Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's reassuring that people here don't just take things at face value and can think of reasons why the story OP is trying to tell might not be the only story.

What's your angle, OP? That Princeton is in some sort of trouble? They're doing just fine.

There may be other possibilities and so appreciate the alternatives identified, but it does seem to me that Princeton may be in trouble. It appears they are relaxing admissions requirements to serve equity goals, but then plunging kids who may not be fully preparedinto a very rigorous academic environment. That’s exacerbated by the very high percentage of kids who pursue tough STEM, CS, and engineering degrees, and the odd social environment with its antiquated “Bicker” clubs. So my hypothesis is that the graduates are less happy about their undergraduate experience and that this translates into a lower percentage of alumni donating after they graduate.

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale, not Princeton. So did my husband. We used to give a small amount every year and we both had a very good experience at Yale. We don't bother anymore. I don't know if our kids will have any interest in going to Yale or have the credentials (they are still young) but the fact that Yale seems willing to move away from caring about family connections and is constantly crowing about how many first gen applicants they accept, makes me not care as much about sending them money. I am sure that those first gen applicants are terrific and deserve to be at Yale, but I don't like that they are holding my accomplishments against my kids. My parents worked really hard to become the first in their families to go to state colleges in the 1960s. My parents' hard work is something to be proud of and that I'm glad was not held against me when I applied to Yale. I was truly middle class, so not low income, and my parents went to college, so not first gen. That is not the same thing as being a wealthy kid from generations of college graduates. This new emphasis on FGLI is a blunt instrument.

Anonymous wrote:From about 1970 to 2015, Princeton's annual giving rate was around 60%, one of the highest among leading universities.

Over the past 10 years, however, the giving rate has declined to 44%, the lowest in about 80 years.

There are a number of factors that could account for this, but an obvious one is that recent Princeton students are less satisfied with their experience than their predecessors and less inclined to donate. One wonders if the extreme focus on admitting a more diverse range of students is actually resulting in a student body that experiences more stress, enjoys their undergraduate experience less, and has less interest in maintaining ties to the school after graduation.

It feels like a bit of a canary in the coal mine in terms of suggesting it's a place that's losing its way and in need of some major reforms, whether it's taking a look at whether the right kids are being admitted or whether the right kids are being admitted but they need to make changes to make the undergraduate experience more gratifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From about 1970 to 2015, Princeton's annual giving rate was around 60%, one of the highest among leading universities.

Over the past 10 years, however, the giving rate has declined to 44%, the lowest in about 80 years.

There are a number of factors that could account for this, but an obvious one is that recent Princeton students are less satisfied with their experience than their predecessors and less inclined to donate. One wonders if the extreme focus on admitting a more diverse range of students is actually resulting in a student body that experiences more stress, enjoys their undergraduate experience less, and has less interest in maintaining ties to the school after graduation.

It feels like a bit of a canary in the coal mine in terms of suggesting it's a place that's losing its way and in need of some major reforms, whether it's taking a look at whether the right kids are being admitted or whether the right kids are being admitted but they need to make changes to make the undergraduate experience more gratifying.

Or maybe Princeton's newer generation has less generational wealth and thus less $$ to drop for donations?

The participation rate refers to the percentage of alumni giving, not the total amount of donations.

Give them $5 dollars and they'll still act very appreciative.

Anonymous wrote:My DH quit giving a few years ago. He used to give annually, but the far left control of academia got to be too much for him as a moderate.

He mentioned yesterday that Annual Giving is way down and laughed. FAFO.

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale, not Princeton. So did my husband. We used to give a small amount every year and we both had a very good experience at Yale. We don't bother anymore. I don't know if our kids will have any interest in going to Yale or have the credentials (they are still young) but the fact that Yale seems willing to move away from caring about family connections and is constantly crowing about how many first gen applicants they accept, makes me not care as much about sending them money. I am sure that those first gen applicants are terrific and deserve to be at Yale, but I don't like that they are holding my accomplishments against my kids. My parents worked really hard to become the first in their families to go to state colleges in the 1960s. My parents' hard work is something to be proud of and that I'm glad was not held against me when I applied to Yale. I was truly middle class, so not low income, and my parents went to college, so not first gen. That is not the same thing as being a wealthy kid from generations of college graduates. This new emphasis on FGLI is a blunt instrument.

Anonymous wrote:From about 1970 to 2015, Princeton's annual giving rate was around 60%, one of the highest among leading universities.

Over the past 10 years, however, the giving rate has declined to 44%, the lowest in about 80 years.

There are a number of factors that could account for this, but an obvious one is that recent Princeton students are less satisfied with their experience than their predecessors and less inclined to donate. One wonders if the extreme focus on admitting a more diverse range of students is actually resulting in a student body that experiences more stress, enjoys their undergraduate experience less, and has less interest in maintaining ties to the school after graduation.

It feels like a bit of a canary in the coal mine in terms of suggesting it's a place that's losing its way and in need of some major reforms, whether it's taking a look at whether the right kids are being admitted or whether the right kids are being admitted but they need to make changes to make the undergraduate experience more gratifying.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to Yale, not Princeton. So did my husband. We used to give a small amount every year and we both had a very good experience at Yale. We don't bother anymore. I don't know if our kids will have any interest in going to Yale or have the credentials (they are still young) but the fact that Yale seems willing to move away from caring about family connections and is constantly crowing about how many first gen applicants they accept, makes me not care as much about sending them money. I am sure that those first gen applicants are terrific and deserve to be at Yale, but I don't like that they are holding my accomplishments against my kids. My parents worked really hard to become the first in their families to go to state colleges in the 1960s. My parents' hard work is something to be proud of and that I'm glad was not held against me when I applied to Yale. I was truly middle class, so not low income, and my parents went to college, so not first gen. That is not the same thing as being a wealthy kid from generations of college graduates. This new emphasis on FGLI is a blunt instrument.

NP here. Thank you for your candid perspective. I had this idea in my head that if I had gone to Yale and had kids who might be interested in attending Yale, I would be giving a fair amount to give my kids an advantage. (This is all hypothetical of course). I have never heard someone articulate it the way you just did - it's food for thought for sure.

There's definitely a new emphasis on FGLI, rural students, and international students in the name of equity. I don't know if that's going to change at these elite schools or not, but it is unsettling for parents these days for sure.