Princeton class of 2027

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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?

PRINCETON is not using its endowment to pay for Pell Grants. The feds pay for that. Hence, we the taxpayers are paying for those kids to go to Princeton, not Princeton

Not saying Princeton pays the Pell grants, but they clearly favor kids who qualify for them (and I suppose pay the balance on the rest of their need)

[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.

What's more impressive? A poor kid that overcomes odds to score 1580 on their SAT with a 4.0 and national awards or an UMC tutored from elementary school with test prep that scores a 1600 with personal college counseling that hand holds their ECs.

How do we define best and brightest here?

Of course the poor kid. But that is not the trade off they are making. The trade off is the poor kid who was test optional (and maybe got 1280).

[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.

+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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

In the vast majority of the country $100k is UMC (or maybe the bottom of the range for UMC)…and $200k is solidly UMC.

Sounds like Princeton is taking lots of kids from this group, so not sure why there is a crisis.

[Anonymous]

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.

+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.

In the vast majority of the country $100k is UMC (or maybe the bottom of the range for UMC)…and $200k is solidly UMC.

Sounds like Princeton is taking lots of kids from this group, so not sure why there is a crisis.

The problem is more if Princeton is too aggressively tilting the scales in favor of kids who need a lot of aid over kids who don’t. Like if the politics of income inequality paired with the politics of diversity are leading to a de-emphasis on pure merit.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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?

The ones from our school are rich legacy - a mix of excellent students and meh students.

[Anonymous]

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.

Or kids with fewer advantages need some supports initially, but ultimately soar.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

The problem with all this thinking is that it seems to ignore reality. Look at where the Regeneron winners are attending college...most at MIT, Harvard, etc. Look at where Coca Cola scholarship winners are attending college...again, dominated by the elite schools.

So, the kids that in fact are proving themselves to be really, really, really bright kids (and accomplished) are all going to these top schools.

[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.

The problem with all this thinking is that it seems to ignore reality. Look at where the Regeneron winners are attending college...most at MIT, Harvard, etc. Look at where Coca Cola scholarship winners are attending college...again, dominated by the elite schools.

So, the kids that in fact are proving themselves to be really, really, really bright kids (and accomplished) are all going to these top schools.

No question the tippy top schools are still getting the best of the best. But is it just 15% of the student body now? When it used to be 50%?

[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.

tldr: take my kid who is more precious than the others

[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.

The problem with all this thinking is that it seems to ignore reality. Look at where the Regeneron winners are attending college...most at MIT, Harvard, etc. Look at where Coca Cola scholarship winners are attending college...again, dominated by the elite schools.

So, the kids that in fact are proving themselves to be really, really, really bright kids (and accomplished) are all going to these top schools.

No question the tippy top schools are still getting the best of the best. But is it just 15% of the student body now? When it used to be 50%?

It’s still an overwhelming percentage - you can kid yourself that it’s not if it helps you sleep at night when your kid doesn’t get in