Princeton class of 2027

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was a middle class kid at Princeton 25 years ago and it was clear to me then that I —and my MC friends—were brighter than the UMC private school kids who seemed like a dominant strain within the class. In fact we were often amazed by how dumb some of the UMC NY/DC/LA kids seemed. Yes, they had traveled and eaten sushi and we hadn’t, but they were not academic competition.

FWIW Princeton has studied the effect of a Princeton education, and poor or MC kids achieve enormous social mobility from it. It doesn’t make much of a difference for UMC kids.

Similar experience at a different school. The middle class students tended to be a lot brighter than the well to do.

So I think this is a good thing. Good for Princeton for taking on the pell grant students and the first generation and all of that. There's going to be a lot more talent there than at Choate.

[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.

I don't think that is true.
The large-scale leadership component mentioned (class president, which is peer recognized) is missing from a lot of the borderline kids who have great stats and ECs. It is an issue for TJ and Big 3 kids who do a lot but look like joiners even if they head a club. Starting a small business is also impressive if there has been growth. A lot of kids can just list things like founded a non-profit, where there isn't much impact or growth they can point to.
The letters of recommendation for this student were probably VERY strong versus a form people use when a student is great but hard to distinguish from 10 others even in their high school.

Original poster here and yes, exactly. I don’t want to go into too many details and out the student, but regardless of race, she is the type of superstar that even the top privates have only once every five years or so. Absolutely deserving of all her acceptances.

I’ll add that my husband interviews for another of H/Y/S, and there was a similar off the charts student at another private high school three or four years ago. This student was Asian and she also got into multiple Ivies, including Harvard and Princeton.

[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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Kids with lousy test scores and sporty grades aren’t being admitted to Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Kids with lousy test scores and sporty grades aren’t being admitted to Princeton.

They generally are not, but it's a question of degree. A lot of not so extraordinary kids are potentially getting in under the cover of lack of privilege while many extraordinary kids are getting rejected because they came from loving well-resourced homes, which is a bad thing nowadays, almost a mark of evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Kids with lousy test scores and sporty grades aren’t being admitted to Princeton.

They generally are not, but it's a question of degree. A lot of not so extraordinary kids are potentially getting in under the cover of lack of privilege while many extraordinary kids are getting rejected because they came from loving well-resourced homes, which is a bad thing nowadays, almost a mark of evil.

100%

If you came from a loving home and are well-adjusted, we don't want you. We want trauma and tragedy. If you had the benefit of a rigorous education due to your privilege, we don't want you.

We are really do a psychological number on kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Princeton has enormous resources to put toward figuring out which kids to take. They put a lot of energy into studying admission outcomes.

There are two false assumptions on your post—that they are taking poorer kids of average abilities (I haven’t seen evidence of this) and that the richer/legacied kids they historically have taken are all great writers, high scorers, etc. Some are, but some are just really rich, or good at certain sports, or mega-legacies.

[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.

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).

Yes, they favor Pell recipients, because it's a way of verifying need, and easy stat to tout. It's not like for profit schools that target Pell recipients, pocket the money, and only provide a sham education. Princeton will loose money on the aid recipients. Also the Pell recipient would be eligible no matter where they attend, it's not like the tax payers are out something because this kid goes to Princeton instead of a CC. There's still room for the Joel Goodsens, not like that much has changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Princeton has enormous resources to put toward figuring out which kids to take. They put a lot of energy into studying admission outcomes.

There are two false assumptions on your post—that they are taking poorer kids of average abilities (I haven’t seen evidence of this) and that the richer/legacied kids they historically have taken are all great writers, high scorers, etc. Some are, but some are just really rich, or good at certain sports, or mega-legacies.

I'm not making any assumptions. I am proposing that while Princeton in the past (and maybe many schools today) favored less talented kids because they came from means, maybe now they are favoring kids because they do not come from means and in the process "overdoing it"-- looking to solve the nation's alleged income inequality crisis at the expense of the university having the best student body it can assemble.

[Anonymous]

People are going to roast you for implying that getting a bunch of poor kids with lesser qualifications is going to hurt Princeton’s reputation, but accepting all those rich kids with suspect credentials over the years has also detracted. Having the likes of George W. Bush, Teddy Kennedy, & Chris “Fredo” Cuomo running around with HYP-level degrees is why Thurston Howell III rang so true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

But that is NOT the kids Princeton and other T25 are admitting. They are taking the smart kids from the low income areas---kids with good grades and taking the most advanced courses offered at their school (which may just be Pre-calc in senior year). They are taking the bright kids they see, who may only score 1300 on the SAT because they did not take specialized prep courses (I know---my own kid went from 1300 to 1520 with basically 4 hours of one-on-one private test prep after a placement test).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Kids with lousy test scores and sporty grades aren’t being admitted to Princeton.

They generally are not, but it's a question of degree. A lot of not so extraordinary kids are potentially getting in under the cover of lack of privilege while many extraordinary kids are getting rejected because they came from loving well-resourced homes, which is a bad thing nowadays, almost a mark of evil.

Give it up---majority of kids are going to get rejected from a school that accepts only 4-6% of students. Your kid did not get rejected because they accept an inner city, poor kid with a 3.0 and 1200. Your kid got rejected because they accepted another UMC/Rich privileged kid who they consider better than your kid or because they accepted a first gen or low income student who has a 3.9 UW and has shined in a bad environment where they have had to overcome many struggles. to accomplish that.

Hint: your kid is not that extraordinary in the pool of 50K applicants for each T25 school. If you truly look at kids who get into these school, majority have some "it" factor that just shows drive and determination a few steps above most kids with 1500+/3.99+UW/10Ap+ resumes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

BS---they are searching for (and likely finding) kids who are equally smart and set to make a difference in the world, only difference is those kids did not grow up with all the privileges that you are describing. Instead they forged their way with much less opportunities and many more obstacles. Kudos to them for giving those kids a chance.
Never understood the mentality you have---that those who grew up with privilege and involved parents are somehow "better"

Your comments would suggest that environment is irrelevant to the development of intellect and therefore everything is purely genetic. Is that your position?

No, everything is not purely genetic. But kids who grew up in a poor environment may be extremely smart and just not had the opportunity to "shine" like a rich kid has. So that really smart kid is still really smart, despite the fact they haven't had every opportunity known to mankind while growing up. Princeton is choosing to find those kids and give them an opportunity for college and beyond.

I grew up poor, ate free/reduced lunch many years when there was no income in the family. I worked my ass off with what I had (decent schools, but not the UMC/rich kid schools), but my school did not have as many opportunities as even the other High schools in our district where the "UMC/Rich kids" attended. I had to push to take Algebra 1 in time to be on path for Calc in 12th grade---initially my MS did not offer it and I had to find a way, but thankfully my dad got a job and we moved to a new district where I was able to take it. Otherwise, I was a great math student who might not have made it past pre-calc in HS due to where I lived (don't worry---I was prepared to switch MS if we hadn't moved in order to take the math I needed). Yet even at my new school, there were 600 kids in my senior class and only 13 of us were in Calculus. Meanwhile the two "rich kid's public HS" in our district had 20+ seniors each in "2nd year calculus".

I got lucky and made my way to a T10 school with great aide and loans and did well in life. But I struggled in school and was bored and never had the opportunities to shine like some of my peers 15 miles away. I would have loved to have had the more advanced opportunities while growing up. But my parents couldn't afford them

I totally agree, making college affordable to talented kids who didn't have the opportunity to shine in high school, largely due to finances, is a great thing. I think the risk is they take it too far and these kids actually aren't as talented as you were. Especially if they start dismissing all the potential markers of talent, like test scores. If a kid from a low income background has lousy test scores, spotty grades, writes kinda poorly, etc., it may be lack of finances getting in the way there, or it may just be lack of inherent talent. You can't just assume they would otherwise be a superstar if only daddy were an investment banker.

Princeton has enormous resources to put toward figuring out which kids to take. They put a lot of energy into studying admission outcomes.

There are two false assumptions on your post—that they are taking poorer kids of average abilities (I haven’t seen evidence of this) and that the richer/legacied kids they historically have taken are all great writers, high scorers, etc. Some are, but some are just really rich, or good at certain sports, or mega-legacies.

I'm not making any assumptions. I am proposing that while Princeton in the past (and maybe many schools today) favored less talented kids because they came from means, maybe now they are favoring kids because they do not come from means and in the process "overdoing it"-- looking to solve the nation's alleged income inequality crisis at the expense of the university having the best student body it can assemble.

DP. You're playing the disgruntled parent, and can't see things like the school. You think the applicant is so special, the school must take them. The school thinks the education they offer is so extraordinary, they can mold raw clay. Both perspectives are arrogant, but the school can do whatever they want, so you're SOL. That said, there are a lot of Pell-eligible lumps of clay out there, and the schools take only a tiny fraction of them, and they do pick carefully just like any other applicant. Even if you were dirt poor, your kid would have negligible odds--smart and wealthy still rules.

[Anonymous]

Despite affirmative action being outlawed a lot of this discussion, specifically the race comments earlier on, seem to assume 'business as usual' with elite college (eg. Princeton) admissions. Is that the general view amongst parents?