<p>I read somewhere on CC that they might start accepting transfers for fall 2006 but does anybody have good info on transfers to Princeton?
thanks</p>
<p>I've seen something on the Pt website that says that too. It was a memo from Dr. Rapelye, from 2002. Basically it said that they have to wait until the previous classes of students complete their education, which logically takes 4 yrs.</p>
<p>I think that after the class size increases (starting with the class of 2010, I think), transfers will become a more realistic possibility. This is because larger classes will bring slightly greater enrollment volatility and, thus, potentially a need to top off classes with transfers.</p>
<p>I agree with Mike D. The logic sounds good. After 2008, most probably.</p>
<p>I would expect to see a few transfers for the class of 2009.</p>
<p>The only reason Princeton hadn't utilized this device previously was because Fred Hargadon had religious objections to it. Princeton admissions are being transformed, step by step, as the new team feels its way. The main issue for next year will be to decide whether Princeton is ready to give up binding ED.</p>
<p>Lol. Do you really really not like Hargadon?</p>
<p>Freddie was one of a kind - a Princeton institution. Like many institutions, he had good points and weak points. Because he had strong views peculiar to himself, and because he dominated the public face of the school for so long, the transition was bound to be a bit bumpy. It was pretty clear that the new management wanted to ease him out the door, but were unsure how to do so. Finally - and unfortunately - he gave them an opening.</p>
<p>Though I am very anti-Hargadon myself, I have to agree with him on being religiously against transfers...</p>
<p>Not for elitist reasons, but simply because I think that the Princeton experience is a 4 year one that needs to be complete and intact and begin with big frosh courses and the frosh lectures and tiger night and first time going to the street and residential colleges and singing old nassau on the bus back from OA and all else....</p>
<p>it is really more of an irraitonal feeling, if anyone can present a good argument in favor allowing transfers I would be happy to re-consider my position</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Often, transfers can be superstar students - with a proven track record. Its like the Red Sox or the Yankees signing top players from "lesser" teams - without having to go through the trouble of developing them as untried rookies.</p></li>
<li><p>Transfers benefit a school the way immigrants benefit a country or intermarriage can benefit a culture or race: hybrids are often sturdier than purebreds.</p></li>
<li><p>History shows that carefully-selected transfers disproportionately turn out to be high achievers and equally as loyal alumni as those who matriculated as freshmen. As the saying goes, those brought up in the faith seldom have the zeal of the convert!</p></li>
<li><p>Its also a pretty easy way to fill holes in the offensive line, or add a needed touch of "diversity" with surgical precision and a high yield rate from the admitted pool. Most schools have a higher yield on transfers than on regular admits.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>i thought we didnt allow transfers because the high retention rate didn't allow it?</p>
<p>The retention rate is not materially different from that at Harvard, Yale or several other schools.</p>
<p>You either make room, or you don't.</p>
<p>There is one factor that can help make room: encouraging students to take a semester abroad. When they are in Rome, a transfer can be sleeping in their bed!</p>