Princeton class of 2027

[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.

Their applicant pool differs from MIT how exactly?

It's the same applicant pool. MIT and Caltech are getting kids that are rolling with 1600 or 36. And it doesn't matter whether they choose to submit. It's pretty clear from the rest of their applications that these are smart kids

So why does MIT need a SAT score? Is their admissions department incompetent?

It is MIT's prerogative to require a SAT/ACT score. Just like Caltech can conclude they build their best classes without requiring a SAT/ACT score. Neither is wrong. Both have the ability to build their own class the way they see fit. Both still succeed at having a group of really smart kids.

[Anonymous]

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.

NP. None of this makes sense. How can being the "most privileged" equate to being the brightest?
Your assertion about privilege as a negative variable is also ridiculous. These kids are still getting in. Maybe not in the numbers they once were because universities are seeking out brightness that may not have had the same privilege. This victim mentality and the spin that comes with it is nuts.

[Anonymous]

People in high income who get need based aid are ones with high debt. If you live within your means and don't build a lifestyle on debt then you don't get aid.

Also most of those aren't straight W2 folks but business owners who can twist tax info to become eligible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to know what the average SAT score is for a Pell Grant student, a need based aid recipient and a full pay student

Who cares? SAT scores do not indicate intelligence. They indicate who has the best means to prep for them.

So how do you know these poor kids are every bit as smart and have just as much potential as the valedictorian of a leading American high school who got 1570 but was rejected, because, you know, they are privileged, they didn't really earn it, as Obama might say (RIP Joe the Plumber)? How does the admissions officer know this kid with 1310 and strong grades from a non-competitive high school is indeed just as strong as the best kids from the best high schools?

where are these 1310 kids? They certainly arent at Princeton in any meaningful numbers. Stop the hyperbole

Basketball + football

+ hockey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not sure I completely agree with the social engineering that these schools engage in to make their classes look like the broader population and I agree the schools often reject applicants stronger on paper for diversity reasons. But at least Princeton is doing so to help disadvantaged students and is increasing social mobility. Some other top schools prefer wealthy minorities who make the school look more diverse but don’t actually lead to economic diversity and don’t increase social mobility. I would rather give a preference to a poor and disadvantaged kid than a kid who went to Sidwell, GDS, Whitman, etc.

What about the stellar or solid academic kids who are at Sidwell and GDS but come from less privileged or even donut hole backgrounds?

[Anonymous]

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 find it hard to believe and overly idealistic to think you can bring any student up with a little extra tutoring to the point where they are on par with the absolute best in the country. It's arguably admirable Princeton is doing this, and I prefer the focus on economic based disadvantages over racial preferences, but there can be too much of a good thing. I mean, you admit it yourself, the quality of the students entering is shockingly worse than just five years ago. The idea that after a few hours with a professor this gap disappears does not ring true to me. I am thinking back to the difference in my roommates who were admitted based almost entirely on academic merit and the ones who were recruited athletes. The ones admitted on academic merit were, in a very real sense, geniuses. The athletes were bright. No amount of extra attention would ever bring my athlete roommates up to the intellectual capability of my academic merit roommates. Just as no amount of extra attention would transform my academic merit roommates into elite athletes. I think what they are doing now is bring bright kids into the school who help them fulfill the social/political agenda but it's a zero sum game, so they are squeezing out really really really bright kids. Sure, the bright kids may be smart enough and gritty enough to graduate with a lot of tutoring, but Princeton is supposed to be a factory for intellectual leaders of the future (at least in my opinion) not just bright kids who can get by in a competitive world.

You really think the leaders of our country - Congress, governors, mayors, etc., are geniuses? Also, no one is talking about a few hours of tutoring. What they mean is that by junior year, the low income kids have mostly caught up with the elite kids academically. You are nuts lady and not too bright either

[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 find it hard to believe and overly idealistic to think you can bring any student up with a little extra tutoring to the point where they are on par with the absolute best in the country. It's arguably admirable Princeton is doing this, and I prefer the focus on economic based disadvantages over racial preferences, but there can be too much of a good thing. I mean, you admit it yourself, the quality of the students entering is shockingly worse than just five years ago. The idea that after a few hours with a professor this gap disappears does not ring true to me. I am thinking back to the difference in my roommates who were admitted based almost entirely on academic merit and the ones who were recruited athletes. The ones admitted on academic merit were, in a very real sense, geniuses. The athletes were bright. No amount of extra attention would ever bring my athlete roommates up to the intellectual capability of my academic merit roommates. Just as no amount of extra attention would transform my academic merit roommates into elite athletes. I think what they are doing now is bring bright kids into the school who help them fulfill the social/political agenda but it's a zero sum game, so they are squeezing out really really really bright kids. Sure, the bright kids may be smart enough and gritty enough to graduate with a lot of tutoring, but Princeton is supposed to be a factory for intellectual leaders of the future (at least in my opinion) not just bright kids who can get by in a competitive world.

You really think the leaders of our country - Congress, governors, mayors, etc., are geniuses? Also, no one is talking about a few hours of tutoring. What they mean is that by junior year, the low income kids have mostly caught up with the elite kids academically. You are nuts lady and not too bright either

This guy is. Mid-nineties grad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis

[Anonymous]

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.

+1
I would add that the schools are missing some of the most stable, well-rounded, down-to-earth, ethical kids the country has to offer. They are taking kids who are either uber-wealthy, well connected, privileged, maybe even entitled OR kids who've had to fight for every opportunity and may come with a win at all costs mentality. If all the top jobs and next generation of leaders come from that group we can expect to see a net negative impact on society as a whole. We NEED to care about the kids in the middle, especially the ones from solid stable backgrounds, because they drive our culture.

I don’t agree with either of these posts. Rich kids have no clue what life is like for the average person or what problems most people face. They often make terrible leaders. And just going to Princeton does not ultimately help all that much. Networking is generally the key to success and the elite still have a stranglehold on that (isn’t there a Sidwell club in SF for example?)

[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 find it hard to believe and overly idealistic to think you can bring any student up with a little extra tutoring to the point where they are on par with the absolute best in the country. It's arguably admirable Princeton is doing this, and I prefer the focus on economic based disadvantages over racial preferences, but there can be too much of a good thing. I mean, you admit it yourself, the quality of the students entering is shockingly worse than just five years ago. The idea that after a few hours with a professor this gap disappears does not ring true to me. I am thinking back to the difference in my roommates who were admitted based almost entirely on academic merit and the ones who were recruited athletes. The ones admitted on academic merit were, in a very real sense, geniuses. The athletes were bright. No amount of extra attention would ever bring my athlete roommates up to the intellectual capability of my academic merit roommates. Just as no amount of extra attention would transform my academic merit roommates into elite athletes. I think what they are doing now is bring bright kids into the school who help them fulfill the social/political agenda but it's a zero sum game, so they are squeezing out really really really bright kids. Sure, the bright kids may be smart enough and gritty enough to graduate with a lot of tutoring, but Princeton is supposed to be a factory for intellectual leaders of the future (at least in my opinion) not just bright kids who can get by in a competitive world.

You really think the leaders of our country - Congress, governors, mayors, etc., are geniuses? Also, no one is talking about a few hours of tutoring. What they mean is that by junior year, the low income kids have mostly caught up with the elite kids academically. You are nuts lady and not too bright either

That PP is essentially bringing up the old basketball analogy. It just doesn't work. I think the parents who invest tge most in enrichment and prep are the ones most likely to believe that their haves are the true intellects rather than to acknowledge that they have just had better support.

[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 find it hard to believe and overly idealistic to think you can bring any student up with a little extra tutoring to the point where they are on par with the absolute best in the country. It's arguably admirable Princeton is doing this, and I prefer the focus on economic based disadvantages over racial preferences, but there can be too much of a good thing. I mean, you admit it yourself, the quality of the students entering is shockingly worse than just five years ago. The idea that after a few hours with a professor this gap disappears does not ring true to me. I am thinking back to the difference in my roommates who were admitted based almost entirely on academic merit and the ones who were recruited athletes. The ones admitted on academic merit were, in a very real sense, geniuses. The athletes were bright. No amount of extra attention would ever bring my athlete roommates up to the intellectual capability of my academic merit roommates. Just as no amount of extra attention would transform my academic merit roommates into elite athletes. I think what they are doing now is bring bright kids into the school who help them fulfill the social/political agenda but it's a zero sum game, so they are squeezing out really really really bright kids. Sure, the bright kids may be smart enough and gritty enough to graduate with a lot of tutoring, but Princeton is supposed to be a factory for intellectual leaders of the future (at least in my opinion) not just bright kids who can get by in a competitive world.

You really think the leaders of our country - Congress, governors, mayors, etc., are geniuses? Also, no one is talking about a few hours of tutoring. What they mean is that by junior year, the low income kids have mostly caught up with the elite kids academically. You are nuts lady and not too bright either

This guy is. Mid-nineties grad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis

Yes, Polis is very bright! People like Ted Cruz and Wes Moore have specific credentials that would lead you to believe they might be genius level too.

[Anonymous]

I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.

[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 find it hard to believe and overly idealistic to think you can bring any student up with a little extra tutoring to the point where they are on par with the absolute best in the country. It's arguably admirable Princeton is doing this, and I prefer the focus on economic based disadvantages over racial preferences, but there can be too much of a good thing. I mean, you admit it yourself, the quality of the students entering is shockingly worse than just five years ago. The idea that after a few hours with a professor this gap disappears does not ring true to me. I am thinking back to the difference in my roommates who were admitted based almost entirely on academic merit and the ones who were recruited athletes. The ones admitted on academic merit were, in a very real sense, geniuses. The athletes were bright. No amount of extra attention would ever bring my athlete roommates up to the intellectual capability of my academic merit roommates. Just as no amount of extra attention would transform my academic merit roommates into elite athletes. I think what they are doing now is bring bright kids into the school who help them fulfill the social/political agenda but it's a zero sum game, so they are squeezing out really really really bright kids. Sure, the bright kids may be smart enough and gritty enough to graduate with a lot of tutoring, but Princeton is supposed to be a factory for intellectual leaders of the future (at least in my opinion) not just bright kids who can get by in a competitive world.

You really think the leaders of our country - Congress, governors, mayors, etc., are geniuses? Also, no one is talking about a few hours of tutoring. What they mean is that by junior year, the low income kids have mostly caught up with the elite kids academically. You are nuts lady and not too bright either

This guy is. Mid-nineties grad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Polis

Yes, Polis is very bright! People like Ted Cruz and Wes Moore have specific credentials that would lead you to believe they might be genius level too.

They ARE geniuses. Ted was number one debater in the country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.

This is the myth. We all fight tooth and nail to give our kids the best upbringing yet simultaneously buy into the idea that years of neglect and under investment k-12 can be compensated for by some extra tutoring, and even confers intangible advantages like “grit.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean that means 33% of the student body is still paying over $80,000 a year. I’d say in my friend group only 20% of families could afford to send their kids to a Princeton priced school full pay and everyone went to college/most to grad school.

So 80% of your college/grad school educated friend group have HHI of say, less than $300K?

Not pp, but I’d say yes, that o can only think of one exception. $300k is not a lot for a family. I would not consider that UMC. I know a freshman who is at Princeton this year. She’s definitely not getting any sort of financial aid, and I doubt she’s hanging out with any kids who got Pell grants either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not surprised that admissions officers would be more impressed by a kid who plowed through a mediocre or bad public school and came out with great math and writing schools. As opposed to a similar kid who was educated in a private school greenhouse where the teachers were uniformly great, the peers were equally motivated, and the expectations were always high.

Colleges' ultimate goal is to graduate kids who will go on to do great things. The kid with "grit" is more likely to do that than a kid who has been coddled.

This is the myth. We all fight tooth and nail to give our kids the best upbringing yet simultaneously buy into the idea that years of neglect and under investment k-12 can be compensated for by some extra tutoring, and even confers intangible advantages like “grit.”

I don’t see a contradiction there. Either education exists or it doesn’t. It’s the meticulous upbringing that makes the one kid—education. It’s the tutoring and high quality college that makes the other—education. 18 is not an old dog, plenty of people don’t become intellectually curious until then. If a kid has worked hard but hasn’t had good teachers, they’re in good position to catch up. How is that different from the kid who’s had extra enrichment since birth?