Admission Announcement(admission.princeton.edu)
admission.princeton.edu
Admission Announcement
https://admission.princeton.edu/admission-announcement
84 comments
> change the communities and world around them … senior partner at a medium-sized law firm.
Such an admissions process creates perverse incentives. These students are incentivized to write essays portraying themselves as having struggled to get where they are, and talking how they want to use a Princeton education to “change the world.” In reality, very few are going to go into public service. They are going to go work at investment banks, management consultants, corporate law firms, tech companies, etc.
It’s actually scary to think that we are raising a generation of elites that deny that they are elites, and instead are incentivized to see themselves as the underdog, or as agents for social change. Indeed, I get the increasing sense that institutions like Princeton see themselves in those terms, instead of bastions of WASP culture and tradition educating the next generation of bankers, lawyers, and politicians.
Such an admissions process creates perverse incentives. These students are incentivized to write essays portraying themselves as having struggled to get where they are, and talking how they want to use a Princeton education to “change the world.” In reality, very few are going to go into public service. They are going to go work at investment banks, management consultants, corporate law firms, tech companies, etc.
It’s actually scary to think that we are raising a generation of elites that deny that they are elites, and instead are incentivized to see themselves as the underdog, or as agents for social change. Indeed, I get the increasing sense that institutions like Princeton see themselves in those terms, instead of bastions of WASP culture and tradition educating the next generation of bankers, lawyers, and politicians.
> Princeton [..] bastions of WASP culture and tradition
I agree with the bulk of your comment, but it's scary how disconnected from reality stereotypes can get. The Ivy League is no WASP bastion (and Princeton is no exception) - per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30338742, their non-international students are:
I agree with the bulk of your comment, but it's scary how disconnected from reality stereotypes can get. The Ivy League is no WASP bastion (and Princeton is no exception) - per https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30338742, their non-international students are:
Ivy League US Ratio
Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16
Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71
White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82
Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65
Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61
White (non-Jewish) 33.1% 59.1% 0.56> It’s actually scary to think that we are raising a generation of elites that deny that they are elites
We've been there for years.
We have people born on third base that think they hit a triple. Billionaires that were born as millionaires and think they worked hard for their money.
We've been there for years.
We have people born on third base that think they hit a triple. Billionaires that were born as millionaires and think they worked hard for their money.
Also some how all of this privilege talk forgets the biggest one money and wealth. What ever your gender, race, gender or sexuality is if you are rich enough you are more privileged than those who are from those groups you call privileged...
The purpose of this exercise is ensuring sufficient diversity among the managerial class that’s outsourcing the jobs of working class Americans—white, Black, and Hispanic alike—to China. It’s naked class warfare disguised as social justice.
[deleted]
> In reality, very few are going to go into public service.
People in public service don't change the communities and world around them. Public "servants" are just cogs in the machine.
> They are going to go work at investment banks, management consultants, corporate law firms, tech companies, etc.
And maybe go on to found Amazon which changed many communities and the world.
People in public service don't change the communities and world around them. Public "servants" are just cogs in the machine.
> They are going to go work at investment banks, management consultants, corporate law firms, tech companies, etc.
And maybe go on to found Amazon which changed many communities and the world.
> And maybe go on to found Amazon which changed many communities and the world
When Princeton applicants write admissions essays about “wanting to change the world” they don’t mean “… by driving Main Street out of business and making it easier than ever to buy cheap Chinese crap instead of American made products.”
When Princeton applicants write admissions essays about “wanting to change the world” they don’t mean “… by driving Main Street out of business and making it easier than ever to buy cheap Chinese crap instead of American made products.”
The particular labels you choose have nothing to do with the point Rayiner is making.
> And maybe go on to found Amazon which changed many communities and the world.
For the better? Or for the worse?
For the better? Or for the worse?
For what it's worth alumni interviews are mostly meaningless in the applicatiuon process. Theyt exist more as a development tool for keeping alumni engaged.
And while one that goes egregiously poorly can hurt your chances, the best alumni interview in the history of college applications won't move the needle.
And while one that goes egregiously poorly can hurt your chances, the best alumni interview in the history of college applications won't move the needle.
I'll admit that mine probably went poorly. It certainly wasn't bad or uncordial, but as much as I performed well academically I had no strong direction or sense of what I wanted to do in college or afterwards.
I was disappointed by not getting accepted, but I was also a little relieved. The pressure of attending was intimidating, and when I met other students and applicants on a visit everyone seemed much more put together than I was. Some of that may have been their outward facing persona but either way I was happy to go to a school where I felt more comfortable needing time to figure things out. Also I wouldn't have tons of debt either.
But the interviewer's emphasis on donations has always always stuck with me about Princeton, especially because it was the only school interview where that was very explicitely made an issue.
I was disappointed by not getting accepted, but I was also a little relieved. The pressure of attending was intimidating, and when I met other students and applicants on a visit everyone seemed much more put together than I was. Some of that may have been their outward facing persona but either way I was happy to go to a school where I felt more comfortable needing time to figure things out. Also I wouldn't have tons of debt either.
But the interviewer's emphasis on donations has always always stuck with me about Princeton, especially because it was the only school interview where that was very explicitely made an issue.
I suspect this will increase, not decrease the anxiety of applicants.
I wonder if they actually think this will help with anxiety, and are wrong, or are just being duplicitous.
If the goal is merit based admission then the measured of merit should be transparent and accurate as possible.
This seems like “we’re going to stop publishing salary info to decrease anxiety of applicants” for companies.
I wonder if they actually think this will help with anxiety, and are wrong, or are just being duplicitous.
If the goal is merit based admission then the measured of merit should be transparent and accurate as possible.
This seems like “we’re going to stop publishing salary info to decrease anxiety of applicants” for companies.
Doesn't it signal to prospective students to submit their best application and be judged holistically? Supposedly that's what all universities claim to do.
It's easy to start quantifying application success based on several indicators like GPA, SAT/ACT scores, number and volume of extra-curriculars, and may some others. However, there are circumstances and other factors that are not quantifiable that universities claim to take into account. Sure a good SAT score works to your advantage, and everyone will know that until society's worked out something better. But an SAT shouldn't be the golden standard, and supposedly with holistic admissions it isn't.
I can see how masking the SAT score data might look duplicitous, but it may be an earnest attempt to encourage prospective students to see themselves as more than a matrix of numbers.
It's easy to start quantifying application success based on several indicators like GPA, SAT/ACT scores, number and volume of extra-curriculars, and may some others. However, there are circumstances and other factors that are not quantifiable that universities claim to take into account. Sure a good SAT score works to your advantage, and everyone will know that until society's worked out something better. But an SAT shouldn't be the golden standard, and supposedly with holistic admissions it isn't.
I can see how masking the SAT score data might look duplicitous, but it may be an earnest attempt to encourage prospective students to see themselves as more than a matrix of numbers.
I don’t think so. I think it signals a secret level of expectations and information asymmetry as the average sat score is still available to admissions people.
It will be interesting if this leads to higher or lower mean and median scores. I expect that scores will go up as the assumption by applicants is that only super high scores will result in admission.
Part of their “holistic” process includes SAT so the score does matter. I consider “holistic” BS marketing speak as of course everything in the admin packet is used and there’s never been a situation in my lifetime that a specific score meant automatic admission.
It will be interesting if this leads to higher or lower mean and median scores. I expect that scores will go up as the assumption by applicants is that only super high scores will result in admission.
Part of their “holistic” process includes SAT so the score does matter. I consider “holistic” BS marketing speak as of course everything in the admin packet is used and there’s never been a situation in my lifetime that a specific score meant automatic admission.
There’s actually another, simpler explanation: they’re doing exactly what they’re saying.
Not releasing SAT scores of admitted students might mean that their experiments with “holistic” admission results in lower average SATs. Hence their de-emphasis of test scores.
Not releasing SAT scores of admitted students might mean that their experiments with “holistic” admission results in lower average SATs. Hence their de-emphasis of test scores.
Perhaps, but that seems stupid as test scores are very useful for determining if someone will successfully complete college, and many other factors.
If their goal is to de-emphasize SAT scores then they should be cool with releasing SAT scores to emphasize that their de-emphasis approach has changed the patterns in SAT.
If their goal is to de-emphasize SAT scores then they should be cool with releasing SAT scores to emphasize that their de-emphasis approach has changed the patterns in SAT.
People that remove objective transparent measures often do so because they are preventing them from doing they want to do that are contrary to those measures.
The more objective, open, and clear the measures are the better everyone can understand what is required, when you change to a "Holistic" measure it suddenly goes to whatever the admissions officer wants to do or feels like doing. Remember the opposite of objective is arbitrary.
The more objective, open, and clear the measures are the better everyone can understand what is required, when you change to a "Holistic" measure it suddenly goes to whatever the admissions officer wants to do or feels like doing. Remember the opposite of objective is arbitrary.
Hit the nail on the head, you did. Princeton is moving to a more exclusive admissions model where the top SAT score does not guarantee acceptance anymore. Luxury Brand indeed! For shame.
I think it's a bad move, but i don't think it will increase anxiety
if top universities drew names out of a hat, you won't feel any more anxious than buying a lotto ticket and losing. But the quality of the student body would be much worse, obviously.
if top universities drew names out of a hat, you won't feel any more anxious than buying a lotto ticket and losing. But the quality of the student body would be much worse, obviously.
I think I would feel more anxiety if it was random and I had no control at all. So up until names were chosen, I expect anxiety would go up.
Lotto tickets are low consequence, but college is high consequence.
If I had to test the anxiety of two processes for job application where one is merit based and the other is random, I’d choose the merit process because at least I can prepare.
Lotto tickets are low consequence, but college is high consequence.
If I had to test the anxiety of two processes for job application where one is merit based and the other is random, I’d choose the merit process because at least I can prepare.
[deleted]
My daughter did just did college applications and her school used a service call SCOIR. For all of the colleges she was interested, they had a two dimensional (test score, GPA) graph that showed all recent applicants from her school and whether or not the applicant got accepted into that particular college. You could then see exactly what your chances are. For schools with too few applicants they did not generate this graph.
After looking at her college choices it seemed like less of crapshoot. The patterns were pretty consistent.
After looking at her college choices it seemed like less of crapshoot. The patterns were pretty consistent.
Yeah, yet another thing that benefits generally affluent/elite schools (yes, a suburban public school in California would likely fall in that category).
My HS had a similar service (I think it was called naviance or something like that), but we did not have enough datapoints for most of the graphs I would be interested in.
My HS had a similar service (I think it was called naviance or something like that), but we did not have enough datapoints for most of the graphs I would be interested in.
That’s been around a while - I had a similar thing. Learned a lot from it.
Public schools have more heuristics. I could draw a box around who’s gonna get in vs not - everything but SAT/GPA seemed irrelevant. This included top state schools (eg UVA & Michigan).
Top private schools had a similar box - but it was much more “possible to admit” than “definitely in”. You’d draw a similar box as for state schools, and it was random within that box.
There were 1-2 individual outliers per school. Idk why (data excluded athletes, allegedly), but was interesting - there a back door to Michigan, even with a 3.0, if you can find it.
Public schools have more heuristics. I could draw a box around who’s gonna get in vs not - everything but SAT/GPA seemed irrelevant. This included top state schools (eg UVA & Michigan).
Top private schools had a similar box - but it was much more “possible to admit” than “definitely in”. You’d draw a similar box as for state schools, and it was random within that box.
There were 1-2 individual outliers per school. Idk why (data excluded athletes, allegedly), but was interesting - there a back door to Michigan, even with a 3.0, if you can find it.
I'm a bit cynical, that deemphasizing and obscuring objective measures (SAT, GPA, etc.) might be motivated by wanting control demographics.
For instance, like Harvard trying to keep itself from getting too Asian, which echos how it tried to keep Jews out back in the '30s.
If the goal is actually diversity, my mom had a proposal: have transparent minimum requirements, then simply pick eligible applicants from a lottery. You can control diversity vs. academic performance by adjusting the test score bars.
For instance, like Harvard trying to keep itself from getting too Asian, which echos how it tried to keep Jews out back in the '30s.
If the goal is actually diversity, my mom had a proposal: have transparent minimum requirements, then simply pick eligible applicants from a lottery. You can control diversity vs. academic performance by adjusting the test score bars.
The thing is, minimum requirements are flexible. If they're trying to fill out an empty coxswain role on their rowing roster then they will happily dip their requirements a bit, but they couldn't make those lower requirements the minimum & form a lottery based on them because they don't want most of those students.
Without defending them (I don't like how they operate) they couldn't control diversity through this method. Applications from students with very high GPA's & SAT scores are disproportionately from students from certain ethnic backgrounds, e.g., Asian students whose average SAT scores are roughly 20% higher than the population average [1]. In a case like that, I honestly don't know how to balance between equally qualified students having the same chance of being admitted vs. representative diversity. (Not that I think their current diversity levels are actually representative)
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171
Without defending them (I don't like how they operate) they couldn't control diversity through this method. Applications from students with very high GPA's & SAT scores are disproportionately from students from certain ethnic backgrounds, e.g., Asian students whose average SAT scores are roughly 20% higher than the population average [1]. In a case like that, I honestly don't know how to balance between equally qualified students having the same chance of being admitted vs. representative diversity. (Not that I think their current diversity levels are actually representative)
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171
> Asian students whose average SAT scores are roughly 20% higher than the population average
This wasn’t always the case. For a long time Asians scored below White Americans. However the former’s average scores have surged while the latters have stagnated at best. I don’t think there’s a single clear explanation for the surge in Asian SAT scores, but cultural issues like enthusiastic parenting as well as test prep and tutoring are almost certainly significant contributors. The effect of tutoring on academic achievement is massive, as much as two sigma.
Whatever it is, Asians found a way to greatly improve their average scores, so if we want to increase diversity without lowering standards it would be best for other groups to adopt similar or better preparatory strategies.
This wasn’t always the case. For a long time Asians scored below White Americans. However the former’s average scores have surged while the latters have stagnated at best. I don’t think there’s a single clear explanation for the surge in Asian SAT scores, but cultural issues like enthusiastic parenting as well as test prep and tutoring are almost certainly significant contributors. The effect of tutoring on academic achievement is massive, as much as two sigma.
Whatever it is, Asians found a way to greatly improve their average scores, so if we want to increase diversity without lowering standards it would be best for other groups to adopt similar or better preparatory strategies.
> there’s a single clear explanation for the surge in Asian SAT scores
I do - it's immigrant self-selection since the 80s-90s.
Asians who immigrated in the late 20th and early 21st century are oftentimes the "elites" of their home country, asians who immigrated in the early 20th century were often laborers (ie. often poor people from Japan/China/Korea) or refugees (ie. Vietnam).
I do - it's immigrant self-selection since the 80s-90s.
Asians who immigrated in the late 20th and early 21st century are oftentimes the "elites" of their home country, asians who immigrated in the early 20th century were often laborers (ie. often poor people from Japan/China/Korea) or refugees (ie. Vietnam).
If them studying hard is what got them there it makes sense to demand that from kids as well.
Now I wonder about more recent African immigration. And I don't mean refugees, but professionals. How do they compare to genera population.
Now I wonder about more recent African immigration. And I don't mean refugees, but professionals. How do they compare to genera population.
It's actually a question tangential to some of the work I do, so I'm familiar some of the literature on this topic.
There is a performance gap, and it's known as the "immigrant paradox" [1]. In short, research results show that achievement between imigrants & non immigrants of similar income levels is mixed. At earlier grades there is sometimes a performance gap that somewhat disappears in later grades. The gap may also be more pronounced in lower quality schools and disappear in better schools.
It's not a fully understood phenomenon, but I've seen speculation that families and their children that have been through the upheaval of immigrating to a new country may be a little more resilient to the sometimes-constant upheaval forced on families by poverty. And that native families at lower incomes are also more likely to be single-parent families.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624018/
There is a performance gap, and it's known as the "immigrant paradox" [1]. In short, research results show that achievement between imigrants & non immigrants of similar income levels is mixed. At earlier grades there is sometimes a performance gap that somewhat disappears in later grades. The gap may also be more pronounced in lower quality schools and disappear in better schools.
It's not a fully understood phenomenon, but I've seen speculation that families and their children that have been through the upheaval of immigrating to a new country may be a little more resilient to the sometimes-constant upheaval forced on families by poverty. And that native families at lower incomes are also more likely to be single-parent families.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4624018/
I agree on tutoring, but those resources are heavily gated by socioeconomic status. As such, many pockets of the population can't simply choose to adopt those strategies. Certainly those who can do so aught to, but our educational system would need reforming before if it's to be done without leaving a large part of the population behind.
It’s really not about socioeconomic status. Sure, being rich is a convenient way to afford a tutor, but plenty of poor Asian immigrants scrimped and saved every penny while working 12+ hour days to provide their children with the best education possible.
Fortunately if there’s one thing the past decades have shown beyond all doubt, it’s that cultural attitudes towards basically anything can be shifted with clever media portrayals and other persuasive devices. It’s not outside of the realm of plausibility to convince underperforming groups to shift their priorities in a way that greatly improves academic success.
Fortunately if there’s one thing the past decades have shown beyond all doubt, it’s that cultural attitudes towards basically anything can be shifted with clever media portrayals and other persuasive devices. It’s not outside of the realm of plausibility to convince underperforming groups to shift their priorities in a way that greatly improves academic success.
You're partly correct, but (possibly?) incorrect because of the "socio" part of socioeconomics.
You're probably right that it's relatively rare that a family couldn't save every last penny possible to pay for at least a little of those benefits (though still not nearly as much as other families). Although there are families where parents are already working crazy hours and still really don't have money to spare, where a surprise $300 car repair means rent will be late and the next few weeks of food will be peanut butter sandwiches and spaghetti.
But there are two factors on the "socio" side that also hinder things even when finances are a little less extreme:
1) Families that lack a strong educational tradition may not really understand the dynamics of what is necessary to achieve the highest levels of academic success. Sort of like not having strong financial planning skills because they were never taught to you... You don't know what you don't know, so you aren't aware of what it takes to be successful.
2) There's at least a little bit of a mental health aspect to things. I can't easily put it into words, (and I might be wrong) but it seems like it could be bad in some ways to exist on that extreme of a level, for kids to practically never see their parents because they're always working, and for the family as a whole to have little ability to catch their breath and have... I don't know, a bit of decompression. Again it's hard to put into words, but I can say that I grew up pretty poor, and it was stressful as hell even without being at the very extreme edge of things, needing food banks etc.
You're probably right that it's relatively rare that a family couldn't save every last penny possible to pay for at least a little of those benefits (though still not nearly as much as other families). Although there are families where parents are already working crazy hours and still really don't have money to spare, where a surprise $300 car repair means rent will be late and the next few weeks of food will be peanut butter sandwiches and spaghetti.
But there are two factors on the "socio" side that also hinder things even when finances are a little less extreme:
1) Families that lack a strong educational tradition may not really understand the dynamics of what is necessary to achieve the highest levels of academic success. Sort of like not having strong financial planning skills because they were never taught to you... You don't know what you don't know, so you aren't aware of what it takes to be successful.
2) There's at least a little bit of a mental health aspect to things. I can't easily put it into words, (and I might be wrong) but it seems like it could be bad in some ways to exist on that extreme of a level, for kids to practically never see their parents because they're always working, and for the family as a whole to have little ability to catch their breath and have... I don't know, a bit of decompression. Again it's hard to put into words, but I can say that I grew up pretty poor, and it was stressful as hell even without being at the very extreme edge of things, needing food banks etc.
> For a long time Asians scored below White Americans.
Note that there were very few Asians in America prior to the refugee immigration waves in the 1970s and 1980s. (0.7% of the population in 1970 to 2.9% in 1990.) By 1989, Asians were out-scoring whites in the SAT math: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/09/12/s...
Note that there were very few Asians in America prior to the refugee immigration waves in the 1970s and 1980s. (0.7% of the population in 1970 to 2.9% in 1990.) By 1989, Asians were out-scoring whites in the SAT math: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/09/12/s...
I think this is a great idea! Sadly, I don't think the goal of the admissions staff is to let in a diverse class. It slowly has become a race-to-the-bottom of "which applicant will enable me to tell the coolest story at the cocktail reception" (note this announcement's focus on highlighting individual members of the incoming class).
Is there even an argument that it's not anti-Asian? Here's the percentage of each group scoring above 700 on the SAT:
Asian 25% White 6% Hispanic 2% Black 1%
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/...
Why is the response to lower the bar instead of promoting what Asians do to achieve such success?
Asian 25% White 6% Hispanic 2% Black 1%
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2017/...
Why is the response to lower the bar instead of promoting what Asians do to achieve such success?
That graph doesn't support your point. The Y-axis is the percentage of each ethnic group that achieved a certain score range. The statistic you are looking for is the percentage of the total population that scored in each bucket grouped by ethnic group.
Say you have a population that consists of 60 Asians and 940 non-Asians (which roughly matches the racial demographics of the United States) where 25% of Asians and 5% of non-Asians score above a 700 on the SAT math section. There would then be 15 Asians and 47 non-Asians who pass the bar. That means the Asian percentage of this theoretical group of qualified students would be ~24%. For comparison, Asians make up 27% of Princeton undergrads. Without the statistic I mentioned, you can't determine whether or not Asians are underrepresented.
Say you have a population that consists of 60 Asians and 940 non-Asians (which roughly matches the racial demographics of the United States) where 25% of Asians and 5% of non-Asians score above a 700 on the SAT math section. There would then be 15 Asians and 47 non-Asians who pass the bar. That means the Asian percentage of this theoretical group of qualified students would be ~24%. For comparison, Asians make up 27% of Princeton undergrads. Without the statistic I mentioned, you can't determine whether or not Asians are underrepresented.
The SAT is out of 1600
Obviously this is referring to an individual section. Please take more time to consider the arguments of others before posting. This comment does not enhance the level of discourse of HN.
CrimsonCape(5)
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-price-of-admission/ gives additional context and speculation on this move.
What a gross, tribalistic way of viewing the world.
e: oh i see, just looked up the author
e: oh i see, just looked up the author
Do you feel the same about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCA-Asian_Pacific_American_Adv... ?
I don't really know what that organization is.
I can tell you that if you had written the same article but switched around the races, I would definitely have felt the same way.
I can tell you that if you had written the same article but switched around the races, I would definitely have felt the same way.
Are any of the statistics mentioned wrong? Are the facts uncovered by the Harvard lawsuit now wrongthink?
Wrongthink? What are you talking about?
I'm simply saying that seeing everything through the lens of race, as this article does.
Here's a claim: > White people made American colleges immensely fashionable around the world, but now America is running out of white kids.
Fact check: there have never been more white people in America in the history of the US.
I'm simply saying that seeing everything through the lens of race, as this article does.
Here's a claim: > White people made American colleges immensely fashionable around the world, but now America is running out of white kids.
Fact check: there have never been more white people in America in the history of the US.
The article makes it very clear what "running out of white kids" means in the context the author is writing it in. You're intentionally taking it out of context.
> I'm simply saying that seeing everything through the lens of race
It is a fact that prestigious private universities discriminate on the basis of race today.
> I'm simply saying that seeing everything through the lens of race
It is a fact that prestigious private universities discriminate on the basis of race today.
Relatedly, an ABA committee has recommended that the ABA make the Law School Admissions Test optional for law school admissions: https://www.law.com/2022/05/06/aba-considering-eliminating-s...
I have little confidence there will be transparency or uniformity in how students who submit applications without LSAT scores will be evaluated.
I have little confidence there will be transparency or uniformity in how students who submit applications without LSAT scores will be evaluated.
This is much more pernicious. LSAT score is fairly well correlated with bar passage. Perspective students should know up front whether or not they are likely to waste 3 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars
Some years ago, a study asserted that middle age is the unhappiest time of life. It occurs to me now that at least for the upper middle class middle age is when one is most likely to be watching/nudging/prodding a child through college admissions. It is definitely a source of stress.
Ivy League universities are hedge funds that have colleges and research institutions attached to them.
The function of admissions for these institutions is:
1. Secure revenue through donations and full-tuition-paying students to cover their operating costs
2. Boost marketing/PR efforts by maintaining an image of prestige and progressive values.
The prestige of these schools is already unassailable in the public imagination, so this is a simple marketing maneuver in order to maintain a positive image as a progressive institution.
If the goal was to educate as many high-achieving students as possible, they would simply establish testing standards, admit students who pass those standards (pending a holistic review, most likely), hire more world-class professors, and expand the class size.
But increasing the class size of Princeton would also decrease their "exclusiveness" and by extension their prestige.
So in order to balance these concerns, the admissions process needs to walk a tight-rope between admitting desirable minority students that make for good marketing material, "legacy" & wealthy students, and the most academically gifted.
These institutions are structurally positioned to oppose an educational system whose goal is to provide the best education possible to the most students. It's not about equality. In fact, it's about preserving inequality in their favor.
The function of admissions for these institutions is:
1. Secure revenue through donations and full-tuition-paying students to cover their operating costs
2. Boost marketing/PR efforts by maintaining an image of prestige and progressive values.
The prestige of these schools is already unassailable in the public imagination, so this is a simple marketing maneuver in order to maintain a positive image as a progressive institution.
If the goal was to educate as many high-achieving students as possible, they would simply establish testing standards, admit students who pass those standards (pending a holistic review, most likely), hire more world-class professors, and expand the class size.
But increasing the class size of Princeton would also decrease their "exclusiveness" and by extension their prestige.
So in order to balance these concerns, the admissions process needs to walk a tight-rope between admitting desirable minority students that make for good marketing material, "legacy" & wealthy students, and the most academically gifted.
These institutions are structurally positioned to oppose an educational system whose goal is to provide the best education possible to the most students. It's not about equality. In fact, it's about preserving inequality in their favor.
Teaching is not the primary focus of most Ivy League universities, research is. There's more money in research and faculty would rather be doing research. Undergraduate instruction is also valuable, but is a secondary priority.
Can you explain how there is more money in research than fundraising from alumni and corporations? Just glanced at a few cash flow statements and most of the income comes from sale of investments received as donations.
If interested: “This year, three Ivy League schools — the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell, and Princeton — declined to release admissions data on the day acceptance letters were sent out, a trend Stanford started in 2018. Cornell first stopped publicizing its data in 2020.” [0]
[0]: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/5/4/selective-univer...
[0]: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/5/4/selective-univer...
The announcement was not clear to me as to whether they would drop information from their Common Data Set reports, https://ir.princeton.edu/other-university-data/common-data-s..., or simply not promote it themselves.
Assuming that others (US News) will continue to report on Princeton's selectivity, and than Princeton's selectivity will not change, this announcement seems like "small beer". If they want to make Princeton a less forbidding place to apply to, they should promote success stories from people drawn from the applicant pools they are seeking.
Assuming that others (US News) will continue to report on Princeton's selectivity, and than Princeton's selectivity will not change, this announcement seems like "small beer". If they want to make Princeton a less forbidding place to apply to, they should promote success stories from people drawn from the applicant pools they are seeking.
Doomed to false hope. With GPA guidelines, it's at least clear which schools I shouldn't even bother to apply to, and can tailor my efforts accordingly. This sounds like a pre-cursor to the introduction of a formal quota system.
> The Office of Admission considers each student holistically within the context of their setting to build a dynamic University community. Given this, data points such as overall admission rates and average SAT scores shouldn’t influence a prospective student’s decision about whether to apply to Princeton.
But of course they should influence it. Data points of overall admission rates and average SAT scores are one of the best data for deciding to apply or not. It's weird how Princeton affirms they should not even "influence" it. It's a celebration of ignorance.
But of course they should influence it. Data points of overall admission rates and average SAT scores are one of the best data for deciding to apply or not. It's weird how Princeton affirms they should not even "influence" it. It's a celebration of ignorance.
My 0.02:
I'm an educator in higher-ed.
Always aced IQ-type standardized tests.
Over the years I've observed brilliant students who do very poorly in IQ-type tests. But they write brilliant long-form essays.
The world will be fine.
I'm an educator in higher-ed.
Always aced IQ-type standardized tests.
Over the years I've observed brilliant students who do very poorly in IQ-type tests. But they write brilliant long-form essays.
The world will be fine.
>Over the years I've observed brilliant students who do very poorly in IQ-type tests. But they write brilliant long-form essays.
And how big of a sample size are you talking about? SATs and IQ tests are highly correlated. Same for school performance and IQ.
And how big of a sample size are you talking about? SATs and IQ tests are highly correlated. Same for school performance and IQ.
> SATs and IQ tests are highly correlated.
GP already implied this with IQ-type tests. I’m not sure what you’re arguing with unless there’s a disagreement about brilliant, which in this context GP seems to be different from what IQ measures
GP already implied this with IQ-type tests. I’m not sure what you’re arguing with unless there’s a disagreement about brilliant, which in this context GP seems to be different from what IQ measures
What relevance do the SATs have? If they’re like the IQ test then that isn’t what makes a student bright, necessarily. As with the essay example.
Unfortunately, the Ivy Leagues of the world have a wonderful opportunity, they now have tools to provide education to millions of people but they are choosing a black box, opaque style of admissions and going for a Luxury Brand model.
I hope there is at least one university of prestige that opens up its doors for admission.
Easy to Enroll and Damn Hard to graduate, so that the actually degree has real value while being accessible.
I hope there is at least one university of prestige that opens up its doors for admission.
Easy to Enroll and Damn Hard to graduate, so that the actually degree has real value while being accessible.
Harvard Extension School is open enrollment
Not the same degree! Its apples and sea shells.
A school won’t retain the same reputation if it opens up enrollment big time. There will be too many from that school. Maintaining the status quo is a core of society. No school graduating multiple hundreds of thousands of students a year will maintain its current ranking.
Why is "reducing anxiety" such a paramount goal?
Studies regarding social media and teen anxiety regularly go viral , suggesting it's important.
Bold move to obfuscate more of the admissions process at a time when admissions nepotism is at the forefront of everyone's minds.
I think that is entirely the point. It makes it much harder to claim discrimination by any particular group if there aren't any hard stats to compare to.
When the organization busts out phrases like "student-centered," you know it's entirely about the needs of the organization.
Sounds like a way to get more students who would've previously known they didn't have a chance to spend the application fee.
That was one of the worst parts about applying to universities for me over a decade ago. A few I knew I had practically 0 chance for, and then I still had to pay something like $50 each IIRC.
That was one of the worst parts about applying to universities for me over a decade ago. A few I knew I had practically 0 chance for, and then I still had to pay something like $50 each IIRC.
Education is broken, and it’s attempts to self repair are so bad it needs a complete shutdown and restarting it from scratch.
When I had my alumni interview during the admissions process, it was with a senior partner at a medium-sized law firm. He emphasized that Princeton (at the time) received $200M/year in Alumni donations, and how important it was that students admitted to the school understand that obligation. We didn't talk about making an impact on the world. (Disclaimer: I was rejected.)