Interesting standardized testing data from Princeton's freshmen survey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is a spin-off post to this, so adding my comment here - look how much better legacy kids do on the SAT/ACT.

You mean kids whose parents are Ivy League educated do better on standardized tests? Wow, who would have thought?! I thought kids whose parents are poor, uneducated and lack resources would do better.

+1, basically every pro people talk about for legacy are just advantages of being wealthy. Legacy doesn’t need to exist.

The fundraising ROI for universities says otherwise. Sorry that you hate capitalism.

Great, show the proof that legacy admits of similar wealth status give more to the college then! I am not allergic to data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One interesting missing stat is AP scores and whether they were submitted. Do you know why? Because notwithstanding how much DCUM slobbers over AP scores, they don’t matter for college admissions.

It’s not missing. Only 13 percent of admitted students didn’t take any AP. The vast majority took several or a lot. It matters.

I'm guessing the international student admits didn't take APs. Plus some kids from the low income/high poverty schools etc

If you look at the IB numbers, the IB kids account for a significant share of the people with no APs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One interesting missing stat is AP scores and whether they were submitted. Do you know why? Because notwithstanding how much DCUM slobbers over AP scores, they don’t matter for college admissions.

It’s not missing. Only 13 percent of admitted students didn’t take any AP. The vast majority took several or a lot. It matters.

I'm guessing the international student admits didn't take APs. Plus some kids from the low income/high poverty schools etc

Almost everyone has some sort of similar standardized test/study record to having multiple APs. The ones without APs will usually have multiple IB exams and some international students will have either UK A-levels or international A-levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

Agreed. These Princeton alums are insufferable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

Agreed. These Princeton alums are insufferable.

Laughing even harder, then, that you spend your time on threads about…Princeton.

And Reunions are great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The list of 14 other schools (7 other Ivy League schools, Northwestern, Stanford, MIT, U Chicago, Caltech, JHU, & Georgetown) as "cross-admits" omitted Duke. Why ?

I also thought that was very odd. There is a lot of overlap in applications between the two. I'm a Duke alum who will admit that the vast majority choose Princeton over Duke, but they draw the same applicants and occasionally someone will choose Duke.

As a former Prince editor it makes me laugh a bit that you’d care so much about which schools a bunch of part-time students journalists decided to treat as peer schools for a special edition survey.

It makes me laugh that you took the time to write such a pointless response. I will not be losing any sleep over this. I just noted it.

And as an alleged former editor, that is a very insulting way to refer to student journalists. Get over yourself.

As another former "Prince" editor, I would note that "part-time student journalists" is not insulting. It's accurate.

NP: you two “Prince” editors (what a douchey term - is that like “reunions” instead of “reunion”) are devaluing the Princeton degree.

I don’t care if they are full time journalists or part time. They are Princeton students. The alleged best and brightest. So don’t demean them with that term.

Your attempt to defend your school just made it look worse. It was a random comment made in passing and you made a mountain out of a molehill.

Most Princeton alums I know are kind people with a lot of EQ. There are always exceptions to the rule. Apparently they hang out at “Prince.”

Could your skin possibly get any thinner? The point was that it’s highly unlikely that anyone gave a ton of thought to whether Duke, as opposed to Northwestern or Johns Hopkins, should be included in this section of a student survey. It’s not a put-down of Duke at all.

The kids working on the student paper - and, yes, it’s referred to as the “Prince” on campus - aren’t professional journalists or even journalism majors. Given how demanding the academics are at Princeton, they put out a pretty damn good student newspaper, and some alumni do go on to careers as journalists. But if they are conducting a detailed survey of new students or graduates (there are usually surveys of both), they aren’t going to obsess over the nuances of every question.

So, if you’re capable, do try and relax a bit.

The original response basically said that they found it interesting that Duke wasn't included. Not "I am staying up all night stressing about Duke not being included." Not "these student journalists are completely incompetent because they left out Duke." Just that it was interesting that Duke was not included. Full stop. You have wasted much of your time creating drama where there wasn't any.

Good Lord. You are the one who needs to relax. I think you've spent too much time stuck in traffic on Route 1.

Agreed. These Princeton alums are insufferable.

Laughing even harder, then, that you spend your time on threads about…Princeton.

And Reunions are great.

You're just making it worse and proving their point.

I know a lot of great Princeton alums who go to great lengths to avoid the bad stereotypes about Ivy grads, and you are just making it worse. Every school has its admissions mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just me or does the #1 ranked school have a lot of students who look weak academically?

Princeton alum here and I'm appalled by how many kids reported barely studying n high school. Lots of kids did less than 10 hours of homework per week.

A lot of school districts are reducing homework. There’s no proof that homework actually improves learning. It’s just good discipline.

What about reading long novels and writing papers of length, substance and depth? That takes substantial time and builds skills that a lot of kids at even elite universities don't have anymore. I don't like piling on homework just to show how tough a school is, but I don't buy the "less homework is better" approach for high school, either. Do you think the kids who barely do any homework can really hack it in a serious literature course at Princeton?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it just me or does the #1 ranked school have a lot of students who look weak academically?

Princeton alum here and I'm appalled by how many kids reported barely studying n high school. Lots of kids did less than 10 hours of homework per week.

A lot of school districts are reducing homework. There’s no proof that homework actually improves learning. It’s just good discipline.

What about reading long novels and writing papers of length, substance and depth? That takes substantial time and builds skills that a lot of kids at even elite universities don't have anymore. I don't like piling on homework just to show how tough a school is, but I don't buy the "less homework is better" approach for high school, either. Do you think the kids who barely do any homework can really hack it in a serious literature course at Princeton?

I would say the kids who barely do their homework don't typically make it to Princeton, but those who don't receive much homework aren't evidenced to be worse students. People interested in English and History will naturally have interest in reading long, advanced texts, and you don't have to artificially demand excessive loads on your students to get them to understand where they land. Across the boards, students are reading less and less, but it has more to do with the access students get to spark notes, lit charts, along with AI that is causing this change; students also have shot their abilities to process things for a long time, and providing them advanced long texts earlier doesn't really change that-it starts at the home, and normalizing less tech usage and more discipline.

I don't think schools have much agency in improving their students' attention and focus.