recipe or doing an icebreaker exercise in which you might make a fool of yourself. They think it's a bit crazy to go on a vacation in Africa instead of laying on a beach in Mexico.

They make jokes about things they are anxious about and don't take themselves too seriously. For example, I met someone who said that she didn't want her husband to stay on for a PhD because "then they'd have six degrees from Stanford between them and that would just be too much". It's clear to me that she just doesn't want to stay there for another 5 years, but she doesn't say that. She just makes it seem like some kind of aesthetic consideration.

They seem to have a self-image of being warm-hearted, fun-loving risk-takers. And they are... but they are also incredibly accomplished and don't act like that is important.

Has anyone else gone to a top school and encountered these people?

I recently dated someone who was like this, and it's a quality I'd like to develop in myself. There's something very calming and comforting about it.

Traits that these people tend not to display: anxiety, pessimism, frustration, depression, outlandishness.

It's not about being in a particular academic field, or even, necessarily, a particular amount of wealth. I've met people whose parents were of modest means and people who grew up in mansions, each with this particular style. I've also met many wealthy people who are not like this at all, who wear their emotions on their sleeves, have high levels of anxiety, etc.

(By the way, the people I'm referring to are from the US. I'm not sure if this exists in the same way in other places.)

Have you experienced this? Are you one of these people? What would you call this?

posted by anonymous to education (74 answers total)

In the US, at least, it kinda sounds like you're talking about members of the upper middle class.
posted by box at 8:55 AM on September 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

It seems to me that you should bone up on Stuff White People Like. It's tongue-in-cheek, but deadly accurate.
posted by j1950 at 8:56 AM on September 22, 2009 [9 favorites]

Waspy?
posted by null terminated at 8:56 AM on September 22, 2009 [6 favorites]

There are plenty of people like that, not all of them go to top schools. They are simply fairly conservative (in terms of risk taking, not necessarily politically), friendly, upper-middle class people.
posted by lsemel at 8:58 AM on September 22, 2009

This isn't limited to simply people at top schools. I've noticed similar traits among many people who have had the good fortune to have grown-up in a highly privileged atmosphere. The people you are describing hail from the more genteel "affable fellow nonetheless clueless about the outside world or societal strata" branch of the experience. As opposed to the "arrogant prick who knows he will own you some day" branch.

Not sure if there's an all-encompassing term for the trait, though.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:00 AM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Privileged.

Ignoring the pejorative manner in which the word can and sometimes is used in place of "entitled" (which is not what you mean), I think it describes what you are trying to illustrate very well. Or at least, that is the crowd I grew up withand that is how I would describe everything that flows from that.
posted by DarlingBri at 9:02 AM on September 22, 2009 [15 favorites]

I grew up in New England and graduated from a pretty well-known school (not an Ivy, but not too far off), and I think I know what you're talking about. I wouldn't classify myself as one because, while I can get things done, I'm not very good at smoothing over the seams. I definitely don't make what I do look effortless, but I know some people who do very well.

In my experience, at least, they try much harder than they seem to. The people who fit this mold best grew up wealthy and are deeply, existentially uncomfortable with that fact (often because of extensive travel as children), so they work very hard at things that are a) social justice-y or b) art or c) both.

I don't know if there's a name for them, other than "rich people who aren't assholes."
posted by oinopaponton at 9:03 AM on September 22, 2009 [9 favorites]

I think WASP-y is exactly right. You're talking about the stereotypical wealthy, white, "liberal elite," intelligentsia.

For what it's worth, I've gone my entire life loathing these people in a manner so unconsidered that it occasionally makes me uncomfortable. I certainly don't want to be like them, but I'd be very interested in hearing a little more about what makes you like them as I'd like to stop being racist against rich white people.
posted by 256 at 9:03 AM on September 22, 2009 [5 favorites]

"confident"?
posted by mpls2 at 9:03 AM on September 22, 2009

The opposite of punk-rock, whatever it is.

My brother is totally like this. Just transferred to Standford from Johns Hopkins He's just- straight in every way possible- Type A, looked like he walked out of J Crew catalogue, he took a brief case to school in the 2nd grade. He's my brother and I don't even know where he came from! Really really great guy. I've just always wanted to tear holes in his jeans and fuck up his hairdo.
posted by Rocket26 at 9:05 AM on September 22, 2009 [13 favorites]

Upper middle class.
posted by availablelight at 9:08 AM on September 22, 2009

Ugh. Ignorant is what I'd call them. Why would you want to be like this?
posted by radioamy at 9:12 AM on September 22, 2009 [3 favorites]

I think a word they would use to describe themselves is "well-bred." But, I think the word for what appeals to you in them, and the trait you want to adopt for yourself, is "confidence."
posted by Houstonian at 9:13 AM on September 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

For example, I met someone who said that she didn't want her husband to stay on for a PhD because "then they'd have six degrees from Stanford between them and that would just be too much".

I'm sorry, but despite your contextualization, that is a jerk. That is the polite conversational equivalent of an AskMe about "my huge cock hurts all the ladies, it's so sad."

Also, seconding "privileged", which doesn't just mean advantaged, it also connotes a sort of bubble of shelter/ignorance of how most of the world actually lives.
posted by rokusan at 9:15 AM on September 22, 2009 [19 favorites]

Class, money and privilege play a part, but it's also just personality. I went to Dartmouth; at the time, there were two Rockefellers there (cousins). One was a total asshole, and the other was kind, funny, generous (without being "Oh look what I'm doing for you" about it) and a genuinely nice guy.
posted by rtha at 9:17 AM on September 22, 2009

Conservative, small-c. And yes, priveliged.

I've met people from the UK like this here - guys who went from public school to Oxford and never learned to talk to girls, socially awkward but nice, and others who didn't realise that not having the latest gadgets is deprivation.
posted by mippy at 9:21 AM on September 22, 2009

I think perhaps "humility" is a term that would be useful?

My stepfather is an extremely smart man, an emergency room physician who is now a college professor. Almost no one knows that he's a "real" doctor, because he doesn't talk about it, and introduces himself by his first name. He's completely down to earth, gentle, conservative, and humble. He wasn't necessarily raised this way; it's just who he is. He wants to make sure others around him are comfortable, and has found that expounding about his intelligence or degree or profession has the opposite effect. We were scolded as kids if we bragged about being "doctor's kids".

I don't, however, think that this is a trait that can be blanketly ascribed to people who go to Ivy League schools (my stepfather didn't). In fact, my experience has been almost the opposite. A combination of class and humility is possible in any socio-economic situation.
posted by peanut_mcgillicuty at 9:23 AM on September 22, 2009 [5 favorites]

I've definitely noticed it, but don't have a name for it, other than "rich kids".

I find it fairly irritating. I think it's possible for you to cultivate calmness, confidence and grace under pressure without it.

If you're at college, maybe a lot of the confident people you know are confident because they know Daddy can bail them out of almost any problem. But there are also confident people who are confident because they've faced problems and dealt with them themselves, without the benefit of any privilege. And the latter are more worth emulating.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 9:25 AM on September 22, 2009 [5 favorites]

What you're describing is privilege, and the mantle of privilege. You seem to be taken with those generally decent people who have lived an easy life, and are conscious of it, and wish to extend their fortunes to the less lucky.

But I do wonder if you're missing a piece of the equation. While you say these people are not arrogant, there are implicit judgements in many of their actions and preferences that might seem to less-fortunate outsiders as more than a little smug. Valuing (to use your example) 'good food, great company, vacations to Africa... [faux] risk-taking' carries some burden of assessment. Using 'good food' as an arbitrary example, we are likely to find the following in ample evidence and preference among your Top Schoolers: pricey restaurants and haute cuisine, international food in a bracketed separate-but-equal subcategory, often as daring behavior ('Morgan and I ate sea urchin at the yacht club!'), and post-Michael-Pollan a buzzwordy preference for local-organic-sustainable produce from Whole Foods or a farmer's co-op. All of these are fine preferences (and who doesn't share some of them? or wouldn't given the means?) but I think the attitude toward those who do not make the same choices (e.g. those of us who occasionally stoop to Wendy's on lunch break, or buy the pesticidy peaches because they look nicer, or -- gasp -- really like phony Mexican food) is sort of subtly condescending.

Let me put it another way: in my dealings with these 'top-schoolish' people, who are usually lovely acquaintances, I've come to discover a quality I call the 'nice factor,' in the sense of 'they were so nice to offer us Hudson Bay oysters' or 'they enjoy a nice sail' or are nice people with good values' or 'the Bernese Mountain dog is a nice animal' being offered as a sly piece of insider-to-insider (or wannabe insider) snobbery'
posted by mr. remy at 9:25 AM on September 22, 2009 [12 favorites]

In my experience, at least, they try much harder than they seem to. The people who fit this mold best grew up wealthy and are deeply, existentially uncomfortable with that fact (often because of extensive travel as children), so they work very hard at things that are a) social justice-y or b) art or c) both.

This is close to my experience. Growing up rich -- not rich as in "I can go buy a new Porsche with all the best options right now in cash" rich, but like, "My family controls the worlds supply of ink" rich -- alters people's value systems. I would guess that the attitude you're describing is most commonly exhibited when someone has never, ever had to even consider what "money" is, and so their good values growing up, mixed with intelligence, drive them to try to achieve a separate name from their families, and they often see academia as the easiest way to get respectability.
posted by Damn That Television at 9:25 AM on September 22, 2009 [5 favorites]

Tone-deaf, since it doesn't seem like the problem is what they are, but how they portray themselves.
posted by smackfu at 9:28 AM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I don't know that race is the issue here, although certainly in the US the privileged class is largely white and the traits we're looking at seem to be connected to privilege. But I've come across people of all races who display this sort of effortless ease.

It occurs to me that this is the sort of thing that the phrase "acting like a gentleman" was coined to cover, back when "gentleman" just meant "a member of the land-owning class" and wasn't necessarily just about sexual or romantic chivalry. For that matter, "chivalry" seems like it may have once meant something sort of like this. Both words capture the association between high status and good behavior that you're looking for, but both refer to a specific sort of good behavior — opening doors and pulling out chairs for your date, rather than all-around warmth and generosity.
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:30 AM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I've never found wealth to the be root of this. It revolves more around a childhood in a heavily concentrated environment (i.e. doing ballet from 4-18, military brat, a prolific reader, etc.) but having plenty of exposure to the extremes of the outside world (factory line worker, community service, or even just talking with anyone and everyone they meet). Add to that "old-school manners", which I suppose could be called WASPish but race isn't a prerequisite for it and you get that type of person.

There's a subtype with the mid-atlantic accent that people may be thinking of, but it's a subtype not the root.

A friend once said they were simply people who lived life raw. They didn't have the filters and precepts most people have and so they never lost that innate sense of curiosity and kindness endemic to all children before they are schooled by society on things like race, class, etc. It takes a very unique childhood to get someone who can learn about those things but not internalize them, but wealth isn't the only means by which that can occur.

It felt like half the people I met in the Netherlands were like this...
posted by jwells at 9:33 AM on September 22, 2009 [5 favorites]

Almost no one knows that he's a "real" doctor, because he doesn't talk about it, and introduces himself by his first name

Yes, Peanut. That is actually cool, and the exact opposite of joking about "all those degrees from Harvard" that the OP uses as an example.

I suspect I would much prefer the company of Peanut's stepfather than the people mentioned in the original question.
posted by rokusan at 9:34 AM on September 22, 2009

Previously
posted by jgirl at 9:41 AM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I like to say that these people are living in a "consequence-free environment."

As in, nothing they do will ever be viewed by themselves or by others as a mistake, and they will suffer no significant hardships because of it.

* Stanford instead of Harvard? Doesn't matter. You can always go back to Harvard and not have lost anything.
* Cancun instead of Africa? Doesn't matter. No one's ever going to fault you for going to Cancun.
* Crashed the BMW? Doesn't matter. Darling, that's what insurance is for.

Even if they truly do make a mistake (e.g. launch a business that fails, get divorced, lose money on a house, etc), they are sheltered enough by external factors (e.g. a great job, rich parents, they are physically attractive, etc) that the sting of these failures is never actually recognized or felt to a significant degree. They just launch another business, get re-married or buy a new house.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:46 AM on September 22, 2009 [20 favorites]

I don't think you're telling us the whole picture; or you're describing it inaccurately. Maybe they've been specifically trained to appear extremely controlled. I know I have to some extent.

I certainly recommend against developing your inner personality to match the exterior personality of someone else. You'd most certainly be lining yourself up for a nervous breakdown. You're a product of your environment to a great extent. I have to say the behavior you see is largely culturally based. To develop your personality without having experienced the proper foundational cultural upbringing is rather... artificial. I think your brain would be against it all the way. You'd be fake and you'd know it.

How many of those sheltered personalities do you see in Guatemala or Sudan? I mean... I see calm poor people all the time. I've seen calm Haitians, calm Hispanics, calm Africans, calm South Asians. But that's not the norm. Hang around a lot of poor people all the time and you'll hear a lot of complaining, every step of the way. Attend a community college class. Even a basic chemistry or English class. Complaining. Go do a simple manual laborish kind of job. Complaining. Don't imagine it's just the employees. The inner power plays that go on among the faculty is nothing short of an 8 hr GTA3 marathon. This is just community college. Check out big companies like say Merck.

Money just allows you to focus on other things in life. What's that guy's name? Maslow? Self-actualization? and so on..

The mythical beings you are talking about granted are probably more stable than you but that says more about their environment, rather than their innate abilities. Put them in an Indian slum and see just how calm they'll be.

So my advice is not to change yourself specifically, but your environment. Get more money (and lots of it). Hang with those kinds of "top-schoolish" people you want to be like so much; you'll start laughing like them soon enough. Start crossing your legs. You might need to take some antidepressants every now and then. Though personally I believe it's all in your head.
posted by fairykarma at 10:01 AM on September 22, 2009 [6 favorites]

This could easily describe me a few years ago.

They seem to have a self-image of being warm-hearted, fun-loving risk-takers. And they are... but they are also incredibly accomplished and don't act like that is important.

Of course, I can speak only for myself, but I just thought that I was normal. After all, who did I know that didn't go to a good university? (Two chaps actually, both went to Sandhurst which is not exactly a good counterexample...)

I went to university speaking two languages fluently and another two reasonably well, but without ever having had a friend from the "middle class" (in the American, not the English sense). I knew that there were people whose parents didn't pay for their education the same way that most Americans know that there are starving kids in Africa.

If you had asked me at 18 how I spent my summer, I would have told you "Some friends from school and I took daddy's yacht and sailed it Muscat->Goa->Maldives" Totally true, but I would never talk like that now. Now some of you are reading that thinking, "What a grade-A twat!" and fair-play, but realise that I seriously had no internal filter. I just didn't realise how that would come across to people from very different backgrounds.

Similarly when it comes to education and other accomplishments.
I recently had someone point out to me that saying that "I just have a master's degree, so I'm basically the family imbecile" is actually pretty insulting to people who don't.

I grew up rich ("comfortable", we would say) and intelligent which are the two main ingredients in the manufacturing of arseholes.

And I joke about this, but people who act like I used to. Like the people in the question. They are not really arseholes, they are simply very sheltered. They may not realise that their accomplishments are big deals to other people, because to them - they're not.

The reason I am not like this any more is because exposure to different types of people led me to develop internal filters that let me adapt what I'm saying to the audience.
posted by atrazine at 10:04 AM on September 22, 2009 [11 favorites]

Preppy.
posted by emd3737 at 10:05 AM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Old money.

My grandparents, my grandfather in particular was like this. Back in the day, rich kids were raised to conform to a very strict code of etiquette and very high expectations were placed upon them for personal achievment. They were expected to achieve financially and intellectually. As well as being well cultured. Throw in a bit of the 'stiff upper lip' and there you go. I think this is a huge double edge sword, the people I know raised like this never felt they were good enough, but I do think it produces very interesting people, who tend to be a little oblivious.

I think there are definitely people like this that aren't raised rich, but I think in the ivy leagues especially this is generally the case.

Also, I find the whole "once you get to know these seemingly 'nice' rich people you will find out this is all a facade" a little disturbing. You know you can have an issue with the class and wealth structure in this country, but that doesn't mean everyone born into the top rung of society is an asshole.
posted by whoaali at 10:08 AM on September 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

I'm disagreeing with everyone who wrote "privileged" or anything resembling "moneyed," etc. I especially disagree with any term that is considered pejorative.

I liked the suggestions of "WELL-BRED" and the quality of "HUMILITY." I think this was closer to what metametababe was getting at in her ask.

That said, the question was categorized as education related... is there a term that specifies "Well Bred" + "Super Educated & Academically Accomplished"??
posted by jbenben at 10:08 AM on September 22, 2009

Sons and daughters of the landed gentry.

Not quite nobility, but they can get in the party.

Not quite peasants, but they walk among us.
posted by ian1977 at 10:13 AM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

More on topic. This reminds me of that bit in Peter Pan where Captain Hook is obsessing over who has 'good form'. It clouds all his thoughts and cripples him. I think at the end he realizes that Pan actually has good form, or is it Squee.
posted by eurasian at 10:24 AM on September 22, 2009

Seconding preppy.
posted by Benjy at 10:32 AM on September 22, 2009

"Traits that these people tend not to display: anxiety, pessimism, frustration, depression, outlandishness."

I would like to suggest that what you are calling "top-schoolish" does exist at most socio-economic levels, and I think it comes from having good self-esteem that is fostered by a loving, stable family.

Maybe you are only finding this in top-schoolish people because that is who you are surrounded by?

Also, anti-depressants help if you are dealing with anxiety and would like to appear more calm.
posted by Goodgrief at 10:33 AM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Goodgrief- I disagree. The risks are so much higher when you're at the bottom of the food chain that that any of the insouciance that the OP describes would be an act.

I think "privileged" is the best word, though it has so many negative connotations that I'm trying to think of a better one.
posted by small_ruminant at 10:37 AM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

As in- if you flunk out of college, fail at your business, get in a good car wreck, you've not only destroyed your life but likely your family's too. You don't get endless "second chances."
posted by small_ruminant at 10:38 AM on September 22, 2009

It's interesting how people seem to be viewing these qualities two hugely disparate ways:

as humble and conscience-stricken

people who fit this mold best grew up wealthy and are deeply, existentially uncomfortable with that fact (often because of extensive travel as children), so they work very hard at things that are a) social justice-y or b) art or c) both.

or as ignorant and pseudo-subtly braggy

seconding "privileged", which doesn't just mean advantaged, it also connotes a sort of bubble of shelter/ignorance of how most of the world actually lives.
posted by changeling at 10:40 AM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

I've known plenty of these types of people, and I've envied them. I think of them as "old school" (as in Eton, not Run DMC).

I would put the phenomenon on 3 levels:

Their upbringing: They had parents who brought them up to be like that, they went to a school where learning was encouraged and the faculty was high quality. They didn't just learn the subjects, they learnt the system and how to work within it to their advantage. They act like gentlemen/nobility because their parents taught them to. It was a smooth upbringing and they had little to rebel against. You can do nothing about this.

Their worldview: They are adequate, authority is more-or-less benign, work with people not against them, be polite, stick up for yourself. They practice "discounting": what they're good at is more important than what they aren't good at. And they're more likely to rate themselves highly at a given activity, although they may not say so directly. Failure in any one thing is not a crushing blow. Guilt and shame are not big parts of their world. This is all good and healthy - the downside is that they may find it hard to relate to people making bad or unhealthy decisions. This is something you could attempt to develop in yourself.

Their behaviour: They speak loudly and confidently. They try new things. They spend money when they have it, more likely on a few "nice" expensive things: quality beats quantity. They read books and discuss them in an informed and critical manner. They talk about how they feel (because there's nothing wrong with them). They socialise with people like them. They do at least one sport fairly seriously. This is something you can imitate.

It's too late for me - I'll never truly believe that I'm good enough, and that authority is protecting me. I've tried to adopt some of these behaviours. My epiphany was when I realised that half of the people discussing Poetry in the common room didn't know any more than I did, they just weren't silenced by that fact. But I have sworn to myself that, if I ever have kids, they will be brought up with as good an approximation of that worldview as I can provide them, because it is an incredible advantage. Good luck!
posted by Wrinkled Stumpskin at 10:41 AM on September 22, 2009 [23 favorites]

Sheltered + genteel + unflappable = personality type without a name.

It's interesting how much these answers are emphasizing the economic/class aspect of this personality type, considering that the OP specifically said, "It's not about ... necessarily, a particular amount of wealth. I've met people whose parents were of modest means ... with this particular style. I've also met many wealthy people who are not like this at all..."
posted by Jaltcoh at 10:45 AM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

The people like this I can think of off the top of my head who are from a poor background had at least one parent who was from the upper middle class (but who decided to give it all up for whatever reason.)
posted by small_ruminant at 10:48 AM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I went against everyone's advice and took a risk and went to Stanford for grad school instead of Harvard.

It's probably more of a desire to just rebel against friends/family. Maybe family is telling them to go to Harvard for the name when Stanford actually has a better academic program? Who knows.

"I value good food, great company, and being a bit ridiculous." And they do value those things -- but they also have, for example, an MD from Yale.

these are things everyone values and wants; I don't see why having an MD from an Ivy would suddenly make you not like eating food and having friends

then they'd have six degrees from Stanford between them and that would just be too much

this actually does betray some laziness on the couple, unless Stanford happened to be the best school for both of their respective fields of study. I can somewhat understand what she's saying here--diversification is a good thing in graduate studies. For instance, many MBA boards prefer not to admit students who went to the same undergraduate college.

Traits that these people tend not to display: anxiety, pessimism, frustration, depression, outlandishness.

Never compare your inner feelings against someone else's externality. Apples vs bacon.
posted by chalbe at 10:49 AM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Harvard for the name when Stanford actually has a better academic program? Who knows.

Or maybe they want to be 3000 miles away from their family. That's first thing I think of.
posted by small_ruminant at 11:03 AM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

I liked the suggestions of "WELL-BRED" and the quality of "HUMILITY." I think this was closer to what metametababe was getting at in her ask.

It might be what she wanted to hear, and I'm quite certain it's how these people think of themselves, but it's not the right answer.

"I'm a risk-taker. After going to Dartmouth for undergrad, I went against everyone's advice and took a risk and went to Stanford for grad school instead of Harvard."

A person who actually talks about themselves that way is demonstrating the opposite of humility.

If you can't see that in reading it, well... maybe you're not seeing the problem from without, here.
posted by rokusan at 11:19 AM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

This is all one trait: Having enough money that you never, ever have to consider the possibility that it will ever run out.

Once you have effectively infinite resources, you'll find that you're a lot less anxious, pessimistic, frustrated, depressed, and outlandish.
posted by Citrus at 11:28 AM on September 22, 2009 [9 favorites]

I think assurance is the best word. They are assured that they will get what they want without any real impediment and that they can't lose what they have because family money/their connections will always back them up.

They can be nice and helpful and do-gooders because it doesn't cost them anything. Accepting a low-paid non-profit work doesn't impact their retirement plans (and they will be able to afford to retire when other are still working for non-profits trying to meet basic needs). Taking time off to help you talk over a problem doesn't mean they will get fired from the second job they had to take to pay their student loans.

So basically, you have to manoeuvre yourself into a situation where you face no consequences for your actions whatsoever (I recommend a lot of money - not just your own business that can fail, or millions that can be wiped out by a poor investment) and reap the confidence and assurance gained so when you are slumming with those less fortunate that you know "there but by the grace of god go I" doesn't REALLY apply in your case.
posted by saucysault at 11:43 AM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Your description reminds me of Dickie Greenleaf in "The Talented Mr. Ripley."

Traits that these people tend not to display: anxiety, pessimism, frustration, depression, outlandishness.

Speaking as a Jewish person, I would call them "gentiles."
posted by Kirklander at 12:30 PM on September 22, 2009 [4 favorites]

Oh, and I have seen the same traits in the poorest of the poor - again, people with nothing to lose.
posted by saucysault at 12:32 PM on September 22, 2009

At university in the UK, my friends and I called them "fit-happy people".
posted by greycap at 12:59 PM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Hmm. I think I may be thinking about this differently from some others here.

Here's my thought process:

The qualities the OP is describing are: smart, well organized, calm, optimistic, nice, friendly and helpful, giving of time and energy, not too serious. Good qualities, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I wouldn't want to nitpick every one of those qualities apart - occasionally optimism instead of realism can be very frustrating, and a person who gives out of pity rather than compassion can be a jerk, etc - but these qualities are on the whole good qualities.

OK, so then we learn a little more about these people. They consider choosing Stanford over Harvard a big risk, and I think we can all agree that's an exaggeration - so perhaps they haven't ever experienced serious risk or danger. They make jokes about being "ridiculous", and their idea of ridiculous is about as tame as their idea of a "big risk", which I think implies a very tame past. And they make possibly-arrogant, possibly-self-deprecating jokes about their educational background. It seems that some other people here have jumped to the conclusion that such jokes were definitely on the arrogant side of things, and indicate a very narrow experience and world-view. I guess that's possible, but to me, it sounds more like slight embarrassment at such a lot of dubiously useful degrees, which may have taken a huge amount of time and effort to get, without producing an impressive increase in happiness.

So, perhaps these are tame people without much previous exposure to danger or risk, who are slightly embarrassed about their excessive education. These qualities certainly could have arisen from being born in to some degree of wealth and family stability. A lack of family drama, poverty and violence and an abundance of resources and attention may explain these characteristics.

It seems that this particular set of characteristics - comfortable, confident people whose idea of extraordinary is something mildly out of the ordinary - sets off a lot of alarm bells in peoples' heads. Me, too. I think there's a tendency to judge such people as shallow, spoiled rich people who don't understand how cruel life really is and therefore are to be scoffed at. At least I felt it a bit - I recoiled a little bit from the thought of people who don't comprehend how truly miserable life (and therefore walk all over other peoples' pain unknowingly) can be because they've never been forced to experience it. I think there's also a tendency to view such people as probable racists, classists, or bigots of some other variety. Personally - as a person who was born in to the middle class and went to such a top-school - I find that I jump to defend my own decency in situations like this. I realize what a conversation-stopper my degree can be and am frequently aware of how it alienates me. I try rather desperately not to become imprisoned by the comfort I've been privy to. I almost never feel as though people who have been less fortunate are envious of me - usually I feel that they resent me. And I often feel that it's terribly unfair that I did nothing to earn the luck I was born to.

I guess my point is: privileged people are not necessarily jerks. They are not necessarily ignorant of how privileged they are, or even of how said privilege may cause social tension. Of course, it's also possible that the people the OP is describing ARE jerks - but I don't think there's cause to jump to that conclusion.

Sheltered is a word with pretty unambiguously negative and accusatory implications. There's some truth in that, in that being ignorant of the truth can lead people to assume that everybody else is just like them, which leads to disastrous consequences. But oftentimes, I think it's used almost bitterly, to describe people who have been given (out of luck) what everybody wants - comfort, encouragement, security, attention, opportunity - and have become confident, unflappable and warm.

Honestly? I think all those nice qualities the OP describes are results of the good part (not the ignorance part) of being "sheltered". Especially in the environment of a "top school", there will be some significant overlap between people who were born in to privilege and people with these nice qualities - but such qualities are by no means exclusive to privileged people. The other qualities in question - such as tameness - I see as neutral qualities, neither bad nor good, although I think there's a tendency to associate them with negative qualities (arrogance, classism). IF they're good people, they're good people, no matter how sheltered they used to be.
posted by Cygnet at 1:27 PM on September 22, 2009 [7 favorites]

You've sort of nailed something here that I've seen before.

I essentially started my career as a parking lot attendant and after getting an education, etc I work in a professional job. I don't really think this is a class thing; I live in a historically poor region. Very few people I grew up with would have family money (that is changing now). While I was working my way up, I noticed a few things:

The highest level executives, and important business people I know tended to carry themselves quietly, never attracted much attention, or displayed much wealth - their cars would be reliable sedans, or older domestic vehicles which has been well kept-up. Their clothing was classic - ordinary-looking suits and striped ties; solid-colored sweaters - things that don't go out of style. These people were absolutely unflappable and didn't lose their minds when their change was miscounted, or normal business processes had thrown a time-wasting delay at them. They usually lived in modest homes, and while they had may have had some expensive hobbies like golfing or skiing but were absolutely never unpleasant and never acted too busy to talk. Generally they spared no expense on their children though – music lessons, summer camps, expensive universities were fairly normal things. They've mostly aged gracefully and seem happy. Most of them were retained by their employers when economic downturns and industry changes occurred; they usually got promoted when their turns came. These guys were never unpleasant to parking lot attendants or cafeteria cashiers.

The types who fancied themselves Porsche-driving, gold-watch sporting, cocky, arm-candy types usually bought that lifestyle on a maxed-out credit card. The most competitive, high-stress working environment I ever worked in was a back office for a financial service company. Those people would strut like peacocks, yell and threaten, always seemed stressed or over-worked, compete to be the best/sexiest dresser and you could expect to be beat up for minor mistakes. I see some of them around town now looking beaten, and all the stress they created didn't benefit their careers much. Their lifestyles collapsed when their jobs left or change came - in part I suspect because they were so unpleasant and they wasted so much money on stylish, commercial, fashionable crap that would be outdated right away. These guys blow up at the office security guard who doesn’t recognize them, or the IT guy who had to explain his computer was broken.

The first type is just calm, relaxed, modest, understanding and professional – put him in the same office as guy number 2, and I can guarantee guy 1 gets promoted first; its just a style and demeanor that fits in well in most organizations.
posted by Deep Dish at 1:30 PM on September 22, 2009 [10 favorites]

They sound snobby to me. Probably very nice, but snobby.

From The American Scholar magazine: The Disadvantages of an Elite Education
posted by handabear at 1:41 PM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

"People who will never need to work."
posted by WeekendJen at 2:26 PM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

> They say things like "I'm a risk-taker. After going to Dartmouth for undergrad, I went against everyone's advice and took a risk and went to Stanford for grad school instead of Harvard."...I met someone who said that she didn't want her husband to stay on for a PhD because "then they'd have six degrees from Stanford between them and that would just be too much".

I'm going to go with "deadpan."
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:33 PM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

This sounds somewhat like people we have a saying for here in the South...they started out on third base but think they've hit a triple. I'm sure this doesn't apply to everyone in this description but it was the first thing I thought of when I read the post.

To me it seems very presumptuous to say, "I haven't finished my PhD because I already have two (or six) degrees from wherever," versus my excuse which is that I'm still paying for the two I already have, not to mention helping my kids pay for theirs.
posted by tamitang at 2:49 PM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

they are also incredibly accomplished and don't act like that is important.

Surround yourself with the highest-calibre people you can. In this environment, you become both highly accomplished, but don't view it as important both because it's normal, and because it's humbling how much better so many of your peers are at thing than you are.

How to do this? Don't seek adulation and respect, because the easiest way to get that is to choose a pond small enough that you can be a big fish. Seek the biggest hardest pond you can, such that you struggle merely to not lag too far behind. This will haul you forward further and faster than you could otherwise manage, and simultaneously ensures you have enough perspective that it doesn't go to your head.

Side by side, the tiny fish in the big pond is bigger than the "big" fish in the small pond, but unlike the big fish, knows how small he really is, having swam in the ocean.

Run with the big fish. Hang out with the kind of people you talk about. Hang out with the kind of people that they hang out with. Not just socially - get involved in projects or collaborations with them. Become their peers, though you may involve struggling to keep up.

Struggling to keep up is how you grow, and in growing, you find you can handle adversity. And in learning that you have the resources to handle adversity gives you that calm self-assurance.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:01 PM on September 22, 2009 [7 favorites]

Run with the big fish.

Er, I mean; run with the big fish in the big pond. Not the "big" fish in the small pond.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:04 PM on September 22, 2009

I think WASP-y is exactly right. You're talking about the stereotypical wealthy, white, "liberal elite," intelligentsia.

Although it doesn't have to be white. In the black community, those sons and daughters of people who brag about having been born "free blacks," who summered at The Inkwell on Martha's Vineyard, came out at church cotillions and then went on to historically black colleges and universities (think the Cosbys without the natural coolness that comes from urban living) certainly have that air of privilege .... and thus, that's the word I would choose.
posted by notjustfoxybrown at 3:51 PM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Fauntleroys.
posted by anniecat at 4:01 PM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Also, overprivileged.
posted by anniecat at 4:02 PM on September 22, 2009

I'm sorry, but I forgot to add this from Wikipedia:

"Little Lord Fauntleroy" is now most often used as a term of derision. It describes a pompous spoiled brat, usually a young male, who takes his wealth and privilege for granted (while this is obviously not consistent with the original character, it is inspired by the perceived self-righteousness of the little lord, and an assumed odiousness in his overweening goodness).
posted by anniecat at 4:06 PM on September 22, 2009

- several of your examples attended ivies/stanford for both undergrad and grad. This is no easy feat and probably indicates that they sacrificed extracurriculars (beer, saving africa) for their single academic passion (or they were never interested in these extracurriculars in the first place). If you looked at a group of people who did only undergrad at a top school, you'd see much more variety.

- it's true that some people who have attended top schools are sheltered or snobby, but keep in mind that a LOT of people react very negatively to the names of certain schools, and their alums learn to minimize their achievements. sometimes they go overboard and 'talk down' to people when they shouldn't. so the person who didn't want her partner to get a PhD from stanford probably felt that way for personal or practical reasons, but didn't want to share.
posted by acidic at 4:07 PM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Hm. I like "sheltered and successful" or "privileged". Those don't describe the traits, admittedly, so much as they describe the conditions that give rise to those traits - success achieved naturally, almost incidentally (although they may have worked hard, certainly if they attended a top grad program). A tongue-in-cheek awareness of their own privilege/luck/shelter is what I see in the jokes you mention - about taking a risk by not going to Harvard, or not wanting six Stanford degrees in one couple, etc. They're confident because they've only known success, and they've ended up doing alright despite whatever was thrown at them. They act like their accomplishments aren't important for a few reasons - they've only known success, so they don't see the difficulty inherent in even the most difficult things they've done; they know that they've been very privileged to even have the chance at such achievements; and there are plenty of other people out there making a big deal out of their accomplishments so they're usually a bit embarrassed by it.

When everyone who asks "oh, where are you going to school?" follows up with "wow, you must be so smart!" you stop volunteering the information. All you want is to find someone who will treat you like a person and not like some icon to be either venerated or spat upon.
posted by Lady Li at 4:50 PM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

In my mind, I always just think of these people as "very Ruling Class." I once had a boss like this. I always wondered if he was genuinely hiding something, or if he just wanted us to think he was.
posted by Sloop John B at 4:55 PM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

So much class-ism here. What you describe are people who were simply raised with a good value system, and are in top schools because they were lucky (or driven enough).

There's nothing stopping people from any background from being "extremely smart, well-organized, calm, extremely nice, have an optimistic attitude about the future and have lived a kind of sheltered existence". It just usually means their parents were raised the same way.

No doubt, it's easier to be this way and raise our kids to be this way when we have more money. But that's not the defining factor.
posted by gjc at 5:11 PM on September 22, 2009 [2 favorites]

Cary Grant as seen on film, and, perhaps, in person.
posted by x46 at 5:16 PM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

Or Wooster (from Wooster and Jeeves)
posted by small_ruminant at 5:42 PM on September 22, 2009

What you are looking for, I think, is people who understand noblesse oblige.

They're not just rich, or bright, or whatever it is that makes life easy for them, they're also "nice and friendly and helpful, really giving of their time and energy, and often do-gooders in the extreme."

I'd say that while they may not truly understand how much better they have it, they do understand that they're fortunate and want to give something back. (But not in the sense of being desperate to live-up to a terrifying image of a better older brother or great grandpappy Yokum who make the family fortune.)
posted by Lesser Shrew at 8:58 PM on September 22, 2009 [1 favorite]

These people are the way they are because they will never truly know failure. By failure, I mean to fuck up your life to such an extent that you'll never be sure whether you'll ever get it back. And since “failure” of that level requires dedication over a number of years, it’s not a reality most of them will ever get to see or experience. That's because these people are raised and groomed from birth to excel and perform, sort of like thoroughbreds – their capacity for performance and excellence is high, but they can also be somewhat temperamentally high-strung, which can come out a bit like that nervous self-effacing humor you described. Throughout their lives, there has been a systemic set of locks, controls, and safety nets designed to keep these people from falling all the way even if they do trip and stumble. Parents, supportive academic environments, etc. The importance of support can’t really be over-emphasized here I think. It’s the reason why we fall all over ourselves to try to offer after-school-programs and the means of education as a way out of wherever-you-are-and-don’t-want-to-be. Because on some level, the upper middle class is very aware of the advantages they’ve received from being in the right place at the right time. I think it’s also pretty crucial to Americans’ perception of ourselves and our country as “meritocratic”.

But it’s all paper-thin. All it takes is catastrophic personal failure, crashing mental breakdown, an affair to blow a family apart, and/or sudden and really fucking inconvenient heavy drug use. In short, all it takes is really fucking up. The problem is, since their existence is cultivated against failing like that and against stupid choices, examples like that are few and hard to come by. The perception of invulnerability to hardship can be traced back to lack of self-knowledge if it’s the person/people you’re talking about, or envy if it’s a person watching them (I don't mean you, just those where resentment is involved). But no group is monolithic, and I think if you search hard enough, you’ll find plenty of examples. I don't think there'll be many easily visible ones; contrary to how public suffering is broadcast out of talk shows, most people do just suffer privately and quietly.

And this isn't "just a white people thing", and hasn't been since all the Korean, Chinese, and Indian immigrants desperate for a name-brand education as well started flooding the certain upper middle class areas of central Jersey where I was raised for a while. The kids born and raised here aren't spoiled but are of an entirely different breed from their parents. Both often work hard as hell and yet they have entirely different motivations for doing so, the parents to get out of [wherever they were] and the kids because they're taught that that's all society (or family) wants or expects of them, to just work hard and “go somewhere”. The breadth of difference in their experiences is phenomenal but one generation can easily (and insultingly) be dismissed as “spoiled”.

I think that’s the key to the class resentment here. Whether you hold their advantages against them or not is going to depend on whether you hold them responsible for their own sheltered lifestyle, which in turn is also responsible on their sense of agency – not only their awareness that the rest of the world is not like theirs and their willingness to engage it. I think there’s more emphasis (unfairly) placed on the latter when it’s difficult to remember that the former has nothing to do with it, that a person’s willingness to talk to other people is a choice that does not stem at all from their upbringing.

Becoming one of these people would mean having to cultivate a sort of bloody-minded tenacity, a belief (partly through ignorance of the alternative) that you are simply untouchable, that if you simply got into the right schools, stayed in touch with the right people, and simply asked for what you wanted in the right way there would be no reason for anyone to tell you “No”. Most importantly: there’s never been a feeling that one has to fight against the world to get what they want, only that the world will work with them. It's a knowledge of systems and how to game them, not of the world or people at large. That exact innocence or ignorance is the key to the movie Juno, for example. The heroine uses her smarts to exploit a loophole in "the rules" to get what she wants and thus makes for a pretty quirky offbeat movie, instead of a teen-mothers-face-hard-choices Lifetime one. It's refreshing and admirable. Also infuriating because how many kids, or even adults, do you know who are that adroit at life?

Things I've called these people: upper middle class, Ivy Leaguers, officer class, bourgeois bohemians, assholes, Gilmore gimps, Jane Austen country gentry, thoroughbreds. Related phenomena: hygienia, mass class standards, interface culture. As for the negative implications of “sheltered” or “privileged”, I agree and I’ve always simply liked “advantaged” for its straightforwardness.

Class-wise, I've felt the US to be headed in that direction for a while now. That there isn't a growing middle-class smoothing out both ends, but an upper middle class and then everything else, and a growing inability to relate between the two. It's like we're headed for Land of the Dead country.
posted by twins named Lugubrious and Salubrious at 11:46 PM on September 22, 2009 [10 favorites]

There's nothing stopping people from any background from being "extremely smart, well-organized, calm, extremely nice, have an optimistic attitude about the future and have lived a kind of sheltered existence".

Yes, there is. Especially when the "sheltered" you are talking about is actually "sheltered from want."

No doubt, it's easier to be this way and raise our kids to be this way when we have more money. But that's not the defining factor.

I'm afraid it is. Also, most people wouldn't want to raise their kids that way, thus perpetuating the insularity of the stereotype.
posted by 256 at 12:20 PM on September 23, 2009

If they were British I'd call them posh.
posted by like_neon at 1:21 AM on September 24, 2009

(Oh also, I meant "dedication to self-destruction over a number of years".)
posted by twins named Lugubrious and Salubrious at 6:25 AM on September 29, 2009

Humility? Humility?
Who on early would say that? Ok, some people above, but - WHY?

No, no - sheltered and priviledged.

The key being, they don't realise they aren't being humble.
Hmmm... Stanford or Harvard? Such a risk taker!

There is no risk.
They may do cool things, but not risky things. There is always the safety net there, none of the fear.
posted by Elysum at 9:53 PM on October 1, 2009

On a nicer note, you could describe them as 'secure'.
posted by Elysum at 4:26 AM on October 5, 2009