The importance of being international

As the University's efforts to internationalize Princeton gain momentum, international students have in recent years made up an increasingly high percentage of each entering class, comprising an all-time high of 10.6 percent for the Class of 2011. Some alumni have objected to this trend, including Marta Richards '73, president of the Baton Rouge Alumni Association, who has said that admissions "should be directed towards our country first."

Despite these objections, drawing on the international student applicant pool to enhance academic, social and cultural life at Princeton is a worthy endeavor. Concerns to the contrary are misplaced; the acceptance rate of international students is already significantly lower than that of American students. Moreover, in an era of globalization, it is as much in the service of the nation as in the service of other nations that the future leaders of the world be exposed to and challenged by the views of qualified peers from around the world.

Having said that, the increase in the international student population at Princeton may not be truly diverse if the majority of "internationals" accepted are Americans living temporarily abroad in expatriate communities, or students from international schools and privileged backgrounds. The Admission Office has rightly made a special effort to reach out to historically underrepresented populations in the United States; it should make an equal effort abroad. Doing so helps ensure that the international student population brings an authentic diversity of cultural and national perspectives to the University.

In order to achieve this, along with Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye's commendable efforts to recruit international students through overseas trips, the University should further its reach by increasing cooperation with alumni clubs overseas. Foreign alumni, especially graduate students who attended public high schools and universities in their home countries before attending Princeton, could be instrumental in seeking out qualified students educated in local settings who may not have considered applying to Princeton because of the lack of precedent in their high schools.

In addition, the Admission Office should be more transparent in its discussion about international students. What percentage of internationals is from United World Colleges, from international schools mainly for American expatriates and from local public schools? How many of the students are foreign citizens actually raised in their country of residence, and how many are Americans who have lived abroad for several years? A release of these figures would allow for a more informed discussion of the actual benefits and implications of the increase in international students.

If Princeton is to take pride in its population of outstanding students from around the world, it would do well to ensure that this body is indeed broad enough to fulfill the role for which it is intended.