Use the fields below to perform an advanced search of The Princetonian's archives. This will return articles, images, and multimedia relevant to your query. You can also try a Basic search
6 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
On the 12th of September, Princeton opened for the academic year. A huge barrage of loaded Dinky trains, excited hugs, orange carts and the sudden reminder of the doors that are magically open to you with the card with Princeton written on it soon followed. No, I am not talking about your future business card, but our beloved Prox, which grants us access to our food, clothing and shelter on campus.For most returning students, this card was magically activated on Sept. 12. If you wished to move in early, however, you could either be a part of a program pre-approved for Early Arrival (like Peer Academic Advisers, Outdoor Action, Residential College Advisers, etc.) or apply to Housing Services individually for Early Arrival. It is necessary for Housing Services to provide access to those in the first group, and it is great that they offer the possibility to other students who might need housing for any reason. However, Housing rejects most applications for Early Arrival, and this presents problems for many students.On one hand, it makes sense. It takes time to get the rooms ready for the next group of students, and nobody wants to move into a room that still has the remnants of the last occupants. Housing Services states on their website, for Early Arrival in Fall 2015, that “Students returning before Sept. 1 will be housed together in assigned dorms rather than spread throughout campus in academic-year rooms" as “this will enable longer access to dorms for renovation and cleaning, and concentrate early returns in an area that enhances safety and security at a time when the University is still on a summer schedule.”However this is no longer the policy for students returning after the 1st; and if the above were the only reason, it would make sense to allow roommates of those given Early Arrival to also be given Early Arrival, as the room is ready for them as well. However, this is never treated as valid grounds for granting Early Arrival.Further, in some cases, such as for Freshman Scholars Institute staff, Housing allows the students to leave their stuff in their rooms, but the students themselves cannot move in. This leaves almost two weeks where the students don’t have access to their rooms and are forced to go back home or stay with family or friends close by. Unfortunately, this option is quite complicated for international students, or students living far away, who can’t go home for just two weeks. The rooms would have to be ready for the students to leave their stuff, and as it would be very difficult for Housing to get it ready after the student occupies the room with his stuff. This is also the situation with students who come for International Orientation, but decide not to go for OA or CA trips, who are initially given access to their rooms to move stuff in, but then have that privilege revoked.It would seem that Housing has many other reasons for not granting Early Arrival to many students. However, it is never mentioned in their webpages. If the reasons become clear, then students could work with housing to see if they could qualify for Early Arrival. For many students, Early Arrival can be crucial, such as for international students who often have to arrive a few days earlier due to their flights. Or students who only have a week between what they did for summer and the move-in date, during which they cannot go home. Or students who have been working near campus and living off-campus, whose lease runs out at the start of the month.It is completely understandable that Housing may need Early Arrival to be available only for certain students; however, Housing should be transparent regarding the reasons why it turns down the majority of the students, so that students can work with them to make it possible, rather than be forced to find accommodation off-campus, which can be ridiculously expensive and extremely inconvenient.Avaneesh Narla isa physics major from Calcutta, India. He can be reached at avaneesh.narla@princeton.edu.
“Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.” — Oscar Wilde
Two weeks ago, upperclassmen participated in the draw for housing in Spelman. Spelman apartments —which each have four singles, a common room, a bathroom and a kitchen —are one of the most popular housing options for upperclassmen who have decided to go Independent, as it gives them much-needed access to a place to privately prepare food.
On Sunday, the Editorial Board wrote an editorial encouraging the University to adopt measures relating to the current pass/D/fail policy. While I don’t believe that the measures promoted by the Board are necessarily the best solution to the issue, I believe that the University’s P/D/F policy for undergraduates needs to change in order for the University to truly promote its ideals as a center of liberal arts education and an institution of scholarly exploration.
The recent discussion regarding Bicker has attracted much interest and discussion, but as much as I am glad that the dialogue is active, I’d like to present another question to the debate: Why do we still have Bicker? Or for that matter, eating clubs. Is it because Princeton students really do want it, or is it because it has always been so?Very recently, sophomores decided on their dining choices as upperclassmen in what will probably be one of the most critical decisions of their time at Princeton. And while there are many possible options (co-ops, residential colleges or going independent) for sophomores, it is always assumed that a student will most probably join an eating club. Any other option is an “alternative,” just as the vast majority of the job market is an “alternative choice” to “traditional” tech, finance or consulting careers for Princeton students. Joining an eating club is the default option, and you would need a good reason not to join one.Over the last two months, I have approached a lot of my friends with this question: “Why did you decide to join an eating club?” While most initial responses were based on preserving their groups of friends, I didn’t really understand how social circles were going to be preserved if they were going to be distributed without certainty in mostly selective (and arbitrary) eating clubs. After a few more rounds of prodding, most of my friends confessed that their decisions to join eating clubs were because it is an integral part of “the Princeton experience.” After all, the eating clubs are distinctive of Princeton and they are the most prominent of the social settings on campus, present since 1855. Alumni are recognized by their eating club affiliations as much as, if not more than, their concentrations.Thus, as a bid to be part of it, we perpetuate this Princeton tradition: a tradition of exclusive institutionalized social spaces that many students are critical of, but most of whom join anyway, out of resignation, because it is “the Princeton thing to do.”Parallels may be drawn to other historical institutions that were perpetuated merely because of the conformity of community members. The spectrum of these historical institutions includes extremes such as racially segregated restaurants, and speak of the need of community members to be self-critical.Even before being critical of eating clubs, I am critical of this attitude of conformity that joining an eating club is an integral part of “the Princeton experience.” Nearly a third of our current upperclassmen has decided not to join one, and I do not feel that we can invalidate their experiences in any way. And at the end of the day, “the Princeton experience” is what we make of it, not a blind subscription to historical precedents. After all, before 1969, the Princeton experience exclusively meant being male.If we take a step further back, I feel it is imperative to question the phenomenon of eating clubs. Should social spaces be closed? Should my ability to interact with someone be institutionalized? And if so, should the University sanction and support such institutions? (Though located outside the University, Princeton extends a lot of resources to the eating clubs such as technological support and institutional collaboration.)Most retort against the selectivity and exclusivity of eating clubs by saying that Princeton itself is selective. But Princeton is an academic institution with limited academic and physical resources. Princeton admitted 50 students more than expected in 2012 and had to make many adjustments in order to accommodate everyone. But the primary resource that eating clubs offer are social spaces (the significance of physical spaces and other resources offered by eating clubs can be questioned) and the numbers they admit are often arbitrary; so is the selectivity justified? The effect of size on social dynamics of communities and its relevance must be questioned.Through campaigns such as Hose Bicker, it is important for the Princeton community to reflect on the role and impact of eating clubs in Princeton.But I feel it is even more significant for each individual to evaluate what they truly want from the Princeton experience, including their choice of dining for the next year. Thus, I ask Princeton sophomores to think carefully before deciding to spend around $10,000 to join an exclusive institutionalized social space. Or before deciding to cook or buy meals regularly. But I hope that we make our Princeton experience what we want it to be, not what we were told it should be.Avaneesh Narla is a sophomore from Kolkata, India. He can be reached at avaneesh.narla@princeton.edu.