Princeton class of 2027

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

I don't know why we care about the extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority a generation ago.

I mean, what do they bring to the table that first gen or just plain middle class don't? Are you saying the peer group was stronger? I doubt that. Classroom discussions more productive? I doubt that? Opportunities to learn and grow in a residential setting limited? I really doubt that.

I submit that Princeton has FU money and now, finally, can accept the kids they want.

There are a hundred schools happy to take your UMC kid.

Op here, speaking from experience, yes I think the kids who had “privileged” upbringings in the sense of parents being very dedicated to their development from day one and exceptional schools are in a sense the best and the brightest. But schools with FU money (who are they saying FU to btw, the very people who built the schools into what they are now?) are deliberately viewing this form of “privilege” as a negative variable when they make admissions decisions. It’s quite counterintuitive. They specifically don’t want kids who are coming to them having been extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically. It’s like a Major League Baseball team avoiding the best high school programs when they scout players and just looking for the worst. My contention is, if your selection process entails avoiding the circumstances that produce exceptional kids, you will probably have fewer exceptional kids.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Kids with lousy test scores and sporty grades aren’t being admitted to Princeton.

They generally are not, but it's a question of degree. A lot of not so extraordinary kids are potentially getting in under the cover of lack of privilege while many extraordinary kids are getting rejected because they came from loving well-resourced homes, which is a bad thing nowadays, almost a mark of evil.

100%

If you came from a loving home and are well-adjusted, we don't want you. We want trauma and tragedy. If you had the benefit of a rigorous education due to your privilege, we don't want you.

We are really do a psychological number on kids.

You really are afraid of things that don’t exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

Caltech with poor yield isnt handpicking anyone

where do people come up with these broad ill informed narratives? and sans data no less

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

I don't know why we care about the extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority a generation ago.

I mean, what do they bring to the table that first gen or just plain middle class don't? Are you saying the peer group was stronger? I doubt that. Classroom discussions more productive? I doubt that? Opportunities to learn and grow in a residential setting limited? I really doubt that.

I submit that Princeton has FU money and now, finally, can accept the kids they want.

There are a hundred schools happy to take your UMC kid.

Op here, speaking from experience, yes I think the kids who had “privileged” upbringings in the sense of parents being very dedicated to their development from day one and exceptional schools are in a sense the best and the brightest. But schools with FU money (who are they saying FU to btw, the very people who built the schools into what they are now?) are deliberately viewing this form of “privilege” as a negative variable when they make admissions decisions. It’s quite counterintuitive. They specifically don’t want kids who are coming to them having been extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically. It’s like a Major League Baseball team avoiding the best high school programs when they scout players and just looking for the worst. My contention is, if your selection process entails avoiding the circumstances that produce exceptional kids, you will probably have fewer exceptional kids.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Kids with lousy test scores and sporty grades aren’t being admitted to Princeton.

They generally are not, but it's a question of degree. A lot of not so extraordinary kids are potentially getting in under the cover of lack of privilege while many extraordinary kids are getting rejected because they came from loving well-resourced homes, which is a bad thing nowadays, almost a mark of evil.

Give it up---majority of kids are going to get rejected from a school that accepts only 4-6% of students. Your kid did not get rejected because they accept an inner city, poor kid with a 3.0 and 1200. Your kid got rejected because they accepted another UMC/Rich privileged kid who they consider better than your kid or because they accepted a first gen or low income student who has a 3.9 UW and has shined in a bad environment where they have had to overcome many struggles. to accomplish that.

Hint: your kid is not that extraordinary in the pool of 50K applicants for each T25 school. If you truly look at kids who get into these school, majority have some "it" factor that just shows drive and determination a few steps above most kids with 1500+/3.99+UW/10Ap+ resumes

lol my lazy ass privileged dc didn't even apply, despite having the scores. I am all for leveling the playing field--and for them to admit students from rougher backgrounds who are genuinely on par with the kids from more affluent backgrounds whose applications are perfect. I just question if they are getting it right or if they are giving the disadvantaged kids the benefit of the doubt. 22% getting pell grants (45k max income, basically poverty line) feels really high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

And yet Caltech also has the highest percentage of black and Hispanic students among elite schools. So clearly test scores aren’t the key to identifying such students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

I don't know why we care about the extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority a generation ago.

I mean, what do they bring to the table that first gen or just plain middle class don't? Are you saying the peer group was stronger? I doubt that. Classroom discussions more productive? I doubt that? Opportunities to learn and grow in a residential setting limited? I really doubt that.

I submit that Princeton has FU money and now, finally, can accept the kids they want.

There are a hundred schools happy to take your UMC kid.

Op here, speaking from experience, yes I think the kids who had “privileged” upbringings in the sense of parents being very dedicated to their development from day one and exceptional schools are in a sense the best and the brightest. But schools with FU money (who are they saying FU to btw, the very people who built the schools into what they are now?) are deliberately viewing this form of “privilege” as a negative variable when they make admissions decisions. It’s quite counterintuitive. They specifically don’t want kids who are coming to them having been extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically. It’s like a Major League Baseball team avoiding the best high school programs when they scout players and just looking for the worst. My contention is, if your selection process entails avoiding the circumstances that produce exceptional kids, you will probably have fewer exceptional kids.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Kids with lousy test scores and sporty grades aren’t being admitted to Princeton.

They generally are not, but it's a question of degree. A lot of not so extraordinary kids are potentially getting in under the cover of lack of privilege while many extraordinary kids are getting rejected because they came from loving well-resourced homes, which is a bad thing nowadays, almost a mark of evil.

Give it up---majority of kids are going to get rejected from a school that accepts only 4-6% of students. Your kid did not get rejected because they accept an inner city, poor kid with a 3.0 and 1200. Your kid got rejected because they accepted another UMC/Rich privileged kid who they consider better than your kid or because they accepted a first gen or low income student who has a 3.9 UW and has shined in a bad environment where they have had to overcome many struggles. to accomplish that.

Hint: your kid is not that extraordinary in the pool of 50K applicants for each T25 school. If you truly look at kids who get into these school, majority have some "it" factor that just shows drive and determination a few steps above most kids with 1500+/3.99+UW/10Ap+ resumes

lol my lazy ass privileged dc didn't even apply, despite having the scores. I am all for leveling the playing field--and for them to admit students from rougher backgrounds who are genuinely on par with the kids from more affluent backgrounds whose applications are perfect. I just question if they are getting it right or if they are giving the disadvantaged kids the benefit of the doubt. 22% getting pell grants (45k max income, basically poverty line) feels really high.

You should try being in poverty and qualifying for Princeton academically. I’d pay to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

And yet Caltech also has the highest percentage of black and Hispanic students among elite schools. So clearly test scores aren’t the key to identifying such students.

Caltech has 5% black or 10 black kids in an entire entering class.

[Anonymous]

Wow. This is among the most absurd DCUM threads I have read.
1. They are taking tons of elite kids today. About half the class of dalton in 2023 went to an Ivy League or a top ten (Chicago/Stanford). Maybe they just don’t find the DMV kids as impressive.
2. The prepped since birth kids weren’t the most impressive students at my HYP and they sure didn’t work the hardest.
3. I too am sorry that it’ll be way harder for my kid to get in then it was for me. But not a reason to knock who they are taking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

And yet Caltech also has the highest percentage of black and Hispanic students among elite schools. So clearly test scores aren’t the key to identifying such students.

Caltech has 5% black or 10 black kids in an entire entering class.

Caltech is 34 percent black, hispanic or Native American. Highest percentage of any elite school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.princeton.edu/news/2023/09/06/class-2027-arrives-midst-four-year-undergraduate-expansion

2/3 are receiving financial aid (70k on average)

Almost a quarter are Pell Grant recipients (basically poverty line)

It’s nice that Princeton is spending its insane endowment on poor kids who no doubt have a lot of potential but I struggle to believe the school really represents the best of the best still. When you factor in athletes who tend to receive less aid, what percentage is left for extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority of the school a generation ago? 15 percent?

I don't know why we care about the extremely bright upper middle class kids who represented the majority a generation ago.

I mean, what do they bring to the table that first gen or just plain middle class don't? Are you saying the peer group was stronger? I doubt that. Classroom discussions more productive? I doubt that? Opportunities to learn and grow in a residential setting limited? I really doubt that.

I submit that Princeton has FU money and now, finally, can accept the kids they want.

There are a hundred schools happy to take your UMC kid.

Op here, speaking from experience, yes I think the kids who had “privileged” upbringings in the sense of parents being very dedicated to their development from day one and exceptional schools are in a sense the best and the brightest. But schools with FU money (who are they saying FU to btw, the very people who built the schools into what they are now?) are deliberately viewing this form of “privilege” as a negative variable when they make admissions decisions. It’s quite counterintuitive. They specifically don’t want kids who are coming to them having been extremely nurtured and well prepared to excel academically. It’s like a Major League Baseball team avoiding the best high school programs when they scout players and just looking for the worst. My contention is, if your selection process entails avoiding the circumstances that produce exceptional kids, you will probably have fewer exceptional kids.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Kids with lousy test scores and sporty grades aren’t being admitted to Princeton.

They generally are not, but it's a question of degree. A lot of not so extraordinary kids are potentially getting in under the cover of lack of privilege while many extraordinary kids are getting rejected because they came from loving well-resourced homes, which is a bad thing nowadays, almost a mark of evil.

Give it up---majority of kids are going to get rejected from a school that accepts only 4-6% of students. Your kid did not get rejected because they accept an inner city, poor kid with a 3.0 and 1200. Your kid got rejected because they accepted another UMC/Rich privileged kid who they consider better than your kid or because they accepted a first gen or low income student who has a 3.9 UW and has shined in a bad environment where they have had to overcome many struggles. to accomplish that.

Hint: your kid is not that extraordinary in the pool of 50K applicants for each T25 school. If you truly look at kids who get into these school, majority have some "it" factor that just shows drive and determination a few steps above most kids with 1500+/3.99+UW/10Ap+ resumes

lol my lazy ass privileged dc didn't even apply, despite having the scores. I am all for leveling the playing field--and for them to admit students from rougher backgrounds who are genuinely on par with the kids from more affluent backgrounds whose applications are perfect. I just question if they are getting it right or if they are giving the disadvantaged kids the benefit of the doubt. 22% getting pell grants (45k max income, basically poverty line) feels really high.

You should try being in poverty and qualifying for Princeton academically. I’d pay to see it.

Right? It's such a a huge accomplishment coming out of a disadvantaged situation and getting the APs and the test scores and the grades and the ECs and all that and getting onto Princeton.

Much more impressive than a privileged Sidwell or St. Albans grad.

[Anonymous]

It’s great how progressives always claim that institutions need to represent the demographics of the country, but then, in practice, they implement policies that produce results that are fairly unlike the demographics of the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

And yet Caltech also has the highest percentage of black and Hispanic students among elite schools. So clearly test scores aren’t the key to identifying such students.

Caltech has 5% black or 10 black kids in an entire entering class.

Caltech is 34 percent black, hispanic or Native American. Highest percentage of any elite school.

34 percent equates to about 65 people based on their 250 large freshman class size. Is that actually impressive? no

[Anonymous]

Princeton is playing the old game of claiming all their admits are qualified. But then you ask how they define “qualified” and it’s like 3.5 & 1350 SAT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

There is no doubt this is true. My college roommate is now a professor at Princeton (and has been an Ivy professor for 12 years, across 3 schools). She says that many of the current kids are absolutely not as prepared as kids even 5 years ago. It's "shocking." However, they can (and do) catch most of these kids up. Isn't it a good thing that smart kids from diverse backgrounds are being given this opportunity?

I've heard this from profs at schools that are not nearly as selective too. I think the Covid dip is real and affected a large student population.

Hand and hand with test optional and holistic admissions.

Then you should have seen this phenomenon at CalTech and other test optional schools years ago. Obviously it didn’t happen.

Caltech is always a ridiculous argument for justifying quality in test-optional admissions. They hand pick a class of 200 kids and don't need an SAT score to find them. These kids have resumes way beyond an SAT score.

And yet Caltech also has the highest percentage of black and Hispanic students among elite schools. So clearly test scores aren’t the key to identifying such students.

Caltech has 5% black or 10 black kids in an entire entering class.

Guess they aren't on the basketball team?