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.

Everyone loves to think their analogy makes sense...only to have it slap them in the face.

Maybe it's like the Major Leagues wondering why some of these random players from the Dominican Republic are so good...then going down to the island and seeing how poor they are, and how they are practicing with cardboard strapped to their hands because they can't afford gloves...and then realizing even with little resources, this tiny little island is turning out outstanding players that nobody seems to know about...so now maybe we should set up MLB academies (starting in the early 2000s) in order to invest in these players...and now we are finding players like Juan Soto, Vladmir Guerrero, David Ortiz, Albert Pujols.

Hmm..sounds kind of like what Princeton and other top schools might be doing.

+1, this was well said.
Princeton is still taking plenty of people from the best programs too (Exeter and their peers do well at HYP). What is harder for people in the DMV is that we don't have many of the best high school programs at the national level and kids from the burbs here with good test scores and ECs are a dime a dozen.

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.

And this is 100% why Princeton should continue doing this. They are identifying who they believe can make a difference and giving those kids an opportunity that will likely change the trajectory of their life (and that of their family and future generations). It has a huge impact. The UMC kids will excel no matter where they go.

Princeton is not admitting idiots (except maybe some really rich kid whose parents donate a ton).

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.

This. The comment was made above that the prep school kids had an advantage over the public school kids. LOL. The advantage they had was getting in. Standards were lower because the prep schools had a "relationship" with the admissions office and they knew private school kids were generally full pay. It was very hard to get in from public school, even good ones, and the private school kids were on average a step down. The smartest kids there came from good public schools.

As Princeton opens up its enormous pocket book and becomes less reliant on rich private school kids who don't need aid, the quality of the student body definitely increases... but if it goes too far, and the school is more concerned about bringing in kids precisely because they cannot afford it (because the endowment is so comically big they have no idea what else to do with the billions that must be spent annually) they potentially start undermining the quality of the student body and that seems to be happening. 1/4 students on Pell Grants is a lot. You are drawing from a small sliver of the US population. 2/3 students qualifying for 70k of aid on average is a lot.

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.

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.

I have no doubt that the student you describe is stellar and deserves all those opportunities. The problem, and what I think causes a lot of the resentment, is that not all of those offered spots are similarly stellar. If blacks make up 5% of the applicant pool (I’m guessing it’s actually less than that), but 15% of the admitted students, do you really think they are three times more qualified as students of other races?

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.

Everyone loves to think their analogy makes sense...only to have it slap them in the face.

Maybe it's like the Major Leagues wondering why some of these random players from the Dominican Republic are so good...then going down to the island and seeing how poor they are, and how they are practicing with cardboard strapped to their hands because they can't afford gloves...and then realizing even with little resources, this tiny little island is turning out outstanding players that nobody seems to know about...so now maybe we should set up MLB academies (starting in the early 2000s) in order to invest in these players...and now we are finding players like Juan Soto, Vladmir Guerrero, David Ortiz, Albert Pujols.

Hmm..sounds kind of like what Princeton and other top schools might be doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve heard anecdotes from professors there that there has been a decline in the quality I’d the student body and the tutoring halls are constantly filled.

I think the push to enroll non-privileged students has had consequences. The sad truth is that a privileged background (attentive parents with resources and excellent K-12 schools) tends to create strong students. So if you count “privilege” against an applicant and aggressively favor a lack thereof, you are not tilting your student body in the direction of academic preparedness.

Or kids with fewer advantages need some supports initially, but ultimately soar.

THIS^^^^

Why would we not want the "kids with fewer advantages" to be given the opportunity to soar? The impact this will have on society will be much greater than giving that spot to another rich kid with every advantage.

I'm rich, my kids have had most advantages in life, I know they will go far in life no matter where they go to college. If they don't get into a T10 school because another smart bright kid who came from less advantages lifestyle gets to go, I'm fine with that.

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.

+1
I would add that the schools are missing some of the most stable, well-rounded, down-to-earth, ethical kids the country has to offer. They are taking kids who are either uber-wealthy, well connected, privileged, maybe even entitled OR kids who've had to fight for every opportunity and may come with a win at all costs mentality. If all the top jobs and next generation of leaders come from that group we can expect to see a net negative impact on society as a whole. We NEED to care about the kids in the middle, especially the ones from solid stable backgrounds, because they drive our culture.

My eyes could not be rolling any more dramatically.

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?

Not that poster, but yes, potential and talent are independent of environment.

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?

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.

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"

As a MC kid, the Ivy kids were always richer and had access to private education. Yet- nobody was looking at us to make a difference. We didn't qualify for aid (just barely) so had to go to state schools. If our parents had just made less $, we could have attended.

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"

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.

+1
I would add that the schools are missing some of the most stable, well-rounded, down-to-earth, ethical kids the country has to offer. They are taking kids who are either uber-wealthy, well connected, privileged, maybe even entitled OR kids who've had to fight for every opportunity and may come with a win at all costs mentality. If all the top jobs and next generation of leaders come from that group we can expect to see a net negative impact on society as a whole. We NEED to care about the kids in the middle, especially the ones from solid stable backgrounds, because they drive our culture.

In the vast majority of the country $100k is UMC (or maybe the bottom of the range for UMC)…and $200k is solidly UMC.

Sounds like Princeton is taking lots of kids from this group, so not sure why there is a crisis.

The problem is more if Princeton is too aggressively tilting the scales in favor of kids who need a lot of aid over kids who don’t. Like if the politics of income inequality paired with the politics of diversity are leading to a de-emphasis on pure merit.

I call BS on this. There was a time MC and UMC could afford 12k a year to go to Princeton with some loans and belt tightening. Those days are over. They're giving aid to MC now and 1/3 pay 350k for full fare. 350K!!!

Also, 90% of the class of 1995 would get in now. That was not the best and the brightest. You can look around a lot of parts of our world at Princeton alumni who are very very unremarkable or remarkable in all the wrong ways.

Princeton could make tuition 20k for all. Pell grant kids would take out loans and be fine. Working poor could take out loans and be fine, depending on major. MC and up could pay for it.

Instead we have this insane system.

+1

We have those full pay with multiple kids (not rich by anyone's standard), looking at taking out HeLocs just to be able to afford tuition. It's not an equitable or sustainable system.

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.

+1
I would add that the schools are missing some of the most stable, well-rounded, down-to-earth, ethical kids the country has to offer. They are taking kids who are either uber-wealthy, well connected, privileged, maybe even entitled OR kids who've had to fight for every opportunity and may come with a win at all costs mentality. If all the top jobs and next generation of leaders come from that group we can expect to see a net negative impact on society as a whole. We NEED to care about the kids in the middle, especially the ones from solid stable backgrounds, because they drive our culture.

In the vast majority of the country $100k is UMC (or maybe the bottom of the range for UMC)…and $200k is solidly UMC.

Sounds like Princeton is taking lots of kids from this group, so not sure why there is a crisis.

The problem is more if Princeton is too aggressively tilting the scales in favor of kids who need a lot of aid over kids who don’t. Like if the politics of income inequality paired with the politics of diversity are leading to a de-emphasis on pure merit.

I call BS on this. There was a time MC and UMC could afford 12k a year to go to Princeton with some loans and belt tightening. Those days are over. They're giving aid to MC now and 1/3 pay 350k for full fare. 350K!!!

Also, 90% of the class of 1995 would get in now. That was not the best and the brightest. You can look around a lot of parts of our world at Princeton alumni who are very very unremarkable or remarkable in all the wrong ways.

Princeton could make tuition 20k for all. Pell grant kids would take out loans and be fine. Working poor could take out loans and be fine, depending on major. MC and up could pay for it.

Instead we have this insane system.