Regarding “Wilson School reforms spur mostly positive reactions.” (Monday, April 25, 2011):
I was disappointed that the ‘Prince’s’ reporting on the Wilson School’s decision to end selective admission did not include the views of any students who disagree. Yet perhaps it is not surprising that few want to defend a position that many regard as elitist.
The Wilson School has also not yet divulged how many agreed with the new policy in the alumni survey. That is surprising because, after all, we were taught in WWS 300: Democracy that transparency is a tenet of good governance.
We also learned in WWS 333: Claims and Evidence in Policy Research that policy decisions should be driven by good social science. This change was not supported by evidence. There are only anecdotal assertions that many Wilson School majors have no special interest in studying policy. There is also no substantiation — quantitative or qualitative — for the claim that more graduates will be steered towards public policy. There is no proof that professors who do not engage with undergraduates today will become more enthusiastic about working with students who have neither been highly recommended by other faculty nor screened for high academic promise. Finally, despite teaching us the importance of good planning in task forces, the school has not demonstrated robust preparations other than the ever-nebulous “allotting more resources” in case the size of the class swells. In the end, the Wilson School will probably be good enough for government work. But is that all?
I fully admit the leading argument advanced by the decision-makers is true: Everyone gets a chance to major in the school. Unfortunately, that argument begs the question. Not everyone gets a chance to get a Princeton education. Not everyone gets to work with Paul Krugman on their senior thesis. Why must the Wilson School, then, eliminate a meritocratic test at the risk of eroding the quality of education for the entire program (which was not perfect to begin with)?
Public service is a tough sell. That said, I would expect that many of my classmates, myself included, will one day turn to public service once the right time comes. But one of the biggest selling points is going into public service with the honor and trust conferred by a Wilson School degree. I fully admit that is an elitist belief, but so is the slogan “Princeton in the nation’s service.”
Angela Cai ’09
Wilson School Alumna
Read More
Why do two-thirds of your summer research wages go to Princeton, anyway?
Isaac BarsoumThe income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?
The income that students earn from employment is not “miscellaneous.” So Princeton must decide: Does it want its students — all of them, not only those who can afford it — to be able to work on the important research happening at Princeton, or be forced to go home?
Seniors deserve better than Jay Shetty
Izabela Konopka and Joshua YangWe are writing to express our strong disapproval of the selection of Jay Shetty as the 2025 Class Day speaker. We deserve better than a self-help guru and repeated plagiarist who runs a “school” that an expert claims exhibits “similar patterns” to a multi-level marketing scheme.
We are writing to express our strong disapproval of the selection of Jay Shetty as the 2025 Class Day speaker. We deserve better than a self-help guru and repeated plagiarist who runs a “school” that an expert claims exhibits “similar patterns” to a multi-level marketing scheme.
The CPUC must not gut its Judicial Committee
Bill HewittEnding the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.
Ending the Judicial Committee’s jurisdiction over initial complaints would embolden abuses of power, allowing the administration to evade accountability for University rule violations without the pressure of student and faculty authority.