Princeton class of 2027

[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'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.

[Anonymous]

With who the profs are demographically, it also wouldn't be surprising if there is some unconscious bias or even outright prejudice there too.
There are some who still long for schools to focus on educating the Exeter and Andover boys...

[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.

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

Is it though? Once you are through with the racial diversity, the first gen, the economically disadvantaged, the athletes (20%), the development kids. What's left?

In the past, the legacy kids tended to be a slight rung down from the kids who got in purely on their superior academic profile. Now perhaps the legacy kids are the top of the class, because they are the ones who tend to come from "privileged" backgrounds and didn't get in for another reason.

[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 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

Is it though? Once you are through with the racial diversity, the first gen, the economically disadvantaged, the athletes (20%), the development kids. What's left?

In the past, the legacy kids tended to be a slight rung down from the kids who got in purely on their superior academic profile. Now perhaps the legacy kids are the top of the class, because they are the ones who tend to come from "privileged" backgrounds and didn't get in for another reason.

Interesting that you assume that no one from the classes you list could possibly be the best of the best. So in your world view only upper middle class white kids are the best of the best would be easier for all of us if you just said that and then we can track that number.

[Anonymous]

The implicit racism in this thread and the Hopkins threadis quite something. We have a black.student from our academically rigorous private (not in DC) who got into every Ivy this year, on full scholarship in high school and at college, single parent. She was a superstar the minute she stepped on campus at the private, one of the smartest kids in the class, class President umpteen times, leadership roles in many clubs, ran her own small business.

The elite schools are not trading down in talent as they become more diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The implicit racism in this thread and the Hopkins threadis quite something. We have a black.student from our academically rigorous private (not in DC) who got into every Ivy this year, on full scholarship in high school and at college, single parent. She was a superstar the minute she stepped on campus at the private, one of the smartest kids in the class, class President umpteen times, leadership roles in many clubs, ran her own small business.

The elite schools are not trading down in talent as they become more diverse.

Also, bizarre to think if you only accept 4% of the kids (and it is even lower than that when you remove the 30% comprising athletes and legacy)...that you won't be able to find superstars at every demographic, income or diversity level.

[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?

It always been like this. This is one of the reasons people send their kids to private school. Private high schools were/are prep school for college. A good private school means your first year of college is all reviews. The other kids catch up because freshman and sophomore course load generally is not that challenging.

[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?

It always been like this. This is one of the reasons people send their kids to private school. Private high schools were/are prep school for college. A good private school means your first year of college is all reviews. The other kids catch up because freshman and sophomore course load generally is not that challenging.

Sigh...someone always has to interject an obnoxious post. I guarantee TJ, Whitman, Churchill, etc. grads are doing just fine at Princeton.

[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'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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The implicit racism in this thread and the Hopkins threadis quite something. We have a black.student from our academically rigorous private (not in DC) who got into every Ivy this year, on full scholarship in high school and at college, single parent. She was a superstar the minute she stepped on campus at the private, one of the smartest kids in the class, class President umpteen times, leadership roles in many clubs, ran her own small business.

The elite schools are not trading down in talent as they become more diverse.

And many kids just like her were rejected due to their race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The implicit racism in this thread and the Hopkins threadis quite something. We have a black.student from our academically rigorous private (not in DC) who got into every Ivy this year, on full scholarship in high school and at college, single parent. She was a superstar the minute she stepped on campus at the private, one of the smartest kids in the class, class President umpteen times, leadership roles in many clubs, ran her own small business.

The elite schools are not trading down in talent as they become more diverse.

And many kids just like her were rejected due to their race.

The laws were meant to catch the kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods without means to good public education. Your daughter attended a rigorous academic private from an affluent home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The implicit racism in this thread and the Hopkins threadis quite something. We have a black.student from our academically rigorous private (not in DC) who got into every Ivy this year, on full scholarship in high school and at college, single parent. She was a superstar the minute she stepped on campus at the private, one of the smartest kids in the class, class President umpteen times, leadership roles in many clubs, ran her own small business.

The elite schools are not trading down in talent as they become more diverse.

And many kids just like her were rejected due to their race.

The laws were meant to catch the kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods without means to good public education. Your daughter attended a rigorous academic private from an affluent home.

I believe single parent = low income. Nobody describes the mother as single parent if it is Sheila Johnson (as example...who is a billionaire).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The implicit racism in this thread and the Hopkins threadis quite something. We have a black.student from our academically rigorous private (not in DC) who got into every Ivy this year, on full scholarship in high school and at college, single parent. She was a superstar the minute she stepped on campus at the private, one of the smartest kids in the class, class President umpteen times, leadership roles in many clubs, ran her own small business.

The elite schools are not trading down in talent as they become more diverse.

And many kids just like her were rejected due to their race.

The laws were meant to catch the kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods without means to good public education. Your daughter attended a rigorous academic private from an affluent home.

I believe single parent = low income. Nobody describes the mother as single parent if it is Sheila Johnson (as example...who is a billionaire).

But the white single mother is not afforded the same admissions boost. We have those at our private as well.

[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.

I think Covid learning loss and test optional are to blame. State test scores at our good public went down a lot, have only gone back up a bit - we were closed awhile. Additionally, test optional means there’s at a bare minimum 10% of students who wouldn’t likely get in if scores were required. Some schools are around 50%. Those people probably can’t do well in college level calculus if they can’t get decent math scores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The implicit racism in this thread and the Hopkins threadis quite something. We have a black.student from our academically rigorous private (not in DC) who got into every Ivy this year, on full scholarship in high school and at college, single parent. She was a superstar the minute she stepped on campus at the private, one of the smartest kids in the class, class President umpteen times, leadership roles in many clubs, ran her own small business.

The elite schools are not trading down in talent as they become more diverse.

And many kids just like her were rejected due to their race.

The laws were meant to catch the kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods without means to good public education. Your daughter attended a rigorous academic private from an affluent home.

I believe single parent = low income. Nobody describes the mother as single parent if it is Sheila Johnson (as example...who is a billionaire).

But the white single mother is not afforded the same admissions boost. We have those at our private as well.

I guarantee the white superstar kid at a private school with a low-income single mother gets a boost over all the unhooked UMC and wealthy white kids. If 1st gen, then a double boost.