<p>
[quote]
For some reason, not I but Princeton saw a problem in its lack of socioeconomic diversity, and has taken some significant steps to rectify it. I expect they did so not so much out of the goodness of their heart, but because they assumed educational quality for ALL students might improve as a result.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What significant steps did Princeton initiate? Again, how are they different from HYS? </p>
<p>Can we move beyond the nebulous doublespeak?</p>
<p>xiggi: I agree if there was fraud in her application or in other representations to Harvard. But we do need to leave room for young people who make bad choices and allow them to learn from them. And the institutions need to acknowledge that the cut-throat competition they foster in the application process contributes to some hyperbole by the applicants.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Several years ago, thaks to a CC poster, I read the blog of a Phantom Professor who taught at Texas A&M. That Phantom Professor used to dish on students who came in wearing Prada clothes and Louis Vuitton bags and Manolo shoes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>When I lived in St. Louis, I knew kids from well-to-do families who had all of the above and went to Southwest Missouri State.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For some reason, not I but Princeton saw a problem in its lack of socioeconomic diversity, and has taken some significant steps to rectify it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What has Princeton done that is so different from what the other similarly situated elite schools have being doing? Are there specifics that are unique to them? Because frankly I see all the top schools making efforts to diversify beyond the stereotypical old boys clubs and prep schools of years past.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It means that your earlier point, that teaching quality at LACs and HYP must be equal because they hire grad students from the same pool of universities, is not a valid argument. HYP do not emphasize teaching quality as much as LACs. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but it is something that prospective applicants should be aware of as a possible con of going to an Ivy as opposed to Williams, Amherst, etc.</p>
<p>Post 125:
Again with the generalizations...</p>
<p>There are outstanding, effective professors who teach in large lecture halls in big public U's. There are also ineffective profs who teach in small classes at small Privates. It's not believable to me that LAC's have a 100% fine teaching staff, and who will judge fine? In almost every college & graduate level class I've ever attended (I've attended large & small), I have found at least one student who can't stand the prof. To get a 100% positive evaluation is quite rare. It's not always the grade-seekers who complain, but those who don't fit with the teaching style, or prefer different kinds of requirements/reading material than what is offered. Their complaints may not be related to the actual quality of the teaching & preparation of that prof.</p>
<p>Ivies have small seminars & some large classes, just like public U's do. LAC's do not have a monopoly on small classes, nor on excellent teaching. And to believe that an LAC would guarantee an excellent teacher for every class would be to believe that there are zero politics in academia. That is flat-out untrue. Every year, in at least one department in every institution of higher learning, there is at least one prof who shouldn't be there but has been hired or is being retained due to some political reason, favoritism, or payback. Guaranteed.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, I agree with you that there is a commitment to economic diversity by all the ivies. I think mini may be saying that Princeton has succeeded in achieving this on a practical level, so far, better than (supposedly) H, Y, and some others. I don't know about H, but I would question that because of the fact that H definitely likes to admit high-achieving public-school grads, and -- more importantly, I believe their yield of such admittees is higher than the yield of similar admittees to other Ivies. H tends to be the School of Choice for such students, when those students have been cross-admitted.</p>
<p>As to Y, I know anecdotally several low-income cross-admits to P and to Y; some have chosen P, some Y. So it appears that Y, like P, is at least being serious about walking the walk as well. As to the enrolled student body (yield), I do not know how that plays out between P and Y, statistically. I think what mini is referring to is Pell Grantee figures for P versus for the other Ivies. But i.m.o., this is where his reasoning falls apart. He draws conclusions based strictly on Pell grant figures. To mini, if you're not a Pell Grantee, you're comparatively "rich." I just don't buy that.</p>
<p>P may, I say may, have a more economically diverse student body based on its careful & publicized commitment to economic mixes in the residential colleges & to promotion of U-sponsored social events (connected to those colleges) which are attractive to students of all classes.</p>
<p>epiphany, I never claimed that all LAC professors are better teachers than Ivy professors. What I said was that, in general, Ivy League universities give less weight to teaching ability than LACs. As evidence I cited recent comments made by Princeton faculty on the role that teaching ability plays in tenure decisions. Here is the link again: Tenure</a> road rough for professors - The Daily Princetonian</p>
<p>I think mini mentioned Princeton because they were introducing the changes earlier than HYPS etc; Pton switched to no-loan policy back in 2001; and their finaid formula was the most generous one for years.</p>
<p>
[quote]
epiphany, I never claimed that all LAC professors are better teachers than Ivy professors. What I said was that, in general, Ivy League universities give less weight to teaching ability than LACs. As evidence I cited recent comments made by Princeton faculty on the role that teaching ability plays in tenure decisions. Here is the link again: Tenure road rough for professors - The Daily Princetonian
[/quote]
Weasel8488: I don't see how these comments support your assertion about giving less weight to teaching ability... Looks like the department in question have not granted tenure since 1996 - to any candidate (including research-inclined)</p>
<p>That's fine, marmat (post 129), but mini is comparing enrolled student bodies in any case -- & regardless of the year. This conversation has been held on other threads: the condemnation of Ivies who don't manage to match in Yield, the economic diversity that would be visible in the offers of admission. What I was saying in the recent post is that P may have achieved slightly higher Yield even in very recent years because of public knowledge about the economic integration of their residential college system. And unlike mini, I don't rely on Pell vs. non-Pell to determine (broadly, to say the least), income distribution. When students know the zipcodes of classmates' parents, and the occupations of those same parents, the associated income becomes somewhat transparent. And the current students at P (& through them, their parents) would know that much better than mini would.</p>
<p>Further....</p>
<p>P has opened up eating clubs to financial aid recipients now, also diversifying the mix. This is a well-publicized change, probably affecting Yield. There are still the "bicker" variety of clubs on campus, but there are also open sign-up clubs which have no social barriers.</p>
<p>
[quote]
mini is comparing enrolled student bodies in any case -- & regardless of the year
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I suppose he could mean that the current diversity at Pton resulted from those changes; and we may expect the same result for HYS... in couple years, maybe.</p>
<p>But I haven't read those other threads, so my interpretation of mini's viewpoint may be flawed - it's just how I read his words in recent postings.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When students know the zipcodes of classmates' parents, and the occupations of those same parents, the associated income becomes somewhat transparent. And the current students at P (& through them, their parents) would know that much better than mini would.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nah, some of them have no idea about zipcodes (actually, about residential college integration and/or entertainment, either). I asked. There were several discussions about "poor kids not fitting in" here, so I was really curious...</p>
<p>I probably missed the entire discussion about yield (is it higher for Princeton? I didn't know). But from my POW, the lower figure for EFC would have much greater weight than U-sponsored events or advertised integration.</p>
<p>Doesn't Yale have a residential college system, too?</p>
<p>
[quote]
P has opened up eating clubs to financial aid recipients now, also diversifying the mix.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Do you mean the $2000 increase in finaid for upperclassmen Princeton introduced a couple years ago? Because half of the clubs was "open" to anybody for quite a long time...</p>
<p>Well, anyway, all Princeton's efforts you listed probably do result in higher diversity - so I fail to understand what it is you don't agree with in mini's statement... :)</p>
<p>Like marite, I have one kid at a LAC, and another at an Ivy. </p>
<p>The teacher quality is the same. The attention to the students is the same. The Ivy has more course offerings - so a student may always drop a class he doesn't like and take another one (or take the same next year, with a different prof.) The courses at the Ivy are more rigorous - and I find the "mediocrity" angle of the article laughable. Students who took university classes at their schools often say that the same class at the Ivy is much harder - so all the rant about the "hard" A-minuses at Cleveland State is... well... baloney.</p>
<p>I won't even discuss the "inability to relate" angle: a lot was said here already.</p>
<p>"Nah, some of them have no idea about zipcodes."</p>
<p>But many DO. That's the point. Whether "all" of them know is beside the point. There's enough suggested economic information about <em>current</em> P undergrads to question an assertion that it's overwhelmingly top-heavy with rich kids, with a small subset of completely impoverished full-financial aid recipients making up the difference. This is a non-credible generalization.</p>
<p>Please (everyone), stop making assertions based on self-circumscribed data points which do not reveal complex economic indicators.</p>
<p>Yes, Yale has a residential college system, but not every such system works the same. Also, Yale's financial aid formula works slightly differently than P's. (We know because D was admitted to both.) Sometimes small differences can be deciding factors for financial aid recipients of ALL economic classes.</p>
<p>"Do you mean the $2000 increase in finaid for upperclassmen Princeton introduced a couple years ago?"</p>
<p>No. I mean that 2007-08 is the first year that P provides fully for dining club membership as an eating plan for those on financial aid. It was not "2 years ago." Please check your facts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But many DO. That's the point. Whether "all" of them know is beside the point. There's enough suggested economic information about <em>current</em> P undergrads to question an assertion that it's overwhelmingly top-heavy with rich kids, with a small subset of completely impoverished full-financial aid recipients making up the difference.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Did somebody make such an assertion? Sorry, I did not go back more than two or three pages... If you were just saying that there's a lot of middle-class kids at Princeton, I completely agree.</p>
<p>Thank you, marmat.:) That is * what I was "just saying." It's mini, not you (apparently) who asserts that the middle-class at P is negligible. I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that you agreed with him because of your recent post to that effect on Page 9. (You mentioned that EFC does it for you.) That's fine if you know all the EFC's of all enrolled students. You don't, I don't, mini doesn't. Unless he's hiding something from us, mini is not on the FA committee of H, Y, or P. He does not see the income spreads on the FA apps that come across those desks, and which ones ultimately are admitted & awarded. He is making extrapolations based on exactly 2 data points: tuition, and Pell recipients. He doesn't know the EFC's of anyone besides the very rich and the very poor. FA is available to, and provided to, students of varying income levels at P. In fact, in many cases a middle class person would be better aided at an Ivy than (depending on the State) a State U. At some publics, once you reach middle class, you're essentially cut out of significant financial aid.</p>
<p>I question the assumption that a student receiving financial aid from HYP necessarily comes from a "disadvantaged" background. Aside from the cases here on CC itself, I am familiar with at least 4 HYP students from our upper middle class public h.s. who are likely on full financial aid, but would never be described as "disadvantaged," at least in the academic/educational opportunity sense. Three of them lost their grad-school educated, professional fathers in recent years. Two of the mothers did not work, and one returned to a low-paying government job. The third student's recently estranged physician father refused to pay any tuition, and somehow the Ivy came through to make it work for this student. A "zip code" check of these students would put them in the upper eschelons, but in fact they are more likely included in the "full aid" data but could hardly be described as adding to the economic "diversity" of the campus.</p>