<p>Just thought y'all might find this interesting. I'm thankful the policy's gone - it was one of Princeton's biggest cons in my opinion. </p>
<p>
Really? Meeting most of the “requirements” is a B?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I thought this was pretty much the case everywhere. “Requirements” being a little bit stricter than “this kid turned in all the assignments and showed up to all the tests” though.</p>
<p>It is interesting to read the comments of the article. One commenter stated that “A middling Princeton student could do “A” work at 95% of other universities”; I agree and think undergraduate students at all other top 20 universities are in the same situation. </p>
<p>My observations of all the top high school students in my college town who went/go to top 20 colleges: they can certainly get all A’s in most other colleges - they took state flagship college courses in high school years and got A’s.</p>
<p>I applaud Princeton’s decision!</p>
<p>As long as graduate programs says things like, “Applicants must have at least a 3.5 GPA to be considered,” schools like Princeton need to acquiesce or their students will be on an unequal footing. That doesn’t make it right. It just makes it fair.</p>
<p>The policy isn’t really dead, it is just not quantified as the 35% target number that it was. Departments still have to report actual numbers and defend them if they go too far outside the rails in either direction. In other words, the policy is still there, it is not published externally as a quantified policy, which was perceived as a quota. The policy seems to have always been only about "A"s and not B’s or below.</p>