Editorial: Should the Wilson School certificate program be selective?

Two weeks ago, nearly 200 sophomores applied for 90 available spots in the Wilson School, including a small, dedicated number of students applying for the Wilson School certificate program. Selectivity in academic programs should be avoided whenever possible. Students who are qualified for admission to Princeton should not be denied access to one of the University’s departments unless the University has insufficient resources to meet student demand. Demand for Wilson School certificates does not appear to have surpassed this threshold. Accordingly, the Wilson School should make the application process for the certificate non-competitive.

The strength of the Wilson School lies in its interdisciplinary nature. In recent years, the school has brought in academics far removed from its core disciplines — including geoscientists, molecular biologists and environmental engineers — to increase the scope of policy addressed by its faculty. Similarly, certificate candidates must apply from a policy-relevant concentration that is not among the school’s five discipline areas. Opening up the school to more students from these backgrounds will allow the school to continue pursuing its interdisciplinary policy approach.

It could be argued that making the application process non-competitive would result in a flood of students enrolling in the program, putting a strain on the limited resources of the Wilson School. But unlike most other certificates, the Wilson School necessitates serious planning and commitment by candidates. Whereas other certificates require five courses, the Wilson School requires 11 courses, including two policy task forces in which participants write a Junior Paper (in addition to the junior independent work of their home departments). Because of these demanding requirements, the applicant pool is likely to be highly self-selective. It is doubtful that making the program non-competitive would result in an onslaught of applicants. Moreover, current task forces are not filled to capacity, so it seems unlikely that a mild increase in the number of students enrolled in the certificate program would present a significant burden.

Even so, there is concern that making the application process non-competitive would entice students outside of the current self-selective applicant pool to apply, perhaps in an effort to benefit from the prestige of the Wilson School. These students could conceivably enroll in the program their sophomore spring and then drop in the fall — after the school had already sunk resources into their academic experience. By forcing prospective certificate students to meet with the Wilson School’s undergraduate program manager in the spring of their sophomore year to ensure that they are aware of the rigorous and demanding nature of the program, this concern could be mitigated.

Prospective students should still be required to submit an application and study proposal — to ensure that they are serious about their policy interest — but should only be denied entrance when that application presents a genuinely inadequate level of understanding of the program, similar to the process used by the Program in American Studies. This application would be submitted at the same time as concentration applications, thus preventing students who are rejected from the concentration from enrolling in the certificate program as a backup. Unlike the status quo, applications should be considered separately from those of concentrators and should not count toward the current cap of 90 undergraduates — a cap which should be reduced to reflect this change in accounting. To prevent students from using the certificate as a back door into the concentration, students should no longer be able to switch from certificate students to concentrators.

In the future, the Wilson School should continue to reexamine the selective application process for the undergraduate concentration. Incremental steps, such as making the certificate program non-competitive, will be an important test of the school’s capacity as it considers this possibility. With many of the world’s most serious problems requiring expertise not only in technical matters but also in formulating comprehensive, pragmatic solutions, an educational opportunity that combines in-depth experience in a science or engineering field with significant policy training is one that benefits students, the University and the global community — and one that should be open to more interested students.

See also the dissent to this editorial and this note on how the Editorial Board reached some of its conclusions.