Quality of Princeton students has increased
Regarding 'Taking flak, Nassau Hall backs grading policy' (Monday, Oct. 9, 2006):
In response to a USG report on grade deflation, Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel remarked, "I appreciate the temptation to argue ... that undergraduates today come to college better prepared academically than any previous generations of Princetonians ... I do not believe, however, that the facts support such reasoning."
On the topic of academic ratings, Dean Malkiel said, "The difference between a 1 and a 2, or a 2 and a 3, is actually very small."
If the differences are truly so small, why are they accorded such weight in the admission process? We also question the assertion that the Admission Office has allowed the quality of an academic 1 to slip over time. A key component of an applicant's academic rating is her SAT score. SAT scores, however, are continuously re-calibrated over time, and thus the mean score remains stable. An increase in the mean score of Princeton students would show that the quality of those students has truly increased.
Even ignoring specific numbers, Princeton has witnessed a remarkable growth in the talent we are able draw upon. Princeton has increased international outreach, improved minority recruitment and instituted coeducation. At the same time, Princeton's exceptional financial aid policy allows all talented students to attend, regardless of financial background. Princeton thus selects (and admits!) from a greater talent pool now than at any point in our history. The breaking down of these artificial barriers has unambiguously improved the quality of our student body, and unless, over the same period, the quality of teaching has somehow decreased, it stands to reason that these brighter students should outperform their historical peers.
Rob Biederman '08 USG Vice President
Jim Williamson '07 Class of 2007 President
Nassau Hall stands firm in its position
I appreciate the temptation to argue, as Alex Lenahan '07 has done, that undergraduates today come to college better prepared academically than any previous generations of Princetonians — and, therefore, deserve to be graded accordingly. I do not believe, however, that the facts support such reasoning.
The Faculty Committee on Examinations and Standing began compiling and analyzing historical grading data in the mid-1990s. One of the first challenges was to try to understand the reasons for the general increase over time in the average grade awarded (grade inflation) and the significant narrowing of the range within which grades are assigned (grade compression). In its first report to the faculty on grading patterns at Princeton (February 1998), the Committee wrote, "We looked carefully at the objective indices (mean SAT scores, percentage of Academic 1's and 2's in entering classes) that might lend credence to the view that Princeton undergraduates are somewhat abler, or better prepared, than they used to be, but we found no compelling evidence to justify the extent of the grade inflation and grade compression demonstrated in our data." SAT scores — probably the most objective index one can find to show change over time — do not support the view that current undergraduates are more qualified than any previous generations of Princetonians.
Academic ratings are more complicated to understand. Those ratings are made up of three components: high school grades, rank in class and SAT scores. As for high school grades, grade inflation is as much a high school phenomenon as it is a college phenomenon. And rank in class is increasingly problematic as a useful measure. In many high schools, there are many students who stand first in the class, for example, and many high schools now decline to provide class rank at all.
Academic ratings need to be understood as an admissions tool — a rough way of categorizing students in a very large applicant pool. The difference between a 1 and a 2, or a 2 and a 3, is actually very small.
The final points I would make are ones that I have made frequently made in discussions with previous generations of USG leaders. First, even the best qualified students don't do their best work on every assignment in every course. The point of the new grading policy is that those student shouldn't be getting the same grades for their ordinary work as they get for their best work. And second, suppose we concede the argument, suppose today's undergraduates really are more accomplished academically when they matriculate at Princeton. If that's the case, then we have a responsibility to hold them to higher standards — that is, to expect more of them and stretch them further academically than we have stretched previous generations.
I do still stand behind the grading policy adopted by the faculty in April 2004. Nancy Malkiel Dean of the College
Students' grades and egos are inflated
Regarding 'Lenahan questions basis for grade deflation' (Friday, Oct. 6, 2006):
USG president Alex Lenahan '07 cites the rising numbers of academic 1's and 2's in admission yields to argue that there never was any grade inflation. No, he says, Princetonians are simply smarter now. The flaw in this argument is almost too obvious. Academic 1's and 2's are determined largely by high school grades. That there are more now is likely not because today's students are better but because high school grades are just as inflated as ours. Lenahan offers no evidence to suggest otherwise.
But what is really troubling about Lenahan's position — and the general tenor of the student debate on grade deflation — is the sense of entitlement that pervades it. We think that our high school 4.0's should guarantee us A's forever. We're outraged that some professors would threaten our careers (read: delay our first millions) for the sake of intellectual rigor. This strange notion — that grades exist solely to adorn resumes — ignores the importance of teaching and learning and denies the reality that much of the academic work done here is far from exemplary. We may well be better students than our predecessors, as Lenahan suggests. I doubt it. But we are certainly more cynical, arrogant and self-absorbed.
Sam Fallon '08
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.