Interesting standardized testing data from Princeton's freshmen survey

[Anonymous]

Nothing childish about calling out the fact that you completely misinterpreted the article.

[Anonymous]

Some weirdly angry people in this thread. Did getting turned down from Princeton really sting that much? There are many other great schools out there.

And, yes, the nickname for “The Daily Princetonian” is the “Prince.” If that annoys you, you are probably in the wrong place.

[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.

Their basically cultists.

But hopefully they know the difference between “there” and “their”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Their basically cultists.

But hopefully they know the difference between “there” and “their”

Ironic that in your attempt to correct them you still got it wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

From the article:

It’s not that legacy students earned higher wages after graduation. Both groups – legacy and non-legacy – had an average income of roughly $85,000 a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Their basically cultists.

But hopefully they know the difference between “there” and “their”

Ironic that in your attempt to correct them you still got it wrong.

He probably got nailed by autocorrect, same as me.

People who get caught up on spelling are dicks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

From the article:

It’s not that legacy students earned higher wages after graduation. Both groups – legacy and non-legacy – had an average income of roughly $85,000 a year.

That is not adjusting for a variable. Some of you need to take intro stats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

From the article:

It’s not that legacy students earned higher wages after graduation. Both groups – legacy and non-legacy – had an average income of roughly $85,000 a year.

That is not adjusting for a variable. Some of you need to take intro stats.

I understand that wealth and income are not the same thing, but how are they meaningfully different in this scenario?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Their basically cultists.

But hopefully they know the difference between “there” and “their”

Ironic that in your attempt to correct them you still got it wrong.

He probably got nailed by autocorrect, same as me.

People who get caught up on spelling are dicks.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

From the article:

It’s not that legacy students earned higher wages after graduation. Both groups – legacy and non-legacy – had an average income of roughly $85,000 a year.

That is not adjusting for a variable. Some of you need to take intro stats.

I understand that wealth and income are not the same thing, but how are they meaningfully different in this scenario?

It’s more how you’re analyzing.

You need to be able to say that given a legacy student and a student without a parent attending Princeton, holding for the fact that both parents have the same wealth (whether it’s 48k annual income to 1.2million or whatever ridiculous number you wanna think), there’s a significant difference in the legacy parents child admission than the non legacy parent. The reason I believe this relationship will be insignificant is that they already conclude that wealth significantly increases probability of admission, so by adjusting, we’re actually identifying a confounding variable that likely determines this relationship more than the legacy status itself.

We know there’s a definite boost given to legacy, but the weight of significance is what’s being put to question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

From the article:

It’s not that legacy students earned higher wages after graduation. Both groups – legacy and non-legacy – had an average income of roughly $85,000 a year.

That is not adjusting for a variable. Some of you need to take intro stats.

I understand that wealth and income are not the same thing, but how are they meaningfully different in this scenario?

It’s more how you’re analyzing.

You need to be able to say that given a legacy student and a student without a parent attending Princeton, holding for the fact that both parents have the same wealth (whether it’s 48k annual income to 1.2million or whatever ridiculous number you wanna think), there’s a significant difference in the legacy parents child admission than the non legacy parent. The reason I believe this relationship will be insignificant is that they already conclude that wealth significantly increases probability of admission, so by adjusting, we’re actually identifying a confounding variable that likely determines this relationship more than the legacy status itself.

We know there’s a definite boost given to legacy, but the weight of significance is what’s being put to question.

I think you are looking for conclusive proof rather than allowing for the overwhelming probability that when multiple generations of an affluent family attends a single school, that school becomes more important to the family and becomes a beneficiary of charitable giving by members of that family.

So even correcting for family wealth still leads to more giving by members of that family to the school.

Stanford recently made the conscious decision to forgo state funding to the tune of up to $10k/ student in order to preserve legacy admissions. Was Stanford being irrational or just trying to maintain white supremacy or something?

[Anonymous]

Give it to insecure Duke grads for being angry about being left behind in a reject list

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This isn't a controlled study. Universities are effectively making strategic business decisions though admissions. And they think legacy admits will give more, whether there is data to support it or not.

It's already well-established that yield is higher for legacies.
https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-why-elite-colleges-cant-give-up-legacy-admissions/

It seems that you didn’t read this article, at least not closely. It almost entirely follows my argument and holds the limitation that it doesn’t hold conditional for the wealth of the person applying.

"A whopping 42 percent of legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors, which could include their whole family. Only 6 percent of non-legacy graduates were flagged as potential top donors."

Once again that is not conditional for the wealth of the person applying. This is exactly my point.

From the article:

It’s not that legacy students earned higher wages after graduation. Both groups – legacy and non-legacy – had an average income of roughly $85,000 a year.

That is not adjusting for a variable. Some of you need to take intro stats.

I understand that wealth and income are not the same thing, but how are they meaningfully different in this scenario?

It’s more how you’re analyzing.

You need to be able to say that given a legacy student and a student without a parent attending Princeton, holding for the fact that both parents have the same wealth (whether it’s 48k annual income to 1.2million or whatever ridiculous number you wanna think), there’s a significant difference in the legacy parents child admission than the non legacy parent. The reason I believe this relationship will be insignificant is that they already conclude that wealth significantly increases probability of admission, so by adjusting, we’re actually identifying a confounding variable that likely determines this relationship more than the legacy status itself.

We know there’s a definite boost given to legacy, but the weight of significance is what’s being put to question.

I think you are looking for conclusive proof rather than allowing for the overwhelming probability that when multiple generations of an affluent family attends a single school, that school becomes more important to the family and becomes a beneficiary of charitable giving by members of that family.

So even correcting for family wealth still leads to more giving by members of that family to the school.

Stanford recently made the conscious decision to forgo state funding to the tune of up to $10k/ student in order to preserve legacy admissions. Was Stanford being irrational or just trying to maintain white supremacy or something?

I have no doubt that being wealthy helps you tremendously get into a top institution, nor have I ever doubted that claim.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't matter what you think. The point is that schools themselves (whether backed up by the data or not) believe that admitting legacies will improve their fundraising ROI, and make business decisions accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Colleges are businesses.

Ivy league schools evaluate applicant based on values they bring to school. It can be current values (tuition, athlete, donation) or future values (brand, prestige, future donation).

Any admit that fits one or both categories makes sense.