RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceGraphs usually help clarify confusing data. There is one graph, though, that raises more questions than answers, and it’s clamped in a three-ring binder in the office of Rabbi Julie Roth, the executive director of the Center for Jewish ...
(back to the article)
The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.
This article is offensive on some level. To non-Jews.
If less than 2% of the American population (and far less worldwide) practice Judaism, how is reasonable to expect that 20% of the University will be made up Jewish students?
The only "puzzling statistic" is that it's even 13%. The only puzzling part is that it's only 1-2% nationally, MORONS.
I agree. It is far more "statistically puzzling" that schools like Harvard are 25% Jewish, when less than 2% of Americans are. It is equally "puzzling" that while Hispanics and African Americans comprise nearly 30% of America's population, they comprise less than 15% of Princeton. This reflects a serious inequality. It seems to me that Princeton should try vetting UNDER represented, not OVER represented minorities.
I cannot believe this article is real...
I think some of you might be missing the point of the article. What they refer to as puzzling is that Princeton has a MUCH lower percentage of Jews in the student body than our peer schools. The 12% difference between Harvard and Yale's 25% and Princeton's 13% is striking and at the least very interesting. The question is why does Princeton not attract the same number of Jewish students as our peer schools do? What does it say about the Jewish community's perceptions of Princeton, or, maybe, Princeton's perception of the Jewish community? There are interesting questions that are worth pondering, and THAT is the point of the article.
well then the "point" didn't really come across to me when i was reading it. maybe it was to do with the writing
"I would love 20%"
"There is a lot more work to be done, but we're on the right track"
We DO get the point of the article. OUR POINT is that it would be ABSURD to try to double the proportion of this already over-represented minority, at the inevitable expense of every under-represented minority.
@@DB'09: Or maybe it has to do with your ability to read.
AZTEC WARRIOR STRIKES AGAIN