In my earlier comment I may have been a bit too harsh on Catholic colleges and universities.
Yep. This post was much better.
Also – this is a phenomenon I have been seeing in my own community; I wonder if anyone else sees this where they live – the reputation that students or alumni of a particular Catholic school have could be unfavorable. Where I used to live, there was a Catholic high school that had a reputation (perhaps not fully merited) for being the “rich kids school” and for producing graduates that have a disproportionate amount of wealth and influence in the community – kind of a good old boys network (it’s coed now but historically was a boys’ school). People who did not attend this school or who cannot afford to send their children there often speak unfavorably of it, sometimes they even describe its alums as a “Catholic Mafia.” There MAY be people out there who have turned away from the Church because of the way they were treated by students, teachers, or graduates of this school, who would not have reacted that way if these people were merely graduates of a wealthy public or other private school.
I ahd to go back and look where you are from as I thought you might be talking of the school I attended - Jesuit High in Beaverton.
They catch it not only for scholastic achievement but also for athletics, since they have been such a powerhouse for so long. All sorts of allegations have been amde about recruiting. What a joke; they don’t have to recruit; student athletes are begging for the chance to go there, as they want to be on the winning team. What a novel thought…
When I went there it was called (among kids) the “bookbag school”. Why? Because a) you had a wad of homework; b) a good number of kids there were from wealthy families, and c) they carried so many books and their parents could afford it, that they had 'bookbags". Long before backpacks became popular.
But the real question may be: Is this an issue that the graduates thing they are “too good” or is it an issue of jealousy? I went to Jesuit, and am proud of the shcool and the education it gave me, the attitude of “Age Quod Agis” (roughly translated, “Whatever you do, do well”), and the work ethic they instilled. I went at a time that they had one purpose - to teach - and we had one purpose - to learn, and we “got it on”. They were exceedingly demanding; their attitude was to take the best and run with them. That sounds eletist to many. Many want to dumb down to the lowest common denominator. Many want to have reverse pride based on a reverse humility - “Look at me; I am not like them, successful, striving to be the best; rather, I am so great in my mediocrity”.
Humility is not saying “oh, I am so lowly, so meek, so humble in my avoidance of standing out; I am so worthy because I do not strive”. And many of those who are so critical of those who went to Jesuit are all of that. If God gave you a talent, are you to be criticized for using it the best you can?
Some would.
Jesuit High was called the “rich kids school” because the tuition was the highest in town. But not all kids were from rich families; I most definitely wasn’t. I paid part of my way through there, as did my two brothers. And I most definitely was not alone. and we have seemingly a disproportionate number of leaders who have graduated from there. That should be embarrassing? Or bad?