We all know how difficult it is to get into Princeton. Of the 13,695 prospective members of the Class of 2008 who applied to Princeton last year, only about 12 percent were offered admission. "The hardest part is getting in," right? As it happens, this part is not nearly as hard for some applicants as it is for others. Among 2008 hopefuls, sons and daughters of alumni were admitted at a rate of 39 percent. Many of you may already be aware of this troubling statistic. And it is troubling, isn't it? This is 2005, not 1955, right?
Fifty years ago, legacies were admitted at a significantly higher rate than they are today. One could have argued with relative ease that perhaps many of them were not qualified to attend Princeton, but you will not find a similar claim about the 2005 Princeton legacy in this column. Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye told me recently that admitting legacies at a rate three times that of non-legacy applicants constitutes "no sacrifice to the applicant pool" in terms of the quality of the incoming class. I do not dispute this claim.
It is not hard to believe that the legacy applicant pool is very strong. As Rapelye pointed out in our conversation, the majority of these applicants come from families that place a high value on education, where children are enrolled in good schools and opportunities abound. Given these clear advantages from the outset, how can the University justify rewarding this elite group with an even greater edge in the admissions process? The exclusion of qualified legacies in the absence of a legacy preference should not worry the administration, as Rapelye insists that "many of the [legacies] would still be admitted" based on their qualifications. What, then, precludes us from ending the legacy preference in admissions?
This action will give equally qualified non-legacies a better shot at getting in. I'm convinced a fair share of the admitted 39 percent of the legacy pool would certainly meet their match among students in the regular pool, especially when Rapelye insists that "about half of our applicant pool could come to Princeton and be very good students," and Dean of the College Nancy Weiss Malkiel is quoted as saying, "You would be shocked by the quality of the candidates we are turning away." And yet, as President Tilghman told Princeton Alumni Weekly in July 2002, if an admission decision came down to two "indistinguishable" candidates, "Dean Fred [would] give the legacy an advantage." This policy excludes what the admissions office recognizes as otherwise acceptable candidates based solely on their lack of Princetonian lineage. How can we continue to support a policy that makes an unnecessary distinction between like candidates?
Overt claims in defense of the legacy preference are grounded in maintaining a tradition of alumni loyalty and community, but there is a far more practical reason why the policy continues to be upheld: Money. As Rapelye notes, "For private colleges and universities in general, and for Princeton in particular, annual giving from alumni provides support for the annual operating budget." The legacy preference yields greater alumni giving for the University's nest egg, or so say its various supporters. The policy suggests that we require a certain number of rich kids to keep the University running with all of its student benefits, including financial aid, a positive result of generous alumni giving that legacy defenders have been apt to cite. That these rich kids now happen to be extremely qualified simply makes the policy that much harder to oppose.
I put it to you, distinguished alumni of this great institution. I know that some of you feel that the University should increase its admittance of legacies, but acceptance into Princeton is not and should never be a birthright. Will you withhold your donations to the University if there is a lesser guarantee that your sons and daughters will be admitted? Will you cut off all ties with Nassau Hall when your third son applies here and doesn't get in? I most certainly will not. In fact, I will be more inclined to give to the University if there is no legacy preference at all. I beg you reader, do not be complicit in this affront to meritocracy. Freddie LaFemina is a history major from North Massapequa, N.Y. He can be reached at lafemina@princeton.edu.
Read More
It’s time to step it up on diversity and inclusion
Christofer RoblesOver the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Over the last five years, Princeton never achieved parity in diversity and inclusion for Black students. Now, the University faces a conservative culture and federal government hostile to anti-racism. Now, more than ever, Princeton cannot abandon its students.
Class of 2029: Reject selective views of free speech
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
"Let us make an appeal to the entire Class of 2029: You can care about viewpoint diversity and free expression even if you don’t read the Tory. As liberals and progressives, you can understand that free speech is an issue that affects everyone."
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.