283 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/23/14 7:31pm)
It is high time that the campus pub of old be restored. From 1973 through 1983, what is now Chancellor Green Caféwas a popular place for Princeton faculty and students to go for a pint after class. Of course, back in those good old days, the drinking age in New Jersey was 18 rather than 21, and there wasn’t the inconvenient upperclassman-underclassman divide there is today. It is no coincidence that the campus pub was closed in 1984, the same year that New Jersey upped the legal imbibing age. Yet closing the pub was a mistake, and today there seems to be no disagreement: Princetonians—students, faculty and administrators —hope for the return of the campus pub.
(11/20/14 8:33pm)
The Undergraduate Student Government will be holding general elections from Monday Nov. 24 to Wednesday Nov. 26. Our student government is a resource with great potential, but USG can only have an effective presence on campus if we as students take the time to select the representatives who will earnestly engage with the needs of the community and work effectively to follow through on the tasks undertaken on behalf of the student body. This year there are three candidates for president: Ella Cheng ’16, William Gansa ’17, and Molly Stoneman ’16; and two for vice president: Aleksandra Czulak ’17 and Dallas Nan ’16. Every year, this Board endorses one candidate for the office of president and one for vice president. This year, we endorse Cheng for president and Czulak for vice president.
(11/16/14 7:29pm)
Over the last several decades, Princeton has become a more diverse place, matriculating a student body that includes women, students from diverse cultural backgrounds and students with a wide array of socioeconomic experiences. As Princeton has diversified its student body, it has made steps to become more inclusive. The University strives to be a welcoming community for all students and to provide all students with the resources that will help them succeed, regardless of their background, interests and needs. To this end, several centers that provide resources to specific groups of students have been created, including the Women’s Center, the International Center and, most recently, the LGBT Center. However, one growing voice in the student body has not been represented: first-generation college students. The Editorial Board believes more could be done to support first-generation students on campus and advocates for the creation of a First Generation Center.
(11/13/14 6:55pm)
Over the past few weeks, members of the freshman class experienced their first set of midterm exams. As a rite of passage in the Princeton experience, freshmen are often disappointed with their first set of midterm grades. This disappointment is perhaps most palpable for students aiming to concentrate in engineering or the hard sciences, who are compelled to take physics, chemistry, mathematics and computer science courses as prerequisites. While the challenge that some students taking these courses inevitably face is appropriate, other students may find themselves in courses for which they do not have the proper prior preparation. Though, in some cases, students may be able to alter their schedules by dropping to a lower level of the same class, some students have no other option besides remaining in their sections. The Board believes that this problem could be solved with broader placement testing as well as advising that takes into account the results of this testing.
(11/09/14 8:13pm)
Midterms week is an inherently stressful time when students are required to study for comprehensive tests, learn new material in class and complete papers and problem sets. At the conclusion of midterms week, students are given a week-long break to relax, recuperate and pursue out-of-classroom experiences that supplement their time at Princeton. Unfortunately, the lack of University policies surrounding the administration of take-home exams detracts from the fairness of the examination process and adds stress to the week. Further, the lack of University policies regulating work assigned during fall break dilutes the break’s purpose and is unfair to students attempting to pursue extracurricular, academic and personal opportunities.
(11/06/14 7:56pm)
One of the best parts of being at Princeton is the prominent speakers the University attracts. Most recently the University community received a visit from the Dalai Lama on Oct. 28. However, the Dalai Lama’s arrival also shed light on the University’s cumbersome ticketing system, which currently requires students to wait in line at Frist Campus Center during inconvenient time blocks on weekdays, including during scheduled class time. This leads to several problems. The first issue is that, in certain cases, students have to choose between tardiness or absence to a class and waiting in line for a ticket to a promising lecture. While the administration has attempted to mitigate this issue by allowing students to present a maximum of one other prox to get a ticket for a friend, for large-scale events, the student interest is often so great that there are simply too many students with proxes for the few who are actually available to stand in line.
(11/02/14 6:44pm)
For many University students, on-campus housing and fire safety policies are pervasive. While safety is the stated rationale for all policies, some policies in place — for example, the University’s current microwave and door-hanging restrictions — are both overly strict and ambiguous as to their specific purposes. The Editorial Board recommends that the housing and fire safety committees either reevaluate these policies, or provide specific rationales for these policies to students.
(10/23/14 6:49pm)
The University offers many dining options for students, ranging from meal plans for underclassmen to options such as eating clubs for upperclassmen. Dining is essential to community building, as it gives students the opportunity to interact with others outside of their classes and residential colleges. It is for this reason that the University provides some dining hall swipes for upperclassmen and that eating clubs offer meal exchange programs. Burdensome restrictions, however, make these options inconvenient to use, and more can be done to increase the flexibility of dining options for all students. By making dining more flexible, students will be given more opportunities to interact with others outside of their set dining plans. For this reason, the Editorial Board believes that the University should replace Late Meal swipes with a system of flex dollars, a form of cash credit that can be used at on-campus dining locations. Furthermore, the Board encourages eating clubs to adopt an electronic system for meal swipes.
(10/19/14 6:45pm)
Among Princeton’s general education requirements is foreign language proficiency, which, according to Office of the Dean of the College, encourages students to “become literate in another culture and gain another perspective on the world.” Though the A.B. minimum requirement calls for the completion of a beginner’s language track (three or four courses up to the 107/108 level) or the demonstration of proficiency via Advanced Placement, SAT Subject or departmental placement tests, many students go beyond the minimum requirement by pursuing additional languages at Princeton. These ambitious students, however, face significant disincentives to their budding polyglotism: students cannot take most beginner’s language courses on a pass/D/fail basis, and the University does not give credit for taking a 101-level language class without the subsequent 102-level course. These two barriers counter the intellectual spirit of Princeton. All students should be able to receive credit for 101-level language classes, and, as the Board has previously advocated, students who have already completed their language requirement should be able to take introductory level language courses on a P/D/F basis.
(10/16/14 6:45pm)
No liberal arts education is complete without a solid grounding in the Western intellectual tradition. In the past, students were assured a rigorous foundation in the humanities via a core curriculum; today, with the core curriculum replaced by malleable distribution requirements, students who yearn to drink deeply from the Pierian Spring must cobble together their own curriculum. Fortunately for such Princetonians, each year the University offers HUM 216-217 and HUM 218-219: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Western Culture from Antiquity to the Middle Ages, commonly known as the Humanities Sequence. Unfortunately, this renowned course comes with an application and an enrollment cap. We humbly propose the application and enrollment procedure be reformed in hopes of expanding the program.
(10/12/14 6:35pm)
Last Monday, University faculty members voted to revoke the policy of grade deflation implemented in 2004 and to move towards a grading system based not on numerical targets, but on standards determined by each individual department. As administrators and individual departments work to develop new guidelines for monitoring the general distribution of grades, the University community has an opportunity to reflect upon the priorities of its grading practices and to address the culture that surrounds grades on campus. In speaking to Monday’s faculty meeting, Dean of the College Valerie Smith recognized that “meaningful [grading] standards should be course- and discipline-specific.” In order for grades to be meaningful in the way that Dean Smith envisions, students should be able to privately view the breakdown of grades in courses they have completed and, additionally, the University should publish the general distribution of grades by course level (e.g., 200-level, 300-level) in each department.
(10/09/14 6:13pm)
The School of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Princeton, as this year’s Undergraduate Announcement states, aims to teach “fundamental engineering principles” and their “applications to modern problems.” While the Engineering School has served B.S.E. students well, the Editorial Board believes that two major changes should be made to improve engineering offerings in fulfillment of these goals. Specifically, the board believes that electrical engineering and computer science departments should be combined into one department — EECS — and materials science and engineering should be made into a full engineering major.
(10/05/14 7:19pm)
Over the past two years the Wilson School has seen large changes to its programs. As the school has moved away from its status as Princeton’s only selective major, students have seen requirements added, task forces changed and the end of the certificate program. Many of these changes were initially necessary to accommodate the shift away from selectivity. However, the Editorial Board believes that some are no longer needed. In particular, the Board believes the Wilson School should work to create a new certificate program that would allow students to obtain a certificate in a specific policy area and participate in a task force in that policy area.
(10/02/14 6:10pm)
The Office of the Registrar’s add/drop deadline marks the time when students begin to reflect on their course load, thinking about what courses they should take in the future, and what they would have done differently if they could return to the first few weeks of September and re-enroll in classes. The University works to satisfy students by offering a rich selection of courses, academic advising and a two-week shopping period. The Editorial Board acknowledges the University's efforts to make course selection easy, but believes there is a major area in which the University can improve: the availability of courses with a regional focus addressing current events. The Board believes that the University should do more to encourage faculty with regional expertise to design courses that, while still exploring historical factors, analyze current events.
(09/28/14 6:00pm)
Two weeks ago the University’s Office of Career Services organized the first-ever HireTigers Meetup, a development of the previous career fair recruitment model. This meetup, in addition to a series of Career and Life Vision Workshops, is part of Career Services’ ongoing effort to reevaluate their performance and improve the quality and relevance of their services. The Editorial Board lauds the initiative to develop new ways of providing students with effective professional assistance and encourages the program directors to remain responsive to students’ concerns as they shape the Office’s direction. In the spirit of this collaborative evaluation, the Board would like to bring several issues to attention as well as a possible means of redress. Among the concerns are the sizeable demand for services, especially for practice interviews, and the fact that students’ many industry interests require specialized experience. To improve the current strength of Career Services’ performance regarding these issues, the Board suggests instituting a program of peer fellows, similar to that already in place at the Writing Center.
(09/25/14 6:32pm)
Over the past few weeks, a petition has circulated asking that the University reinstate course offerings in Sanskrit. The petition identifies a present dearth in alternative language programming, noting the far broader range of options available at our peer institutions, and demanding that Princeton expand its own course offerings.
(09/21/14 5:33pm)
Though the start of the semester marks most students’ first time on campus since May, many students remained in Princeton over the summer, conducting research or working at other on-campus jobs. The vast majority of students remaining in Princeton in the summer stay in dormitories, as other housing is expensive and in short supply. Though the availability of this option makes remaining in Princeton easier, the Editorial Board believes that the summer housing system could better accommodate students staying on campus over the summer, especially considering that summer housing students are working at the University or participating in University-related programs. In particular, the Board recommends that students be given greater access to air-conditioned rooms, as well as the option to remain on campus through the start of the school year.
(09/18/14 5:45pm)
Over the past semester, the unsigned editorials featured on this page have discussed issues such as increased transparency in forced mental health withdrawals, defining a University marijuana policy and investigating gender pay discrepancy at Princeton. The Daily Princetonian Editorial Board, a group of 15 undergraduates, was collectively responsible for writing these pieces. The members of the Board are not the editors of the various sections of the ‘Prince.’ Instead, they constitute an independent group of undergraduate students who are charged with determining the position of the newspaper as a whole. Today, instead of taking a stance on an issue, we would like to explain the editorial process and invite interested freshmen, sophomores and juniors to apply to join the Board.
(09/14/14 6:30pm)
Last spring, The Daily Princetonian reported on the last USG Senate meeting of the year. While nominees for the Honor Committee and the Committee on Discipline (COD) were being approved, concerns were raised about some of the Honor Committee’s practices. Currently, according to "Rights, Rules, Responsibilities," “when a report of a suspected violation of the honor system is received, the Honor Committee immediately conducts an investigation.” Yet the exact procedure of the investigatory process is unclear, especially in regards to at what point in time after initial contact students are notified whether they are witnesses or suspects. Since the constitution of the Honor Committee emphasizes students’ rights to representation and a fair trial, the Editorial Board believes that the suspicion of a discrepancy in the Honor Committee's investigatory practices merits a transparent review. It is important to note that a similar line of inquiry exists for COD investigations, and the student body should also be aware of the level of promptness in which students are made aware of their positions in COD investigations.The Honor Committee and COD procedures consist of an initial report and investigation, a hearing and, ultimately, a verdict. Upon receiving a report, investigators reach out to witnesses and, sometimes, suspects. Under current practices, students contacted by the committees are not notified in advance of meeting whether they are suspects or witnesses. The issue then arises as to when in the investigatory process students are informed of their position in the case. The Board believes that if students who are suspects are informed of the charges against them after some initial questioning, this harms other students’ rights to a fair investigation and trial and damages the trust that the system is supposedly built on.For cases proceeding to trial, the Honor Committee affords 24 hours of advance notice and representation to students and the COD, when informing the student of the date of their committee hearing, includes the charges against them. This same protocol should be extended to students called in for an investigation. No student should walk into questioning unaware of whether or not they are being suspected of a violation. If students are unaware of the situation or misled to believe they are not being suspected, this could lead to self-incriminating and uninformed statements. Further, testimony elicited during the initial meeting can be used as one of the two pieces of corroborating evidence necessary to proceed with a hearing. Thus, it is quite possible that self-incriminatory comments could prompt a hearing that wouldn't have otherwise occurred at all, which seems to be lacking in good faith.The point of the investigation should not be to "trick" students into making statements but rather to conduct a thorough and fair investigation of students who are fully aware of their rights and the charges against them. It can be argued that alleged current practices allow for more accurate fact-finding. After all, if suspects are not aware that they are suspects, perhaps they will be more open with the information that they share. However, as systems based upon trust and integrity, the Honor Committee and COD should not prematurely assume that students who are aware of their status will choose to lie or withhold information. Instead, the committees should protect students from making uninformed and potentially self-incriminating statements.The Board believes that a review of the Honor Committee’s and COD’s investigatory practices will be a step towards improving trust, fairness and transparency in the University disciplinary system.Mitchell Johnston ’15 and Kevin Wong ’17 are recused from the writing of this editorial.
(09/11/14 7:10pm)
Before the academic year began, the University administration made important progress in strengthening the University’s stance against sexual assault on campus. Chief among these is the recent recommendation by the internal Faculty Advisory Committee on Policy that the University lower its standard for the burden of proof in cases of sexual assault from the policy of “clear and persuasive” to that of a “preponderance” of guilt. Additionally, the University announced that students would no longer serve on committees handling sexual assault cases.Having repeatedly advocated for reforming the University’s sexual assault disciplinary policies, the Editorial Board strongly supports the Committee’s recommendation.However, it is important to restate that there is more to be done to protect Princeton students from sexual assault. While these new policies represent an important step in the right direction in terms of appropriately and adequately punishing perpetrators of sexual assault, we believe that the University must not stop at punishment, but further turn its focus to increasing prevention and reporting of sexual assault.Over the past two years, the Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources & Education program has done much to promote bystander intervention following a general trend in sexual assault activism that champions primary prevention as a central way to address sexual violence. New programming has included the introduction of online sexual assault training for freshmen. SHARE also offers eating club officers sexual assault training; optional training was offered to upperclassmen this past year.While these efforts are commendable, they are small. We suggest that Princeton emulate large-scale sexual assault bystander intervention programs that have proven successful at peer institutions. A bystander intervention program piloted in Haverford College and since adopted by Dartmouth trains students to identify situations of potential sexual assault and teaches proper techniques to prevent such occurrences. Participating students are paid hourly to attend campus parties sober in order to observe and intervene in cases of potential sexual assault.The Editorial Board recommends that Princeton adapt such a program to the eating club system. While all eating clubs currently have at least one officer on call at each eating club function, we believe that the eating clubs, in coordination with the University, should institute a specific and separate bystander intervention program similar to the programs at Haverford and Dartmouth.Under such a program, each eating club would be responsible for having several members serving as an extra level of safety and security each Thursday, Friday and Saturday night. The participants in this program would undergo mandatory training in sexual assault prevention, and would be compensated for their work. This program would fill an important void. Club officers are often overburdened and cannot solely focus on sexual assault prevention.While SHARE peers and others who have attended SHARE trainings are equipped to intervene, they may not be present in every situation or solely focused on finding instances of potential sexual assault. Those being paid by the University would be both trained and remain sober and solely focused on intervention.Even if Nassau Hall acts on the recommended reforms, the University will be the last Ivy League school to move to lowering the burden of proof standard from “clear and persuasive” to “preponderance.” The University has once again been found playing catch-up to its peers.Instituting a large-scale University sponsored sexual assault bystander intervention program would represent the University taking the lead in the national battle to eliminate sexual assault from college campuses. More importantly, such a program would make clear that the University is taking a strong stance against sexual assault. This would hopefully serve to encourage students to report sexual assaults at higher rates and make Princeton a safer and stronger community.Dissent by Zach Horton ’15Bystander intervention policies are commendable, and I endorse such preventative efforts. Lowering the burden of proof in disciplinary procedures, however, is rash and potentially unjust.The abundant frustration on this matter is understandable, but the “preponderance” evidentiary standard does not ensure a just outcome when the primary evidence is accuser testimony. In our detrimentally libertine culture, everything depends on that singular — and elusive — criterion of consent. It’s no secret that consent is notoriously difficult to discern from conflicting accuser/accused testimony. The preponderance standard does not make that any easier; it only advantages an accuser over the accused. In a case like the infamous 2006 Duke lacrosse case, the preponderance standard could likely result in false incrimination.Beside that potential for gross injustice, it is perplexing that under this novel standard, the accused could be guilty of a crime for purposes of University discipline but innocent in the eyes of legal authority. If the accused is in fact a sexual offender, he — or she — should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.I strongly urge the faculty to vote to maintain the current “clear and persuasive” standard and to press for more preventative and remedial action in confronting the severe problem of sexual assault.Mitchell Johnson ’15 is recused. Jeffrey Leibenhaut ’16 and Brandon Holt ’15 abstain.