Letters to the Editor

University should recognize Washington Monthly rankings

Regarding 'University rankings vary by criteria' (Thursday, Sept. 15):

Last week, The Daily Princetonian published an article of unusual weight — Princeton University ranked #44 on the Washington Monthly's list of schools that "give back to the community." While the article has been passed about in certain circles — notably at the first-ever Student Civic Leadership Conference held this year by chair Drew Frederick '07 — the significant debate, discussion and action it should be sparking is lacking. After all, the list is shocking: How often does Iowa State beat Princeton in national college rankings?

In the wake of the article's publication, many have accused the Monthly's criteria as limited. (You can read more about these limitations at the Washington Monthly's website.) But simply because its criteria are controversial is not enough for us to dismiss it. Disagreements abound in any ranking system. For example, U.S. News and World Report's rankings focus on a school's wealth, reputation and the achievement of the high-school students it admits — all inputs into the school. The true quality of an institution should be shown in what or whom — the outputs — it cultivates. Questioning the methodology behind the Washington Monthly's rankings that placed us near the bottom is fine — as long as we also remember to question the U.S. News' rankings that put us at the top.

The University recognized the U.S. News' rankings last month on its website; it should also recognize the Washington Monthly's. To fail to do so would be the easy way out, to advertise what we are "good at" and not recognize what we can get better at. Because in the end, it matters far less what set of rankings, U.S. News' or the Washington Monthly's, have more accurate or fair parameters.What matters the most is the debate and discussion the rankings should be generating. This is the way to drive the change that characterizes the best universities — the ones that never rest on their laurels and always examine ways in which they can improve.

Princeton should encourage discussion about how we can keep improving by examining even those rankings that don't put us at #1. Indeed, that is the best way to ensure we continue to be at the very top. Carol Wang '07

Success of protest reveals progressives' potential on campus

Regarding 'Frist filibuster protest honored' (Friday, Sept. 16):

Mother Jones' recognition of the Frist Campus Center filibuster as the "protest of the year" is proof that we've finally managed to rouse a previously dormant contingent of politically active and passionate people here. And surely the newly merged Princeton Progressive Nation will be an asset to the student body, providing us with an outlet for and a means of sharing ideas and ideals. I do want to point out, however, that while the former Princeton Progressive Review did provide much-needed logistical support for the Frist filibuster, the organizing was in fact done by a core group of students representing no particular institution or ideological affiliation. The success of the filibuster last spring had everything to do with that broad base of support.

The progressive community at Princeton is just waking up to its own strength, which comes from its somewhat incredible diversity. With a new forum and an active constituency, we're in for a very exciting year. Karen Wolfgang '06 Filibuster organizer