24 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
We’re all told to maximize our time here, and no one will argue that the classes you choose are going impact that time. Part of what you choose is the options you’re presented with, and course times are a big part of how we schedule our lives. Who knows how many people have left Princeton without experiencing that one life-changing class, that one class that made it all worth it, because Introduction to Spanish is at 1:30 p.m., and so is everything else.
The unfortunate truth is, for most undergraduates, the majority of their time spent “learning” at Princeton is occupied by lectures. Last spring, I argued that professors should stop lecturing us; in other words, Princeton should get rid of lectures completely. Sadly, though unsurprisingly, the University has not ended lectures since the publication of my article.
PAJ (and by extension, its leadership) suffers from a practical limit of effectiveness, an affliction of aimlessness, and a passivity of purpose.
Gun control policy must be comprehensive — strict regulation, mandatory buybacks, prominent oversight — for gun violence to ever begin to approach an acceptable level: none. And by this metric, common sense gun reform is not enough.
I appreciate that Princeton is reassuring students who protest that their admissions rights will be protected if they stand up for what they believe in, on all sides of the political spectrum. While it would probably be wrong to see Princeton’s statement at this time as an explicit endorsement of gun control, I also think and hope that Princeton’s statement at time implicitly supports the gun control movement by giving Princeton applicants the courage that their views should be spoken regardless of possible disciplinary action.
There’s no point in going for anything less than the absolute best outcome. Here’s my “modest” proposal: repeal the Second Amendment and ban firearms.
Let’s settle this. Did Rosen do something wrong, or did the students overreact?
Raising the standard of evidence plus lowering penalties seems to encourage cheating more than anything else. Honestly, the administration saved students from themselves.
Around this time every year, it is a solemn and holy tradition for Princeton Undergraduates to start complaining about a peculiarity of the Princeton academic calendar. Exams after break? Ew. But I argue that if you closely examine the arguments for both having exams before break, and having exams after break, it is clear that having exams after break is the superior (if counter-intuitive) choice. Princeton Students should not be so hasty to wish away one of the great structural advantages Princeton gives us.
Everyone has a right to arms under the Second Amendment. It is therefore immoral and illegal to deny our most vulnerable citizens their right to self-protection. Squirrels, who are people too, live in a precarious balance of life and death. We can only improve the balance on life’s side by providing more firearms.
It can be hard to evaluate candidates. Luckily, all undergraduates have access to the USG Winter 2017 Candidate Biographies document online. I will be pulling from this document extensively in the following election special. I will discuss each candidate in turn, starting with my endorsement of Yee, a discussion of Ryan Ozminkowski ’19, and my second choice in Matthew Miller ’19.
We have an interest in agitating for the interests of our graduate students. They are our teachers, they are our future, they are our colleagues. We must fight against the reform of graduate student taxation.
This holiday season, all of us should take a moment to be humble and give thanks for Princeton. Princeton is an institution with many pros and many cons. Its perpetuation of inequalities, dark sides of history, and difficulties with change can be at times hard to swallow. But those are topics for other columns and other days. For now, let us focus on the positive; let us give thanks.
I cannot fathom how Princeton might struggle to replace sexual harassers. Surely the University can find faculty with not just high academic standards, but also acceptable moral ones.
In an age of expansive building renovations, from the new Lewis Arts Center to the restoration of the University Chapel’s roof, one building stands out for its sheer obstinate age, lack of comfort, and indelible presence in the academic careers of most undergraduates. I am referring, of course, to McCosh Hall. My simple question is: why does McCosh suck?
Blind grading is a convenient way to ensure fair grading, preventing the rewarding of favorites, those who turn in good work first, and those who speak well in precept, while being fair to those who can sometimes cause trouble, took some time to find their footing in a class, and those who are quiet in precept.
After the recent ad hominem attacks I received in response to my last column, I have decided to write on something less controversial: Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos’ recent revocation of part of the Obama administration’s Title IX guidance. Oh, wait, sorry: I meant more controversial.
I defend the University’s affirmative action policies by placing them in their definitional and historical context. Opponents of affirmative action call it racist, like my fellow columnist Hayley Siegel. Yet arguments like these do not properly understand affirmative action, its importance, nor its context at the University.
I got an email from my editor. Ryan, the frosh are coming, he said, we need some articles for them.