<p>To the OP, a comment on style: Princeton students do not spend a lot of time sitting around making the too-clever, snide remarks that often pass as intellectual among college students (at least, they did in my day). As a group P students tend to recognize an issue and devote their energy to addressing it creatively and often masterfully, individually or with a team. Google Wendy Kopp and you will see what I mean.</p>
<p>Although I vehemently disagree with Alumother's assessment (or rather, Aludaughter's), it seems almost cliche to claim Princeton as a safe haven for preppies and anti-intellectuals. I assure you the whole range of personalities and attitudes exist, but the predominant theme is positive and intellectual. Don't choose a college based off of other's perceptions, often times from those who don't/didn't attend the university in question.</p>
<p>About Triangle- I have a really talented friend who writes music for the club, and it's not that there aren't really talented people aren't doing cool things, you just aren't hearing about it. And Brooke Shields was famous before she got there. You should check out their website if you want to see more, or better yet, visit and check it out first hand.</p>
<p>Also, minority enrollment this year is 37%, up from 30% last year. Not a depiction of intellectuallism, but it does show Pton is moving away from its "old boy elite" image.</p>
<p>The April 5, 2006 issue of the Daily Princetonian says that 44% of the class of 2010 admittees are minorities. It's still too soon for enrollment figures.</p>
<p>I just wanted to touch on a few of the things that have been said in this thread:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The group of "athletes": It has been my experience at Princeton that the athletes that were recruited, primarily to play a sport, are some of the individuals who invest the most time in their academics and play an enormous role in the social life on campus. Individuals at Princeton who may, in some people's opinions, not "deserve" the opportunity they have been given are often the most thankful for it, and work harder than many to make the most of it. Such a large portion of Princetonians play Division 1 (or I-AA) sports, the majority of which were in some way recruited, that it is really unfair to place them in a category apart from the "hardcore science kids" or "the well-rounded kids".</p></li>
<li><p>Concerning a lack of intellectualism, this was an ENORMOUS debate two years ago. You can check out the Daily Prince to scour for articles and letters about a supposed "lack of intellectualism" on campus and the uproar of debate that this fostered...in my opinion, a sure sign that intellectualism is alive and kicking within Old Nassau. </p></li>
<li><p>Concerning "creativity": A friend once put it to me like this: "When I think of something amazing, like really amazing getting done, I picture the engineers from MIT doing the work, the minds from Harvard and Yale hyping, selling, and advertising, and one Princeton guy leading, pointing in the direction that the project has to go and organizing it to become a success." I feel that Princeton produces well-rounded leaders...who while may not be "creative" in the Hasty Pudding sense of the word, have the creativity to play enormous roles in creative intellectual endeavors. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Just my two cents...if it makes any sense at all....</p>
<p>To be perfectly fair, I don't think that Princeton has produced as many "creative types" as Harvard or other schools. They also seem to be a little behind with their performing arts as compared to other schools.</p>
<p>But with that said- there is no question that P'ton is one of the top producers of intellectuals and bright minds. When you go there, it will be what you make it. And you will be able to find a group of people who fit your description of whatever you're looking for. Princeton may not be teeming with them, but you just need to think of that as an aspect of diversity. If not being surrounded by those "intellectually elite" (whatever your definition may be, my sense of it is more of the "artsy/creative Harvard student") is unappealing to you, then maybe you should look for another school, no disrespect meant-simply meaning that you need to find where you feel you'll be comfortable.</p>
<p>In regard to the diversity figures that were dropped: numbers are just numbers. I do think Princeton could improve their diversity--And I'm not just talking people of color or socio-economic status- My sense of the matter is that princeton tends to admit the same types of different people (i.e. black students are largely either light-skinned and elitist or African, but that's another topic...). There's always room for improvement, but I think they're trying. I'm entering this Fall, and I'm more concerned with my own education and how I can make a difference in the social enviornment rather than cling to people who I already consider to be like me...</p>
<p>I hope some of that made sense...it's late, so there's always the chance that I have no idea what I'm talking about...but if you need clarification, I'll attempt to offer it...</p>
<p>I would like clarification on several of the points you made:</p>
<p>1) Princeton as being "a little behind" regarding the performing arts in comparison to "other schools." Which other schools? USC? Northwestern? Of course. Among its peers, however, Princeton's current (and currently growing) arts programs stand out to me. The facts provide evidence for that belief, though: you have working professionals within the Program in Theatre and Dance (including those who have worked on Broadway and off); the creative writing program's faculty stands as a testament to Princeton's strength in creative writing; the visual arts program brings in numerous working photographers, filmmakers, and other nationally renowned artists; the music department has numerous faculty members who have accumulated a wealth of awards and have had their research published in myriad national publications as well as groundbreaking student/faculty groups such as the Princeton Laptop Orchestra that have received national attention; and the list goes on. The fact that these are all exclusively undergraduate programs is another strength of Princeton's creative arts fields, in my opinion.</p>
<p>2) Princeton students are just as committed to intellectual excellence as any other school's student body. Visit the Mudd Manuscript Library to read the thousands upon thousands of senior theses for examples of this. You'll find that students here are not overly ostentatious about their intelligence, however; so if that's what you mean by "intellectually elite," then no, Princeton students are not pompous.</p>
<p>3) The statement on Princeton's diversity. Black students are "largely either light-skinned and elitist or African?" Really? Because my experience on campus has illustrated the direct opposite of that. There are a good number of Africans on campus (which I find amazing since I had only known one person from an African country in my life before arriving on campus), but there are more African-American verwsus African students on campus. As far as skin tone goes, how would Princeton be able to tell the color of your skin (beyond your racial background) from an admissions application?</p>
<p>If I've misconstrued anything you've said, please clarify your actual meaning. I do feel, however, that a lot of people come into Princeton without a clear understanding of a) its intellectual atmosphere, b) its great programs in the arts, and/or c) the makeup of its student body. Great thread for helping to clear up some of those issues :)</p>
<p>and while it's probably true that princeton has produced fewer "creative types" than yale or columbia (universities with graduate schools of art and urban locations), it has certainly produced its fair share. in addition to those mentioned already are painter frank stella; comic book artist jim lee; pulitzer prize-winning biographers a. scott berg and robert caro; pulitzer prize-winning authors john mcphee, booth tarkington, and thornton wilder; nobel prize-winning playwright eugene o'neill; literary critic edmund wilson; writer/director josh logan; academy award-winning screenwriter bo goldman (one flew over the cuckoo's nest); academy award-winning writer/director ethan coen (of the coen brothers); academy award-winning actor jose ferrer; actors dean cain, david duchovny, and wentworth miller (prison break); broadway producer roger berlind; television journalists/anchors charlie gibson and john stossel; the editors of both time and the new yorker magazines; the founder of BET; and the co-creator of sesame street.</p>
<p>Of course Fitzgerald used all his Princetonian creativity to call it out for being a haven of the preppy elite. See Jerome Karabel's "The Chosen;" it illustrates Princeton's history as an intellectually lax "country club" and the debates that surrounded this. At one point, Harvard, Yale and Columbia even staged an "intervention" to inform Princeton its status was slipping as a result of its students' reputed intellectual lassitude!</p>
<p>Not to make that the determinant measure of Princeton's identity, however. It was a mentality dissipating by the time Einstein and Nash arrived. I'm not sure one could say, though, that the eating club system fosters intellectual activity like the residential colleges at Yale or Harvard's house system, or how one could claim that Princetonians shy away from complacency when the place feels so, well, how to put this lightly- so uniform. I've heard Princeton students tell me- proudly -that there was indeed a sort of unspoken "cult of J. Crew" on campus, to which they had willingly conformed.</p>
<p>I'm not sure one could say, though, that the eating club system fosters intellectual activity like the residential colleges at Yale or Harvard's house system</p>
<br>
<p>first of all, princeton HAS residential colleges. an irrelevancy, perhaps though, because none of the college systems at HYP really "fosters intellectual activity" in any great sense. as detailed in alex duke's "importing oxbridge" (to cite another book), these schools adopted the social aspects of their english counterparts' living arrangements, without ever adopting the intellectual aspects of close student/faculty associations and curricular control at the college level. don't their let viewbooks tell you otherwise.</p>
<p>and don't forget yale has secret societies and harvard has final clubs, less egalitarian counterparts of princeton's clubs.</p>
<p>Perhaps the Harvard and Yale colleges were less intellectually stimulating from their inception, but from what I've read from residential college advocates, they seem to offer quite a bit of interaction and support. See (<a href="http://collegiateway.org/)%5B/url%5D">http://collegiateway.org/)</a>, a website advocating the establishment of res. colleges, which cites Harvard and Yale prodigiously. Little things, like faculty eating in the college/house dining hall, master's teas, and tutors in residence, can have a substantial impact insofar as integrating the intellectual and social aspects of college life. </p>
<p>I got the sense that residential colleges at Princeton were not nearly as dominant in campus life as those at Harvard and Yale. Aren't most only a two-year commitment? Don't the eating clubs command greater loyalty? And doesn't the "egalitarian status" of said eating clubs mean that they are a far more salient feature of campus life at Princeton than final clubs or secret societies at Harvard and Yale, respectively?</p>
<p>i'm familiar with collegiateway, a good (and perhaps necessary) resource. my only quibble is that the author never mentions, in all his touting of his tutoring experience at harvard, that the house for which he tutored (dudley) is merely a nonresidential meeting space for graduate students and a small number of commuting undergraduates, and is therefore hardly a representative residential college. actually, it would be better if the author didn't push his consulting and speaking services at all on that site.</p>
<p>as for princeton's residential colleges, they've been two-year colleges since the system's inception in the early 80's (wilson college goes back to the 60s). unlike harvard and yale's, however, they actually house freshman, the students for whom their support is probably most beneficial. but in the fall of 2007, three four-year colleges come online, so students will have the choice after soph year of remaining in their college or moving out, perhaps joining students from other colleges in upperclass housing. options are good. you can read more about the imminent changes here:</p>
<p>it's possible, if not probable, that the four-year colleges will cut into the popularity of the eating clubs. this would, IMHO, not be a good development. the inclusiveness of the club system (75% join, 90% party there) has always been a strength, and the fewer the students that join, the more exclusive the system becomes, until the clubs eventually better resemble secret societies and final clubs, with their small constituencies of campus "haves."</p>
<p>Would you say then that it's very easy to get into an eating club, and that there's not a lot of social stratification between them? I loved Princeton's campus and teaching philosophy, but the idea of having my social life/living arrangements/ability to eat regulated by another application process (controlled by students?) filled me with dread. It seemed one had to be accepted to an eating club or else risk total isolation and irrelevancy. If this is true, the establishment of four year colleges would probably go some way toward minimizing this risk.</p>
<p>How much do the final clubs and secret societies really disrupt the total experience of college/house life at Harvard and Yale? Isn't it better to isolate the "haves" than to effectively force the student body to compete on their terms?</p>
<p>Would you say then that it's very easy to get into an eating club</p>
<br>
<p>yes, because five of the ten clubs are "sign-in," requiring only that the interested sophomore sign his name on a sheet of paper at the appointed time to join. and if more students sign into a particular club than there are places available for them, a random lottery determines the list of new members. the social stratification question is more difficult to answer. obviously, there's no stratification between the sign-in clubs, since there's no selection process at any of them to impose any kind of general "character." among the selective clubs, only one of the five (ivy) typically admits less than half of all hopefuls (strictly a consequence of the higher <em>number</em> of such hopefuls). with selection, however, a certain amount of disappointment is inevitable (as it is at yale and harvard, among those not "tapped" for membership). but those disappointed by the selection process at princeton can still join a sign-in club or join no club at all (join a co-op or "go independent") and still party with the rest of the students at all the clubs, as freshmen and sophomores, none of whom are members, do. (even if individual clubs are "exclusive," the social system formed by the clubs as a group is quite egalitarian.) and there are meal exchange and guest meal arrangements if actual eating is important to a non-member. even now, with the four-year colleges still a year away, there is no risk of "total isolation and irrelevancy."</p>
<p>Although you always try to put your school in the best light, im sure you well know that Princeton's social structure with the eating clubs create an entirely different kind of atmosphere than Yale or Harvard. And stop trying to point at finals clubs and secret societies. These clubs dont play even close a large a role that eating clubs do at princeton. The main source of social life at Princeton are the eating clubs. Denying this would be lying to prospective students.</p>
<p>If anyone wants to read an unbiased view of eating clubs from someone who isnt trying to put his school in the best light without even considering it's faults, you should go to <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com%5B/url%5D">www.dailyprincetonian.com</a> and search through dozens of articles written about the eating clubs that elaborate on the social stratification that the eating clubs create, dividing the school among economic, racial, and social lines.</p>
<p>" I loved Princeton's campus and teaching philosophy, but the idea of having my social life/living arrangements/ability to eat regulated by another application process (controlled by students?) filled me with dread. It seemed one had to be accepted to an eating club or else risk total isolation and irrelevancy."</p>
<p>I was admitted to Princeton and these are similar sentiments I had as well. But after talking to non fanboy Princetonians who cared enough to truthfully tell me the positives/negatives of princeton, I believed, for me at least, that the problem with the social scene was more important for me than it may have been for others. Therefore, I'm matriculating to Stanford this fall.</p>
<p>And stop trying to point at finals clubs and secret societies. These clubs dont play even close a large a role that eating clubs do at princeton. The main source of social life at Princeton are the eating clubs. Denying this would be lying to prospective students.</p>
<br>
<p>why shouldn't i "point at" those institutions? columbia2007, with whom i was having a civil (that is, non ad-hominem) discussion, aired his doubt "that the eating club system fosters intellectual activity like the residential colleges at yale or harvard's house system." i simply pointed out the inaptness of the comparison by reminding him that princeton has its residential college/house counterparts and yale and harvard have their eating club counterparts. direct comparison of these institutions and their cultures is possible, despite certain local differences between. </p>
<p>and i'm fully aware, thank you, that princeton's clubs play a much more central social role than yale and harvard's. i've never "denied" this; in fact, i've noted it myself and consistently argued that it is a good thing, the involving of (most) all students in a single social scene, rather than the segregating off from the many a select few fortunate to be "tapped" for membership. i've even called on admissions to throw some sunlight on the matter in their presentations, rather than pretending that the clubs don't exist. </p>
<p>really, i think you exaggerate my "boosterism." if you follow my posts, you'll see i'm frequently critical of princeton, including, e.g., its continued reliance on early decision. i happen to like the eating club system, though, on balance (note my criticisms above and previously), and i find that it's often grossly misunderstood and mischaracterized by those without any experience of it, just because the <em>idea</em> sounds fancy schmancy to them. i offer what i think is a "corrective" perspective. that said, i certainly second your call for interested readers to survey the prince and other materials. let all flowers bloom. and good luck at stanford.</p>