While I cannot offer a solution to solve gross inequalities and biases, I can offer a solution to solve inequalities of grading that result from gross inequalities and bias — blind grading. The administration, students, and professors should mandate, advocate, and adopt blind grading as a general “best practices” solution to help deal with bias in the classroom.
We, as undergraduates who voluntarily accepted Princeton’s offer of admission, would be bound by its obligations much as we are bound by many other obligations imposed on us once we agree to matriculate ― to write a thesis, to take so many classes a semester, to go on Outdoor Action, to stay out of disciplinary or academic trouble. We all accept admission on the understanding that there are obligations.
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.
