'Curse of the generalist' begins in admission office

The announcement this past week of a new undergraduate dean of admission has provided a moment to reexamine the debate that gained so much momentum this fall over the roots of a perceived anti-intellectualism on the Princeton campus. The problem, according to those who have voiced their opinions, is manifested in a lack of intellectual engagement in the classroom, in extracurricular activities, and even in casual discussion. Part of the solution, if the university wishes to pursue one, may have presented itself in the appointment of Janet Rapelye, the new dean of admission.

The perceived anti-intellectualism among undergraduates, in my opinion, is not the result of the nature of life here at Princeton, but rather the result of those selected to set foot on campus each fall. For we are a student body of generalists, comprised of well-rounded individuals who, when we arrive at Princeton, do well-rounded things. But what is sacrificed is a certain amount of passion and intellectual profundity. Call it the curse of the generalist.

Think, for a moment, about your classmates, and what you know about their high school experiences. How many played a varsity sport? How many participated in some kind of community service? How many wrote for a high school publication? How many held a leadership position? I know I have a hard time thinking of many who didn't do all of the above. It seems to have been the magic formula for the college process: academic success, plus athletic accomplishment, plus commitment to one's community, plus leadership, equals a competitive college applicant.

Certainly, such a high school existence builds character, exposes one to a wide range of experiences, and above all can be incredibly rewarding. But very few people upon entering Princeton seem eager to pursue a specific passion, in all probability because they have not had the time or made the commitment necessary to develop one. Such a description is reminiscent of David Brooks' infamous Atlantic Monthly article in which he branded students of this type, based on his interaction with Princeton undergrads, to be "organization kids." More hyperbole than reality, Brooks' description nevertheless had a ring of truth. We, as generalists, are driven to success in many realms, which often precludes us from being as intellectual as most might expect.

Many deem the generalist approach as perfectly acceptable on the undergraduate level where, one's goal ought to be to "drink from many waters." The Princeton curriculum does a wonderful job of facilitating this. Others are wary of over-specialization too early in one's life. They argue that a person's intellectual focus should be honed later in their academic career. But, for its world-class reputation as an institution of higher learning, Princeton sends, in comparison to its peer institutions, few alumni on to graduate school, and even fewer into academia. I am still surprised (and admittedly refreshed) any time I meet a student who says they want to get a Ph.D.

Thus, the appointment of Rapelye has great relevance to the ongoing discussion about anti-intellectualism. How do we want the face of Princeton to change in upcoming years, starting in 2006 with the implementation of the Wythes committee's recommendation to increase the size of the undergraduate student body by 500? Already Rapelye has stated publicly that one of her goals is to recruit more students in the performing and dramatic arts, something that President Tilghman and Dean Hargadon previously suggested the university would pursue. If the students and faculty feel that something is missing in Princeton's intellectual environment, perhaps new admissions policies should reflect this concern?

The U-Council can sponsor panel discussions, circulate letters, and listen to endless suggestions, all of which will yield some benefit. But, if it is determined that raising the level of intellectual discourse at Princeton is in fact a priority, I believe it begins in 110 West College, with the university's admissions policies. Otherwise, we should recognize that we are limited to some extent by what we are: a group of incredibly accomplished, well-rounded individuals. It seems to me that things could be a lot worse.