Book of the Month

Donal's picture

Is the Occupy Movement Over?


Based on an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (right), the Guardian announces, Occupy Wall Street's people power loses popularity:

... the public's backing of Occupy has taken a hit. Nationally, most pollsters have not even bothered to survey Americans on their views of Occupy since the end of the Zuccotti Park sit-in. The only pollster who has reasonably consistently asked about Occupy has seen a decline in its support. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that the percentage of Americans who consider themselves a "supporter" of the Occupy movement has dropped by half since November.

I read this last week, and wondered, who of course, could be more impartial about Occupy Wall Street than the WSJ's pollsters? And who, I wonder are they asking?

On a blog post pointed out today by Andrew Sullivan's Dish, Walter Russell Mead makes a lot of strange claims in OWS RIP:

Despite generally favorable coverage from the MSM (something the Tea Party has never had), OWS has essentially fallen apart.

Mead must have been reading very different articles than I saw - on both sides. The Baltimore Sun fell over themselves to channel Breitbart and other conservative memes about OB, and as I noted at the time, local TV was drawn to the most unusual-looking characters rather than those with the most cogent ideas. Since being dispersed by the city, Occupy Baltimore has not attempted to reestablish a campground, but they aren't inactive. Under the name Occupy Our Homes they continue to protest foreclosures, there have been Occupy Bank of America protests and there was  a small Occupy the G8 Summit protest in Thurmont, near Camp David, this weekend. Occupy protestors were "arriving by the busload," for the NATO Summit in Chicago. And there are thousands marching under the name in Europe.

To some degree, it was killed by its “friends.” The tiny left wing groups that exist in the country jumped all over the movement; between them and the deranged and occasionally dangerous homeless people and other rootless wanderers drawn to the movement’s increasingly disorderly campsites, OWS looked and sounded less and less like anything the 99 percent want anything to do with.

From my limited perspective, Occupy Baltimore was an uneasy alliance between groups with little in common previously. Some of the homeless seemed to enjoy being noticed and being part of something, but others simply saw the campers as fodder, right there in the next tent. African American speakers harped on resolving racial disparities first. LGBT art students also wanted to be heard. College students and underemployed graduates were upset at their high debts and the piss poor job market, and brought a middle class look to the movement. LarouchePAC showed up as per usual, as did Libertarians. Old hippie leftists also seemed to enjoy being noticed but there seemed to be very serious, young anarchist apparatchiks actually making things happen. 

At the same time, the movement largely failed to connect with the African American and Hispanic churchgoers who would have to be the base for any serious grass roots urban political mobilization. The trade unions picked up the movement briefly but dropped it like a hot brick as they found the brand less and less attractive.

In Baltimore, I can't speak to black church sentiment, but support from the trade unions, even the Fraternal Order of Police, kept OB in McKeldin Square a lot longer than predicted by onlookers.

One of Mead's commenters makes somewhat more sense to me: 

If OWS had started as an indebted students movement, like Argentina, if they hadn’t camped out and become odd urban obstructions, and if a charismatic leader had surfaced, giving the media something to focus on, I suspect things would have turned out differently.

They may have been treated better, but I doubt they would have achieved such a high profile, or accomplished much more. 

The MSM, with the exception of MSNBC’s gung-ho grad student excitement, was uneasy and ambivalent about OWS. NYT’s first articles, at least the ones I read, were dismissive, frequently focusing on Wall Street condescension and never attempted to grasp the situation. The Daily Show went for easy laughs – each segment highlighted OWS’s freak show contradictions.

But the true death of OWS, other than inertia: the violent images that came out of Oakland, teargas and surging crowds, bloody faces. I suspect that TV audiences recoiled, dreading the social the chaos of the 60′s.

Of course, behind the scenes funding, which the Tea Party received and OWS didn’t, is also a big part of the story. Dick Army and the Koch Bros knew how to effectively channel Tea Party energy.

Though it is unclear who was behind it, the Black Bloc image has been a problem, granting authorities cover to strategically charge Occupy protestors with terrorism in advance of significant actions.

Deutsch later told reporters outside the courtroom that, though he was just getting into the case and didn't know all the evidence, he believed it was a setup. At least two informants "ingratiated themselves" with the three men, brought the materials and made the alleged plans, he insisted, calling it "an entrapment to the highest degree."

I think the name Occupy will continue to have some power, but protestors and the police alike will never again be able to count on the other to be non-violent - which of course serves the interests of those that don't want protest to have any real effect. I do wonder what shape and name the next protest movement will take.

I've been following the events in Chicago this weekend.  The movement still seems fairly active.  And of course what is happening in Quebec right now is quite large.

But the thing that immediately jumps out when you watch the livestreams is that is that about 99% of the people participating appear to be under the age of 25.  The failure of the movement to build generational bridges and reach out to connect with and include people worried about their retirement plans, their health care, financial predation, inequality, job insecurity, their mortgages, their children's and grandchildren's future, and all the other anxieties of disappearing middle class prosperity under 2012 capitalism run amok is very striking.  You get your occasional nun or veteran protester or radical pundit showing up for an event - but for the most part OWS is a kids' movement.  They allowed an initially promising and broad message of democratic egalitarianism to get dragged down into the radical kitch ghetto with the anarchists and their same-old, same-old obsessions with authority and youthful paranoia.  It's just a bunch of young people right who want to express themselves in various ways by butting heads with police officers, and asserting a claim on public space, but not a serious movement for political change.

They also seem to be pursuing about 100 issues right now.   This week it's Nato.  Whatever.

The Chomskyan "anarchist" wing of the left has delivered forty years of distraction and failure.  I wish the left could get over this 19th century romanticism and get down to serious business.

I checked out some of the protests in Spain last week too.  Lots of people.  But you get the sense of thousands of people hanging out together in public just to express their frustration, and standing around waiting for someone to tell them what they are actually trying to achieve, and what is their action plan for achieving it.

The movement could still spark into something broader.  But it needs an issue, a focus, an agenda and a plan of action that consists in more than "occupying".

The Chomskyan "anarchist" wing of the left has delivered forty years of distraction and failure.  I wish the left could get over this 19th century romanticism and get down to serious business.

Wait, what? Are you on the same planet as I am, with the same left, totally enamored of institutions, hierarchy, and the masters' tools? Sheesh. Wow. We've been doing the "progressive" thing for decades. And here we are.

You know what has really hurt the (very much still alive) Occupy movement? THE POLICE. In New York, we can't so much as assemble 10 people with a public announcement before the cops show up and start setting up barricades. It makes it impossible not to do actions but to have MEETINGS.

Blame the youth if you want -- it's pretty original, after all -- but the elderly are here with us, Occupying Wall Street. Among our ranks, they vastly outnumber the boomers and Gen Xers, who are completely in love with the privilege capitalism has granted them -- and literally NO ONE ELSE IN THE WORLD -- and won't come out of their homes until the demons they fetishize have literally obliterated the world's resources on some "Why the fuck is my power off?"

And here we are.

Really? You get out on the street to set up your agenda?

Put your meeting list together, double A3 paper, show it to the police, "This is what we're here to discuss today", film it.

When the mortgage-theft settlement came and went, Occupy Wall Street was dead - completely useless in what should have been a pan-generational outrage.

I was sympathetic at first, that outrage in the streets didn't have to have a specific focus, a plan, that it would evolve.

But 8 months later, all I see is people obsessed with camping in public parks, and not making any new friends who might change a single piece of legislation, or providing a simple coherent plan to get some value.

Yeah, "we are the 99%", great line, but when as Dan says it's all under-25-year-olds who don't vote anyway and a handful of retirees - hey, Daniel Ellsberg is available? - we're down to the "we are the 15%". Enough hey-ho hey-ho chants.

The contempt for GenX and Boomers is striking - most of these folks are busy working and trying to survive the theft of their homes and assets, and they happen to be making the laws right now and the bulk of the electorate - think it might be useful to engage them and get them on your side?

Martin Luther King didn't have police encouraging him to march, but he had some demands and coherent actions. (even the confrontation with Bull Conner's police dogs was planned - what's more boring than a peaceful march?) Let's try that for a change.

Of course the "elderly" are there.  They are retired.   They don't have to go to work.  And I don't know what all these privileges are that capitalism has granted me.  In 2008 it blew up half our retirement savings and has not given me a real raise since.  And I'm the lucky one, because a whole bunch of my co-workers were summarily canned.  Since they have families to take care of and bills to pay, they are out hustling for work, and do I doubt they have a lot of time left for one of your "direct actions".  Instead of asking all of these struggling people to join you for one of your adventures dodging police, why aren't you going where THEY are?

Wake up.   There is a whole world of people out there in those houses you have such contempt for, and they are spitting mad and ready to bash Wall Streets brains in.   Are you actually series about changing the society we live in, or do you just want to play Cops and Anarchists out I'm the street with your masks and bandanas and other toys?

You know what I see when I look at those police officers you tussle with?  People with tough jobs and kids and families who are just trying to make it through another day without getting killed or banged up, and who have to take it I'm the ass from their bosses every day, with help from the same overpaid bankster assholes you guys used to protest until you got distracted by everything else that comes into the flickering ken of your short attention span .

Why do you assume change is out I'm the street?  Don't you understand that you are no threat at all right mow to Wall Street and the other people who own our world?  All they care about is their money, and since you guys have absolutely no discernable plan for taking it away from them, you are just so many Mosquitos for them to swat. 

At one point, the OWS folks were organizing to help keep people in their homes. Block foreclosures and evictions. I thought that was promising.

Good points, Dan. And PP.

OB is still having weekly Occupy Our Homes meetings.

I guess I would say we could see this coming from a mile away.  Maybe the movement should be applauded for attempting to allow for an organic, spontaneous development of a focus, agenda and plan of action (as Dan would put it).  But the results it has achieved since getting the 99% / 1% meme into the parlance of the culture are pretty understandable.  In the end, street protests play just a small overall role in "a serious movement for political change."  Most of the work is tedious, frustrating, time-consuming and are not impacted by whether one wears a costume or pitches a tent.

The Dish publishes a reader email:

I suspect your obit for Occupy is a bit premature. ... The Tea Party was made up of a demographic that was older and more a part of establishment politics to begin with. Occupy, on the other hand, is a far more genuinely grass roots organization made up of a much younger crowd.

The Occupiers are far more innately anti-establishment than the Tea Partiers and therefore they haven't been integrated into the party machinery like the Tea Party has been. This was always going to put a limit on their short-term effectiveness. But in the long run, you've got an entire generation that is having their view of politics shaped by this movement. An entire generation thinking about our economy in terms of the 99% versus the 1%. Over time these people will become more engaged in the traditional political process and it will reshape the landscape far more fundamentally than the Tea Party did.

One ideal of the Occupy paradigm was not to be just another protest movement, but a new way of living, working, resolving differences ... together, with a high degree of unanimity. It was unwieldy, and those of us who are married to our wives, jobs and flat screen monitors were probably relieved that they would not allow us the time to commit to the Occupy lifestyle, but for many of the suburban younger folk it was a very rich experience. If the banksters continue to suck the life out of the middle class lifestyle, the Occupy experience may be what they look towards as an alternative. I'm not sure I agree that Occupiers will become engaged in the traditional political process, but if some do, they will bring ideas like General Assemblies and mic checks to the table.

It seems to me, and this relates to my comment on Ramona's Fair Weather Dem blog, that there are a lot of people frustrated with traditional D vs R politics, but still too comfortable to make a serious change. So they threaten to not vote, or to vote for a third party, or they make noise about a protest vote for the other side—none of which involves any real commitment or discomfort in the short term.

Until they were forcibly disrupted, the Occupiers had taken some steps towards a sort of a revolution. I think some of them are still doing so. That to me is a more honest way of rejecting the system than whining about one's vote.

Until they started looking in the mirror and worrying about camping supplies and drum circles, OWS was doing fine.

There was only 1 issue - "they stole our money, we want it back". 

It's not about rich vs. poor - there are lots of rich people who aren't stealing. There are a lot of not-so-rich people in Washington helping them steal.

Why is OWS at the NATO meeting? Attention Deficit Disorder? Banking meltdown and mortgage foreclosure fraud isn't enough of a task? We have to save the world in every way?

A shame.

This is a non sequitur, I don't buy anything you've asserted, and you've offered no proof—so go ahead and complain about Calvinball now and get it over with.

No, this is the "I reject everything you've said, you must vanish in a cloud of smoke" rebuttal, used by Bobby Fischer against Boris Spassky in one of their tensest encounters.

Spassky, it must be said, did not in fact vanish in a puss of smoke, but it did throw him off his stride, leaving the match to Fisher. The rest is history.

Interesting thoughts, Donal, and I largely agree.

Can't tell where the OWS is headed, if anywhere. Maybe one generation really can't tell where the next one is heading, in part because of all the things you mention.

But one of the things that's struck me as missing from many of these conversations is a sense of method: How does one effect social change at a fundamental level?

Is it simply a matter of chance?

An organic movement that erupts when conditions are ripe?

Are the times and circumstances always unique such that lessons can't really be carried over from one period to another?

Perhaps I'm naive, but it would seem there ought to be a methodology--rules for radicals, if you will--that lays out a path, shows what's effective, what required, and what isn't effective and a waste of time.

Or is it all unknown and people just have to stumble around in the dark hoping for the best?

 

...had taken some steps towards a sort of a revolution.

There are a lot of different angles on can take on assessing and coming to understand what was, is and will be the occupy movement.  But this notion of a revolution in terms of rhetoric is key to why the occupy movement couldn't gain steam.  Most people (in my opinion), even when times are really really bad, don't want a revolution.  They just want things to get better.  Revolution means chaos.  Revolution means things getting worse before they get better, if they get better and chances are they won't.  Why give up what comforts one has to join the revolution when there is little chance one will get those comforts back.  

Had the occupy movement focused on getting legislative reforms and changes made, kind of something along the lines of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, things might have been different in regards to the buy in from the general public.

Another angle to look at is the influence of the participants themselves - they way they see the world, etc.  I think one cannot doubt such participation would have and is having profound influence on those individuals.  Just like the impact on the participants in the anti-war movement in the 60s.  I'm sure in the future we will have representatives and senators whose bio will say one of their first real involvement was the occupy movement. 

But just how much did the anti-war protests, in spite of the influence on the individuals and the specific policy of US involvement in Vietnam, have on the overall machinery and modus operandi of US government?

At the time of the anti-war protests, there was a cultural transformation going on in the country.  Both influence the other.  Looking at the cultural change going on now in this country - being mainly driven by new technologies in communication, the occupy movement seems to have a more serious hurdle in becoming one of the significant influences in the cultural discourse with each given day.

So another thought and this relates to some questions Dan posed a while back...

It also has to do with the comparison between the Tea Party and the Republican Party...

Some time ago, Dan asked something like: What are the core principles and practices and goals of liberalism?

I don't know if he meant this, but I interpreted him as saying: We fall apart and lose effectiveness as a movement because we don't know or don't agree on what we stand for, what we're working towards, and the means by which we can get there.

I still think this is missing from our discourse. So we tend to splinter along issue lines and the importance/centrality we ascribe to those issues. Do gay rights trump or equal having the right foreign policy, assuming your guy isn't doing both?

The benefit (and perhaps weakness) of Marxism was that it had/has all this and gave one a path that, at least in principle, encompassed all the individual issues.

The Tea Party is much closer to having this sort of principled and programmatic coherence than we are or the OWS is. We can see this in the fact that they elected some 60 odd people to Congress.

Of course, as you point out, it was easier for them because they had rich backers to power the movement and runs for Congress and, in effect, co-opt any of the real populism in the movement that may have been there in the beginning. Tea Partiers simply became rabid Republicans (maybe that's all they ever were), whereas the OWS (and some folks here) are anti-Democratic Party, at least as the Party is performing now. I would argue that the "real" Democratic Party we imagine was never really real, but was always a patchwork of the kind of compromise now being derided.

Anyway, very thought provoking.

I think the Tea Party also has it easier because they represent a more homogenous group—one that claims to espouse conservative christianist values (even though a lot of them drink too much, smoke weed, watch porn, hump out of wedlock, etc.). Someone claimed they were the Scotch-Irish, but I think it is a bit broader than that. They just wanted their same big slice of the pie, that they were used to getting, for their kids.

At the encampments, Occupy tried to incorporate anyone and everyone with a gripe, and to get them to agree on a big picture. At the core were revolutionaries trying to herd cats with General Assemblies, but some of them were people that would never have been there if they were still getting their big slice of the pie.

So it is an interesting question whether liberalism can survive a smaller pie.

The mic check was developed into a technique for communicating at large meetings and enhancing the sense of broad participation while doing so.  But then it was developed into a tool for disrupting meetings, as in "Mr. So-and-so was <i>mic checked</i> when he attempted to speak."  The tactic became especially absurd when young the young occupiers attended public meetings at which they would have been permitted to speak just like anyone else, but instead chose to disrupt the deliberations of others via a mic check.

AIUI, the mic check was used because public address was not allowed in Zucotti Park. I hadn't heard about it being used to squelch other speakers.

I guess what happened is that the Occupiers didn't take up residence within the confines of the Democratic party, the way the Tea Partiers really became the Republican party.  There's a few reasons for this.  The first is that the Tea Partiers were, largely, already part of the party.  They just changed their name from "the religious right."  The Occupiers didn't start with a spot within the Democratic party.  They also seemed more concerned about the negative consequences of getting co-opted than about trying to take mover.

Meanwhile, Democrats were cautious and slow to embrace the movement, when they embraced it at all.  There are decent reasons for that.  But our media isn't great about telling off-script stories like this.  The only acknowledged political forces outside of the two party system are individual rich people who can pay their own way as third party candidates for office.

I don't think the issue is the Democratic Party.  I'm completely supportive of the idea of people developing a mass political movement outside conventional party structures, and jealously guarding their independence.  The problem, as I see it, is a lack of focus and clear aims, and a consequent lack of strategic vision.

The following Alternet article describes what seems to me a more promising set of developments somewhat separate from the Occupy tactic of direct and unfocussed protest actions on the street.

http://www.alternet.org/economy/155452/the_rise_of_the_new_economy_movement?page=entire

 

Let me come at this from another direction. At the moment, Occupy isn't occupying much of anyplace.

It's natural that a movement that becomes an overnight sensation sees support cool off later. And it's even more natural that a street movement that's largely been off the streets since late autumn (because it's not just media buzz that's cooled off), is going to have awareness fade. And to some degree, the level of support is correlated to how much the person answering the poll imagines Occupy as a real active movement. ("Are you a supporter of that thing that happened and didn't go anywhere?" is almost a self-answering question.)

If Occupy can put itself back on America's mind this summer, and underscore the most broadly popular parts of its message, I think you'll see a different public response.

Excellent perspective.

Couldn't help but note the similarity of the following description in this article about street protestors in another locale to those of Dan and Peracles:

The protesters — a mix of grandparents, 20-somethings, aging hippies and blue collar professionals — blew vuvuzelas and trumpets, jangled tambourines and passed out songbooks to gawking onlookers.

And I found myself thinking, though, that if the reporter had written that six months ago, it would be dissed by many in the blogosphere as same old MSM causing the movement to fail by mischaracterizing it and being negative (rather than the reporters describing what they were actually seeing with their very own eyes, that the 97% weren't really out there, only the usual suspects.)
 
Anyhew, the article is very on point to this thread's discussion:

The members of the Solidarity Sing Along are a microcosm of the anti-Walker movement: passionate about public policy, eager to fight for their values, invested in the community they have forged — and yet, not entirely on the same page. Despite the outpouring of anger at Walker, on an electoral level, the governor’s opponents have struggled to channel the enthusiasm that garnered more than 1 million recall signatures into a successful campaign.

As a result, the campaign to recall Walker is sputtering, and the governor has pulled ahead in the polls with a little over two weeks to go until the June 5 election. “There’s a lot of despair, a lot of anger,” says Chris Reeder, 41, an activist who helps lead the Solidarity Sing Along. “The polls are very scary.”

 
Except the thing is, the Wisconsin movement has done as Dan's suggests to "dicey troop" and go where the struggling working people are, and have done something, they got a recall election going. And, as the article describes, the diehards are now out protesting their frustration how not enough of those people seem to want to go along.
 
Here's what I thought about when Dan K said
There is a whole world of people out there in those houses you have such contempt for, and they are spitting mad and ready to bash Wall Streets brains in
and
when Peracles noted that the contempt for Boomers struggling to keep/get back what they  had is striking:
 
1) Maybe not enough of them, Dan K;  check the Wisconsin article I cited and then the Wisconsin polls. As much as you despise people spending time talking about Republican political campaign skills, there's apparently something to that whole game, what they say, and how they say it. And the message you want them to hear, not enough seem to like. It's not just the protestors they don't like, you can't blame this all on them. Perhaps specifically, not enough of them property-tax-paying, voting types seem to like the whole idea of well-paid (or decently-paid, your choice) civil servants that you like to promote--just a suggestion that there might be a need for a whole lot more convincing on that out there.
 
I do see one potential coalition in this all--the property taxpaying types and the protestors both might not want to see more well-paid cops with good pensions and early retirement out there, especially those of minimal skill and intelligence looking for a good government job.
 
2) Boomers been there, done that, Peracles, as regards a vague OWS type movement, and are generally cynical about how long it takes for the "silent majority" to come around to street protestors's POV--it can happen, but it takes decades.  Meanwhile mostly everyone involved eventually had to get on with the day to day.  And then a decade after that, most everyone often forgets lessons learned anyhow (see Iraq for one example) Youngins generally don't like hearing about that part of it from boomers, boomers didn't either when they were doing it, instead they sought out the retired of their day still smarting from the unsuccessful street fights of the 30's for encouragement (you know the type I'm talking about--Studs Terkel loved to laud them.)

 

It SEEMED to work better in OH, though they didn't try to get rid of Kasich.

No problem.   If you lose you lose.  You try to mobilize the people who are already on your side, and change the minds of those who aren't.  If those numbers don't add up, you lose.  But at least you go to work with a clear message and a clear aim.

And getting 45% of people to join you is more of a victory than getting 15% of people to join you.  You can build on 45%.  15%, on the other hand, means "Start over, from scratch."

Came across this picture and I suppose it says something about where the movement is:

Do they have jobs?

Who knows.  It would much mean much worse for the movement's ability to inspire and get its message out if unemployed college grads don't get the seriousness of their situation.  So one can hope these are the rare ones that have already been recruited and don't relate to those struggling to find employment.

Well, Wall Street type were making fun of the 1%/99% meme from the get go, so if a bunch of privileged graduates do the same, I don't think it means that much. In fact I'd rather see what they think in a few years.

What makes you think they're all privileged?  A lot of the people who major in business come from less than privileged backgrounds.  It is possible they have mommies and daddies who make 600K a year.  Maybe they are not representative of youth in general at all.  I believe they are - and it is significant that whatever is happening in terms of a movement is not reaching them, is not inspiring them. 

In fact I'd rather see what they think in a few years.

What this implies is that the movement needs to have people experience the suffering before they'll join.  Fortunately for the Civil Rights Movement, the movement didn't have to wait until white people suffered discrimination before it could succeed.

When I use the word if it means I don't know yet.

It could mean that.  Not to be too persnickety, but it also could be interpreted as if you used the phraseology of something like "so if some politicians are making stupid speeches regarding the issue, it doesn't mean much in the long run," where the fact that they are politicians is not in question. 

It does mean that, and because the photo is from some weird site called Chive, I have no idea where it came from.

Which is all going around the point of me posting the picture, which is that one choose to go onto the ten random public universities today, just how much real socio-political activism along the line of the occupy movement is one going to find?  How many students will one find trying to become part of the 1%, or at least 5%, and how many are looking to find a way for some kind of revolution? Would this picture tend to be more or less reflective of the average students' attitude?

And that weird site called TheChive happens to be, for better or for worse, one of the top websites in terms of visits (a million a day give or take a few).  Actually I was working on a blog about it, since it reflects I believe a lot about where collectively we are culturally. 

If you're referring to students' ability to make jokes about anything, I'd say the picture might be reflective. If you're talking about actual student attitudes, I'd say it's very unreflective. Even at UVA, which is a comparatively conservative school, I think you'll find that most students are sympathetic to the 99% and not the 1%. (I say "think" because this is based off the letters I read in the college paper and the students I talk to, both of which have certain selection biases.)

sympathetic yes.  But the key is how does that sympathy get translated into real life opinions, decisions, and actions.  Something like the occupy movement depends upon not only active participation, but sustained active participation.  It requires the people involved to be dedicated and committed to the cause.  A sign like that just didn't get made spontaneously a few minutes before the ceremony.  There was some thought, planning, effort - for what end?  to be flippant about a serious issue.  Of all the things they could have done, they choose, well beforehand, to do this.  So I would say in many instances, even these particular graduates would be sympathetic to the 99%.  But that sympathy is unlikely to translate into any real sacrifice or willingness to sacrifice.

Yeah, but what school is it?

In my experience (as someone who comes from a moderate background), if you're trying to decide whether to go to graduate school to get a graduate degree in the engineering, the arts, or science versus going for an MBA, a law degree, or medical degree, it's going to be very significant that the first type of degree tends to be free (with a stipend, no less), while the second type of degree tends to be expensive.

Latest Comments