Imagine the advances in Science if Princeton and other elite Universities admitted only the best and brightest, regardless of skin color/economic class. Unfortunately too many superior Asian and White applicants are rejected in the name of "diversity" because they come from middle to upper middle class families and are not students of the right color. The rejection of merit as the main criteria for admission into our top Colleges could help explain why America's economic competitiveness lags among its foreign peers.
2
Predictably The Times ignores the obvious. Princeton's ancient celebration of its sectarian roots and Protestant victor at Ireland's Battle of the Boyne: William of Orange-Nassau. Princeton never was a safe space for young Catholics ... even for the few who could afford it. After cousin Furlong ran afoul of the divines they sent my father to Holy Cross.
3
I wish there was somewhere would I could donate to the FLI, but my student loans, I owe more now than I did when I finished my PHD twenty years ago. I still owe two years salary at todays payoff rate, and I'm 54 with a toddler. I guess all I can say is do it for us folks, sincerely, they hobbled us good from Reagan and we've been losing ever since. Maybe your generation could then get a handle on these pricks. No pressure.
6
"And the muckraking journalist Upton Sinclair described Princeton as 'the most perfect school of snobbery in America' with “few Jews” and “no Negroes.” Into the 1950s, some entering classes included not a single African-American." And how many, if any, women entered Princeton in the 1950s?
10
If every student of color were removed from an entering class at Princeton and replaced by a white student, there would still be thousands of QUALIFIED white students who would not be admitted. There simply isn’t enough room for all of the qualified applicants to an entering class.
If highly-selective institutions like Princeton were to admit only on so-called “merit,” the overall standardized test scores would not change substantially and, I’m told, the average grade point average would change only in the SECOND DECIMAL PLACE.
Shouldn’t these colleges be able to assemble a class from the excess of duly QUALIFIED applicants without micro-examining down to the second decimal place of the gpa? If such discretion is disallowed, then athletic teams should also be forced to select players only on such quantifiable assets like speed, size, weight-lifting talents, etc., without regard to positions and other team needs. One year the best “quantifiable assets” might produce only wide receivers.
Try putting together a winning football team with only wide receivers!
If highly-selective institutions like Princeton were to admit only on so-called “merit,” the overall standardized test scores would not change substantially and, I’m told, the average grade point average would change only in the SECOND DECIMAL PLACE.
Shouldn’t these colleges be able to assemble a class from the excess of duly QUALIFIED applicants without micro-examining down to the second decimal place of the gpa? If such discretion is disallowed, then athletic teams should also be forced to select players only on such quantifiable assets like speed, size, weight-lifting talents, etc., without regard to positions and other team needs. One year the best “quantifiable assets” might produce only wide receivers.
Try putting together a winning football team with only wide receivers!
6
It is worth noting that the most unabashedly racist President of the United States in the twentieth century was also the former President of Princeton, Woodrow Wilson.
Are there any monuments of him still on the Princeton campus.
If so how is that different from having statues of Confederate leaders in our Southern states?
Are there any monuments of him still on the Princeton campus.
If so how is that different from having statues of Confederate leaders in our Southern states?
6
Online education that is certified by Princeton in some manner solves numerous problems while adding a few in enhancing someone's future at a reasonable price.
4
I'm happy for the students who got into Princeton and received aid. But essentially, this benefit is for middle class white Americans. Try being a middle class Asian American and then see where you stand (hint: you many not be admitted until you have a substantially higher SAT score than your white counterpart. Read the following NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/30/opinion/white-students-unfair-advanta.... Unless admissions are purely on merit, except for historically under represented minorities (which means Asian Americans and Whites have same chances), I am not impressed.
10
I hope they are truly searching for highly qualified but economically deprived students of all backgrounds, including students who are white and whose familes go back a couple of generations or more.
For far too long, the left forgot about class, forgot about economics, and was a black and women numbers game, stressing that all legislative bodies, all jobs, all delegations, and all student bodies have the right number of blacks and women.
For far too long, the left forgot about class, forgot about economics, and was a black and women numbers game, stressing that all legislative bodies, all jobs, all delegations, and all student bodies have the right number of blacks and women.
9
This article is incredibly snobbish. You don't have to go to an Ivy League school to get a great education and enjoy a successful career, even if you come from a lower class background. Leonhardt is just reinforcing all the prejudices!!
There are the state schools (look at the California system!) that are generally excellent. After a year of residency one can get dramatic tuition reductions. Leonhardt should have mentioned (and read!) Loren Pope's book "Forty Colleges that Change Lives" that describes small colleges with faculty focused on teaching, not research, who give students personal attention and growth opportunities. There are organizations that guide students to the right ones and help find financial support. For students with top grades there are the outstanding military academies one can apply to through one's senator--all expenses paid if you make the grade. Excellent in science, math, and computers.
As someone who received three degrees from Ivy League schools, taught in two, and was married to a Princeton professor, I feel the Ivies are way overrated!! Leonhardt didn't do his homework; don't follow his example.
There are the state schools (look at the California system!) that are generally excellent. After a year of residency one can get dramatic tuition reductions. Leonhardt should have mentioned (and read!) Loren Pope's book "Forty Colleges that Change Lives" that describes small colleges with faculty focused on teaching, not research, who give students personal attention and growth opportunities. There are organizations that guide students to the right ones and help find financial support. For students with top grades there are the outstanding military academies one can apply to through one's senator--all expenses paid if you make the grade. Excellent in science, math, and computers.
As someone who received three degrees from Ivy League schools, taught in two, and was married to a Princeton professor, I feel the Ivies are way overrated!! Leonhardt didn't do his homework; don't follow his example.
15
I would more believe that Princeton is trying to do the right thing when it makes admissions race blind -- which would mean an influx of Asian students, as happened in the top California universities when the voters in that state banned consideration of race in admissions.
6
Addressing economic diversity is admirable but i feel it lacks a holistic understanding. My thoughts come from two vantage points: (1) as one who immigrated here as a child, coming from a middle class family, and was (along with my brother) the first in our family to attend American universities, there were aspects that I encountered – some I realized then and, some I understood later and; (2) today as an adjunct at a liberal arts college, I see these same issues with my students.
I did not always interact successfully in college. I choose the word, “interacting”, as contrasted to “integrating”. This is deliberate.
Because I did not go to boarding school (while a third or more of my classmates did), this left me at a disadvantage, as I didn’t understand the social rules of dorm living (similar to boarding school). Second, boarding schools have students who come from backgrounds, where their norms and values about expending financial resources were vastly different. Third, while I was fully internalized into American culture, my ethnic background was uncommon on campuses.
All in all, I turned out okay. But as I see students today who are foreign students or, are on scholarship/financial aid, I see these three aspects still impacting their experience and educational performance. Measures could be considered to mitigate the negative aspects. But I think that can only occur with a holistic understanding of these students as they are thrust into an unfamiliar social milieu.
I did not always interact successfully in college. I choose the word, “interacting”, as contrasted to “integrating”. This is deliberate.
Because I did not go to boarding school (while a third or more of my classmates did), this left me at a disadvantage, as I didn’t understand the social rules of dorm living (similar to boarding school). Second, boarding schools have students who come from backgrounds, where their norms and values about expending financial resources were vastly different. Third, while I was fully internalized into American culture, my ethnic background was uncommon on campuses.
All in all, I turned out okay. But as I see students today who are foreign students or, are on scholarship/financial aid, I see these three aspects still impacting their experience and educational performance. Measures could be considered to mitigate the negative aspects. But I think that can only occur with a holistic understanding of these students as they are thrust into an unfamiliar social milieu.
4
It's perfectly fine to focus on PELL grants because this is federal money, no cost to these institutions. What happens when the current Administration eliminates them? What then will be the commitment by places like Princeton to "low-income" students?
2
It is easy for institutions like Princeton to cover Pell Grants with their huge endowment and small student body. It is far more difficult for students attending state universities, where getting by and paying tuition becomes a much greater burden and the university cannot make up the difference
Pell grants are used as an indicator of economic status. The amounts granted are not likely a substantial portion of the financial aid package. The real issue is whether the endowment will increase in support of these measures.
3
It would be helpful to have some stats on how these less advantaged students do after college relative to their privileged peers. My guess is that overall they don't keep up in terms of future income, career advancement etc. If they did, we'd be hearing about it and colleges would be trying harder to recruit them. There's just a tremendous advantage of growing up where almost everyone you meet is a doctor, lawyer, banker, entrepreneur, professor etc. You talk the talk and share the values.
2
They are clearly good at what they do. There are extraordinarily well funded with highest endowment per student in the world. With this they should spend their money to do more good by growing. How about doubling class sizes in the next decade?
2
Small class sizes is one reason for the success of the programs; individual attention given from Professors to students. How about hiring more Professors and keeping the class size small?
News flash: Princeton to become community college.
You know what might help poor kids even more? If schools such as Princeton started giving preference to affluent kids who attend racially and/or economically integrated high schools over those who attend exclusive ones. I'll bet we'd see rich suburbs start to integrate.
39
I received a Master's and Ph.D. from Princeton more than 20 years ago. My family was solidly middle class: my dad sold insurance and my mom was a first grade teacher. My parents paid ZERO, and I got scholarships, grants and teaching assistantships to make it through and fund my research.
Yes, the air is a little thin at the top of the ivory tower. But the academics were superb, with a group of theoretical and practical thinkers in ecology and evolutionary biology that was hard to match anywhere in the world. I'm sure graduate school is different from undergrad, but I am glad I had the opportunity to study there. I didn't expect the experience to be a wholly welcoming, supporting family-type thing: I expected it to sharpen and discipline my mind for research, which it did.
Yes, the air is a little thin at the top of the ivory tower. But the academics were superb, with a group of theoretical and practical thinkers in ecology and evolutionary biology that was hard to match anywhere in the world. I'm sure graduate school is different from undergrad, but I am glad I had the opportunity to study there. I didn't expect the experience to be a wholly welcoming, supporting family-type thing: I expected it to sharpen and discipline my mind for research, which it did.
13
This feels like little more than a clever marketing campaign for a insecure school that realizes it needs to make a major shift to keep up with the research university juggernauts. Princeton is many ways way out of step with today's realities. Generation Z (yes that's who is applying to college now) are less inclined to want to attend schools lacking urban amenities, social life and globalism.The allure of a bucolic non urban college (and yes Princeton is little more than that as it has no medical, business or law school) to the broader global public is more limited than one may think. As urban schools like Yale, Columbia, Penn, Chicago, Johns Hopkins are surging post the gentrification of their respective cities meltdowns in the 60's and 70's, Princeton has to be threatened. Making things worse is an underlying sense with Princeton is socially exclusionary. The school is using its best weapon - cash - to hide behind a moral high ground to transform itself into a social mosaic snowflake campus with shiny glass edifices for science that seem to be a shallow attempt to mirror Stanford and other research brethren. The partial defrocking of Princeton's former Woodrow Wilson last year is an omen that the vaunted donation machine might come to an end. Princeton has changed it stripes before to adjust to its delicate image. It was a little over 100 years ago that its president smartly changed its name from College of NJ to Princeton University. His name was Woodrow Wilson.
10
"Generation Z (yes that's who is applying to college now) are less inclined to want to attend schools lacking urban amenities, social life and globalism." Oh, you speak for all of generation Z, do you? What source do you have for this comment?
"The allure of a bucolic non urban college (and yes Princeton is little more than that as it has no medical, business or law school) to the broader global public is more limited than one may think."
Princeton's focus is on the undergraduates, not the graduates. It's one of the things that separates it from peer institutions. Believe it or not, the broader global public is benefits greatly from recent graduates who are not only doctors, lawyers, and MBAs.
"The allure of a bucolic non urban college (and yes Princeton is little more than that as it has no medical, business or law school) to the broader global public is more limited than one may think."
Princeton's focus is on the undergraduates, not the graduates. It's one of the things that separates it from peer institutions. Believe it or not, the broader global public is benefits greatly from recent graduates who are not only doctors, lawyers, and MBAs.
6
LOL, I guess they are taking notes in Hanover.
As someone pointed out, it is a mathematical reality that half of the US population has IQ under 100. It does not matter if this half of America is black or white or hetero or gay. They exist and it is the duty of society to take care of them as they ARE.
Charles Murray who faced up to the reality suggested a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. Unlike the coming New marketplace of jobs, the guaranteed income would not depend on IQ or education or race or gender.
But Murray was not allowed to speak and his host at Middlebury was manhandled, leading to injury..
Peaceful liberals, PLEASE control the hooligans in your camp so that we can have a real discussion about our problems.
Charles Murray who faced up to the reality suggested a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans. Unlike the coming New marketplace of jobs, the guaranteed income would not depend on IQ or education or race or gender.
But Murray was not allowed to speak and his host at Middlebury was manhandled, leading to injury..
Peaceful liberals, PLEASE control the hooligans in your camp so that we can have a real discussion about our problems.
9
Nice try-- Princeton -- rum away as fast as you can from the obscene practice that all of the Ivies follow of letting wealthy families buy their way into their ultra elite clubs. Making the rest of us feel like, just plain stupid idiots, lording your superiority over the rest of us for the recast of our lives.
But we know Jared Kushner's dad bought his way into Harvard, and no doubt Princeton, Yale, and all the others have hundreds just like him: corrupt, entitled, above the law, traitorous.
You would serve our country better by pulling the names of your freshmen out of the phone book.
The grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their underachieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5m to Harvard University not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school, which at the time accepted about one of every nine applicants. (
But we know Jared Kushner's dad bought his way into Harvard, and no doubt Princeton, Yale, and all the others have hundreds just like him: corrupt, entitled, above the law, traitorous.
You would serve our country better by pulling the names of your freshmen out of the phone book.
The grubby secret of American higher education: that the rich buy their underachieving children’s way into elite universities with massive, tax-deductible donations. It reported that New Jersey real estate developer Charles Kushner had pledged $2.5m to Harvard University not long before his son Jared was admitted to the prestigious Ivy League school, which at the time accepted about one of every nine applicants. (
10
On behalf of Harvard, thank you Charles!
1
Northwestern has a Summer Internship Grant Program (SIGP) that allows students to apply to receive a grant so they're able to pursue an unpaid summer internship. I imagine Northwestern isn't the only school that offers this program. Princeton certainly has the finances to support a program of this sort. Might be very helpful to their lower income students.
2
Princeton has MANY programs like this. I was the beneficiary of two of them, one my sophomore summer, and one my junior summer, 15+ years ago.
6
I serve on a scholarship committee and am disappointed to see that some colleges and universities reduce a student's aid by the amount of any scholarship awarded. Amherst is one of these institutions. If these colleges and universities really want income-diverse students then they need to offer scholarship/aid and applaud those students with the initiative to seek additional financial support via scholarships and perhaps avoid burdensome loan debt rather than penalize them.
12
You did not qualify your service, and don't seem to draw the distinction between need based and merit based awards. The way to support more middle and lower income students is to spread resources, not squander them on one student, and every student should have a material investment in their schooling -- skin in the game if you prefer. The two of us have read very different articles on Amherst -- mine call it a fine school that is quite friendly to community college transfers.
Amherst uses outside scholarships to reduce the work study award first. If it packaged loans it might reduce those, but it doesn't, thank goodness. I'd like to see them use them to reduce the student summer earnings expectation next, but all in all still a generous policy IMO.
Let's lower the standards. Let's see the endowment after this generation. I suspect these students will go e much less as alumni, if anything. I've stopped giving.
5
A legacy system will in the longterm lower standards and alumni giving. Princeton has awakened to see that the truly most innovative and brilliant alumni will not come from legacies, but from a wide net throughout the entire country. Schools like Stanford have already started down that road, with multibillionaires being churned out every year. New money is greater than old money in the new world economy.
2
Do you think a wealthy donor will donate if the legacy system is removed and they have children?
7
Its a start, it's admirable, but no gushing just yet. Having spent 20 years paying off college debt ( albeit for a good career) Im surprised only when some pundit yammers on about how college graduates now can't afford to buy homes.
NOT a new development. No one gave a tinkers damn when my generation had to take on alot of debt AND were NEVER offered any kind of tax or tuition debt relief.
If the the denziens of the elite want to make a dent then they should lobby Congress for debt relief through tax relief or some such vehicle so today's graduates don't spend DECADES paying off college debt before they can even think about buying a home.
NOT a new development. No one gave a tinkers damn when my generation had to take on alot of debt AND were NEVER offered any kind of tax or tuition debt relief.
If the the denziens of the elite want to make a dent then they should lobby Congress for debt relief through tax relief or some such vehicle so today's graduates don't spend DECADES paying off college debt before they can even think about buying a home.
9
One of the aides who helps me with my mother near Princeton has a brilliant daughter who is a straight A student. When she was looking at schools we thought hard about trying to help her get in to Princeton. In the end, she decided for herself (a full scholarship elsewhere in the area), but what we thought about a bit at the time was the cultural adjustment, the support system, the prejudice she would encounter in her daily life. There are also academic assumptions, and financial considerations. Even with a tuition free life, there is the money involved in a part-time job and the family situation.
Something to think about: I don't have the answers.
Something to think about: I don't have the answers.
17
We could look at other countries. Little Costa Rica, for example, picks up the tab for its young people to attend any accredited college or university worldwide; Germany's educational institutions, including its medical schools, are free to any student from any country who is accepted (qualified) for admission. In the US, it's athletes who get a free ride, low-income Americans are saddled with a life-long debt, and foreign students pay the full tab and typically are the well-prepared scholars. The sad fact is many, if not most, Americans are anti-intellectual, and see higher education in terms of the job market.
17
The future of the country ( let alone the world ) is going to be based in cultural diversity that includes as many divergent groups as possible.
We are hurtling towards a planet that will become unsustainable ( if it isn't already ) and we will require every ounce of brainpower and will to solve massive problems in front of us.
I don't care if the solutions come a silver spoon or from food stamps.
We are hurtling towards a planet that will become unsustainable ( if it isn't already ) and we will require every ounce of brainpower and will to solve massive problems in front of us.
I don't care if the solutions come a silver spoon or from food stamps.
15
Princeton could admit ONLY students who qualify for Pell Grants, and it still wouldn't affect the big picture very much. If we are becoming, as many argue, a more and more unequal, even oligarchical, society, then all that schools like Princeton are doing is encouraging the replacement of a ruling clique dominated by rich white males for one dominated by newcomers of different backgrounds who will have the same undemocratic clout as their predecessors. We should pay less attention to the Princetons of the world and do more to save our enervated public universities.
30
I understand the outgoing president of Princeton Student Government is the daughter of first-generation immigrants, of modest means, from Eastern Europe. Bravo, Aleks! Bravo, Princeton.
2
Her mother is a PhD-level cancer researcher, so her background is elite.
2
This surely paints a nice picture of Princeton! As a current student at Princeton, class of 2018, this article leaves out what inevitably happens once we get accepted as students who are not of the upper-class: we forcibly assimilate. Somehow we all magically dress like them and act like them, and no one really knows who's not one of them anymore. All of a sudden we all have Canada Goose jackets (bought from working long hours at Frist or some other campus job) despite the fact that before we even got here we had never even heard of such ridiculous things.
Princeton needs to do more than just admit more low-income students if they want to change the campus culture and the extreme snobbery. They need to admit less of the type of people who create such a culture in the first place. Less of the old boys from Exeter and Deerfield who go to the Seychelles for spring break.
Princeton needs to do more than just admit more low-income students if they want to change the campus culture and the extreme snobbery. They need to admit less of the type of people who create such a culture in the first place. Less of the old boys from Exeter and Deerfield who go to the Seychelles for spring break.
If Princeton wants to increase enrollment of economically disadvantaged students (and it should) one way to do so that would be to allow a certain number of wealthy students, not to put too fine a point on it, to "buy" their acceptance into the university.
If, say, the parents of a wealthy student are willing to donate $2.4 million to Princeton in order to gain admission for their son or daughter, that would cover the cost of a full scholarship for 8 deserving students (roughly $300K per student for 4 years). Cap the pay-for-acceptance rate at 25 students. That would in itself cover the cost of full scholarship for 200 students -- and the university hasn't even tapped endowment income or other funding sources yet to pay for scholarships.
And the pay-for-acceptance students don't have to be intellectual dullards, either. There are thousands of bright students from wealthy families in this country who could handle the academic rigors at Princeton. Nor would it be difficult to find families perfectly willing to give a generous donation in exchange for the privilege of havings their son or daughter attend.
No doubt this would strike some as abhorent. But as mercenary as it sounds, such a dual-tier admissions system could go a long way to equalizing the imbalance of class structure at these insitutions and in our society.
For all I know, this in fact is already going on with Princeton admissions and those at other elite colleges, but it's not publicly acknowledged.
If, say, the parents of a wealthy student are willing to donate $2.4 million to Princeton in order to gain admission for their son or daughter, that would cover the cost of a full scholarship for 8 deserving students (roughly $300K per student for 4 years). Cap the pay-for-acceptance rate at 25 students. That would in itself cover the cost of full scholarship for 200 students -- and the university hasn't even tapped endowment income or other funding sources yet to pay for scholarships.
And the pay-for-acceptance students don't have to be intellectual dullards, either. There are thousands of bright students from wealthy families in this country who could handle the academic rigors at Princeton. Nor would it be difficult to find families perfectly willing to give a generous donation in exchange for the privilege of havings their son or daughter attend.
No doubt this would strike some as abhorent. But as mercenary as it sounds, such a dual-tier admissions system could go a long way to equalizing the imbalance of class structure at these insitutions and in our society.
For all I know, this in fact is already going on with Princeton admissions and those at other elite colleges, but it's not publicly acknowledged.
5
Hi, Worried Reader -
Though your pragmatic proposal could prove useful at cash-strapped institutions of higher learning (of which there are many), Princeton, with a 2015 endowment per student of over $2.8 million, is not among them. Let's be clear: cost is not what's holding Princeton back.
Though your pragmatic proposal could prove useful at cash-strapped institutions of higher learning (of which there are many), Princeton, with a 2015 endowment per student of over $2.8 million, is not among them. Let's be clear: cost is not what's holding Princeton back.
10
Wealthy students already buy their way into Princeton, Harvard, and Yale. It's called legacy admissions. Those legacy students, whose parents and grandparents went to those schools and gave a lot of money to them, were buying their kids and grandkids admission. Believe me. I've seen it.
A certain number of students buy their way in, but the fact is certainly not public knowledge. We can't access, for example, Trump's school records to see if he had an ivy-worthy GPA, which might give the game away-- it is confidential. Just like tax returns.
1
An interesting, feel-good story line, but I'm not at all sure what it means. Is the article implying, but not saying, that Princeton and other schools are now favoring low-income students over equally qualified or more qualified candidates whose families are wealthier?
The progressive left is very heavily invested in orchestrating social and economic outcomes in every aspect of life. They do so based upon the new religion of presumed relative privilege. I am always surprised by the hubris. After all, what qualifies a college admissions official to play God by purporting to judge a candidate's "worthiness" based upon criteria other than educational achievement?
And why should the ability to pay for your child's college education be held against them in the admission's process? I might have missed the memo, but I was taught that it was my duty as a parent to save for my daughter's education. Now, as it turns out, I was simply making her less worthy of admission to an elite school. Go figure.
The progressive left is very heavily invested in orchestrating social and economic outcomes in every aspect of life. They do so based upon the new religion of presumed relative privilege. I am always surprised by the hubris. After all, what qualifies a college admissions official to play God by purporting to judge a candidate's "worthiness" based upon criteria other than educational achievement?
And why should the ability to pay for your child's college education be held against them in the admission's process? I might have missed the memo, but I was taught that it was my duty as a parent to save for my daughter's education. Now, as it turns out, I was simply making her less worthy of admission to an elite school. Go figure.
32
Princeton saved our middle-class butts. They were the first Ivy to make a commitment to having ALL of their graduates leave debt-free. I never would have suggested that my son apply to Princeton nearly a decade ago now, except for this fact. Princeton might as well have been Mars as far as I was concerned (from a west coast, Sicilian immigrant family). It seemed so out of reach it wasn't even on my radar. But my husband and I had been hampered by student loans almost until our kids were in high school themselves. So the fact that our older son went to Princeton and they actually consider the financial bind of the middle class as well as low-income students -- it was a life changer. Yes, the social scene was a challenge for him, but there are always options -- he decided against the eating clubs and found his tribe in the vegetarian co-op. Princeton is a much more diverse place in many ways now. As a parent I was enormously impressed and I will send them my small donation every year even though it will never equal the tens of thousands in scholarships they provided my son.
64
Just another story of the forgotten man.
The rich are just fine ... but, there numbers are few. And, if somehow you are a minority and poor and miraculously get good scores... there will be a bidding war between the Ivirs and Stanford.
Which leaves everyone in the very vast middle who get overlooked. I have news for you! Unless you are in the top 1% ... you can't afford to pay tuition and still finance summer internships, particularly if you have more than one child.
The real injustice is that some upper middle class kid from the suburbs of NYC or Philly or D.C. Has no chance of getting into an Ivy League school unless they can play a sport really well.
The rich are just fine ... but, there numbers are few. And, if somehow you are a minority and poor and miraculously get good scores... there will be a bidding war between the Ivirs and Stanford.
Which leaves everyone in the very vast middle who get overlooked. I have news for you! Unless you are in the top 1% ... you can't afford to pay tuition and still finance summer internships, particularly if you have more than one child.
The real injustice is that some upper middle class kid from the suburbs of NYC or Philly or D.C. Has no chance of getting into an Ivy League school unless they can play a sport really well.
24
We're on a star system. If you're not better than everyone else, you don't count.
1
How about Princeton, and the rest of our elite institutions, start by eliminating Legacy Admissions, otherwise known as affirmative action for the wealthy and white?
Either that or swear off of Federal Monies altogether, including student loans and research.
Either that or swear off of Federal Monies altogether, including student loans and research.
9
Another divide at Princeton: the sciences and engineering vs. the rest of the campus. Out of the rubble of affirmative action, Ivy League (=2nd tier) athletics, and legacy admissions, who's left to actually take classes in Princeton's top ranked math and physics departments, Ah! That's the role assigned to the lower income foreign students. A nifty system in the tradition of Rube Goldberg.
14
NYer complains, “... why is the Times ... SO obsessed with the Ivy League and with "first generation" college students at the expense of other colleges and all the working-class, lower-middle-class, and struggling middle-class students..”
So, quit working, go low-income, and of course you will be showered with privileges and scholarships. Of course, when you do so, what you will find out is that the middle class people like yourself have it pretty darn good compared with the poor.
What is happening in this country is bizarre: The majority population is in a state of rage over supposedly being dispossessed of their God-ordained special privileges by minority groups that are poorer, less economically secure, and have fewer future prospects by almost any measure. Homeowners and business owners in a rage at their housemaids and fruit pickers for taking away the majority’s livelihoods. This is beyond insanity.
So, quit working, go low-income, and of course you will be showered with privileges and scholarships. Of course, when you do so, what you will find out is that the middle class people like yourself have it pretty darn good compared with the poor.
What is happening in this country is bizarre: The majority population is in a state of rage over supposedly being dispossessed of their God-ordained special privileges by minority groups that are poorer, less economically secure, and have fewer future prospects by almost any measure. Homeowners and business owners in a rage at their housemaids and fruit pickers for taking away the majority’s livelihoods. This is beyond insanity.
15
Hooray for Princeton. In the meantime public universities and colleges struggle with decades long underfunding, troglodyte state legislatures, and DeVos poltroons who want to monetize every aspect of public education they can get their grubby, short-fingered hands on.
Princeton has an endowment second to none in the Ivy League. They can afford to extend a few benefits to a small number of FLI students and I imagine (although they would never say so in public) they can sell the policy as yet another "cultural experience" for their traditionally well heeled student body ("And, you'll have the opportunity to meet actual poor people!").
And systems like CUNY and SUNY continue to struggle.
This is just one more reason why we have President Tiny Little Man sitting the oval office.
"They feed they lion/and he comes..." Phil Levine
Princeton has an endowment second to none in the Ivy League. They can afford to extend a few benefits to a small number of FLI students and I imagine (although they would never say so in public) they can sell the policy as yet another "cultural experience" for their traditionally well heeled student body ("And, you'll have the opportunity to meet actual poor people!").
And systems like CUNY and SUNY continue to struggle.
This is just one more reason why we have President Tiny Little Man sitting the oval office.
"They feed they lion/and he comes..." Phil Levine
6
Somehow, no mention of Princeton's long term exclusion of women, still a source of bitterness for prominent alum Samuel Alito.
5
That is, the end of exclusion of women is still a source of bitterness for Alito.
3
Judging from the record of his opinions and dissents during his tenure on the Supreme Court, I imagine Justice Alito wasn't too thrilled about the increasing numbers of minority and LGBT students on the Princeton campus either.
I have mixed feelings about this. If they're really balancing out the class, that's a good thing. If they're creating a campus of rich and poor kids, with the middle excluded, not so good.
21
As a first generation student who worked her way through a bachelor's, master's, Ph.D., and became a college president, I think these articles are ridiculous. Why do these students (and the obsessed NYT) think they are victims? The ONLY way to succeed in college is to study, study, study and ignore those who try to make you seem weak, helpless, and part of the victim culture that is sweeping the country.
16
I worked for many years at another New Jersey college, one which has made considerable strides in increasing opportunities for lower-income students. A number of those students, who studied hard, held jobs, and were involved in campus activities, had one responsibility that most of the better-off students didn't have: duties to their families. I was responsible for encouraging students to connect with scholarship donors. Sometimes a student couldn't participate in an event because, for example, a grandparent needed the student's help to go to the doctor, or the child-care arrangements for a young sibling had fallen apart, and the student had to pitch in. Occasionally a student was the only responsible person in the family. I was amazed by the many ways in which our students hung in there.
46
Oh please. Princeton is no Vassar, the real pioneer in all of this.
7
I went to Princeton in the first class of women. Although my family was not poor and was college educated, I attended a high school that did not begin to compare with the education of my peers at Princeton. The first year was rough - I found that the skills that led me to succeed in high school were basically worthless in my new environment.
At least when I went there elitism was rampant. The old wealth students were not always accepting of the new wealth, there was not an understanding that not everyone could fly to Paris for winter break, or that, as in the story, that taking off for a summer for an internship had costs in lost wages from a job or simply to live in a different city. To do this takes numbers and it seems as if Princeton recognizes this.
I am delighted in this effort. I hope that if a substantive amount of the class comes from different backgrounds that there is systematic efforts not simply to remedy past educational differences (with an understanding that this may take time) but also to value the perspectives that those who do not come from financially advantaged backgrounds can bring to the school.
At least when I went there elitism was rampant. The old wealth students were not always accepting of the new wealth, there was not an understanding that not everyone could fly to Paris for winter break, or that, as in the story, that taking off for a summer for an internship had costs in lost wages from a job or simply to live in a different city. To do this takes numbers and it seems as if Princeton recognizes this.
I am delighted in this effort. I hope that if a substantive amount of the class comes from different backgrounds that there is systematic efforts not simply to remedy past educational differences (with an understanding that this may take time) but also to value the perspectives that those who do not come from financially advantaged backgrounds can bring to the school.
10
While I recognize that the state of Princeton back in the early 1970s is not the primary issue in Leonhardt's article, I find some of the statements made in this comment a bit strange. I too was in the first Princeton class with women. My high school was a rather standard suburban public school of the times, and coming in to Princeton I had little money to spare. However, I found that the studying skills I learned at my high school were crucial to my doing well academically at Princeton. As well, while there were plenty of private school folks from old money at Princeton then, I encountered very little wealth-based elitism. This may be because I primarily hung around with people studying physics and running cross country. The writer of this comment may have seen other attitudes in play. However, it is not fair to paint the Princeton of the 1970s as an institution riven with wealthy elite snobs.
1
Princeton an institution filled with wealthy elite snobs?
Inconceivable!!
That would only ever occur in state schools and community colleges.
Inconceivable!!
That would only ever occur in state schools and community colleges.
3
I was the first in my family to attend college and immediately after college graduation I went on to Princeton to earn a Ph.D., a degree made possible by a fellowship grant from the NIH. As President Eisgruber said in the article, Princeton had a transformative effect on my life.
But there were many, many challenges while I was at Princeton, perhaps the least of which were academic. In my working class high school (and fairly similarly at the state university I attended), all the whites were Catholic with a smattering of Jews and all the African Americans were Protestant. I thought that Protestantism was the black religion. One can imagine my shock when I first strode onto the Princeton campus.
One of my Princeton professors discouraged me from pursuing an academic career because of my harsh working class accent. And for the rest of my life I have been in headlong flight from that accent. After Princeton I switched to rhotic pronunciation, avoided high, gliding /ɔː/ vowels and carefully mimicked middle class diction. It’s hard. (And I am very proud of how I just pronounced the “r” in “hard”.)
But there were many, many challenges while I was at Princeton, perhaps the least of which were academic. In my working class high school (and fairly similarly at the state university I attended), all the whites were Catholic with a smattering of Jews and all the African Americans were Protestant. I thought that Protestantism was the black religion. One can imagine my shock when I first strode onto the Princeton campus.
One of my Princeton professors discouraged me from pursuing an academic career because of my harsh working class accent. And for the rest of my life I have been in headlong flight from that accent. After Princeton I switched to rhotic pronunciation, avoided high, gliding /ɔː/ vowels and carefully mimicked middle class diction. It’s hard. (And I am very proud of how I just pronounced the “r” in “hard”.)
5
The author says: "Princeton, obviously, won’t solve the nation’s problems. "
I beg to differ. They are being trained to be tomorrow's leaders, and as such, they will be given outsized compensation and prestige. Perhaps they should earn those privileges by solving the nation's problems.
I beg to differ. They are being trained to be tomorrow's leaders, and as such, they will be given outsized compensation and prestige. Perhaps they should earn those privileges by solving the nation's problems.
7
One of the first things that the big name colleges could do to increase income/social background diversity would be one the hardest: eliminate legacy admissions, the process by which the kids whose parents went to those schools get preferential status with the admissions office. This would be difficult because legacies represent money flows: those who did well in life in turn send both their donations and their kids to their alma maters. This mutual backscratching makes the world go around and if my kid can't get into Princeton or Penn or wherever I went, why would I want to give them ten million dollars?
Okay, let's say they don't do away with it entirely. How about counting up the legacy admissions and then admitting just as many otherwise qualified students from non-wealthy families? Better yet, make it two to one, two students admitted from such families for each legacy? Think about it.
What makes the top schools in America top in the first place is, according to many reports and life experiences detailed in books and elsewhere, is not the "elite" education, but getting to hang out with other smart young people with, very important, connections to jobs, money and power. As one of the top venture capitalists in Silicon Valley put it when she was in Harvard, "Mother, we aren't here to get good grades. We are here to meet each other."
Lastly, this: the true monetary and life quality value of a college degree has never been empirically tested, nor can it be.
Okay, let's say they don't do away with it entirely. How about counting up the legacy admissions and then admitting just as many otherwise qualified students from non-wealthy families? Better yet, make it two to one, two students admitted from such families for each legacy? Think about it.
What makes the top schools in America top in the first place is, according to many reports and life experiences detailed in books and elsewhere, is not the "elite" education, but getting to hang out with other smart young people with, very important, connections to jobs, money and power. As one of the top venture capitalists in Silicon Valley put it when she was in Harvard, "Mother, we aren't here to get good grades. We are here to meet each other."
Lastly, this: the true monetary and life quality value of a college degree has never been empirically tested, nor can it be.
4
I'm glad to see that Princeton has solved the easy part of the problem--- the money. When I say that, I'm not underestimating the difficulty of reorienting endowment payouts to support more low-income students in the face of hedging by donor restrictions.
But the harder part is identifying lower income students who are up
to the challenges of a first-rate university education. Because of
obstacles not of their own making, few of these have stellar academic credentials. Leonhardt acknowledges this in saying that
"they often arrive with spotty academic preparation," meaning that
they wouldn't have qualified for admission if they came from wealthier families.
So, the question is whether Princeton has discovered how to
select students from adverse backgrounds who will perform as well
as those from the upper 30% income bracket. If so, will it
make its secret available to other schools? I'm guessing that
the performance conundrum is the main reason that so many wealthy universities are less economically diverse.
But the harder part is identifying lower income students who are up
to the challenges of a first-rate university education. Because of
obstacles not of their own making, few of these have stellar academic credentials. Leonhardt acknowledges this in saying that
"they often arrive with spotty academic preparation," meaning that
they wouldn't have qualified for admission if they came from wealthier families.
So, the question is whether Princeton has discovered how to
select students from adverse backgrounds who will perform as well
as those from the upper 30% income bracket. If so, will it
make its secret available to other schools? I'm guessing that
the performance conundrum is the main reason that so many wealthy universities are less economically diverse.
6
Mixed feelings. On the one hand, I'm proud of my classmate Chris Eisgruber '83, his administration, the faculty, and all those alums who support Princeton's efforts to do what it can to offer greater access to lower-income families. NYT readers should also know that in 2001, Princeton became the first school to adopt a "no-loan" policy, meaning that the full financial need of each student is met with outright grants of money, not potentially burdensome loans.
On the other hand, the gap between schools like Princeton and the very large number of financially strapped colleges and universities continues to grow. Just today, it's being reported elsewhere that Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) System President Mark Ojakian is saying that that if current budget proposals were to be adopted, then he would have no choice but to consider the closure of multiple institutions. And the next recession may bring a shockingly large number of such closures.
So what more can elite schools like Princeton do? I say: Start talking to each other and proposing solutions. Ten percent of the combined value of the endowments at the top five U.S. universities would provide more than $10 billion in seed money to address this national crisis in college access and affordability. That'd be more than a start.
On the other hand, the gap between schools like Princeton and the very large number of financially strapped colleges and universities continues to grow. Just today, it's being reported elsewhere that Connecticut State Colleges and Universities (CSCU) System President Mark Ojakian is saying that that if current budget proposals were to be adopted, then he would have no choice but to consider the closure of multiple institutions. And the next recession may bring a shockingly large number of such closures.
So what more can elite schools like Princeton do? I say: Start talking to each other and proposing solutions. Ten percent of the combined value of the endowments at the top five U.S. universities would provide more than $10 billion in seed money to address this national crisis in college access and affordability. That'd be more than a start.
7
The cost of attendance at first and second tier "Ivies" runs from $65-75,000. per year and tends to increase in multiples of $1000/yr. as the student progresses toward a degree. Pell Grants offer not quite $6000/yr. and Federal Student Loans up to $18,000/yr. Private Loans like Sallie Mae have higher interest rates and more restrictive terms. Parents usually have to co-sign for the private loans and can get PLUS loans, both assuming good credit. The better endowed private colleges can cherry pick "first-generation, low-income" students and make it possible for them to attend with full scholarships, but it is more likely that the student and parents will be squeezed by financial aid offers. It is not an uncommon joke among parents that their worst fears are that their son or daughter will get into an Ivy and the parents will be forced to come up with the money. Student jobs, especially during school, will not make much of a dent in this. Ironically, there is also little correlation between the cost of attendance and the quality of the college; some mediocre colleges cost just as much as the top tier. More and more students are graduating from colleges with huge, unbearable debt.
Something is tragically wrong with the US system of higher education. Sadly, regardless of efforts by the Princetons and Yales to bring on these low-income students, there is nothing in this that will put a dent in the existing class system that favors the wealthy.
Something is tragically wrong with the US system of higher education. Sadly, regardless of efforts by the Princetons and Yales to bring on these low-income students, there is nothing in this that will put a dent in the existing class system that favors the wealthy.
10
Why are other capitalist democracies able to provide low cost or free college tuition, including medical school for their students?
Why are there so many low income people in the US, needing educaton or training?
Why is US college tuition debt over a trillion?
Why was college tuition allowed to become a profit center?
Why did the US once subsidize low cost state university tuition, helping to expand the middle class? Why did our lawmakers end this tradition?
What are the political attitudes behind this, and what sustains them?
Why are there so many low income people in the US, needing educaton or training?
Why is US college tuition debt over a trillion?
Why was college tuition allowed to become a profit center?
Why did the US once subsidize low cost state university tuition, helping to expand the middle class? Why did our lawmakers end this tradition?
What are the political attitudes behind this, and what sustains them?
21
Congratulations to Princeton for its efforts to broaden the base of its undergraduate pool. But like our president, who was born of third base and thinks that he has been the master of his fate, Princeton has a lot of advantages that public universities do not. Even with the economic diversification of its student body, this is a far more homogeneous pool than virtually any public college sees. Accepting only 7% of applicants (rather than 75%), preserving a 5:1 faculty:student ratio, providing on-campus housing for 96% of its students means that students receive far more individual and persistent attention than large public university students enjoy. Undergraduates at Princeton (and other selective universities) are virtually all single and childless; public universities face the challenge of working with students who are also spouses, parents and employees in the community (not just in campus jobs).
By all means, we should celebrate the transition taking place at institutions like Princeton. But let's not forget that public universities are charged with educating a broader and more diverse population, with fewer resources and often in hostile political environments.
By all means, we should celebrate the transition taking place at institutions like Princeton. But let's not forget that public universities are charged with educating a broader and more diverse population, with fewer resources and often in hostile political environments.
8
Princeton also has a fine program to help local high school students who are high-achieving and low income. Some of those students end up going to Princeton but many go to other colleges and universities, Princeton University Preperatory Program. The summer program includes a stipend.
http://www.princeton.edu/pupp/
http://www.princeton.edu/pupp/
1
Is considering the number and amount of Pell grants the most rigorous way to determine whether a university is meeting a commitment to enroll low-income students? I'm not sure, but wonder if taking into account a university's total support of a student's tuition and fees wouldn't be a fairer measure. Pell grants are federal money; perhaps the University of Chicago and the other laggards are fulfilling their commitment to low-income students from their endowments and other sources. A more complete picture should emerge when more than Pell grants are taken into account.
2
Yes, considering the number of Pell Grant recipients is probably the best way to determine a university's commitment to enrolling low-income students. The eligibility criteria is consistent and it least it allows one to compare apples to apples. With respect to UChicago or WashU, they obviously can't help low-income students if they're not enrolled there. I do agree that it's critical that one looks further to see how schools treat those low-income students --- the maximum $5,815 Pell Grant doesn't go very far when all-in costs are over $60,000. On that score, Princeton delivers -- ensuring that students from families making $65K or less per year go for free. Even upper middle class families benefit from Princeton-- with those making $160-180K per year, getting nearly $40,000 grants. https://admission.princeton.edu/cost-aid/how-princetons-aid-program-works
2
Although Princeton and most other Ivy League institutes do have some excellent faculty and do train some excellent minds, as the quotations beginning this piece point out, the main reason for their popularity is not cultivating the mind but cultivating contacts. That objective may be attained by the students not in the Ivy League milieu, but many may be reduced to getting only an education.
3
This topic is not merely important, it is vital to the future of our country.
First, the tax code must substantially be reformed to tax the wealthy.
Second, education loans should be interest free.
Third, there is a connection between these two policies. The exploration of which should be on every student's, every citizen's agenda.
First, the tax code must substantially be reformed to tax the wealthy.
Second, education loans should be interest free.
Third, there is a connection between these two policies. The exploration of which should be on every student's, every citizen's agenda.
1
The grad school I went to had an average family income of 200,000$. I spent most of my time butting heads over the class divide. It was exhausting to explain to teachers that I had a job and commuted two hours each way. It was more exhausting to deal with "work study" spoiled brats who worked campus jobs and treated anybody who asked them to do their jobs poorly.
My undergrad was at a college were the average family income was closer to 80,000$ and it was a totally different experience. Almost everybody worked, and housing was still afforable enough I could live in the city. I loved every minute of that.
Unless you aspire to be a 1%er the experience at a medium sized state school where you can live on campus will almost certainly be "better"!
My undergrad was at a college were the average family income was closer to 80,000$ and it was a totally different experience. Almost everybody worked, and housing was still afforable enough I could live in the city. I loved every minute of that.
Unless you aspire to be a 1%er the experience at a medium sized state school where you can live on campus will almost certainly be "better"!
2
I do believe that Princeton is trying to admit more lower income students. My son-in-law graduated from Princeton in 1965, and he was from a fairly modest income family. Also, his son, our grandson, was not admitted to Princeton even though he was a "legacy", which used to be a certrainty to be admitted. Our grandson graduated near the top of his class of about 900 students. He went to win a four-year merit scholarship to the College of William & Mary and has an impressive record there. I am all for expanding enrollment at Princeton and other elite schools. At the same time, Princeton and other such schools should try to keep their record of academic excellence.
5
I graduated from a Jesuit University in 1972. I was a first generation college student from my family and was able to put myself through school and study Philosophy because that's what I was interested in. I did not have to study some bogus career oriented subject because I had no interest in a career at the time. Neither did I have any debt when I graduated. Since then I have managed to have an extraordinarily rich and varied career and am now comfortably retired and knowing that I did it my way...all because of how affordable my education was. Pity today's aspiring artist or philosopher.
5
I received my A.B. (yes, that is correct; Princeton grants an A.B. reflective of the Latin name. not a B.A., reflective of the English name) in 1971, having arrived in 1969 as a member of the Critical Languages Program and then having been allowed to transfer. Oh, and 1969 was the autumn in which the first women accepted to Princeton arrived. I became one of them when I transferred. The university did an excellent job of preparing for women's arrival. That added to the superb education that it offered us, with world-class authorities teaching introductory courses. As a scholarship student, I had a work-study job: it was cataloging original Italian prints of the sixteenth century in the Graphic Arts Department of the library. Princeton provided a top-flight university experience, as close to the ideal as it is possible to get. It gave me an unmatched preparation for life, including the baseline assumption of always striving for the best and believing that you can achieve it, and I will always be grateful.
6
"being a lower-income student at Princeton means balancing schoolwork, extracurriculars and a campus job"?
Isn't that what MANY (most?) students have to do? How many are so rich they don't need to work at campus jobs?
And why is the Times (yet again) SO obsessed with the Ivy League and with "first generation" college students at the expense of other colleges and all the working-class, lower-middle-class, and struggling middle-class students and families trying to pay for college, etc, too?
"First generation" students DO face unique challenges, and their stories are important to tell, but the imbalance in coverage in the news (particularly in the Times) and in colleges' own apparent priorities is just jaw-dropping. (Hardly a week goes by without a very similar story on the home page.)
And this sort of distorted view is one of the reasons so many struggling middle-class families and middle-class college students are so cynical and so disaffected with the state of things in terms of colleges (and pretty much everything else in the USA). They feel --rightly, in many respects -- that their struggles and concerns are being ignored. (In a climate like that, demagogues with false promises take hold...)
And meanwhile, colleges continue to jack up their tuition and fees at rates many times the rise in the cost of living, making it harder for the middle-class to pay for tuition and education.
How about a little more attention to them, Times, Princeton, and colleges?
Isn't that what MANY (most?) students have to do? How many are so rich they don't need to work at campus jobs?
And why is the Times (yet again) SO obsessed with the Ivy League and with "first generation" college students at the expense of other colleges and all the working-class, lower-middle-class, and struggling middle-class students and families trying to pay for college, etc, too?
"First generation" students DO face unique challenges, and their stories are important to tell, but the imbalance in coverage in the news (particularly in the Times) and in colleges' own apparent priorities is just jaw-dropping. (Hardly a week goes by without a very similar story on the home page.)
And this sort of distorted view is one of the reasons so many struggling middle-class families and middle-class college students are so cynical and so disaffected with the state of things in terms of colleges (and pretty much everything else in the USA). They feel --rightly, in many respects -- that their struggles and concerns are being ignored. (In a climate like that, demagogues with false promises take hold...)
And meanwhile, colleges continue to jack up their tuition and fees at rates many times the rise in the cost of living, making it harder for the middle-class to pay for tuition and education.
How about a little more attention to them, Times, Princeton, and colleges?
82
The idea of this Republic is to recognize the populace from high wealth to low and to offer equal economic opportunity to all of them. This has not happened and based upon legal, then institutional discrimination, extreme inequality has continued for many minority groups especially African American. Your lack of regard for assistance for these groups is nothing new, as is your clear ignorance of why history has determined the need for these programs not the people who may benefit from them.
1
A first generation college student might find a mid-level public undergrad school the better choice. Then if the student is sharp they can plan their way to grad school.
2
Dear NYer,
Yes, the majority of Princeton students (and not just Princeton -- any elite college) are indeed wealthy enough that they do not need a campus job.
You're welcome!
Yes, the majority of Princeton students (and not just Princeton -- any elite college) are indeed wealthy enough that they do not need a campus job.
You're welcome!
4
Despite all its codswallup about democracy, the U.S. is the most class-stratified of all wealthy countries, the American one per cent far greedier and wealthier and cut off from civil society than the British peerage of George III.
The U.S. leads wealthy nations in the extent, depth, and brutality of its child poverty, and though there's 23 million of them it's likely that Ivy League students raised in class entitlement know nothing about them.
Service and equality are gone as Ivy League values replaced by primal snorting gimme greed.
And can there be anything more obscenely condescending than an Ivy League ignoramus talking about the American working class.
Bring on the guillotines.
The U.S. leads wealthy nations in the extent, depth, and brutality of its child poverty, and though there's 23 million of them it's likely that Ivy League students raised in class entitlement know nothing about them.
Service and equality are gone as Ivy League values replaced by primal snorting gimme greed.
And can there be anything more obscenely condescending than an Ivy League ignoramus talking about the American working class.
Bring on the guillotines.
22
I won't pretend to know about how the top 1% of Americans engage with the rest of us. A person at the bottom of the top 10% has more in common with someone in the bottom 1% than the top 1%. But, generally speaking, as to your assertion that "the U.S. is the most class-stratified of all wealthy countries", you obviously have never done business or really interacted on a personal level with people in England or Spain, or the landowning class of South America. Americans from different professions, trades, and socioeconomic and educational backgrounds mix a lot more here in the states, and live next door to each other more, than the classes in the countries named. While there is no denying that for many purposes we in the U.S. tend to stratify according to income--which happens all over the world, we in the U.S. are not anywhere near as class conscious as those in European countries and South America.
6
I was a FGLI when I received my undergrduate degree from New York University when the cost was $4k a year in 1981. I went to graduate school for free as my wife works for NYU and tuition is a benefit. When our son applied to colleges last year, we said NYU only and maybe a couple of reach Ivys. When one of the Ivys waitlisted him we were nervous. Could we afford $70k (tuition $50k and dorm $20k) a year? Bittersweet when he got the Ivy rejection letter. He loves NYU and I love that I only have to pay for the dorm. NYU then and now have their fair share of elitists. I survived it and so will him. Go Violets!
11
Don't look to the Trump budget to help schools with this mission!
4
Good for Princeton for taking on its dubious distinction for exceptional elitism, even among Ivy League schools. Perhaps they can come up with their own version of Ezra Cornell's motto: "I would found an institution where any person can find instruction in any study."
9
Why are they letting in low income foreigners? Princeton couldn't find any low income Americans?
59
Read the article. It says "more" low-income foreigners - not only low-income foreigners. The bulk is surely low-income Americans.
3
US students benefit from having foreigners in their classes. I see the point you're trying to make, but part of the benefit of diversity is improved education for everyone. We in the US are nationalistic enough: we need our minds opened to the world.
11
Because Princeton seeks the best minds (take a look at the nationalities on its faculty), and nationalism shouldn't get in the way of that.
4
To me, a big problem, if not the biggest problem for the ivies but also most universities is that the administrators have many open places reserved for international students. The spots that these non-US citizens take up deprives American students a place in the university student body. This only compounds the problem that the author writes about. Reducing or eliminating these spots for international students would allow the universities to achieve the economic diversity that the author advocates without depriving any American, high-income or low -income, of the spot that they might otherwise occupy. To me, a low income American should have more rights for entry than a non-citizen.
I understand that some international students pay full tuition, a cash cow for the universities, but I think that many international students do not. If the universities really wanted to solve the problem, they should limit most enrolment to Americans, of all incomes, but by all means provide support to universities in the developing world so that their students have access to a quality education at home. This truly is a scandal, and is definitely underreported.
I understand that some international students pay full tuition, a cash cow for the universities, but I think that many international students do not. If the universities really wanted to solve the problem, they should limit most enrolment to Americans, of all incomes, but by all means provide support to universities in the developing world so that their students have access to a quality education at home. This truly is a scandal, and is definitely underreported.
14
Are there US students unable to get a college education because of foreign students?
Dubious.
Fake argument.
Dubious.
Fake argument.
1
It's not a scandal. You're trying to solve one problem by creating another.
The transfer of ideas is a good thing. I want Americans to be able to study at Oxford and the Sorbonne, and I want international students to come to the US, to broaden American students' minds, to feed into our industry and our faculty, and to carry progressive ideas back to their homelands.
The transfer of ideas is a good thing. I want Americans to be able to study at Oxford and the Sorbonne, and I want international students to come to the US, to broaden American students' minds, to feed into our industry and our faculty, and to carry progressive ideas back to their homelands.
5
A bit over 60 years ago I entered Princeton as a middle class public high school graduate with a scholarship, loan, and job package. There were no women in my class, and one black student that I know of in the undergraduate student body. It was the first year more public high school grads were admitted and entered than prep school graduates. For many reasons many students didn’t like the experience there, and many still don’t. But I, and most of my successors regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, etc. received a superb education there, and learned how to think critically.
Almost all institutions of higher education give a graduate a certain set of connections and related clout. These schools evolve: At Princeton there are now women, blacks, asians, jews, muslims, etc., and students from a whole range of economic backgrounds. If a person is admitted, he or she will not have debt, but get a grant to meet the difference between economic means and the costs of college.
Forget all this business about “effete,” “privileged,” etc. There is someone in one or more of those categories at most any college or university. Princeton is on the front line of continuing to provide the finest education possible to anyone with the potential to manage its rigors, regardless of background.
Almost all institutions of higher education give a graduate a certain set of connections and related clout. These schools evolve: At Princeton there are now women, blacks, asians, jews, muslims, etc., and students from a whole range of economic backgrounds. If a person is admitted, he or she will not have debt, but get a grant to meet the difference between economic means and the costs of college.
Forget all this business about “effete,” “privileged,” etc. There is someone in one or more of those categories at most any college or university. Princeton is on the front line of continuing to provide the finest education possible to anyone with the potential to manage its rigors, regardless of background.
10
I entered Princeton as a public high school graduate also, some 37 years ago, also with a generous financial aid package. I am thankful for that. I managed to get a PhD in Chemistry from Stanford, which was also nice. I do greatly appreciate the superb education I got at both schools.
I can't, however, "forget all this business about 'effete,' 'privileged,' etc." I now teach at a state school that is woefully overcrowded and underfunded. The same year our school was "value engineering" (i.e. skimping on) a $26 million dollar science building, Princeton was celebrating a $45 million dollar stadium for football.
This last weekend I visited Stanford for the first time in decades, and was amazed at all the new science and engineering buildings. Meanwhile, the college where I work has run out of space again, and every semester it's a struggle to schedule all the classes we need to teach in the space available. It's not a fair comparison, in some ways, because Stanford is bringing in lots of grant money and private donations as a premier research institution, and our institution is more of a teaching-focused institution. But if one were to ask how to best to provide a better education for the largest number of first-generation college students, the answer may well be to divert more resources, both public and private, to the colleges where there are close to 50% first-generation college students.
I can't, however, "forget all this business about 'effete,' 'privileged,' etc." I now teach at a state school that is woefully overcrowded and underfunded. The same year our school was "value engineering" (i.e. skimping on) a $26 million dollar science building, Princeton was celebrating a $45 million dollar stadium for football.
This last weekend I visited Stanford for the first time in decades, and was amazed at all the new science and engineering buildings. Meanwhile, the college where I work has run out of space again, and every semester it's a struggle to schedule all the classes we need to teach in the space available. It's not a fair comparison, in some ways, because Stanford is bringing in lots of grant money and private donations as a premier research institution, and our institution is more of a teaching-focused institution. But if one were to ask how to best to provide a better education for the largest number of first-generation college students, the answer may well be to divert more resources, both public and private, to the colleges where there are close to 50% first-generation college students.
7
Go tigers! I have long been impressed by the number of Princeton Alumnae I've met who understand how privileged they are (to have gone there, among other things) and truly walk the talk of "giving something back".
I don't know what the statistics are, but for every Princetonian I've met here in the San Francisco/Silicon Valley bubble, where I've lived and worked for the past 30+ years, who's pursuing a career in high-tech, I've met at least one who works for (and likely founded) a 501(c)(3) committed to serving some fundamentally altruistic, socially conscious goal.
I don't know what the statistics are, but for every Princetonian I've met here in the San Francisco/Silicon Valley bubble, where I've lived and worked for the past 30+ years, who's pursuing a career in high-tech, I've met at least one who works for (and likely founded) a 501(c)(3) committed to serving some fundamentally altruistic, socially conscious goal.
11
First generation college students and students from lower income backgrounds are at higher risk of dropping out of any college, regardless of their academic ability. The reasons for this are many, but it does not reflect less talent on the part of those who leave campus, rather fewer resources place these students at greater risk in many different ways. Students with resources who become depressed during college, for example, will often have the ability to weather the storm, while those with no reserves will not. A larger question, though, is why diversity in ability is not considered important. Why NOT have more students who are talented but have a learning disability? Why NOT have more students who have disabilities of any kind? It is rarely mentioned as a concern. Racial and economic diversity is not the only challenge and even once it is addressed it will represent only a portion of the inclusion problem.
4
Well, maybe if the children had had Head Start, a robust arts education K-12, robust after school programs, their parents good paying jobs, health care and defined retirement plan... Oh right, we had those in the 50's, 60's when the wealthy paid their fair share of taxes...
4
"They often arrive with spotty academic preparation."
This says it all. While we must provide access to low income students, they must first be academically prepared. 25% of incoming freshmen require remedial math, English, or both. This adds a tremendous cost to the education - in both time and dollars.
It is telling that Princeton is accepting students that are not academically prepared. Sounds like another word for affirmative action. Affirmative action is a delusional idea from the late 60s. I supported it then, whole heartedly. I did so as too many from inner cities received a poor public education. 50 years later, I would say that education is worse! But not due to money; we spend far more per student than most western countries and many states, mine included, consolidate money collected from school taxes and then divvy them out across the state. No longer are poor school districts without money. As a matter of fact, ATL receives more per student than the rest of the state. Yet, the public schools stink.
Universities must NOT compromise on academic standards in their desire to pull poor students (code word for minority blacks and Hispanics) out of poverty. We MUST improve the K-12 education and that means we MUST improve the home lives and eliminate affirmative action - even in hiring teachers. Tired of spending on policies that have never worked.
This says it all. While we must provide access to low income students, they must first be academically prepared. 25% of incoming freshmen require remedial math, English, or both. This adds a tremendous cost to the education - in both time and dollars.
It is telling that Princeton is accepting students that are not academically prepared. Sounds like another word for affirmative action. Affirmative action is a delusional idea from the late 60s. I supported it then, whole heartedly. I did so as too many from inner cities received a poor public education. 50 years later, I would say that education is worse! But not due to money; we spend far more per student than most western countries and many states, mine included, consolidate money collected from school taxes and then divvy them out across the state. No longer are poor school districts without money. As a matter of fact, ATL receives more per student than the rest of the state. Yet, the public schools stink.
Universities must NOT compromise on academic standards in their desire to pull poor students (code word for minority blacks and Hispanics) out of poverty. We MUST improve the K-12 education and that means we MUST improve the home lives and eliminate affirmative action - even in hiring teachers. Tired of spending on policies that have never worked.
32
It's a difficult line to straddle, yes, but if you can take an excellent and open mind - one with a capacity for critical and innovative thinking - that is unprepared and bring it up to speed on facts and basic concepts, isn't that worth a great deal? It's taking a chance on potential.
1
What makes you think that all poor students are blacks and Hispanics?
"One hand clapping" for Princeton, who ranks 7th in the Ivy League for Pell Grants... Nice narrative but.... https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities/econ...
3
"lower-income student at Princeton means balancing schoolwork, extracurriculars and a campus job."---- What happened to the Full Scholarship? The Student's job is being a student, an All Academic Student. Princeton's Development Office, at the very least, should realize that Princeton's Endowment would be more: economical, valued, appreciated, etcetera..... if campus jobs for students were eliminated. If Princeton, thus the Ivy League, cannot handle All Academic, I am sure some other School Higher Education System can. Think Higher, not Lower. Dear Princeton Development Administrator: Think Higher Education!
5
Princeton gives no-loan packages to students who receive financial aid. These packages include working up to 10 hours/week at a campus job, though students can find a better-paying job they can take that and work fewer hours. Or they can choose to take out a student loan for a comparable amount -- though few choose this route: the average debt of Princeton students who have debt at graduation is around $5,000. If a student gets an outside grant such as a National Merit Scholarship, that is applied to the student job first so the student works less. Students live on campus (no time wasted commenting) and can eat excellent meals on campus, so 10 hours or fewer are manageable. Students at many colleges spend as much time commuting, shopping, cooking, standing in line, etc. And it isn't just the poorest students who have campus jobs -- students with family incomes well above $100K get need-based scholarship packages that include a campus job. The organizational skills required to manage a 10-hour/week job have their own benefits, and many jobs can incorporate a student's academic interests (e.g. tutoring) or non-academic interests (e.g. running the rock-climbing wall). Life at Princeton was never all about academics, and I'm guessing that non-scholarship students are not averaging 10 more hours in the library than students with jobs. It's at least as likely that students with some "skin in the game" work harder -- and also graduate from Princeton with no debt.
4
Hi Grace, how did you conclude: "Princeton was never all about academics"? If Princeton is not about academics, then what Schools would be "about academics"? I went all the way through School, past the Post Doctorate, and past Mensa IQ. The Top Level of Higher Education is the same as the Top Level of the BusinessWorld. Those World Level jobs require Academics. Report Card Grade A Academics. I did have campus jobs in undergraduate and graduate. And they were a waste of time, and not only that, they often were obstacles, causing problems that had nothing to do with Academic Work. The organizational skills that you mention as benefits of campus jobs, are organizational skills a student already should have because hey, they got into Princeton! I suppose you can figure-out what my opinions are about extra-curricular activities. And, I suppose you would write something about extra-curriculars similar to what you wrote about campus jobs.
Some of these ignorant comments clearly indicate WHY a liberal arts college education is sorely needed in the U.S.A. Public colleges, elite Ivies, and HBCU's play a vital role in fostering rational dialogue across the acrimonious political electorate. President Eisgruber, I salute you!
24
You can admit first-generation low-income (FGLI) students to the institution, but will the institution make any meaningful effort to help the FGLI remedy their social-capital deficit? It takes more than a piece of paper to break into the charmed circles dominated by Ivy-League graduates. You also need to have the polish and the savoir faire that comes from upper and upper middle class breeding and begins at birth. The question is, can this be learned in four short years?
8
You've been watching too many movies. "the polish and the savoir faire that comes from upper and upper middle class breeding and begins at birth"?
10
Princeton should be praised for this policy change. I think by admitting more low income students, Princeton admissions is making the most important step, A Davey. I was a scholarship student at an elite institution decades ago and I understand the cultural divide first hand. More low income students will eventually mean a changed culture.
The issue I have is that someone gets screwed here, and it's likely to be kids with profiles similar to those of my kids: a generation removed from low income, but not 1%ers, kids whose parents are comfortably well off, but not in danger of donating the cost of a new dorm.
The kids of politicos, celebrities and the uber wealthy all get an advantage. And that comes at the expense of someone else.
This has been well explicated by a WSJ staffer in his book, The Price of Admission.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Wolff2.t.html
The issue I have is that someone gets screwed here, and it's likely to be kids with profiles similar to those of my kids: a generation removed from low income, but not 1%ers, kids whose parents are comfortably well off, but not in danger of donating the cost of a new dorm.
The kids of politicos, celebrities and the uber wealthy all get an advantage. And that comes at the expense of someone else.
This has been well explicated by a WSJ staffer in his book, The Price of Admission.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/17/books/review/Wolff2.t.html
Calling C.K. Dexter Haven!
I attended Wake Forest thanks to financial aid and a generous academic scholarship. My life and career benefitted greatly from the opportunities and networks provided, including internships at The White House and the US Senate which led me to law school. Wake Forest still has a ways to go in improving socioeconomic diversity, but their test-optional admissions policy is a step in the right direction. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/education/edlife/the-test-optional...
2
Being from a working class background (father and mother did not go to college), I'm all for helping the workingman; however, I hope these Ivies do not lower their standards simply to attract working class, or poor families. Otherwise, what's the point of going to an Ivy?
This is good news. A good friend tells me that his very liberal daughter finds lots of classmates at Harvard Business School who're committed to fighting inequality in America. Too bad we didn't cut to the chase last year and nominate Bernie to be the Democratic candidate, instead of Wall St.'s golden girl, Hillary. We need to move these liberal sentiments from the campuses to the center of power. Bernie would have won the Rust Belt and the White House quite easily and truly jump-started the political revolution in consciousness we need to fight inequality at its root, and remake a much more perfect union. Reinhold Niebuhr once described rich Americans sending charity money for the poor in Brazil as "scattering incense on a cesspool." The same could be said of campus efforts at fighting inequality if Wall St. and the rest of the top .1% continue fixing American politics to guarantee that inequality grows, rather than recedes, because of national and local political choices--like NAFTA, for starters.
"If your school, religious organization, neighborhood association or corporation isn’t doing something to address the stagnation of living standards,..."
Do racially segregated school systems play a part in this stagnation? It seems that NY City schools are some of the most racially segregated schools in the country ( I think you are just behind Dallas and Chicago). About half the white students in NY City attend private schools. The remaining white students who do attend public schools attend predominantly white schools.
When students left Detroit public schools for private schools they were called racist and "afraid of the unknown". Now apparently in NY City fleeing from the public school system is considered progressive.
Detroit was ordered to implement a busing plan for school desegregation as were Boston and many southern states.
Tell you what David, go and push for an integration plan for NY CIty (try busing) and no fair running to private schools! Then come back to tell how all that worked out. OK?
Do racially segregated school systems play a part in this stagnation? It seems that NY City schools are some of the most racially segregated schools in the country ( I think you are just behind Dallas and Chicago). About half the white students in NY City attend private schools. The remaining white students who do attend public schools attend predominantly white schools.
When students left Detroit public schools for private schools they were called racist and "afraid of the unknown". Now apparently in NY City fleeing from the public school system is considered progressive.
Detroit was ordered to implement a busing plan for school desegregation as were Boston and many southern states.
Tell you what David, go and push for an integration plan for NY CIty (try busing) and no fair running to private schools! Then come back to tell how all that worked out. OK?
The elite universities, the Ivy's, are the reason why, anyone attending, or having attended college is now considered elite. University education is not a privilege it is a necessity for getting through the complicated world we now find ourselves in. Graduates of most institutions of higher learning say that "these years were turning points in their lives". Let's not make the truly elite ivy institutions, regardless of how much they give to those with less, better then those State Universities that prepare their student bodies, with a broad spectrum of diversity, income and culture. They too make big differences in this changing world of ours.
6
As usual the middles class is forgotten and taken for granted.
Our kids can get top grades and perfect SAT scores and then go to public colleges because private colleges cost $70,000 a year, and their families make too much money to qualify for the huge scholarships going to the lower classes - essentially allowing them to go to college for free or close to it.
Our kids can get top grades and perfect SAT scores and then go to public colleges because private colleges cost $70,000 a year, and their families make too much money to qualify for the huge scholarships going to the lower classes - essentially allowing them to go to college for free or close to it.
And then there are those institutions like my own, a small state university that has been working with and for first generation under prepared students for a long time. Welcome aboard Princeton.
Princeton is doing it's part to undo the hardening class boundaries. The real test of whether their efforts are sucessful will be the acceptance of these students from "underprivileged" backgrounds into the social networks of elite university graduates post graduation. In other words will they be real members of the "club" of the 1% ? One wonders whether not having been been raised for the first 18 years of their lives in this milieu whether 4 years at an elite university provides the keys to clubhouse where Buffy and Biff dwell.
Having more students from economically challenged backgrounds is truly very commendable. It is great that Princeton has caught up with Harvard, Yale and other Ivy league and Ivy-like schools. The question is at whose expense? My understanding is that the percentage of the wealthy legacy kids have not dropped at all. So what is probably happening is that second generation middle class ethnic kids are being squeezed. Several first generation economically challenged parents came to the U.S. from many different countries, worked hard without government support to become middle class and provide a better future for their children. Now the American Dream is going to be denied to them.
It's good news that Princeton is taking in more low-income students. But it won't make a dent in the problem of making college broadly accessible to those who need it. That responsibility falls on the states, which have regularly cut the budgets for public colleges, forcing increases in tuition, which are then blamed on the schools (and those "lazy faculty").
Not everyone needs a college education -- we need more apprenticeships and technical training programs -- but overall the public university system has been a strong driver of economic growth in this country.
What will it take for state legislatures to wake up and recognize that graduates from the public system pay back the public investment many times over?
Perhaps it's not as bad here in New York as in some other states, but after 24 years of college teaching I'm still waiting to see a governor who supports the CUNY and SUNY systems.
Not everyone needs a college education -- we need more apprenticeships and technical training programs -- but overall the public university system has been a strong driver of economic growth in this country.
What will it take for state legislatures to wake up and recognize that graduates from the public system pay back the public investment many times over?
Perhaps it's not as bad here in New York as in some other states, but after 24 years of college teaching I'm still waiting to see a governor who supports the CUNY and SUNY systems.
While I applaud the goal of broadening the student body to include underrepresented populations, I think the colleges and universities undertaking efforts to increase underserved populations should be honest with their alumni about the consequences.
These schools are trying to build a utopian society with funds contributed by others. The cost of these students' tuition, etc., is being underwritten by those who contributed to the endowment. Because there is such an emphasis on admitting first generation students, children of college-educated parents (i.e. the people who contributed the money to these schools) now have a more difficult task in gaining admission to an "elite" university. Maybe this is fair, maybe not, but this is descriptive of what is happening.
Last week you upbraided public colleges that, in your mind, were not catering enough to underserved populations. I know you will shed no tears but many students of middle class and upper middle class backgrounds work hard in college and often have superior academic profiles than those students who are now admitted to these schools. These otherwise qualified students of middle class/upper middle class parentage, but for their background, have to go somewhere after being rejected. It cannot be all for people who have had great bootstrap stories. It would be nice if there was a way to admit students based on merit to gain the best academic outcomes rather than play a numbers game.
These schools are trying to build a utopian society with funds contributed by others. The cost of these students' tuition, etc., is being underwritten by those who contributed to the endowment. Because there is such an emphasis on admitting first generation students, children of college-educated parents (i.e. the people who contributed the money to these schools) now have a more difficult task in gaining admission to an "elite" university. Maybe this is fair, maybe not, but this is descriptive of what is happening.
Last week you upbraided public colleges that, in your mind, were not catering enough to underserved populations. I know you will shed no tears but many students of middle class and upper middle class backgrounds work hard in college and often have superior academic profiles than those students who are now admitted to these schools. These otherwise qualified students of middle class/upper middle class parentage, but for their background, have to go somewhere after being rejected. It cannot be all for people who have had great bootstrap stories. It would be nice if there was a way to admit students based on merit to gain the best academic outcomes rather than play a numbers game.
In California the increase in tuition in the State and University systems is due mainly to a change in tax policy. What will it take to reverse this? With higher tax receipts in recent years, the extra money seems to be going towards roads, unfunded pensions, and a continuation of a bloated prison system. In the 1970s tuition was free at these schools. What would a revised tax and spending plan look like to cut tuitions in half for in-state students? This might be a combination of bringing assessed values of commercial properties to 100% (reversing part of Prop 13) with a guaranteed percentage of State spending paying for tuition at four year colleges (similar to Prop 98). Add to this complete installation of solar, wind, or micro-hydro (which could be done mostly by students) at all campuses.
Where is a plan to do this through the legislature or by way of a ballot initiative. The Democrats are in here. Why are they so status quo, when it comes to funding higher education?
Where is a plan to do this through the legislature or by way of a ballot initiative. The Democrats are in here. Why are they so status quo, when it comes to funding higher education?
Well if there were ever an institution that knows more about class divide it would most definitely be Ivy League colleges. They helped codify it a century ago.
I don't think there is a stronger class identifier than obtaining degrees from these and certain other universities. So they've cracked open the gates a sliver, how self righteous of them. Full payers of the sky high tuition dislike those who crash these gates. And the receivers of admittance are often reminded of it.
I don't think there is a stronger class identifier than obtaining degrees from these and certain other universities. So they've cracked open the gates a sliver, how self righteous of them. Full payers of the sky high tuition dislike those who crash these gates. And the receivers of admittance are often reminded of it.
The article says: "Princeton, obviously, won’t solve the nation’s problems."
It's not obvious at all. They are being trained and given the connections to be tomorrow's leaders. As such, they will enjoy an outsized share of the nation's power and resources. Perhaps we should demand that they solve the nation's problems. Otherwise, what value are they bringing to the table, in exchange for what they're likely to receive?
It's not obvious at all. They are being trained and given the connections to be tomorrow's leaders. As such, they will enjoy an outsized share of the nation's power and resources. Perhaps we should demand that they solve the nation's problems. Otherwise, what value are they bringing to the table, in exchange for what they're likely to receive?
It is strange that you would mention the lack of Jews and black people in Princeton but not native Indian on whose land the colony of the United States is built...
28
Actually Upton Sinclair mentioned that.
2
American Indians are immigrants too. They just got here earlier. Truly a land of immigrants.
I'm basing this thought on migration patterns and the fossil record. Ultimately you are right tho. That group should be included in the discussion.
I'm basing this thought on migration patterns and the fossil record. Ultimately you are right tho. That group should be included in the discussion.
Interestingly, Princeton, the Ivy most congenial to Southerners, educated many sons of the Cherokee nation that existed in Georgia before the forced march that was the Trail of Tears.
1
I wonder what the arch segregationist and fervent racist Woodrow Wilson would make of all this?
Why aren't the people who rightfully demand that Confederate statues be removed from public places thruout the South making similar demands to end Wilson's continued presence on the Princeton campus?
Why aren't the people who rightfully demand that Confederate statues be removed from public places thruout the South making similar demands to end Wilson's continued presence on the Princeton campus?
1
oh good grief, you cannot change history by ignoring what happened
As if giving a handful of low income kids who were fortunate enough to have been born smart, who have perfect SAT scores, and who would have no problem succeeding at any school, is anything but a tonic to soothe the guilt of liberal elites who feel a tad guilty while summering in the Hamptons. And they just don't understand why more people didn't support Clinton. Can't imagine why.
12
Mr. Leonhardt's column today is a work of comic genius! I havent laughed so hard in months!!
His entire article is couched in the rhetoric of yesteryear, 1968, why, almost 50 years ago!!
Which probably identifies Mr. Leonhardt as a priveledged Ivy League Grad, himself.
Any discussion of "class" is contrary to basic American principles........this article rolls around in the slop of "class warfare".....a relic of European attitudes........
The very basic premise of an Ivy League education is to gain the inside track to a life of priveledge and power.....Ivy Leagues make no pretension on being egalitarian or democratic. The SAT was an invention by some Yale psychologists to create the illusion of fairness, all while still giving the inside track to those able to afford the extra training required to excell on the test.
The Ivy League schools make no attempt to educate Americans......no......the goal is to bring "new blood" into the "club".
The Club of high-ranking Bureaucrat Mandarins and Corporate Captains of Industry, and now World Leaders............
All while the once great American Public Education System rots to the core..................
His entire article is couched in the rhetoric of yesteryear, 1968, why, almost 50 years ago!!
Which probably identifies Mr. Leonhardt as a priveledged Ivy League Grad, himself.
Any discussion of "class" is contrary to basic American principles........this article rolls around in the slop of "class warfare".....a relic of European attitudes........
The very basic premise of an Ivy League education is to gain the inside track to a life of priveledge and power.....Ivy Leagues make no pretension on being egalitarian or democratic. The SAT was an invention by some Yale psychologists to create the illusion of fairness, all while still giving the inside track to those able to afford the extra training required to excell on the test.
The Ivy League schools make no attempt to educate Americans......no......the goal is to bring "new blood" into the "club".
The Club of high-ranking Bureaucrat Mandarins and Corporate Captains of Industry, and now World Leaders............
All while the once great American Public Education System rots to the core..................
16
This is a very welcome development. Now with 39000 applicants and a 6,5% admission rate, there needs to be a track for individuals who have a dream of attending Princeton above all other institutions , otherwise an opportunity for developing the Universitiy's unique culture will be lost. Diversity is essential by so also is developing Princeton as a special place
3
The most overtly racist post Civil War President of the US and former President of Princeton University Woodrow Wilson must be spinning in his grave.
1
This is all good ......just make sure academic standards don't suffer.
8
I think advocating for economic diversity in college admissions is the only "fair" diversity initiative. Racial and gender based efforts are inherently racist and sexist and only lead to resentment and hypocrisy.
12
We might remember too that Princeton was the last of the elite US universities to end the practice of maintaining a quota to limit the number of Jewish students admitted--that was only ended in the 1960s.
I have nothing against Princeton offering more places and financial aid to very smart poor students, who are as smart and educated or smarter than the rich kids. But the statistics quoted by the NYT show that these student's graduation is slightly below the average, which indicates a dumbing down trend with this good Samaritan approach.
11
Not a dumbing down, but perhaps a need to go to work sooner to help out family. And sometimes, as was the case when I went to college, students transferred back to their home state university because they didn't want to attend a male only or female only institution. Many other possible reasons, but dropping out of Princeton doesn't mean they didn't finish college elsewhere.
5
do you know what average means (pardon the statistical pun). If the average graduation rate is X, some number in the group have a lower graduation rate than X. That's kind of how averages work. That the lower income students have a lower average graduation rate does not mean that the institution has dumbed down admissions or anything. Some of the lower income students have a higher rate than their group's average.
It also says that the poor students have to also balance more things like jobs, which makes it harder for them in comparison to wealthy students.
The presidency of Robert Goheen (1957-1972) exercised a fundamental role in the demographic composition of the undergraduate student body at Princeton University.
Goheen played a paramount role in the admission of woman as undergraduates in 1971, stirring the ire of tradition-minded alumni.
He took another calculated and highly visible step by markedly increasing the number of African American undergraduates, increasing from seven in 1962 to 318 in 1970.
As an undergraduate at the university, Goheen was the recipient of the Pyne Honor Prize for academic distinction in 1940.
Notably, Sonia Sotomayor was the recipient of that very laurel when she graduated from the university in 1976.
Goheen played a paramount role in the admission of woman as undergraduates in 1971, stirring the ire of tradition-minded alumni.
He took another calculated and highly visible step by markedly increasing the number of African American undergraduates, increasing from seven in 1962 to 318 in 1970.
As an undergraduate at the university, Goheen was the recipient of the Pyne Honor Prize for academic distinction in 1940.
Notably, Sonia Sotomayor was the recipient of that very laurel when she graduated from the university in 1976.
12
I was a grad student about the first time Princeton admitted women undergrads, and among the vociferous protests from alums who were going to cut the school off, Laurence Rockefeller '32 told them to pay them no mind, he would make up the difference.
Princeton University was divided into 5 colleges in 1983, when our First Lady, Michelle Lavaughn Robinson, from Chicago, was an undergraduate. Her brother, Craig Robinson graduated from Princeton in 1983. The University and the Colleges were filled with class and racial divisions 35 years ago. The Eating Clubs caused heartbreak in those young hearts. Ruth Simmons, Headmaster of Wu College at PU, went on to become President of Brown University. Michelle Robinson Obama graduated from Princeton in 1985 and went on to become our beautiful and fine First Lady during her husband Barack Obama's two terms as our excellent President. Class and race still divide our coumtry. Alas.
5
If Princeton wants real diversity - diversity of thought - it ought to recruit more conservative students.
13
Why? Conservatism has done little to benefit all of humanity...and Princeton's unofficial motto is "Princeton in the nation's service and in the service of all nations." For that the only answer is a solid progressive and liberal stance. Hooray for Princeton's liberalism...Conservatives there do have a voice as in any good academic institution, but they don't stand a chance when up against logic and ethics 'in the service of the nation and of all nations!"
Princeton has long been an elite institution for White upper class southerners. These are the sort of people who are not inclined to eagerly embrace racial and ethnic pluralism.
3
According to the statistics for the Class of 2020, the student body is comprised of students from 49 of the 50 states (none from South Dakota) and 49 foreign countries.
https://admission.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/map-full2020.pdf
59.8% were public school graduates, 16.7 independent day, 14.0 religious affiliated, 9.2 boarding, .2 military, .1 home schooled.
https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics
https://admission.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/map-full2020.pdf
59.8% were public school graduates, 16.7 independent day, 14.0 religious affiliated, 9.2 boarding, .2 military, .1 home schooled.
https://admission.princeton.edu/how-apply/admission-statistics
The glee with which the author focuses on meaningless stats such as number of Pell Grant attendees is comical. Heck why stop at 21% go for 100%.
The notion that one must set foot at an Ivy in order to be successful is silly. I hope Princeton can maintain its standards.
The notion that one must set foot at an Ivy in order to be successful is silly. I hope Princeton can maintain its standards.
8
I'll believe it when Princeton abandons Legacy Admissions, AKA affirmative action for the wealthy and white.
No institution receiving Federal money should be allowed to discriminate in such a manner, it's just plain wrong.
No institution receiving Federal money should be allowed to discriminate in such a manner, it's just plain wrong.
18
I'm certain that the working class will be reassured to learn that the 1% who over time and many tax cuts have won complete control over their democracy will have somewhere in their past qualified for a Pell grant. What a relief. No matter, the message from them will be the same: your unions and manufacturing jobs are never coming back, so get used to working 24x7 for very low wages and having no future. Too bad for you, but I'm sure you can suck it up a little longer while we perfect robotics and figure out a way to do without you altogether. It will be a better world in the end, you'll see.
7
A better world to be sure, but ONLY if those grabbing off the goodies from the robotics that replace working people are nicely taxed so that those put out of jobs by robots are provided other meaningful labor, along with housing, food, clothing, and health care off the profits from those robotics.
The Ivy Leagues have devolved into a finishing school for future aristocrats.
Yale, Harvard, Brown, Columbia especially.....there's no actual research or exploration or innovation comming out of these schools,,,,only elites with pedigrees that gives them the authority to pass judgement on reasearch, exploration, innovation that came from elsewhere..
This was not always the case......but, sadly, since the dawn of the New Deal Era, way back in the 1930s, that is the accurate state of affairs in the Ivy League.....today, little more than Status Quo Indoctrination Facilities.
In the early stages of Ivy League development, the mission was to train people who would go forth into American like seedlings to spread education and enlightenment......Harvard started as a missionary training school.....much like today's Liberty University(roundly mocked by most of todays Harvard Grads that dont understand their own background).
Todays Ivy League Grad behaves like a Priest, jealously guarding the entrance to the temple of knowledge.
Suggestion to Cornell.....cut the cord before your school devolves into the same poor condition as Harvard and Yale and Columbia.
It may be too late for Penn and Princeton.
Yale, Harvard, Brown, Columbia especially.....there's no actual research or exploration or innovation comming out of these schools,,,,only elites with pedigrees that gives them the authority to pass judgement on reasearch, exploration, innovation that came from elsewhere..
This was not always the case......but, sadly, since the dawn of the New Deal Era, way back in the 1930s, that is the accurate state of affairs in the Ivy League.....today, little more than Status Quo Indoctrination Facilities.
In the early stages of Ivy League development, the mission was to train people who would go forth into American like seedlings to spread education and enlightenment......Harvard started as a missionary training school.....much like today's Liberty University(roundly mocked by most of todays Harvard Grads that dont understand their own background).
Todays Ivy League Grad behaves like a Priest, jealously guarding the entrance to the temple of knowledge.
Suggestion to Cornell.....cut the cord before your school devolves into the same poor condition as Harvard and Yale and Columbia.
It may be too late for Penn and Princeton.
6
They didn't devolve into that, that's what they were explicitly founded for.
Keep up the heat on the Ivies and other $$$$$ leader schools - in a day when our government sems to be forgetting about the importance of equality of opportunity to a healthy democratic society, our education sector needs to take the lead. If you had told me back when I was an undergrad (60-64) that Princeton would become a leader in this realm, I would have asked what you were smoking!
It is great to hear that schools are focusing on economic diversity. This was the primary point of the amazing book "The Chosen" providing a history of admissions policies at top universities. In a recent Times article, Washington University was defined as most elitist - #1 - with nearly 1/4 of the students from families in the top 1% and a very low number in the bottom 60% of income. In contrast, UChicago was ranked 110th, meaning only a small percentage were in the top 1%, and a high number of students were from families in the bottom 60% of income. This makes the criticism of UChicago and the praise of Washington U in this article, which came across as very elitist in the earlier NY Times article, puzzling to say the least.
10
Too little, too late. The only tool that could reasonably be employed - by all schools - would be need blind/color blind/ethnicity blind admissions. Imagine if a student's college essay was the most important factor in deciding! The counter argument, of course, would be that schools could then (potentially) not afford to subsidize the students they let in. Yet schools like Princeton, etc. have endowments that could last generations.
Ultimately, this is a band-aid on a gushing wound.
Ultimately, this is a band-aid on a gushing wound.
1
Two cheers for Princeton. with the fifth largest U.S. University endowment. With no medical or law school , and thus almost certainly the highest endowment per college student, it can do without my third cheer.
6
Opening elite universities for those in financial need is long overdue and should be the norm rather than the exception. State universities are closing their doors on financially strapped students as they raise tuition to satisfy the Republican incompetently run states. Private universities cannot fill the void left. The greatest disservice is the unlocked potential for our future.
1
Princeton University has a very simple and generous philosophy regarding tuition: No student should graduate with debt. For any student who qualifies and is selected (7/100 applicants) - they fulfill this promise almost exclusively. I just wish more middle and low income students, parents, and guidance counselors would realize that, for those selected, the Ivy League colleges are the best bargains in the business.
- Parent of a Princeton alum - Class of '15
- Parent of a Princeton alum - Class of '15
10
This problem of high learning standards is a function of the antiquated learning support system we use. We externaluze the criteria setting hence only a handful of institutions maintain the highest criteria. A learning support system which establishes internal criteria will be much more generalalizable and ultimately more widely accessible and therefore fair to say nothing about productive.
troubling article. Diversifying Princeton and every other elite college in the country will have NO effect on the widening American class structure. There are, tellingly, no numbers at all in the article, only percentages. Why? Because the numbers are miniscule. They are entirely, totally irrelevant to the wealth and income gap in the US. If every elite college and university admitted ONLY middle and lower-class students, it would still have no effect because the numbers are so tiny.
More diverse elite student bodies might actually make stratification much worse because students from middle and lower classes will be more competent and will therefore compete better; they have to be in order to succeed against people of privilege. That means they will be even more able, and certainly as willing, to extract even more wealth and income from the lower depths than already happens.
More diverse elite student bodies might actually make stratification much worse because students from middle and lower classes will be more competent and will therefore compete better; they have to be in order to succeed against people of privilege. That means they will be even more able, and certainly as willing, to extract even more wealth and income from the lower depths than already happens.
3
Glad to hear (read) this. Increasing access for low and middle income students will help with income inequality. So will free-tuition - we've had free college in the past (CCNY for example and the GI Bill) and it helped create and build the middle class. It's not 'can we afford to do it', it's 'can we afford not to do it'.
While I suppose it is encouraging that that these elite schools deign to accept lower income students, the underlying message, that attending these schools is "making it", is troubling. Many extremely bright, motivated and successful people attend ivy-less colleges and universities and go on to make significant contributions in their communities. Hopefully, these FLIs will not pull the ladder up behind them but will help others in their situations achieve the same level of success.
8
One thing the society as a whole can do that will help many more middle and lower class students than a few Ivy League schools will ever do.
Stop thinking that you can only hire from a pool of Ivy League'rs. The disploma is a ticket. Performance on the job is far more important. Many talented, brilliant students graduate at the top of their classes at good public Universities, and they are even more driven to show what they can do than those who now have the security of that Ivy League ticket in their pocket and don't really need you - there is always someone willing to employ them.
Give a high scoring, high ranked public school grad a chance and they will be yours forever.
That Ivy League diploma does not assure you of anything.
After all, Donald Trump has one, right?
Stop thinking that you can only hire from a pool of Ivy League'rs. The disploma is a ticket. Performance on the job is far more important. Many talented, brilliant students graduate at the top of their classes at good public Universities, and they are even more driven to show what they can do than those who now have the security of that Ivy League ticket in their pocket and don't really need you - there is always someone willing to employ them.
Give a high scoring, high ranked public school grad a chance and they will be yours forever.
That Ivy League diploma does not assure you of anything.
After all, Donald Trump has one, right?
7
The people who say an Ivy League diploma does not assure you of anything are usually those who already have one. They're the same crowd that claim where you went to college only matters in your first job interview. That's right, and your first job might well affect the outcome of your entire career, leading to a stratified society where graduates of elite schools have access to job opportunities that most graduates of lesser institutions never even hear about.
Things like this cannot hurt and might even do some good, and are better than nothing. They will not end inequality. All this talk about inequality by elite journalists at elite media is a cruel hoax. Every day in every way every parent who cares about their child's future does all they can to give those children an edge and tenaciously fights to preserve that edge. Hillary Clinton, not one of my favorite politicians, said it best when she said, "It takes a village to raise a child."
The irony is that these FLI students will have the opportunity for exposure to the arts and humanities that their counterparts in community colleges will not. That is because Financial aid will no longer cover courses outside a student's major. As a result, no more electives that broadened a student curriculum exposing him or her to a new world-- or worlds. Just when the workforce is clamoring for creativity and innovation supporting integrated courses such as adding, "A," (art) to STEM for STEAM, or design thinking in top-ranked business schools, our neediest students find themselves ham-stringed yet again. And the policy-making coming out of this administration is not about making America great again for these Americans. Thanks for being a beacon, Princeton!
Princeton has been down a difficult road recently with the contention over whether or not to keep Woodrow Wilson’s name on school buildings. Let’s hope that increased inclusiveness is one important collateral benefit that will ultimately bloom from the residue of that conflict, as well as from the good intentions of President Eisgruber’s and the school’s principled efforts.
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. – Winston Churchill
A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty. – Winston Churchill
2
The increasing percentage of Pell-grant students is encouraging and a good metric. A salient question is: what percentage is good enough? One answer might be: when the percentage of Pell grant students at elite private and public institutions matches the overall population income distribution.
If you truly want an egalitarian system at such schools, that should be the objective. That would mean instituting systems wherein admissions preferences for "legacy" family applicants (i.e., students of families where parents or grandparents attended or worked for the institution) would not be allowed: you can't give preferred admissions to one-percenters from legacy families and still achieve an even distribution in your student population.
A modest proposal (sorry J. Swift): Such a system could be strongly encouraged by the federal government by making release of federal research funds to a given institution contingent on continuing measurable significant progress towards the objective. Most of the elite institutions, public or private, are research institutions that receive up to hundreds of millions of dollars per year from the US, administered through faculty or departments that have won the research grant. If a school refused to participate (or "submit") to such a program there would be others eager to comply, to continue with their research mission and to retain prestigious faculty doing the research.
If you truly want an egalitarian system at such schools, that should be the objective. That would mean instituting systems wherein admissions preferences for "legacy" family applicants (i.e., students of families where parents or grandparents attended or worked for the institution) would not be allowed: you can't give preferred admissions to one-percenters from legacy families and still achieve an even distribution in your student population.
A modest proposal (sorry J. Swift): Such a system could be strongly encouraged by the federal government by making release of federal research funds to a given institution contingent on continuing measurable significant progress towards the objective. Most of the elite institutions, public or private, are research institutions that receive up to hundreds of millions of dollars per year from the US, administered through faculty or departments that have won the research grant. If a school refused to participate (or "submit") to such a program there would be others eager to comply, to continue with their research mission and to retain prestigious faculty doing the research.
1
"They often arrive with spotty academic preparation."
So, on what basis were they admitted and what are their odds of success in this, or any university, with "spotty academic preparation?" Will they be majoring in Organic Chemistry or tearing it up at that Wall Street internship with "spotty academic preparation?"
What happens to the perceptions of low income students when they are obviously (to their classmates) the ones in need of tutoring or accumulating in the non-rigorous majors that universities are becoming so clever in establishing?
If the students are not prepared for college, this is nothing but a cruel set-up.
So, on what basis were they admitted and what are their odds of success in this, or any university, with "spotty academic preparation?" Will they be majoring in Organic Chemistry or tearing it up at that Wall Street internship with "spotty academic preparation?"
What happens to the perceptions of low income students when they are obviously (to their classmates) the ones in need of tutoring or accumulating in the non-rigorous majors that universities are becoming so clever in establishing?
If the students are not prepared for college, this is nothing but a cruel set-up.
31
We would not be talking about Pell grants without the Senate career of Claiborne Pell, Princeton man and member of Colonial Club. Eisgruber is absolutely right; the magic of Princeton has been at least as transformative as it's been restorative, and that quality carries no imaginable price.
3
Princeton's endowment, on a per student basis, dwarfs all other schools. Coming in a nearly $3,000,000 per student. Using Pell grants as a yardstick is laughable with a funding source like that available for low income students.
2
Princeton still refuses to divulge data about the fates of its graduates. When Andrew Hacker tried to answer the question of what happened to Princeton graduates--What were their incomes? What jobs did they do? How many wound up as titans of industry and how many driving cabs?--he was refused access, with the lame excuse this would divulge "private" information.
Of course, he wasn't asking for private information about individual students.
The fantasy Princeton tries to sell--that a Princeton degree is the ticket to a life in the upper class, an entry to the corridors of power and a life changing experience is not supported by any reliable data.
We just have to take Princeton's word for that pie in the sky talk.
Hacker was curious because when he taught at Princeton in the 1960's he thought the students were the most unimpressive collection of mediocrities he'd ever come across. But then, Professor Hacker should speak for himself. I just remember what I read.
Of course, he wasn't asking for private information about individual students.
The fantasy Princeton tries to sell--that a Princeton degree is the ticket to a life in the upper class, an entry to the corridors of power and a life changing experience is not supported by any reliable data.
We just have to take Princeton's word for that pie in the sky talk.
Hacker was curious because when he taught at Princeton in the 1960's he thought the students were the most unimpressive collection of mediocrities he'd ever come across. But then, Professor Hacker should speak for himself. I just remember what I read.
3
College education in America has less to do with education than it has to do with making money, on both the institutional and individual levels. The education industry is getting fat fleecing people who think that purchasing a degree is a golden ticket to success.
5
Let's consider Yale, the place where they literally pay twice as much to manage their endowment as they pay in scholarships. We get to send a whole bunch of poor students to these schools, paid by tax dollars in the form of Pell grants, when every Ivy League school makes enough interest on their endowments to pay for every low income student to have free tuition for the next fifteen years.
We need to eliminate any federal aid to these institutions, as their money grows and grows in tax exempt endowments and they pay nothing for anyone. Absolutely disgusting to hold the ivy league as a moral actor.
We need to eliminate any federal aid to these institutions, as their money grows and grows in tax exempt endowments and they pay nothing for anyone. Absolutely disgusting to hold the ivy league as a moral actor.
8
I graduated from Princeton in 1957. It certainly didn't have a diverse student body at the time.
As the 'Southern' member of the so-called Ivy League, it had a long tradition of southern elitism. The sons (it was not yet co-ed) of two racist southern senators were in one of my politics classes. They laughed about lynchings.
Before the abolition of slavery, well-off students from the south often brought a slave along to Princeton to take care of their horses. Many were freed when the slave owner graduated. Some of the servants at the eating clubs (Princeton's 'fraternities') in my era were direct descendants of these slaves. Sadly, their story has never been properly told.
It is nice to hear that the university is trying to change that. It is more than about time.
As the 'Southern' member of the so-called Ivy League, it had a long tradition of southern elitism. The sons (it was not yet co-ed) of two racist southern senators were in one of my politics classes. They laughed about lynchings.
Before the abolition of slavery, well-off students from the south often brought a slave along to Princeton to take care of their horses. Many were freed when the slave owner graduated. Some of the servants at the eating clubs (Princeton's 'fraternities') in my era were direct descendants of these slaves. Sadly, their story has never been properly told.
It is nice to hear that the university is trying to change that. It is more than about time.
11
Unfortunately, the story that the town of Princeton's African-American community was founded by slaves freed by graduating Southern students is only a popular myth.
The Southern boys were obviously not liberals nor abolitionists who would want to free valuable enslaved servants; even if they were, they did not have the authority to do so (these blacks would be their parents' legal property); Princeton University (then known as the College of New Jersey) prohibited private servants from living in the dorms; and -- most significantly -- research has turned up few Princeton manumission bonds, which owners were required to post when enslaved persons were given their freedom.
The Southern boys were obviously not liberals nor abolitionists who would want to free valuable enslaved servants; even if they were, they did not have the authority to do so (these blacks would be their parents' legal property); Princeton University (then known as the College of New Jersey) prohibited private servants from living in the dorms; and -- most significantly -- research has turned up few Princeton manumission bonds, which owners were required to post when enslaved persons were given their freedom.
And the dumbing down of the American campuses continues...
The elites have a right to have their own universities, if we still live in a free country. There are enough un-elite universities. Why ruin Princeton?
The elites have a right to have their own universities, if we still live in a free country. There are enough un-elite universities. Why ruin Princeton?
2
The author needs to pick up some basic statistics. In the US approximately 3.4 million students apply to college annually. Therefore you have 34,000 in 1% of best test takers while being even in top 5% means you are in the group of 150,000+ applicants. Top 15 colleges admit, on average, 2,000 freshmen per school for the total of 30,000. Thus if you want these colleges to start taking students from top 5% to 10% these applicants will displace ones with better credentials. I am not even mentioning athletes and legacies who are already taking a lot of spots. Irrespective of socio-economic status, it is very hard to get 1550/1600 (1%) on new SAT and if you are not smart no private tutoring will help you. Higher aducation should not depend on anything but ability, no matter how hard it is to measure. Universities are accepting way too many academically unqualified candidates and therefore lower their standards to accomodate them Here is some anecdotal evidence - sfriend's son went to a private school but insite of good grades and SAT scores (family is ORM) has had hard time to get into top Uni. By luck he was taking off WL by a top 20 school where upon matriculation he was getting 100's in every frosh class he took while class averages were in 50's and 60's. At the end of frosh year the Uni tested him and he had been placed in all graduate level classes starting from his sophmore year.
3
IN 1965, the tuition room and board for my first trimester at Penn State was on the order of $386, which did not include textbooks. They cost maybe $30 or $40 more. In 1969, my first semester for grad school studies in Linguistics at Penn was $1000. Books were reasonable. Much of the reading was from journals, requiring only perseverance in visiting the library. With all that, I needed student loans which started at 2% and got up as high as 7%, all paid back in full over a period of 10 years. The finances for students now are daunting. But really, are they worth the sacrifice, with few jobs available for graduates who have taken on crushing debt to finance careers they may never be able to pursue? Free massive online courses from websites such as Coursera, EdX and Udacity are underutilized. Sebastian Thrun, one of the founders of Udacity said that he had extremely challenging math problems online. Over 300,000 respondents had submitted answers, many of them superior to those of students at MIT given the same challenge were not among those who provided the best responses. This outcome, if accurately reported, suggests that there are a remarkable number of extremely capable, highly gifted students out there who are going to be competing for jobs without any recognized degrees or debt that would be incurred by attending traditional universities. If the trend reported by Thrun continues, online courses provide students the means of electronically leapfrogging ahead!
4
Dave,
Bravo to President Eisgruber and his administration. Wishing much success to all the students esp. the FLI students.
Now, slightly off topic but just as germane, I'd like to know what Pres. Eisgruber has to say about athletic recruitment and about affirmative action for the wealthy and well connected. Aka, legacy, donor and faculty/staff kids and grandkids.
Even one of these latter cases is, in our opinion, one too many. Many colleges use the term "holistic admissions" as a fig leaf to cover blatant favoritism toward this subset of applicants.
If a legacy student has the academic qualifications to study at Princeton, then fine. We know of one case where Princeton passed over a first generation student with phenomenal "metrics" and a long standing (10 years) commitment to, interest in and excellence in a non-athletic field, in favor of the child/grandchild of one of Princeton's superstar faculty members. The accepted child did NOT have the "metrics" that the student who was denied/rejected did. Nor did the accepted student have any substantial extra curricular activities or athletic abilities. Oh, they'll probably trot out the "holistic admissions" pablum.
Everyone knows life is unfair. This lowering of standards for athletes and connected applicants puts a lie to the supposedly lofty goals of these elite universities. It's one big joke perpetrated and perpetuated by these institutions.
Good luck Princeton 2021!
Bravo to President Eisgruber and his administration. Wishing much success to all the students esp. the FLI students.
Now, slightly off topic but just as germane, I'd like to know what Pres. Eisgruber has to say about athletic recruitment and about affirmative action for the wealthy and well connected. Aka, legacy, donor and faculty/staff kids and grandkids.
Even one of these latter cases is, in our opinion, one too many. Many colleges use the term "holistic admissions" as a fig leaf to cover blatant favoritism toward this subset of applicants.
If a legacy student has the academic qualifications to study at Princeton, then fine. We know of one case where Princeton passed over a first generation student with phenomenal "metrics" and a long standing (10 years) commitment to, interest in and excellence in a non-athletic field, in favor of the child/grandchild of one of Princeton's superstar faculty members. The accepted child did NOT have the "metrics" that the student who was denied/rejected did. Nor did the accepted student have any substantial extra curricular activities or athletic abilities. Oh, they'll probably trot out the "holistic admissions" pablum.
Everyone knows life is unfair. This lowering of standards for athletes and connected applicants puts a lie to the supposedly lofty goals of these elite universities. It's one big joke perpetrated and perpetuated by these institutions.
Good luck Princeton 2021!
7
How can you possibly know a student was accepted with lesser "metrics" over another with supposedly superior metrics? Were you privy to the accepted students' application?
Preference at Princeton for racial minorities, first gen students, the poor, athletes, ethnic diversity, and the children of the rich(about 40% of students pay the full $65,000 annual cost of attendance) is just one more example of how the white middle class goes to the back of the line in 2017 America.
12
Princeton has not forgotten the middle class. They give generous financial aid to families with incomes well over $100,000.
It's not clear what effect a place like Princeton has on low income, minority students, the "FLIs". If nothing else it at least exposes the children of the wealthy, privileged class to the "others" their parents likely avoided.
2
I hope that Princeton not only opens its doors, but opens its heart and changes its customs. My father was a ghetto kid who went to Princeton with the military during WWII. He hated it his whole life long because it stank of effete privilege and scorn even when almost emptied of its privileged population. I, ignoring his warnings as only a teenager can, became a middle-class member of one of the first classes of women. My experience mirrored my father's, and I have never been back to a place that worked hard to make me feel small. I hope that this new group of students has a better experience.
167
Yes, privilege dies hard. Perhaps we might stop talking about 'elite' schools altogether and begin focusing on the lives of accomplished students at all our colleges.
For instance, ask the NYT to profile the honors graduates this year from SUNY campuses, one by one? Why not!
For instance, ask the NYT to profile the honors graduates this year from SUNY campuses, one by one? Why not!
3
The job of a university is not to make you feel good. Tens of thousands of immigrant students attended these schools and saw it as a privilege. They didn't expect therapy, just an education. Part of the problem of admitting students on lesser standards is that they are defensive because they know these schools are not a good fit, not because of their economic circumstances, but because they are not as gifted as the admitted students under regular standards.
The recent issue of students not fitting in is because they are not prepared. Under the old system where students from poor families or unpopular minorities were admitted because they wanted to attend, these problems were much less frequent.
The recent issue of students not fitting in is because they are not prepared. Under the old system where students from poor families or unpopular minorities were admitted because they wanted to attend, these problems were much less frequent.
I hope the students that are accepted, all of them, do not expect 'safe places' or that the school or traditions will vanish or change. Just because you don't 'feel' included, doesn't mean the school needs to change. Time to learn, time to learn that you don't get your way or have a right to 'feel' good. If you don't like it, don't go to Princeton. There are some great colleges and an ivy degree isn't really that big a deal.
1
Mr. Leonhardt has written repeatedly of the improving efforts of private colleges and universities to serve underprivileged students. I am glad that he has done so. However, it is now time to make a bigger effort to put pressure on state governments to do the same. While the "elite" private schools have really transformed themselves, the lion's share of upward mobility comes from state schools. Leonhardt notes that state funding for higher ed is in peril. Now what we need are a series of detailed, hard-hitting columns on states' higher education systems, comparing tuition, admissions policies, and funding, in all 50 states.
1
Leonhardt is complaining that Princeton and other elite colleges do no admit enough students who were not ordained "elite" at birth. He would rather they obtain that "elite" stamp only after being accepted to college.
A better solution would be to remove that elite stamp by helping to ensure that those who go to college - elite or not - contribute something to society. And that would mean making it less lucrative to flock to Wall Street and Washington D.C.
A better solution would be to remove that elite stamp by helping to ensure that those who go to college - elite or not - contribute something to society. And that would mean making it less lucrative to flock to Wall Street and Washington D.C.
20
The Ivies are leading the way with generous financial packages and admission decisions discerned with a keen eye. Now, K-12 education must step up and tighten their rigor. This will ease that transition to more demanding universities. Any high school, for instance, no matter their location and socioeconomic levels can provide challenging classes for those students that are motivated to achieve. In my child's AB Calculus class, there were only six students and I am grateful the school still let the class run. The teacher was honest in saying that there were no other students prepared to take on the subject matter. Also, many students had no desire to ruin their GPA with a lower grade in a harder class. That is another attitude we must change in both students and families. Learning is a process and its own reward and not a trick that is rewarded with a grade.
30
I'm 66. The reality I have seen over the years is that it doesn't matter that you go to Princeton, what matters are the connections and network that got you to Princeton. All the 50 or so top universities offer first class education. For jobs that only need intelligence and hard work , that is more than enough. But for jobs where you want connections you want to go to "well connected" Princeton. That is the subset of the school for the rich, well connected and powerful.
59
Humans generally have tidy minds. We like things simple, predictable, and even rational. So there are hundreds of ways in which we can construct and embrace a model of the world that is all those things. And we have.
In such a rational and tidy world each and every person born would be perfectly suited to their niche, the outcome most probable that would follow from their beginning point. That is their class, their parent's social and economic state and connections.
In this rational world every single person (male at least) born into a privileged family with a wide array of resources such as money, access to travel, leisure, and useful linkages to - let's say - give a helpful nudge to their children's acceptance profile (a time honored tradition). And concurrently those selfsame children would be UNIQUELY well equipped to make best use of those opportunities. n other words they would possess the most probing intellects, the widest range of curiosity, the most admirable moral character, the most dynamically productive nature that would always result in a fantastic flow of social, artistic, scientific, and economic goods to contribute. Natural leaders of men. Something like what Ayn Rand described.
Well, let's see, does the evidence support the validity of such a tidy, rational, deterministic world? If so, then Mr. Eisgruber is not only misguided, but immoral.
But we don't live in such a world now do we. Therefore ladders must proliferate, and work both up and down.
In such a rational and tidy world each and every person born would be perfectly suited to their niche, the outcome most probable that would follow from their beginning point. That is their class, their parent's social and economic state and connections.
In this rational world every single person (male at least) born into a privileged family with a wide array of resources such as money, access to travel, leisure, and useful linkages to - let's say - give a helpful nudge to their children's acceptance profile (a time honored tradition). And concurrently those selfsame children would be UNIQUELY well equipped to make best use of those opportunities. n other words they would possess the most probing intellects, the widest range of curiosity, the most admirable moral character, the most dynamically productive nature that would always result in a fantastic flow of social, artistic, scientific, and economic goods to contribute. Natural leaders of men. Something like what Ayn Rand described.
Well, let's see, does the evidence support the validity of such a tidy, rational, deterministic world? If so, then Mr. Eisgruber is not only misguided, but immoral.
But we don't live in such a world now do we. Therefore ladders must proliferate, and work both up and down.
1
There are 8000 or so students at Princeton, There is a pool of about half the country who might be eligible for Pell Grants, which according to Forbes places 95% of the grants in incomes under $50K. The Washington Post reported that in 2015, half the kids in the US were eligible for school lunches.
Princeton can, and should , look for talent among students who do not come from privileged families.
But even if they set aside a quarter of the class for less privileged students, it will hardly make a dent. By all means they should look for talent where it is sleeping. But the real fix is improving the quality of education that serves most of our kids nationwide. Funding state schools would go a long way towards that goal.
Improve the selection at private colleges and help a kid here and there. Improve the education at public colleges and help a lot of people.
Princeton can, and should , look for talent among students who do not come from privileged families.
But even if they set aside a quarter of the class for less privileged students, it will hardly make a dent. By all means they should look for talent where it is sleeping. But the real fix is improving the quality of education that serves most of our kids nationwide. Funding state schools would go a long way towards that goal.
Improve the selection at private colleges and help a kid here and there. Improve the education at public colleges and help a lot of people.
90
For whatever reason the NY Times focuses on the Ivies as to whether or not its version of inclusion and diversity is coming to fruition.
Try recommending that a student who is maybe the first in their family to attend college might consider going to a public university and you will be labelled regressive and at least a bit racist.
Then try questioning the graduation rates of students in the public university system by demographic groups and you are a racist in the minds of the NY Times.
There are real questions and issues of preparedness here. Yes the brilliant students will pick things up quickly. However even the very smart student will be hindered in their quest by poor preparedness. And the Ivies aren't going to solve that problem and unfortunately their grads don't seem to be able to come up with a solution.
Try recommending that a student who is maybe the first in their family to attend college might consider going to a public university and you will be labelled regressive and at least a bit racist.
Then try questioning the graduation rates of students in the public university system by demographic groups and you are a racist in the minds of the NY Times.
There are real questions and issues of preparedness here. Yes the brilliant students will pick things up quickly. However even the very smart student will be hindered in their quest by poor preparedness. And the Ivies aren't going to solve that problem and unfortunately their grads don't seem to be able to come up with a solution.
4
My thoughts exactly. Thank you!
While this is all good news there are dark clouds hanging over state universities. Many of the top state universities are forced to raise private funds in order to plug the void in the drop from state funds making me wonder if they are still state universities other than in name. The effect of increased state support for their flagship universities will go a much longer way in bridging this class divide.
49
The next step is for Princeton, with its massive endowment, to make sure that these students do not have to carry a job on the side, or to turn down an attractive internship, by directing those endowment dollars to generous financial aid packages rather than to more big shiny buildings. For the last 20 years I've driven daily through the construction site that is Princeton University and wondered why the facilities received more attention than the students.
32
Princeton maintains a fund to support students on Summer academic, intern, and study abroad efforts. Students must apply to it and disbursement is at the the discretion of whatever department oversees it. Whether it is adequate and/or fairly distributed, I do not know.
1
More than ten years ago Princeton became the first university to eliminate student loans, and used that endowment to do away with the loan component of the financial aid package. According to their own website, "financial aid covered 100 percent of tuition, room and board for students in the most recent freshman class whose families earned up to $65,000. This aid was provided in the form of grants, which do not have to be repaid".
2
On the other hand, having skin in the game is a great motivator.
2
Delighted to see my alma mater wake up to a sense of social responsibility, 35 years after I attended as a low income student. Other readers are correct who point out that our concern about the share of underprivileged students who attend the Ivy League should be outweighed by the larger problem of restricted access to higher education in general for those of limited means. But gaining entry to these influential schools DOES matter: have a look at where the Supreme Court went to school:
http://www.businessinsider.com/every-supreme-court-justice-went-to-yale-...
Finally, an important point about schools that DON'T recruit underprivileged students: it isn't always about lack of broad-mindedness. Many schools simply don't have the endowment to offer the free ride that lower income kids like me need. Bryn Mawr, on your list of "laggards" is a case in point. As a women's school, Bryn Mawr is chronically underfunded (What a shock: couples often give first to HIS school...)
http://www.businessinsider.com/every-supreme-court-justice-went-to-yale-...
Finally, an important point about schools that DON'T recruit underprivileged students: it isn't always about lack of broad-mindedness. Many schools simply don't have the endowment to offer the free ride that lower income kids like me need. Bryn Mawr, on your list of "laggards" is a case in point. As a women's school, Bryn Mawr is chronically underfunded (What a shock: couples often give first to HIS school...)
Bravo for Princeton. Now let's answer this.
Why are other capitalist democracies able to provide low cost or free college tuition, including medical school for their students?
Why are there so many low income people in the US, needing educaton or training?
Why is US college tuition debt over a trillion?
Why was college tuition allowed to become a profit center?
Why did the US once subsidize low cost state university tuition, helping to expand the middle class? Why did our lawmakers end this tradition?
What are the political attitudes behind this, and what sustains them?
Why are other capitalist democracies able to provide low cost or free college tuition, including medical school for their students?
Why are there so many low income people in the US, needing educaton or training?
Why is US college tuition debt over a trillion?
Why was college tuition allowed to become a profit center?
Why did the US once subsidize low cost state university tuition, helping to expand the middle class? Why did our lawmakers end this tradition?
What are the political attitudes behind this, and what sustains them?
121
And our graduates must compete fiercely against those masses who receive free
or low cost educations from abroad.
They can also work for considerably less because they don't have enormous student loans to pay back. Total unfair advantage to our American students.
or low cost educations from abroad.
They can also work for considerably less because they don't have enormous student loans to pay back. Total unfair advantage to our American students.
This is one of the most dangerous memes of the left.
NO nation on earth gives free college to EVERY student. That is absurd. SOME wealthy European nations SUBSIDIZE college for the top 10-15% of elite students, who must maintain very high grades in order to keep their subsidy.
They only subsidize medical school because in those nations, socialized medicine means doctors are employees of the state, and the state can't afford doctors who go $250K into debt but expect to earn $400K right out of their residencies. Doctors in Germany go to school at very low cost, but expect to earn only $80K a year.
Why was college allowed to become a for-profit business? just like medicine, "government" intervened by promising to subsidize LOANS....but did nothing whatsoever to hold down COSTS. Without cost controls, the loans simply told colleges to "charge anything you want, Uncle Sam will pay" and they did.
And why are there so many low income Americans needing education? because we have a vast underclass of poor minorities, that other nations like Canada, Australia, Europe, simply do not have. They are overwhelmingly white, while we are headed swiftly to minority majority status. Many of those minorities have cultures that reject and devalue education.
EVEN WORSE....we sold our K-12 educational systems out to public unions, who are entirely corrupt and have dumbed down education (while padding their own luxurious benefits, and insanely long paid vacations, and early retirement scams).
NO nation on earth gives free college to EVERY student. That is absurd. SOME wealthy European nations SUBSIDIZE college for the top 10-15% of elite students, who must maintain very high grades in order to keep their subsidy.
They only subsidize medical school because in those nations, socialized medicine means doctors are employees of the state, and the state can't afford doctors who go $250K into debt but expect to earn $400K right out of their residencies. Doctors in Germany go to school at very low cost, but expect to earn only $80K a year.
Why was college allowed to become a for-profit business? just like medicine, "government" intervened by promising to subsidize LOANS....but did nothing whatsoever to hold down COSTS. Without cost controls, the loans simply told colleges to "charge anything you want, Uncle Sam will pay" and they did.
And why are there so many low income Americans needing education? because we have a vast underclass of poor minorities, that other nations like Canada, Australia, Europe, simply do not have. They are overwhelmingly white, while we are headed swiftly to minority majority status. Many of those minorities have cultures that reject and devalue education.
EVEN WORSE....we sold our K-12 educational systems out to public unions, who are entirely corrupt and have dumbed down education (while padding their own luxurious benefits, and insanely long paid vacations, and early retirement scams).
Short answer. A GOP that now represents the oligarchy (many of them Princetonians) that increasingly pulls all the strings.
The percentage of people in our country who are fortunate enough to attend an elite university is minuscule. It is good to see Princeton opening its doors to the previously excluded, but making the 1%, or the 5% for that matter, more diverse does not begin to solve the problem of growing inequality. In 1918 the Socialist leader Eugene Debs observed that, "If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory . . . you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction." He went on to note that, "I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks." Nearly one hundred years later, the need for the ranks as a whole to rise remains.
6
My son is a 2013 graduate of Princeton. He had a hefty scholarship (based on financial need) and would not have been able to attend otherwise. (Given the craziness of our higher education system, it cost far less for him to go to Princeton than it would have for him to go to our state school, U Mass Amherst.)
In general, I don't know about the financial situation of his fellow students, but I did have one interesting encounter. I met one of my son's friends, an international student from a developing country. I told this friend that I missed my son but couldn't visit him very often (from Massachusetts, where I permanently live).
When this friend asked why not, I told him that it was very expensive for me to travel between the Boston area and Princeton, and to pay for even low-cost accommodations.
Upon hearing this, the young man's jaw nearly dropped to the floor. It had never occurred to him that someone (or at least the relative of a Princeton student) could be so poor.
(If you're wondering how I can manage to spend three months in Paris, someone else is paying for it.)
In general, I don't know about the financial situation of his fellow students, but I did have one interesting encounter. I met one of my son's friends, an international student from a developing country. I told this friend that I missed my son but couldn't visit him very often (from Massachusetts, where I permanently live).
When this friend asked why not, I told him that it was very expensive for me to travel between the Boston area and Princeton, and to pay for even low-cost accommodations.
Upon hearing this, the young man's jaw nearly dropped to the floor. It had never occurred to him that someone (or at least the relative of a Princeton student) could be so poor.
(If you're wondering how I can manage to spend three months in Paris, someone else is paying for it.)
40
Good for Princeton. The efforts are a well placed gesture.
I am writing from Sacramento and I am a 1970 graduate of the State College here. At that time you could go through undergrad or graduate school without cost. Less tha 5% of my graduating class had parents who had attended college. Public funding was forward looking and permitted a lot of us to go into public service without the burden of major debt.
By 1974 Prop 13 had passed and lead to the evaporation of tax based funding
for the State College and the UC system. My daughter recently pointed out to me that the rise of cultural minorities in the 60's and 70's created the environment in which (white) tax payers could quietly turn away from funding needs for higher education.
A complimentary dynamic has compounded what I can only think of as anti-intellectualism. Somehow America's need to do what is pragmatic addresses well problems that are concrete and easily addressed. Issues like climate warming or lethal viruses require thought, training, experimental science and years of patience.
Patience as a cultural dynamic is not something we are noted for. Impatience
Has married anti-intellectualism in the person of our current president. It is my hope that his failures will help close the door on impulsive problem solving.
Had I been without the content of those undergraduate years I would have been more like the impulsive, thoughtless, president I loathe so much.
Survival of our culture depends on college education.
I am writing from Sacramento and I am a 1970 graduate of the State College here. At that time you could go through undergrad or graduate school without cost. Less tha 5% of my graduating class had parents who had attended college. Public funding was forward looking and permitted a lot of us to go into public service without the burden of major debt.
By 1974 Prop 13 had passed and lead to the evaporation of tax based funding
for the State College and the UC system. My daughter recently pointed out to me that the rise of cultural minorities in the 60's and 70's created the environment in which (white) tax payers could quietly turn away from funding needs for higher education.
A complimentary dynamic has compounded what I can only think of as anti-intellectualism. Somehow America's need to do what is pragmatic addresses well problems that are concrete and easily addressed. Issues like climate warming or lethal viruses require thought, training, experimental science and years of patience.
Patience as a cultural dynamic is not something we are noted for. Impatience
Has married anti-intellectualism in the person of our current president. It is my hope that his failures will help close the door on impulsive problem solving.
Had I been without the content of those undergraduate years I would have been more like the impulsive, thoughtless, president I loathe so much.
Survival of our culture depends on college education.
17
Prop. 13 passed in 1977, but otherwise, yep.
This is laudable but the deeper problem is the widening economic disparity in the country with lower-wage workers earning insufficient amounts while the privileged outearn them many hundredfold, and the superprivileged don't even have to work at all; their hedge funds etc can magically produce unimaginable sums.
Still, for the bastions of privilege to address this is welcome. I'm sure it is sincere. And schools like Princeton and Amherst have also grappled with the realities of, for instance, needing to help a student afford an internship in DC. Kudos to them. I am especially pleased that many FLI students are speaking up about the complex realities of their lives rather than remaining silent or feeling shame. The shame is society's.
Still, for the bastions of privilege to address this is welcome. I'm sure it is sincere. And schools like Princeton and Amherst have also grappled with the realities of, for instance, needing to help a student afford an internship in DC. Kudos to them. I am especially pleased that many FLI students are speaking up about the complex realities of their lives rather than remaining silent or feeling shame. The shame is society's.
Stop! What happens to the candidates who are pushed
aside to make way for lower economic students? Obviously, they will
get up, brush themselves off, and excel at other
institutions. Whether Princeton admits or not, there is a geographical
bias against students from the Boston to Washington corridor. My daughter
experienced this type of bias by Princeton years ago, and doubt it
has gone away.
aside to make way for lower economic students? Obviously, they will
get up, brush themselves off, and excel at other
institutions. Whether Princeton admits or not, there is a geographical
bias against students from the Boston to Washington corridor. My daughter
experienced this type of bias by Princeton years ago, and doubt it
has gone away.
9
As long as a school like Princeton has a limited number of spots, it will have to set priorities. If you think the priority used to be entirely fair and "meritocratic" think again. Athletes, alumni children, prep school grads, etc., all received preferential treatment in the past. It is not "bias" as you call it, on an individual basis. The institution is changing its priorities. And though academic performance matters, it was never the only criterion for admission.
10
A big problem for students in that corridor is that the cost of living is so high that "middle-class" families have incomes, on paper, that make them ineligible for financial aid.
1
Leonhardt intentionally confuses the issue between racial and class diversity. Although there is some overlap, they are not one and the same.
Reserving some spots in the freshman class for low income students who are academically qualified but might not otherwise attend is laudable. Letting less qualified students enroll at the expense of more qualified ones is not.
Reserving some spots in the freshman class for low income students who are academically qualified but might not otherwise attend is laudable. Letting less qualified students enroll at the expense of more qualified ones is not.
The attempt to help a small group of low income student is admirable, but the income divide has little to do with the Princetons of this world. For the bulk of students who are low income we need better ways to get a much larger number to succeed at state and community colleges, even trade schools - where they will remain close to home while they attend school, and where their part or full time earnings will help their family survive.
The problem will not be solved by helping the high achievers (though helping them will help the nation in other ways). An example of what is being missed was at a recent event I attended in Paterson NJ. 22 high school students were honored for their work on a large project where the end result included research, design, and even marketing. In a city with an entrenched and impoverished African American population, only one of the students was African American.
How do we reach the entrenched poor?
This admirable program is not the way.
The problem will not be solved by helping the high achievers (though helping them will help the nation in other ways). An example of what is being missed was at a recent event I attended in Paterson NJ. 22 high school students were honored for their work on a large project where the end result included research, design, and even marketing. In a city with an entrenched and impoverished African American population, only one of the students was African American.
How do we reach the entrenched poor?
This admirable program is not the way.
The education of the our best and brightest, no matter their current social or economic class, is crucial to the future of the country's prosperity and global competitiveness. It should be based on brain power and talent, not wallet size or family pedigree. The future health of our democracy depends on such.
1
Then why are the best and brightest attending State Schools because they happen to be Asian or White and come from stable two-income families yet still can't afford schools like Princeton?
2
I'm quite surprised to see Bstes College listed as a "laggard." When our son attended, several years ago, we received information from the school that upward of 90% of its students were receiving some sort of financial support. Can you site your information and source?
1
Mr. Leonhardt is focusing on the percentage of students receiving Pell grants as his metric. US News says that figure is 11% at Bates. But there are other sources of financial support - importantly, from the college itself - in the form of grants and scholarships.
I don't know if this is the case at Bates, but many colleges "mark it up to mark it down." That is, they set a very high "sticker price," and then offer grants (mark-downs) to many of the students who enroll. Only a small percentage of students pay the full sticker price (and that was factored into where the college set the sticker price).
I don't know if this is the case at Bates, but many colleges "mark it up to mark it down." That is, they set a very high "sticker price," and then offer grants (mark-downs) to many of the students who enroll. Only a small percentage of students pay the full sticker price (and that was factored into where the college set the sticker price).
Could some sort of index be used to measure the impact of school choice?
An article by Iris Rotberg in Education Week three years ago cited some disturbing trends that resulted from the expansion of charter schools and choice, including: a strong link between school choice programs and an increase in student segregation by race, ethnicity, and income; a risk that this segregation is a direct reflection of the design of school choice programs; and increased segregation for special education and language-minority students, as well as in increased segregation of students based on religion and culture. If charters and choice are widening the divide at an early age closing it in college is even more difficult. Maybe a future column can examine how the existing system of choice in NYC is affecting BOTH kinds of segregation.
An article by Iris Rotberg in Education Week three years ago cited some disturbing trends that resulted from the expansion of charter schools and choice, including: a strong link between school choice programs and an increase in student segregation by race, ethnicity, and income; a risk that this segregation is a direct reflection of the design of school choice programs; and increased segregation for special education and language-minority students, as well as in increased segregation of students based on religion and culture. If charters and choice are widening the divide at an early age closing it in college is even more difficult. Maybe a future column can examine how the existing system of choice in NYC is affecting BOTH kinds of segregation.
Since the Reagan bull market began on August 12, 1982 the endowments of the nations most prestigious schools have increased more than 25 times. In return for the preferential tax treatment these schools have received -- no state and local property taxes, charitable deductions on income taxes for the wealthy, no income taxes upon capital gains and dividends -- they have given very little to our country. The class sizes at the nation's most prestigious schools are nearly the same now as they were then. The class of 2021 at ALL the most prestigious schools is not even double the size of the class of 1986.
Put another way, the endowment per capita for each entering class at the most prestigious schools has grown from less than $500,000 per student to over $25,000,000 per student. (Yale, Harvard, Princeton, for example) What these schools have done altogether for the least among us is NOT MUCH at all compared to what we as a nation have done for them.
Put another way, the endowment per capita for each entering class at the most prestigious schools has grown from less than $500,000 per student to over $25,000,000 per student. (Yale, Harvard, Princeton, for example) What these schools have done altogether for the least among us is NOT MUCH at all compared to what we as a nation have done for them.
23
Really?? How did you manage to leave out the research that goes on at universities and even small liberal arts colleges, and the service to the surrounding communities many provide? I guess you do not consider advancing knowledge or educating future citizens a contribution.
I would like to see the same analysis applied to churches, who also get tax relief both from local, state and federal taxes and charitable deductions, and are now being allowed to lobby and politic even though it is an affront to the separation of church and state.
I would like to see the same analysis applied to churches, who also get tax relief both from local, state and federal taxes and charitable deductions, and are now being allowed to lobby and politic even though it is an affront to the separation of church and state.
Princeton admissions has always been "need blind." That is, the college did not exclude a candidate simply because he or she couldn't pay. And the college has always provided financial assistance to those who needed financial help.
It rejects thousands of qualified students each year, both wealthy and poor.
Many private colleges do not have need blind admissions. The "country club" image is a tired cliche. That Princeton is doing more to enroll low-income students is to its credit, but don't oversimplify the narrative.
It rejects thousands of qualified students each year, both wealthy and poor.
Many private colleges do not have need blind admissions. The "country club" image is a tired cliche. That Princeton is doing more to enroll low-income students is to its credit, but don't oversimplify the narrative.
26
You're right. PU has had need blind admission ever since I can remember. The newest class appears to be MAJORITY minority. Of course, "minority" doesn't necessarily mean poor: a large proportion of the entrants are of Asian descent and that hasn't equated to low income for decades. Of course athletes at PU (and every other college you may mention) get some priority because the team rosters have to stay full. The same goes for other specialties; i.e., the university orchestra needs an oboe player, etc.
Unfortunately, many poor kids -- black, white, yellow and otherwise -- attend high schools without decent tracks for college entrance. Even if they have high averages and reasonable board scores, when the poor kids get to their selective college, they often find that they are woefully unprepared for the intensity of their freshman courses.
Private colleges rely heavily on private funding to augment tuition payments, so the tradition of legacy admittance is understandable. But it is not absolute. Most alumni kids are rejected. Not surprising when only 6% of applicants are now admitted. BTW, legacies now include a broad range of ethnicities -- but hopefully not that much economic variation if it's true that graduating from PU assures you a successful career.
I'm looking forward to my 60th reunion in three years and am proud that my alumna daughter is 30 years behind me. My father was an immigrant American who never finished high school.
Unfortunately, many poor kids -- black, white, yellow and otherwise -- attend high schools without decent tracks for college entrance. Even if they have high averages and reasonable board scores, when the poor kids get to their selective college, they often find that they are woefully unprepared for the intensity of their freshman courses.
Private colleges rely heavily on private funding to augment tuition payments, so the tradition of legacy admittance is understandable. But it is not absolute. Most alumni kids are rejected. Not surprising when only 6% of applicants are now admitted. BTW, legacies now include a broad range of ethnicities -- but hopefully not that much economic variation if it's true that graduating from PU assures you a successful career.
I'm looking forward to my 60th reunion in three years and am proud that my alumna daughter is 30 years behind me. My father was an immigrant American who never finished high school.
1
I serve as a volunteer on the Board of Trustees of a 30+ yr. old community association, which was one of the first of its kind in an affluent area in NJ.
Up 'til the 2008 collapse of the housing market due to fraudulent practices and subsequent collapse of our economy with attendant loss of jobs, we never had difficulties related to owners' ability to pay their monthly maintenance fees.
While our maintenance fees have risen steadily, owners who lost their jobs and haven't been able to replace their incomes, have increasingly sunk into arrears, gone into bankruptcy, sold their homes to move to less expensive states, rented their units to move in with local relatives or simply walked away from their under-water mortgages.
We struggle to maintain the quality of the community while the resident population has bifurcated into the 1% who own multiple residences and those striving to maintain their middle class status.
Hurricane Sandy also contributed mightily to the depression of property values, which have not fully recovered as they have in other parts of the U.S.
Vigilance has kept our small community afloat in recent years, but we now have to write off bad debt, which inhibits our ability to maintain our former standard of building, landscape and maintenance services quality.
Getting volunteers to serve on the Board and actively participate in the running of our operations has also declined increasingly as owners are forced to work longer hours unable to retire.
Up 'til the 2008 collapse of the housing market due to fraudulent practices and subsequent collapse of our economy with attendant loss of jobs, we never had difficulties related to owners' ability to pay their monthly maintenance fees.
While our maintenance fees have risen steadily, owners who lost their jobs and haven't been able to replace their incomes, have increasingly sunk into arrears, gone into bankruptcy, sold their homes to move to less expensive states, rented their units to move in with local relatives or simply walked away from their under-water mortgages.
We struggle to maintain the quality of the community while the resident population has bifurcated into the 1% who own multiple residences and those striving to maintain their middle class status.
Hurricane Sandy also contributed mightily to the depression of property values, which have not fully recovered as they have in other parts of the U.S.
Vigilance has kept our small community afloat in recent years, but we now have to write off bad debt, which inhibits our ability to maintain our former standard of building, landscape and maintenance services quality.
Getting volunteers to serve on the Board and actively participate in the running of our operations has also declined increasingly as owners are forced to work longer hours unable to retire.
3
But...but...but...Obama ended the Great Recession, and cured the jobs market and now we have record low jobless rates, plus low inflation, plus a booming housing market. Those homes in your association should be back up to their pre-2006 bubble prices!
Is there something amiss in paradise we don't know about?
Is there something amiss in paradise we don't know about?
2
EJ, thank you; I really appreciate your straightforward comment.
1
I wonder whether the "laggards" in improved socio-economic inclusion may not in some cases lack Princeton's great resources, as well as an ability to attract students who may be dubious about the social environment but, in the case of Princeton, will put up with possible difficulties in order to be able to claim the Princeton brand. In addition, Princeton has an ideal location from this perspective, easily accessible from two large urban centers, making it relatively easy to get to jobs and escape campus social issues by going home. I don't mean to take away from the achievement at Princeton -- I remember well how clueless it was in my own student days.
Another issue is private schools with an excellent and expensive education, but without the endowment of the well-known colleges that are named in this article. My institution is an example of this -- the education is tuition based, and that base is called upon to pay for the costs. Yes, those who are paying full tuition are helping pay for those students on scholarships, but their appears to be a financial limit to this. I will also note that the campus has many more (expensive) amenities than it did years ago, and many more administrators. We hear that this is necessary to maintain the high quality of our students.
1
What is needed is a wholesale reimagining of what college is about. Colleges need to become something akin to cultural and permanent training centers for all citizens, not just kids. The rich colleges must spend down their endowments to make it easier to go to school and the better run colleges need to branch out and take over smaller colleges in order to achieve scale. The colleges need to get into the permanent career counseling business. If they do these they may be able to salvage liberal arts education. If they do not, it will be a slow move in the direction of irrelevance.
1
I fail to see how allowing a few more low income students into elite colleges addresses the problem of income inequality in the US.
Low income students who are disappointed when they can't attend prestigious schools are troubling but students who can't even contemplate applying to college are a tragedy.
In the 2016 presidential election, income inequality wasn't addressed by either candidates. It's a troubling problem, calling into question basic assumptions about US society, but until the problem of income equality is confronted , it will remain a ticking time bomb, threatening the foundation of the nation.
Low income students who are disappointed when they can't attend prestigious schools are troubling but students who can't even contemplate applying to college are a tragedy.
In the 2016 presidential election, income inequality wasn't addressed by either candidates. It's a troubling problem, calling into question basic assumptions about US society, but until the problem of income equality is confronted , it will remain a ticking time bomb, threatening the foundation of the nation.
18
I disagree. HRC did address income inequality and thus she was criticized by Republicans for promoting "class war."
I agree. Now, my kids are adults and my grandkids are still too young for college. But I have friends with college age children.
In my state (Ohio), the huge problem is that the affordable state schools are now overwhelmed with applicants. They used to be safety schools that anyone could go to -- my own brother attended Ohio State University, with a D average from high school. A D average! They took anyone, basically.
Today, kids COMPETE to get into Ohio State and the other state schools...meaning you now have to have a high B+ average. That entirely locks out many average kids, especially those who were forced to attend under-performing urban or rural high schools, or who are the first generation to contemplate college. They are forced not into Princeton or Harvard -- only a tiny fraction of all students can ever hope to go to Ivy schools -- but the local private colleges in their states or near by -- which are the ones that charge $60K a year and NOT "needs blind" nor have billion dollar endowments.
These are the ordinary middle class kids facing an awful choice -- either go to the overpriced, no-name private college -- or go to the lousy, crowded academically-dumbed-down community college -- or don't go at all (unthinkable) -- because the overpriced private college will put you $200K in debt for the same degree you could have gotten at State U. for $80K.
And folks, that is NON DISCHARGEABLE lifetime debt. How many jobs are really worth a $200K degree?
In my state (Ohio), the huge problem is that the affordable state schools are now overwhelmed with applicants. They used to be safety schools that anyone could go to -- my own brother attended Ohio State University, with a D average from high school. A D average! They took anyone, basically.
Today, kids COMPETE to get into Ohio State and the other state schools...meaning you now have to have a high B+ average. That entirely locks out many average kids, especially those who were forced to attend under-performing urban or rural high schools, or who are the first generation to contemplate college. They are forced not into Princeton or Harvard -- only a tiny fraction of all students can ever hope to go to Ivy schools -- but the local private colleges in their states or near by -- which are the ones that charge $60K a year and NOT "needs blind" nor have billion dollar endowments.
These are the ordinary middle class kids facing an awful choice -- either go to the overpriced, no-name private college -- or go to the lousy, crowded academically-dumbed-down community college -- or don't go at all (unthinkable) -- because the overpriced private college will put you $200K in debt for the same degree you could have gotten at State U. for $80K.
And folks, that is NON DISCHARGEABLE lifetime debt. How many jobs are really worth a $200K degree?
1
Isn't that the"inequality speech" where HRC wore the 12K Armani jacket?
Clinton continued to give quarter of a million dollar speeches to Wall Street right up to her announcing her candidacy. The result was HRC's rhetoric on income inequality was seen as less than convincing and even hypocritical.
Clinton continued to give quarter of a million dollar speeches to Wall Street right up to her announcing her candidacy. The result was HRC's rhetoric on income inequality was seen as less than convincing and even hypocritical.
3
It begs the question why low-income students must fit in a job where their better-off classmates need not. Why not a stipend to fill the gap, both monetary and social?
5
Because having skin in the game is very motivating. See, for example, Soviet Russia or Maoist China. No skin, low productivity.
4
Ms. Savino, I agree. That is one reason that I did not attend Yale in 1977. (In retrospect, I wish I hadn't bothered applying. I knew nothing whatsoever about how college financial aid offices operated. Yes, the admission may have been "need-blind," but the aid package was mostly loans. I knew I wasn't going to enter a high-paying field, and I was terrified of taking on that much debt. My surviving parent was not involved. My family was living at the small home of an older relative, who was angry at being requested in the aid letter to take out a second mortgage on the home in question to help pay for Yale!
I don't want to say too much. In any event, my only real choice was to attend a college to which I could commute by public bus, in Washington, DC. For those in the class of 1981 at Yale, I'm glad for you, I guess, but ...
I don't want to say too much. In any event, my only real choice was to attend a college to which I could commute by public bus, in Washington, DC. For those in the class of 1981 at Yale, I'm glad for you, I guess, but ...
3
ALL students should have at least a part-time job -- to contribute, to learn about the world of work and what it requires -- to rub up against the hoi polloi and see how ordinary average Americans live, work, think, shop, believe.
You won't learn any of that in the hermetically sealed ivory tower bubble of a wealthy Ivy League university....
You won't learn any of that in the hermetically sealed ivory tower bubble of a wealthy Ivy League university....
3
We have a virtual caste system in American higher education.
The system rewards those who have everything, or almost everything, go right for them between the age of 0 and 17.5 and, by doing so, punishes those who did not get this early boost in life. The caste system helps to ensure that those who started out 100 yards ahead of everyone else have an excellent potential of finishing 10,000 miles ahead.
This is not merely about social prestige or being able to lob the name of your college into a conversation to get either instant respect or a measure of awe. It is also about massive amounts of money. Billions of dollars per year washes over the graduates. Don't they deserve it? Haven't they worked hard for academic achievement, putting in late nights and many long hours of study, library time and great effort puzzling out difficult, complex questions posed by professors? Yes and, perhaps, no. The assumption is that those students are more deserving of the opportunity than lesser beings born to lesser families without wealth. A caste system.
There's another problem. If "the hordes" are allowed into Princeton, it would surely lose some of its snob appeal and the atmosphere of privilege and advantage would be damaged. The feeling that "we few who are here" will go on to tell the world how to live. to lead, would be diminished.
Yet, we should not forget that these are social institutions as well as colleges and, as such, they reenforce advantages for the advantaged.
The system rewards those who have everything, or almost everything, go right for them between the age of 0 and 17.5 and, by doing so, punishes those who did not get this early boost in life. The caste system helps to ensure that those who started out 100 yards ahead of everyone else have an excellent potential of finishing 10,000 miles ahead.
This is not merely about social prestige or being able to lob the name of your college into a conversation to get either instant respect or a measure of awe. It is also about massive amounts of money. Billions of dollars per year washes over the graduates. Don't they deserve it? Haven't they worked hard for academic achievement, putting in late nights and many long hours of study, library time and great effort puzzling out difficult, complex questions posed by professors? Yes and, perhaps, no. The assumption is that those students are more deserving of the opportunity than lesser beings born to lesser families without wealth. A caste system.
There's another problem. If "the hordes" are allowed into Princeton, it would surely lose some of its snob appeal and the atmosphere of privilege and advantage would be damaged. The feeling that "we few who are here" will go on to tell the world how to live. to lead, would be diminished.
Yet, we should not forget that these are social institutions as well as colleges and, as such, they reenforce advantages for the advantaged.
6
You are correct, of course, but read some of the earlier posts -- many people (especially if they or their kids went to Ivies) DO BELIEVE it was all hard work, good grades and studying that got them in -- and not the endowment their grandfather left, or the millions in Mumsie's trust fund. It wasn't that they could afford to live in McMansion Heights or Old White Money Acres Estates, where the schools are first rate -- or attend a private prep school -- or parents who could pay for years of tutoring, trips abroad, SAT courses and the like.
If your parents never went to college....you are starting so far back, that it is virtually impossible to ever dream of catching up.
If your parents never went to college....you are starting so far back, that it is virtually impossible to ever dream of catching up.
1
About 50% of students who attend public school in the US live in or "near" poverty. Why not make 50% the FLI percentage goal? (Do 35% or so of students at Princeton still come from a few private schools?)
20% FLI is ridiculously low.
But the real news is that because of public budget austerity, public universities are withdrawing from fulfilling their real mission--to make public education affordable to anyone who resides in the state.
Oh, since there are so many Princeton (ie., Ivy League) grads running the country, making the wrong policy choices regarding financing of public education (K-16) and so much else, should we also expect a change in the attitudes of Princeton grads regarding public policy that makes the country less class-riven? More likely the ethos of Princeton will make poor grads less--not more--interested in dealing with class tensions in the US. Just as it has for the poor kids from the 60s and 70s who went to such schools. (Sam Alito anyone?)
20% FLI is ridiculously low.
But the real news is that because of public budget austerity, public universities are withdrawing from fulfilling their real mission--to make public education affordable to anyone who resides in the state.
Oh, since there are so many Princeton (ie., Ivy League) grads running the country, making the wrong policy choices regarding financing of public education (K-16) and so much else, should we also expect a change in the attitudes of Princeton grads regarding public policy that makes the country less class-riven? More likely the ethos of Princeton will make poor grads less--not more--interested in dealing with class tensions in the US. Just as it has for the poor kids from the 60s and 70s who went to such schools. (Sam Alito anyone?)
3
Possibly because the goal is not just to enroll these students but to graduate them. Without cheapening the value of a Princeton degree. Sadly, the schools many of those 50% attend are not sufficiently preparing them to confront the academic rigor they will encounter at Princeton (or many other colleges/universities).
4
This is actually old news. Princeton has been admitting students on a "needs-blind" basis for years.
And Princeton has long provided generous financial grants (which, unlike scholarships, do not require a student to major in a particular department nor play a particular sport) to make up what families cannot afford to pay in tuition. As a result, Princeton students typically graduate with only a few thousand dollars in debt.
The biggest problem for Princeton -- and other top tier schools offering no-strings-attached, no-repay-required aid -- has been getting the word out. This has been a major factor in the still-lagging percentages of low-income students at these universities, not elitism or discrimination.
I'm astonished by -- and, frankly, skeptical of -- Mr. Leonhardt's claim, "When I used to call [Princeton] to ask about the topic, I could barely get anyone on the phone."
When was this? Recruitment of low-income students and offering of aid was vigorously pursued by the administration of Shirley Tilghman, Mr. Eisgruber's predecessor, who was Princeton's president from 2001 to 2013, and the school has been happy to promote it.
Disclaimer: I worked at Princeton for several years as a very low-level administrator. Although no long employed there, I retain a great interest in its history.
And Princeton has long provided generous financial grants (which, unlike scholarships, do not require a student to major in a particular department nor play a particular sport) to make up what families cannot afford to pay in tuition. As a result, Princeton students typically graduate with only a few thousand dollars in debt.
The biggest problem for Princeton -- and other top tier schools offering no-strings-attached, no-repay-required aid -- has been getting the word out. This has been a major factor in the still-lagging percentages of low-income students at these universities, not elitism or discrimination.
I'm astonished by -- and, frankly, skeptical of -- Mr. Leonhardt's claim, "When I used to call [Princeton] to ask about the topic, I could barely get anyone on the phone."
When was this? Recruitment of low-income students and offering of aid was vigorously pursued by the administration of Shirley Tilghman, Mr. Eisgruber's predecessor, who was Princeton's president from 2001 to 2013, and the school has been happy to promote it.
Disclaimer: I worked at Princeton for several years as a very low-level administrator. Although no long employed there, I retain a great interest in its history.
10
Urgency? With a $20 billion endowment and only 5000 students, why talk about it before you actually do something substantial?
2
I see this column and Roger Cohen's today as bookends for the Democrats to get in between and ponder. We need the elites to get things done in this country. But we also need them to understand that ignoring vast segments of the population because they're not very interesting or have no power won't work anymore.
7
Congratulations to Christopher Eisgruber. That 21% of Princeton's 2018 and 2019 classes are Pell grant recipients is a superb achievement. It is also heartening to read that a growing number of Princetonians are drawn from middle-class and working-class homes.
Dr. Eisgruber's achievement is especially impressive when one considers that he is relatively early in his service as Princeton's president. If the past is an accurate guide, it is exciting to contemplate that Dr. Eisgruber will have many years to solidify this accomplishment.
As the holder of a graduate degree from Princeton, I can say that this Dr. Eisgruber's economic diversity program fills me with pride and encourages me to participate more actively in annual giving and alumni activities. Kudos!
Dr. Eisgruber's achievement is especially impressive when one considers that he is relatively early in his service as Princeton's president. If the past is an accurate guide, it is exciting to contemplate that Dr. Eisgruber will have many years to solidify this accomplishment.
As the holder of a graduate degree from Princeton, I can say that this Dr. Eisgruber's economic diversity program fills me with pride and encourages me to participate more actively in annual giving and alumni activities. Kudos!
49
The author misrepresents the average student of Princeton as undeserving. He assumes that the students of the non-rich are more deserving than those of the rich.
Most students at Princeton are very intelligent and worked hard to get there. Many are the children of Americans who have been here for generations but whose parents did not have the opportunity to attend college. And many are the children of middle-income parents who saved and sacrificed but will pay full sticker price so that they might subsidize the students of other parents.
Most students at Princeton are very intelligent and worked hard to get there. Many are the children of Americans who have been here for generations but whose parents did not have the opportunity to attend college. And many are the children of middle-income parents who saved and sacrificed but will pay full sticker price so that they might subsidize the students of other parents.
72
There is an underlying narrative that the children of the well-off, the children with many advantages, are natural slackers. This is not necessarily the case.
6
Relative terminiology, to borrow some context, is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Nor, should it be pointed out, did the article ever even so much as imply any economic class is more desrving than another. Do at least try to be truthful, even with so transparent an agenda.
"The author misrepresents the average student of Princeton as undeserving." I did not get that idea at all from reading this article.
3
The republican control of state governments that occurred after the 2010 election has resulted in decreases in aid to state colleges. The result is more difficulty for middle income students to attend even state related schools. And now the present administration's education policies will affect more low income students.
So I don't have a great concern over the few getting into ivy league or other top colleges, my concern is over the difficulty first generation college of any level is affected.
So I don't have a great concern over the few getting into ivy league or other top colleges, my concern is over the difficulty first generation college of any level is affected.
129
The decline in state support of public universities began long before 2010. According to a U.S. Treasury Department report, state support for 4-year public universities declined by about a third (from ~60% of the schools' revenue to ~40%) between 1987 and 2010. The recession likely accelerated the change.
2
Some of this news is welcome – Princeton becoming less effete and monochromatic in complexion; and some is not – the remaining holdouts. But what Princeton and others are attempting to do is a valuable piece of a much larger puzzle: how do we lower class barriers without destroying the incentives to innovation and the general benefit of all. Princeton’s way may take a generation or more to improve matters. But it’s good to see them making a start.
37
As the daughter of a man who entered Princeton on a scholarship in 1939, held a campus job, and graduated accelerated in January 1943 to enter the field artillery, I know how much my father was grateful that he had the chance to go to Princeton. He would be pleased that Princeton is again opening doors for people were he alive today.
2
The best incentive to innovation and the general benefit of all is to make it possible not to worry about money and rather pay attention to excellence and creativity. The main excellence and creativity that money fosters is the ability to find ways to make money. to make money, a scam that succeeds is as good as anything else that succeeds, and often better. And there are many more scams, things that appear excellent, than there are things that are really excellent.
Had Jonas Salk decided to patent his polio vaccine, he would have had to switch much of his attention from health to maximizing profitability. He did not value the business side of medicine; in today's world he would be reckoned a heretic whose values included the greatest business sin -- leaving money on the table.
Had Jonas Salk decided to patent his polio vaccine, he would have had to switch much of his attention from health to maximizing profitability. He did not value the business side of medicine; in today's world he would be reckoned a heretic whose values included the greatest business sin -- leaving money on the table.
So if you come from a "lower class" then you aren't incentivized to innovate and create benefit for all? This makes no sense. I am a college professor at an elite college, and I assure you that most of the truly innovative and socially minded students do not come from the top one or even ten percent income brackets. Economically entitled students often suffer from lack of motivation and little sense of noblesse oblige.
Schools like Princeton used to function as gatekeepers for the already successful, so that their children would have an advantage in the competition with others who did not come from already-successful families. These others might graduate with stellar records from CCNY, but would not have the Princeton degree that opens doors to America's elite. Many of the already successful will be quietly unhappy and opposed to the recent change, because it means that their children will face more intense competition from the often hungrier children of people who did not go to college at all. Of course,to be openly opposed to this change is to go against the egalitarian ideology with which the justice of our current social structure is marketed to those who are screwed by it.
123
I frequently wonder if this isn't part of the motivation behind those who support school vouchers, and resist efforts to properly fund public schools. If I'm sending my kid to a private school anyway, why would I want to pay extra taxes to support public schools? Unless, of course, I can get some of those tax dollars back in the form of private school vouchers. And why would I want to create a larger pool of properly educated kids, against whom my kids will have to compete for college slots and jobs? Far better that reading comprehension, mathematical competence, and writing skills remain a rare commodity in the job market, making them more valuable as a sorting tool for employers.
5
No problem with expanding financial assistance to the poor and middle class that have excelled academically. But, I do have a problem accepting kids that are not academically prepared. It is wrong, biased, racist, and not seen anywhere else in the world. No to affirmative action. Fix K-12.
4
I think the status of a degree -- as a "class marker" -- cannot be overlooked, but my understanding is that the true benefit of an Ivy education is the connections and networking you obtain. You go to class with -- share dorms with -- date -- members of the upper caste. You get to know the children of famous politicians, actors, billionaires. It is these connections, more so than the famous Ivy name, that end up opening doors for you in a career -- the internship at a white shoe law firm or Google, etc.
What is happening now for the middle-class is that the best middle-class students go to State Schools while the poor, less capable students go to the Ivy League. And we wonder why America is not competitive.