<p>
</p>
<p>I was; I like Princeton. Its hard to not poke fun when a college uses words like “bicker” and “lawn parties” and “eating clubs” to describe student life there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what goes on is best not “reported” by those with scant or zero experience on campus. (Such as a singular visit, a rumor, a prejudice, or a dated reputation.) That doesn’t pass the smell test for “campus culture.”</p>
<p>Nor is generalizing from a small sample very helpful. Because something occurs or exists does not make it equivalent to “campus culture.” :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hmmm. They “use the words” because the activities described by the words occur. There are indeed lawn parties and eating clubs.</p>
<p>Everyone’s entitled to ridicule the activities, but the words are accurate.</p>
<p><shrug></shrug></p>
<p>P.S. I forgive your split infinitive, Bay. :D</p>
<p>I would have thought the University’s own report and surveys, cited in post #104, provides a reasonably good picture. Large sample, not based on rumor, prejudice, or dated reputation, and based on students’ actual behavior.</p>
<p>Here’s part of the recommendations of the final report:</p>
<p>"Fraternities and Sororities</p>
<pre><code>Relationships between fraternities/sororities and some of the eating clubs have an unfortunate impact on several areas of concern: the pervasiveness of an alcohol culture at Princeton; the socioeconomic stratification of the clubs (and especially the selective clubs); and a sense of exclusivity and privilege. Relationships between these organizations and the clubs, and the willingness of some clubs to provide space for them, create tension in the relationship between the University and the clubs.
Consider actions by the clubs to reduce the advantage associated with fraternity and sorority membership in the club selection process and access to passes, and action by the fraternities and sororities to postpone their admission process to sophomore year."
</code></pre>
<p>Was there something wrong with the surveys? Graph #5 has the entire student body in the data; Graph #6 has virtually every fraternity member.) Did the University mischaracterize the results by relying on rumor, prejudice, and dated reputation? Were they hampered by “scant” or “zero” experience? Did they “misreport”?</p>
<p>It seems obvious to me that campus institutions affect campus culture. Princeton has campus institutions that 20% of its students try, but fail, to join. That may not define the culture, but it certainly must affect it.</p>
<p>mini:
</p>
<p>Post 104 does not describe “campus culture.” The link in that post refers narrowly to Eating Clubs. Campus culture is not summarized by Eating Clubs.</p>
<p>Hunt:
</p>
<p>And it seems even more obvious to many people with life experience that “affect” does not describe an equivalency. Other campuses are “affected” by athletic enthusiasm to varying degrees. It doesn’t mean that any or all of those are “jock schools.”</p>
<p>I see that many parents have an excessive need to reduce & stereotype. My, I thought that most parents would have grown out of that by now.</p>
<p>“Post 104 does not describe “campus culture.” The link in that post refers narrowly to Eating Clubs. Campus culture is not summarized by Eating Clubs.”</p>
<p>Look again. It describes non-eating club members as well. It describes them in terms of income, race/ethnicity, membership in fraternities. If you go further through the report, it describes members v. non-members attitudes toward the importance of alcohol on campus, and the contribution of the clubs to the prevailing campus culture. It’s not the whole campus culture, but an awfully big part of it.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<p>“There are significant differences between club members and non-club members with respect to their use of alcohol and their perceptions of the role of alcohol at Princeton. While 88% of selective club members and 73% of sign-in club members in the Class of 2009 believed alcohol made a positive contribution to Princeton’s social culture, this view was shared by only 32% of classmates in the residential colleges, 35% with no dining contracts, and 27% in co-ops.”</p>
<p>That suggests me that the campus culture has a split personality regarding alcohol use on campus. </p>
<p>“While some fraternities and sororities have clearly become pipelines to some of the selective clubs, there are also pipeline relationships between some clubs and selected athletic teams and between some clubs and selected student organizations. In the Class of 2009, 54% of varsity athletes were in selective clubs, as compared to 33% of the class as a whole;”</p>
<p>This suggests to me where athletes tend to congregate.</p>
<p>“While recent University surveys and the COMBO surveys found overall student satisfaction at Princeton very high, there appears to be a higher degree of satisfaction among members of clubs. In the 2009 senior survey, 53% of selective club members and 48% of sign-in club members were “very satisfied” with their undergraduate experiences, as compared to 39% of non-club members.”</p>
<p>This suggests to me that selective club members are happiest with their Princeton experience. The previous data (on Graphs 5 and 6), “illustrates that students in the eating clubs, and especially the selective clubs, are significantly more affluent than Princeton students overall. The findings in both graph 5 and graph 6 are supported by the University’s senior surveys of recent years.” and that white and higher-income students are much more likely than other students to be in fraternities and sororities."</p>
<p>The Report also states:</p>
<p>“There are concerns that derive from the “culture of alcohol” that seems to characterize much of club life; a selection process that many describe as hurtful; and the development of pipeline relationships into a number of the selective clubs that help sustain Greek organizations that many feel are incompatible with the Princeton residential experience. The clubs also continue to be a polarizing force, for reasons that seem to derive in part from a social stratification that persists despite a number of efforts to ameliorate it, with students from lower-income families and minority groups participating less fully in the clubs than other students.”</p>
<p>Then more:</p>
<p>Exclusivity, Inclusiveness and Diversity</p>
<p>Many students and alumni commented on the strong sense of community they have felt in their clubs, describing a “familial ethos” and referring to them as homes away from home. Clearly this is one of the great strengths of the clubs, and some called upon the University to try to provide similar feelings of belonging for juniors and seniors in the residential colleges, the co-ops and the apartment-style units in Spelman.</p>
<p>“Offsetting this powerful sense of inclusiveness within individual clubs is a strong sense of exclusivity by many students outside the clubs. Some students feel excluded because of the bicker process; this feeling is especially keen among students who are not members of the teams, organizations or fraternities/sororities that fill many of the available spaces in the bicker clubs. As many pointed out, the clubs are the center of social life at Princeton for non-club members as well as club members, so students also feel excluded when passes are used to limit access to club parties, and especially when the distribution of passes is to members of the same teams, organizations and fraternities/sororities that dominate membership.”</p>
<p>You don’t think this describes “campus culture”? Were they relying on rumor, prejudice, and dated reputation? Were they hampered by “scant” or “zero” experience? Did they “reduce” and “stereotype”?</p>
<p>I have no dog in this hunt. I commend Princeton for putting together what looks like such a well-reasoned, well-researched, and well-articulated report. And then acting upon it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Princeton should force all lower-income and minority student to join clubs, and threaten them with expulsion if they don’t. That ought to solve the problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you can’t win the debate, there’s always this …</p>
<p>@mini:</p>
<p>You don’t think this describes “campus culture”? Were they relying on rumor, prejudice, and dated reputation? Were they hampered by “scant” or “zero” experience? Did they “reduce” and “stereotype”?</p>
<p>My best guess is that “epiphany” would have preferred that the accusers made their accusations by citing the findings of the ECTF (as you did) instead of making disparaging comments that suggest they were relying on rumor and speculation rather than any sort of attempt at empiricism.</p>
<p>@MizzBee:</p>
<p>From an outsider looking in, since eating clubs appear to be a big part of campus life, those not involved seem to be overwhelmingly lower income, which questions how well Princeton addresses class issues.</p>
<p>At the end of the day, the clubs serve a recreational purpose that could be said to be superlative to the societally-defined “purpose” of a University education (i.e., knowledge and employability). I suspect that, anywhere you go, lower-income students will be less willing to spend money on recreational activities than higher-income students. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, perhaps?</p>
<p>Mini, you left out the next line about satisfaction:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This adds up to Princeton students being at least satisfied with their college experience at 95% for selective club members, 93% for sign-in club members, and 86% for non-members.</p>
<p>This is a very high degree of satisfaction any way you look at it. I would really like to see the results of such studies from other peer schools–I’ve never heard of any public information on this, so if anybody has some, please post.</p>
<p>But the more important question here–is anybody who has been on CC a while surprised that the group of students (non-club members) that skews more toward minorities and low-income students are in general less satisfied with their private college experience? Wouldn’t this be the case on every other elite campus?</p>
<p>Students from low-income backgrounds have a harder adjustment to elite institutions, are under more financial stress and will feel more out of place at colleges where a big chunk of the student body is from private schools or upper-middle class suburbs. This is going to be true at every top 50 school, probably more so at ones with weaker financial aid. It is not news that kids from affluent families have more resources to put into having the time of their lives at college.</p>
<p>And with the regard to the stats on alcohol is it news that kids who decide not to participate in this kind of social organization are more alcohol-averse than those that join?</p>
<p>I think it is commendable that the Princeton administration undertook this study and is actively seeking to improve the experience of its students. Again, I would like to see this transparency from peer institutions.</p>
<p>Hunt, While I have said before that I would prefer there were no bicker, I don’t think it’s that big a deal that 20% of students don’t get into their first-choice club. A lottery system would result in the same, albeit with fewer hurt feelings, since there are a limited number of spaces. Those that choose to put themselves in that position are aware of the possible outcome and I would think most take it in stride.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. This. And it’s also not just recreational activities that they are careful about spending money on, it’s food. The University gives students a choice about how to eat beginning in their junior year. It’s no surprise that many lower income students find that cooking their own food is much cheaper than all the other options.</p>
<p>Remember it’s very easy for upperclassmen to get access to the clubs for social purposes. So by not belonging to an eating club they are not necessarily left out of the social scene.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…like fraternities and sororities. Seems like Princeton ought to be banning freshmen from attending all Eating Club events, too.</p>
<p>“Mini, you left out the next line about satisfaction:”</p>
<p>I left out A LOT. My point was that the campus culture was WELL described, by Princeton students themselves (who made up the vast majority of the members of the taskforce that wrote the report). That many students (especially those of certain income class, frat memberships, clubs, and race) like the prevailing campus culture was (and is) never at issue. And that it wasn’t based on rumor, stereotyping, those without experience, etc., etc., but by those on campus, in the clubs and out of them.</p>
<p>It turns out that those who described the campus in ways that Epiphany and others claim are not reflective of student experience are, in almost every respect, correct according to the students themselves.</p>
<p>@Bay:</p>
<p>[Eating clubs are] like fraternities and sororities. Seems like Princeton ought to be banning freshmen from attending all Eating Club events, too.</p>
<p>The school does put in an effort toward steering freshmen away from eating clubs. When you visit the school during Princeton Preview, the clubs are paid to remain off-tap (to not have parties that serve alcohol). Any brochure, tour, or University representative will make it seem like freshmen simply don’t spend time at the clubs (whether this is due to lack of interest or lack of opportunity is left for you to infer). </p>
<p>When you arrive for freshmen orientation, the clubs are once again paid to remain off-tap. During freshman orientation, however, all the clubs just lock their doors and hold keggers in the backyard. Knowing that this happens, the school purposely drags out orientation events (i.e., by having you and your RA group discuss how some presentation made you feel) until close to midnight or even afterward, hoping that the new freshmen will get tired and go to bed instead of roaming campus looking for parties. </p>
<p>Later on, during weekends where there are major eating club events (such as Winter Formals or Ivy-Cottage-Cap Casino Night), the University will often hold an alternative (dry) event aimed at freshmen. Your RAs, if in bicker clubs, are advised not to give you guest passes to parties.</p>
<p>Gotta love all the people here who spend so much time bashing Princeton without actual knowledge of the school (and then protest “oh no, I was just kidding”).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes it is Wildwood and had the survey simply asked “are you happy with your social life at Princeton”, a vast number of students would have said happy or very happy or extremely happy. However, the point of the Princeton survey was to try and ferret out concerns about eating clubs/social lives so that the University could take steps to address them, which is why there are so many detailed questions and analyses. </p>
<p>We can play this game with other schools. For example, I could state that Harvard students are unhappier than most, that there is less interaction with professors than at similar schools and that professors aren’t really as concerned with undergraduates. Then I could link to this article [Student</a> life at Harvard lags peer schools, poll finds - The Boston Globe](<a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/03/29/student_life_at_harvard_lags_peer_schools_poll_finds/?page=full]Student”>http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/03/29/student_life_at_harvard_lags_peer_schools_poll_finds/?page=full) and make snotty comments about the school (about which I have little personal knowledge, but wow, I know two kids there and they’re both unhappy so that must make me an expert, right?)</p>
<p>Then I could link to this article. [Seniors</a> satisfied overall; extracurriculars get high marks | News | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2008/6/3/seniors-satisfied-overall-extracurriculars-get-high/]Seniors”>Seniors satisfied overall; extracurriculars get high marks | News | The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>Gosh, while students are overall pretty happy, only 70% of the seniors were happy with their social lives. That means that 30% are not happy–that’s huge. And wait, listen to what the survey says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>People in single-sex social clubs are happier than people who didn’t get into such clubs. That’s awful. There’s probably a whole group of kids who couldn’t get into frats/sororities/finals clubs who are unhappy. And, wow, the campus life must be so divided by the fact that kids who didn’t get into the clubs are upset. And frankly, even the term “finals clubs” sounds so pretentious, doesn’t it.</p>
<p>Look, Princeton students are overall extremely happy. The university is trying to do the best job it can to make everyone even happier. The University has upped financial aid to cover meal plans at clubs so that more students can join clubs if they wish, pushed for shared meal plans and built 4-year residential colleges to add to the choices that student have. Its financial aid in general is extremely generous and Princeton students are ethnically and economically diverse. The University has decided that frats/sororities have the potential to be somewhat divisive and has now banned freshman rush. This is not that unusual, bay. Many schools have banned freshman rush and many schools have banned frats/sororities because they just don’t like them. I frankly applaud Princeton for its transparency and its efforts to make the school even better, but part of me is sorry that it bothers because it allows people with biases, lack of knowledge and agendas an opening to make untrue and snarky comments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree with this statement. The report gives statistics, not all that surprising, that identify characteristics of a certain specific aspect of life at Princeton. It does not even pretend to describe the overall culture there. The students on the task force were mostly all club members precisely because it was a study on the clubs themselves, not of all social life at the school. </p>
<p>As Epiphany pointed out, any given student in any particular club, selective or non, or in any of a variety of living arrangements, or from any particular department, is going to experience the “culture” in a different way. To many the whole concept of exclusivity, or even excessive drinking, is very distant to their own life at Princeton. So it is erroneous to talk about a “prevailing campus culture” based on this report.</p>
<p>Well, we’ll just have to differ. They described in detail (by income, race, etc.) who are members of which clubs, who are members of fraternities, where athletes are to be found, all based on either the entire student body, or large surveys with robust sample sizes. They described the drinking climate and how folks feel about it, how students associate with each other, how people enter into social arrangements with each other, and who is most likely to be in what kind of social arrangement, both inside and outside of the clubs. They looked at who is in apartments, coops, and residential colleges. They looked at various levels of satisfaction at the university. I know of virtually no other report - anywhere, at any college or university - that describes campus culture in such detail.</p>
<p>But I think you are correct about the issue of “prevailing campus culture”. The more exclusive eating clubs - and its members - who tend to be wealthier, whiter, more athletic, and tending toward fraternity membership - set the tone for the rest of the campus. AND there are lots of students apparently who feel somewhat disenfranchised by that prevailing culture, and the university - to its profound credit - is seeking ways to deal with that. </p>
<p>To argue that every individual experiences cultures differently does not mean that the cultures don’t exist.</p>
<p>The more exclusive eating clubs set the tone? And we know this because we read it here or because you say so?</p>