Admission rate sparks heated debate online

announcement last Wednesday of a 9.79 percent undergraduate acceptance rate sparked a firestorm of heated online comments

As of press time, the article had been viewed 9,800 times, and the comments section, containing 268 posts, had received 4,300 page views.

On the comments section, students and alumni expressed concern at how the University’s acceptance rate for the Class of 2013 was higher than it has been in the past two years, saying the rising acceptance rate and slowing applicant pool growth reveal how Princeton’s administrative policies deter prospective students.

“The higher admit rate this year is not by itself what is bothering us; rather, [it is] the awful decisions and direction that the current administration has been making and moving towards, of which the admit rate is a tangible example,” a poster who identified himself as “ ’12” said.

This commenter called Princeton’s administrative policies the actions of a “trio of Professor Umbridges,” referring to the character from the Harry Potter series who ruled over the wizarding school Hogwarts with a series of unpopular decrees. The grade deflation policy, the expansion of the four-year residential colleges, disregard for student input and attempts to curtail social activities on campus constitute a “relentless quest to completely alter the character of our school,” the commenter said.

President Tilghman, Dean of the College Nancy Malkiel and Dean of Admission Janet Rapelye are “recklessly transforming Princeton into what they think it should be, no matter how many alumni they piss off, no matter how many generations of students they have to ignore, and certainly no matter how many of the over 250 years of the history they have to demolish to succeed,” according to ’12.

Many commenters on the site said that to revitalize what they considered a stagnating applicant pool, the University should reverse recent changes instituted by Tilghman, Malkiel and Rapelye.

“E-mail Malkiel every day, don’t just wait for her to show up at a USG meeting … Call Rapelye. Line up around the block for President Tilghman’s office hours,” commenter “Call for Action” said. “Don’t let our reputation slide any more than it already has.”

Other commenters like “090909” called for internal action, saying that regardless of the effects of the grade deflation policy on students’ career prospects, Tilghman and Malkiel should “hold up their end of the bargain in convincing other colleges to follow suit.”

Some posters even called for Rapelye to be replaced by her predecessor, Fred Hargadon, to change current admission policies. Self-identified alumni commenting on the site opposed this step, though, saying Hargadon favored the “Princeton Type,” used Early Decision to inflate the yield rate and avoided admitting intellectual students.

“I applaud Princeton’s leadership for the steps it has taken to make the school a true meritocracy, more demographically reflective of the nation, and struggling to free us from a lingering reputation as a bastion of privilege,” poster “Alum ’98” said, noting that the admission rate for the Class of 2013 is lower than it was at any point during Hargadon’s tenure.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

As commenters debated the reasons for the rising admission rate, students such as David Ponton ’09 disputed the ways fellow students, Princeton alumni and outside commenters interpreted the statistics.

Ponton called the rise in the percentage of admitted students “insignificant,” noting, “I don’t think it says anything negative about the school.”

“I believe our admissions office has been a bit less aggressive than our peer institutions’ … That’s not necessarily a bad thing,” he explained in an interview, adding that it may make sense for Princeton to take a different approach from other schools since it is a relatively small institution.

Katie Cheng ’09 attributed the increased admission rate to natural fluctuation rather than a drop in the school’s popularity. Prospective students will likely look more closely at Princeton’s current strengths rather than the future effects of its administrative policies, she added.

“Not a whole lot of 18-year-olds will be thinking about what they’ll be doing four years from now,” she explained in an interview. “They’re looking more at what the campus is [currently] doing.” Immediately available benefits — like the University’s no-loan financial aid policy — are therefore likely to outweigh the unrealized implications of the thesis requirement or grade deflation policy for prospective freshmen, Cheng said.

Other students noted that this year’s higher admit rate is not necessarily attributable to applicants’ disapproval of administrative policies. Laura Bagamery ’12 said in an interview that she does not think grade deflation discourages high school students from applying to Princeton, while Tara Hueston ’09 attributed the higher acceptance rate to the University’s attempts to expand the freshman class to 1,300 students.

Still, one self-identified pre-frosh questioned the rationale for the deflation policy in an online comment.

“Can someone explain what the concept behind grade deflation is?” this commenter posted. “Princeton only admits bright students, so why does it need to curb good grades? I feel bad, but I think that the policy will probably result in me attending another school.”

The rising admission rate might be “just the consequence of the economic downturn,” Bagamery added, explaining that the rate might have been lower in more financially secure times when expensive tuition fees would not have proved as much of a hindrance to many families.

But, some online commenters said, applicants may be more influenced by students’ comments themselves than by situational or economic circumstances.

“Nuit Blanche 09,” another poster on the ‘Prince’ website, said the negative posts written by Princeton students give a false impression to viewers, who include self-identified Yale students as well as potential members of the Class of 2013. “Don’t you realize that your exaggerated grumbling is going to do more damage to matriculation rates (and our college ranking) than any policy ever could?” the commenter posted.

One poster from the Class of 2013 noted the effects of such public debates on prospective students.

“Hey, I completely agree with and appreciate your efforts to make us aware of the inadequacies of Princeton’s current administration,” “2013-er” said. “I’m just worried that people reading this are going to be discouraged rather than willing to fight.”

One poster, who self-identified as a member of Yale’s Class of 2011, noted that students at several other universities were also following the comments posted on the ‘Prince’ article.

“The ‘comments’ section of this article … is spreading like wildfire through the Ivy League,” this commenter said. “Everyone is laughing at you guys and hoping this was one giant April Fools’ joke.”

Correction

An earlier version of this article inaccurately spelled the name of Tara Hueston ’09.