Princeton has 8 suicides in 3 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The grading on a curve is not “deflation”, it only seems harsh in comparison to the grade inflation at other ivies. It’s normal at many state schools that are ranked lower so it’s not simply an elitist or hierarchal issue. Princeton (and ivies in general) do not seem to attract many tougher, resourceful, and resilient students.

Well you take everyone from the Top 5% in HS and put them at Princeton. If the range of scores on an exam are 30-50% does that really mean the kids below 40% get a B- or lower? I'd argue the professors should teach a bit better. It is frustrating to study for a StEM class and take the exam and feel like you have no clue what you are doing and I say this as a T10 graduate with 2 majors in 5 years, it was 6.5 years worth of coursework, who graduated with a 3.9 and CS/Engineering was one of the majors.

So yes, if the range is 5-50, then the lower end did not learn the material, but 30-50 (and a mean of 38 lets say), tells me 38 should be a B and the 30 might be a C+/B-. Similarly, ifprof teaches well, and the scores are 88-100%, then the lowest grade should be a B+/A-, not a C
The students learned the material, did well and it's Okay to give all A/A- in a course. The purpose of courses is to learn the material, and if everyone does that well, then A's should be given. Remember, you no longer have the "lower level" of kids that are at many HSs. You just took the All A's/ All AP courses, advanced in math and science and LA/History kids and put them together. They should logically all do well

yeah. The Bell Curve demands that professors only give a limited number of A's in a module and a course, regardless of how well students do. Hence, many A-deserving students will be given a B or even a lower grade for the bell shape to be achieved.

A lot of teachers stick to this type of grading. I see it at my kid's private HS. Then, there are some --which happened at our public MS--everyone got an A but not everyone really had a grasp of the material.

A true Bell Curve at the college level is a bit ridiculous, IMO, especially at a T50 college (ie where most kids were A/A- students overall in HS. If everyone learns the material they should all get As and Bs, with most getting A/A-

I understand this is Stanford's reasoning...it is a much flatter bell curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, they happen at most schools. The number is sad but not shocking.

The NY Times recently did a Sunday magazine story about Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and a rash of suicides. It was so sad. In my personal opinion, if we could get this generation off of their phones -- off of Tick Tok and other social media -- their mental health would noticeably improve.

+1 million!

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/magazine/worcester-polytechnic-institute-suicides.html

[Anonymous]

Princeton alum and I'm horrified by these suicides. There weren't any when I was there (in the late 90s-early 2000s). I had a great time there and love going back to Reunions. So awful that what should be the best time of these kids' lives is hell for so many of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well you take everyone from the Top 5% in HS and put them at Princeton. If the range of scores on an exam are 30-50% does that really mean the kids below 40% get a B- or lower?

At most Engineering Schools, including MIT and CalTech, — and probably also at Princeton in Engineering, the answer is yes.
I went to a different Engineering School. In Calculus 1 & 2, 50% was usually an A and 25-30% was a C/C-. I do not know of any Engineering School which has the grade inflation which now is very common for many Arts & Letters degrees. The reality is that anyone with an Engineering degree really earned it, and even the lower GPA graduates in Engineering can get good jobs after graduation.

[Anonymous]

At Stanford engineering, the Calc based intro physics classes (required for engineering majors) are HARD. No curve at all. Must get a minimum of 70% to pass the class and grade (number not letter grade) is based solely on raw score The raw scores on exams as you can imagine are around (plans even slightly below) the 50/100 mark. I’m sure this is similar to other peer schools. But with no curve, it is not a cake walk to even pass the class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Princeton alum and I'm horrified by these suicides. There weren't any when I was there (in the late 90s-early 2000s). I had a great time there and love going back to Reunions. So awful that what should be the best time of these kids' lives is hell for so many of them.

I was there then too and know of a suicide, so I think it might just have been kept quieter…?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, they happen at most schools. The number is sad but not shocking.

The NY Times recently did a Sunday magazine story about Worcester Polytechnic Institute, and a rash of suicides. It was so sad. In my personal opinion, if we could get this generation off of their phones -- off of Tick Tok and other social media -- their mental health would noticeably improve.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/22/magazine/worcester-polytechnic-institute-suicides.html

Agree. I blame social media. Even when these kids are trying as hard as possible to do great things, they are constantly bombarded with social media lives that appear more successful and better than theirs. It makes them feel like they will never be good enough. It is all an illusion. I would hate to grow up and be in college in the present.

[Anonymous]

Yes no surprise STEM would be Hard and it was. COVID also was terrible for HS and college kids. Agree about social media. I went to a top LAC and it was not easy, but I had a lot of fun too. Never was worried about what I majored in and got a good job. Whereas now there seems to be the view you have to have it all figured out at 18 because the cost of an education is so astronomical.

[Anonymous]

Also attended Princeton. STEM was always hard there. The difference is that there are far more students majoring in stem these days, and they take lower grades much harder than their predecessors.

Someone at the Daily Princetonian did an intensely granular deep dive into the grades kids got and concluded they were almost exactly the same as the likes of Harvard and Yale. No idea how to square that with the other reports I see.

[Anonymous]

Someone at the Daily Princetonian did an intensely granular deep dive into the grades kids got and concluded they were almost exactly the same as the likes of Harvard and Yale. No idea how to square that with the other reports I see.

Found a recent article from the Princetonion reporting the average GPA for 2023 at 3.56:
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2024/01/princeton-opinion-column-grade-inflation-acceptance-rate-deflation#:~:text=Ever%20since%20our%20much%2Dhated,2018%E2%80%932019%20average%20of%203.46.

Here's an NYT article reporting Yale's at 3.7:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/nyregion/yale-grade-inflation.html

WSJ article reporting Harvard's 2023 average at around 3.8:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/grade-inflation-makes-a-the-new-c-participation-trophy-quiet-quitting-hiring-2c480b80

These are meaningfully different numbers. Also, I think the original article you referenced also reports Princeton meaningfully trailing behind Harvard and Yale on GPA:
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2020/01/the-decline-and-fall-of-grade-deflation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yet every time someone posts in DCUM about how grim and awful the environment is on these elite campuses these days, all their rabid fans scream about how wrong that assessment is and that everything is perfect.

Suicides happen on most college campuses, but yes, IMO, they happen more at the pressure cooker schools, and in reality most T25 schools are exactly that. Those kids have often grown up thru HS expecting to be the best at everything and eventually the pressure to do that can be too much unfortunately

I do appreciate you qualifying your comment as “in your opinion”. Because until you can site sources that say suicides happen more at the top 25 schools, then this statement is insensitive to the mental health challenges of affected students.

It does happen everywhere, not just Top schools, obviously. But there is "less pressure" at a school ranked 100 vs a T20 school typically. The kids at T100 likely did not spend their HS 4 years carefully crafting their life just so they could get into HYPSM.

Here is my personal awarements/antedotal evidence. I have one kid attended a T100, one at a T30-40 and I went to a T10. All 3 are in cold, dreary areas. The T100 and T10 are 60 miles apart. The T10 had 9+ suicides we knew about in a 5 year period recently--it's a known issues at the school. The T100 I've only heard about 1 suicide in last 10 years. Have not heard of any at the T30-40 school and cannot find anything with searching (I do hear about a few at the Medical school for that school but not undergrad) This T30-40 school is not known for being a pressure cooker at all, lots of "strivers" who wanted T25 but didn't get in (most were WL/offered sophomore transfer at T25 schools---most applied to and wanted to attend at least 2-3 T25 schools)

Or they did and it didn't work out -- that's a lot of pressure too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My child has friends who are current freshman at Princeton. Class average grades in chemistry and calculus are well below 50 percent on tests. Yes, it is later curved but lots of kids get Cs.

Why deal with this when the other Ivies have massive grade inflation?

Some classes are hard. My kid has a class like that and they all bond over it and the terrible grade. They know how to laugh about it. Why can't the kid's at Princeton deal with that with grace? What are they missing? This is the root of mental health issues for too many kids. They can't handle and rebound from minor set backs.

[Anonymous]

Why can't the kid's at Princeton deal with that with grace? What are they missing?

I think the key is here:

Why deal with this when the other Ivies have massive grade inflation?

A lot of students are probably very very focused on the tip top jobs and grad school opportunities and are afraid that the GPA difference will put them at a disadvantage competing against students from peer schools. As an example, a lot of top companies have strict gpa cutoffs (unless you know someone and can get in the backdoor).

[Anonymous]

Just found this video from a current student and found it very telling:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pbfT1FIapzM

I’ve heard similar things about Princeton from recent alums.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Someone at the Daily Princetonian did an intensely granular deep dive into the grades kids got and concluded they were almost exactly the same as the likes of Harvard and Yale. No idea how to square that with the other reports I see.

Found a recent article from the Princetonion reporting the average GPA for 2023 at 3.56:
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2024/01/princeton-opinion-column-grade-inflation-acceptance-rate-deflation#:~:text=Ever%20since%20our%20much%2Dhated,2018%E2%80%932019%20average%20of%203.46.

Here's an NYT article reporting Yale's at 3.7:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/nyregion/yale-grade-inflation.html

WSJ article reporting Harvard's 2023 average at around 3.8:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/grade-inflation-makes-a-the-new-c-participation-trophy-quiet-quitting-hiring-2c480b80

These are meaningfully different numbers. Also, I think the original article you referenced also reports Princeton meaningfully trailing behind Harvard and Yale on GPA:
https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2020/01/the-decline-and-fall-of-grade-deflation

wsj? Hillsdale college?