<p>For example, there is this use of it in the latest USNews "America's Best Colleges:" </p>
<p>A girl dissed by Yale - her "dream school" - mopes around for a week before accepting admission to Princeton, after maintaining originally that she "was not the Princeton type."</p>
<p>That could just as easily been her saying she's not the Yale type. Fred Hargadon was at Princeton for a while. Previously he was at Stanford. Do you think there is still a "Stanford type". Give great universities the credit they deserve to be a broad-based institution where the dominant culture is first and foremost achievement.</p>
<p>is this the same byerly who has previously claimed:</p>
<p>"I have never 'denigrated' Princeton - or Yale either, for that matter. Both are among the world's greatest universities." </p>
<p>"You are quite mistaken. I have never denigrated any school .... EVER." </p>
<p>"I have never --- EVER ---- 'denigrated' any institution"</p>
<p>How is acknowedging the existance of a historical "Princeton type" denigrating the school? Don't be silly. All types are not entirely bad. Princeton may not, historically, have been as "diverse" as its counterparts, but that does not mean it was anything but an excellent school.</p>
<p>Now that Rapelye has retooled the admissions operation to pursue the top students - even at the expense of a lower yield - and begun to court what the President calls the "green-haired people", there is every likelihood that Princeton's student body will soon be not only more diverse but also smarter than it has been in the past.</p>
<p>Three cheers, I say. To finish the job, of course, the "Eating Clubs" will have to be further marginalized and the ED-crutch abandoned.</p>
<p>When you define the type by quoting a godawful novel...:). Princeton is just too large and too intellectual to have one type which dominates. At LACs a dominant culture can be aproblem due to the small size. with 5000 kids and an additional set of graduate students that's less of an issue. </p>
<p>But let's not fight this any more. Let's say there is a Princeton type, just for argument. I define it as charismatic/social/affable, Yale as questioning/philosophical/arty, Harvard as focused/competitive/self-directed.</p>
<p>What would others say who have knowledge of all these three?</p>
<p>Well affable certainly suits...Never have I spoken to such a happy admissions person as that one from Princeton...</p>
<p>in your recent rants about eating clubs and the "princeton type," byerly, i believe your intention has been more to denigrate princeton than to englighten anyone.</p>
<p>By way of contrast, here is an amusing tale about conflict and confrontation between some "MIT types" and "Harvard types" as viewed through the MIT prism:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.mit.edu/people/errhode/Beaver/%5B/url%5D">http://www.mit.edu/people/errhode/Beaver/</a></p>