<p>Good point, Bay. Middle-class zipcodes may tell a partial story, but not all of it. Nor is an upper-class zipcode fully revelatory. (I was just saying that zipcode combined with parental occupation, combined with college student's previous education, combined with frequency of travel + spending habits + recreational pursuits on campus, can together be more revealing than whether that student is a Pell recipient!). Students of varying economic roots & current economic circumstances are present at Ivies in numbers larger than are suggested by published data. The middle-class students that my D knows were always middle-class & do indeed factor into campus economic diversity, without quotes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"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.
[/quote]
They advertised it in Nov. 2006, and because you were talking that the publicizing affected Yield, I decided that it would be the point at the timeline you had in mind...</p>
<p>But that doesn't really matter. I just wanted to underscore that that's the increase in finaid that was recent, not the "openness" of eating clubs per se. </p>
<p>And it's not compensation for dining club membership, the finaid increases for all juniors and seniors, the actual membership does not matter.</p>
<p>Just crossing some T's...</p>
<p>...but the reason that the financial aid for upperclassmen was increased was precisely so that these financially aided upperclassmen could take advantage of dining club membership.</p>
<p>I agree that open dining clubs are not as recent as the opportunity for financial aid recipients to join them without financial penalty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
Several posters asked on the previous page why mini thinks there's a difference between Princeton and HYS.... and what steps distinguish Pton from others - I shared a hypothesis why he could see the Princeton situation differently. I was not commenting on mini's general POW. </p>
<p>
[quote]
You mentioned that EFC does it for you
[/quote]
Errr... yes. I think that the EFC figure plays a significant role when a family makes THE decision - and obviously, this factor does contribute to the yield. A lot. More that the diversified residential colleges or the eating clubs accessibility. Is something wrong with my reasoning? </p>
<p>And it is true for both poor and middle-class families. Actually, for "house-rich" middle class families the generous Princeton finaid formula made more difference than for the poor ones. Princeton was known for years as the "they-have-the-best-finaid" school - giving tens of thousands in aid to the families who were not eligible for any at Cornell or UChicago. At the same time, the Pell-grantees were getting pretty decent packages from Cornell or UChicago...</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, in many cases a middle class person would be better aided at an Ivy than (depending on the State) a State U.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yes, as soon as the EFC figure drops below State U COA, Ivies become more affordable in MOST cases (not just many). Most state universities don't cover 100% of need...</p>
<p>That was true even before the recent finaid initiatives by top universities, actually, but now it's even more pronounced. The picture still isn't as good for upper-middle class, though... but that's not what we are talking about here? (I am not sure, I didn't read the entire thread)</p>
<p>You're still missing my point, marmat. When ALL students' EFC's are known or available, conclusions can be drawn from EFC. Pell Grant data gives you figures for only a very small subset of one population at a college or U. It does not tell you anyone else's EFC. For example, most colleges print right on their home or FA webpage, the "percent of students receiving FA." If that's 70%, all you know is that among that 70% could be students getting $1,000 + students receiving full tuition/housing aid; further it could mean that 70% are getting aid in the form of loans. When there is no further breakdown (except, again, Pell grantees, which <em>does</em> reveal income), there is not enough data to draw conclusions about economic diversity on campus.</p>
<p>I never said that residential college opportunities & eating club accessibility were indications of economic diversity. Never. I hypothesized that Princeton, by these well-executed & well-publicized measures, may have succeeded in greater YIELDS of non-high-income students, despite the numbers of similar OFFERS made by Y, H, etc. (There were questions raised about why P may have succeeded in a better income spread than peer schools, that's all.)</p>
<p>
<p>You're correct that the practices of the chemistry department can't shed any light on teaching quality; however, faculty members from a number of other departments were quoted in the article saying that teaching has a very limited impact on someone's chances of getting tenure. To me, this does indicate that the teaching quality is emphasized less at P (and by extrapolation at H and Y) than at LACs. So that you don't have to go digging back through the article, I am reposting the relevant quotes below:</p>
<p> [quote] Members of the faculty were clear about which factor was most important in tenure decisions.</p>
<p>Research is it, molecular biology and Wilson School professor Lee Silver said. Teaching is a tiny little bit. A brilliant teacher whos just ok would never get tenure. And ... a brilliant researcher whos just a mediocre teacher could get tenure. Unless youre on the edge, teachings irrelevant.</p>
<p>We dont have good ways of evaluating teaching, Wilson School professor Stanley Katz said, adding that the growth of the University will further decrease interaction between C3 members and assistant professors, leading the committee to give even less weight to teaching and instead to focus on higher-profile criteria.</p>
<p>My fear is that teaching will become less and less important as we judge professors by international standards of scholarship, he said.
</p>
<p>I also wanted to clarify what everyone has been saying about increased FA that Princeton gives out to defray the costs of joining an eating club. Juniors and seniors get their FA increased by the average cost of board at an eating club. This allowance does not include sophomore dues, social fees, alcohol fees, etc. I'm not saying that Princeton should cover these things, just that it's not quite as rosy a picture as everyone paints.</p>
<p>A sophomore is not an upperclassman, unless you're referring to some eating club fees that may be due at the end of sophomore year (for the following year). In any case, a zero increase in meal plan costs between sophomore and junior years is pretty "rosy" in my book. For FA students, P'ton tries to make these transitions as painless as possible, and as with all such gestures so far, they have succeeded.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're still missing my point, marmat.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No I am not, I just don't want to discuss mini's general POW - as I mentioned, I was commenting on the particular angle of "Princeton initiatives" only.</p>
<p>In fact, my take on mini's viewpoint (as I remember it from previous discussions) is pretty close to yours.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hypothesized that Princeton, by these well-executed & well-publicized measures, may have succeeded in greater YIELDS of non-high-income students, despite the numbers of similar OFFERS made by Y, H, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I am not so sure those measures were so well-publicized... I have to admit that I have no idea about the economic integration of Pton's residential college system (and how it differs from Yale's). And if I knew, it would not be a factor in our family's decision (as well as anything concerning eating clubs or other social aspects, actually). The same is true for my friends, afaik. That's why your hypotheses did not ring true for me (but maybe it's just me, I agree)</p>
<p>And yes, I was talking about yield, too. And about THE decision (meaning the comparison of offers). I just think that those offers often were not quite similar, that's all. The no-loan policy and the "we don't take the house into account" policy and the "5% of your investments" policy were working for many years, making the Princeton finaid package more attractive than the competitors' ones. This explains the difference in yield to me, not the factors you mentioned. And I don't think I ever saw those factors mentioned in any of the "Princeton vs. Yale" discussions (unlike the finaid offers)</p>
<p>But again, maybe it's just me... and my friends...</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Students who join clubs must begin paying dues sophomore year even though FA does not increase until junior year. These dues range from $500 to $1200 (source</a>). Social and alcohol fees during junior year, not covered by FA, are approximately the same as sophomore dues. I'm not trying to bash Princeton (I go there after all); I just think it's important that all facts be laid on the table.</p>
<p>I do not disagree that the most important factor in most enrollment decisions for most FA candidates would be FA offers. No question. Even I did say that Y's and P's FA packages had minor differences between them that could nevertheless be important (decisive) for many FA families.</p>
<p>But there are additional factors in the way that the res. college system seems to work better socially at Princeton. An awful lot of U's claim to have & do have such a system, but their success stories vary widely. Some end up merely segregating (again) along economic lines. Some features of some systems are just not all that special or alluring. Some res. college systems are practically a formality & not really implemented when it comes to activities. A student who is concerned about ability to pay (depending on the configurations of mutliple offers being compared) may additionally look at social fit, particularly when considering enrollment at an Elite, where there is a known large presence of well-connected students.</p>
<p>I am going to avoid the discussion at hand here and just reply to the well-written article I just read.</p>
<p>Mr. Deresiewicz makes a very fine point in his writing. I do hope I don't sound hypocritical since I'm an MIT'12, but the flaws of an "elite education", as he phrases it, is very true and very.. well, disappointing.</p>
<p>I see it every day here on CC. People who moaning and complaining because they got 760's on their SAT math scores instead of perfect 800's. Students who scoff at those who take regular-level classes as opposed to honors/APs. Teenagers who spend their summers in test-prep classes, filling in little ovals until they see dots swim across their field of vision. People who are bitter than those with lower SAT scores managed to get into the dream school they were rejected from, throwing blame on AA and various other excuses.</p>
<p>What has happened? Do some people not realize that there is more to life than numbers, catering to university admission officers, and trying to mold oneself into the perfect student? What happened to embracing your flaws? What happened to looking at others and trying to help them up? What right do people have to "chance" others when they really don't know what goes on in the minds of admission officers (the "false sense of self-worth")?</p>
<p>I do not, however, agree with Mr. Deresiewicz's claim that elite schools are no longer teaching students how to "think", because I am fairly certain that is still in the works. I can't precisely say, though, for I'm not yet a college student. We shall see.</p>
<p>Again, Weasel: we would know, as an FA family, that meal plan costs did not increase beween soph. (non-dining club) and jr (dining club) years. Zero increase. Those are "facts being laid on the table."</p>
<p>Weasel:</p>
<p>The importance of teaching may vary from department to department. Some profs are lauded for putting on bravura performances every time they lecture; others have been described as lecturing to the blackboard (these tend to be profs who scribble as they mumble).
It is indeed possible that globalization will have an impact on hiring as teaching practices vary from country to country and are thus harder to compare. But there is a countervailing trend at top institutions. There are far more teaching institutions than there are research ones, so graduate students must be prepared to present themselves as prospective teachers. Still, departments have wide latitude and their practices are by no means uniform within the same institution. </p>
<p>I will concede that teaching is more important at LACs th n at major research universities. But I still don't see the connection between pre-professionalism, or having students who are teacher-pleasers, or some of the other defects that the author detects at elite institutions. </p>
<p>Even among HYP, there are some interesting differences: 2/3 of H students are majoring in economics, the biological sciences or government, while only half are doing so at Yale and Princeton. However, Princeton had 170 engineering graduates vs. 34 at Harvard and 63 at Yale.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the teaching quality is emphasized less at P (and by extrapolation at H and Y) than at LACs.
[/quote]
Well, it's not surprising: the teaching quality is (or should be theoretically) the only factor for granting tenure at LACs... :) </p>
<p>But I am not so sure that the teaching quality could be objectively measured with such a precision that we could actually compare its weight against the weight of those other factors (research, visibility, etc) when the tenure decisions are made. It may be the case in huge public institutions, where the ability to bring the grant money is the decisive factor - but I don't think it's so pronounced at Ivies as to impede the quality of teaching.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it's not quite as rosy a picture as everyone paints.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmmmm... Princeton could actually advertise this increase as "we give additional $2000 scholarship to all finaid recipients starting their Junior year" and not tie it with the eating clubs at all. How is it not rosy? :) Does any other university add $2000 so everybody could afford their fraternity dues?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, Weasel: we would know, as an FA family, that meal plan costs did not increase beween soph. (non-dining club) and jr (dining club) years. Zero increase. Those are "facts being laid on the table."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're only one data point. On average, students pay more to be in an eating club than they would to live in a residential college even after the FA increase. Also, could you explain in more detail what you said earlier about economic integration of Princeton's residential colleges? How is this any different from Yale? </p>
<p>marite, I never claimed there was any connection between teaching quality and the other "limitations" of Ivies. The only thing they have in common is that the author argues they are disadvantages of attending an elite university. I also find the pre-professional statistics interesting. To be more accurate, it would probably be a good idea to include ORFE majors at Princeton in the pre-professional category. Some would argue that Woodrow Wilson school majors should also be included since many go into consulting and investment banking. Indeed this is the subject of a [url=<a href="http://www.princeton.edu/robertson/about/%5Dlawsuit%5B/url">http://www.princeton.edu/robertson/about/]lawsuit[/url</a>] filed against the University by members of the Robertson family, who claim that the Wilson School is not placing enough graduates in public service jobs.</p>
<p>Weasel
[quote]
marite, I never claimed there was any connection between teaching quality and the other "limitations" of Ivies. The only thing they have in common is that the author argues they are disadvantages of attending an elite university.
[/quote]
Agreed. But that's one other thing I disagree with the author about. There are some things I like about LACs, but the emphasis on teaching is not at the top of my list. And for S2, the lack of breadth of offerings was the major reason why he did not apply. S1 did not have the same issues, but the lack of diversity at many of the LACs he looked at was a concern. The LACs tried hard but had difficulty enticing students from certain backgrounds. That must have produced a very different classroom experience.
Yes, I should have included Woodrow Wilson students in the pre-professional category.</p>
<p>marmat:
[quote]
Well, it's not surprising: the teaching quality is (or should be theoretically) the only factor for granting tenure at LACs...
[/quote]
Theoretically, yes. But at top LACs, tenure is also predicated on research. I actually know of an assistant prof at a top LAC who was denied tenure despite rave teaching evaluations because she had not produced the requisite monograph. She is now teaching at a third-tier college. Many tenured profs at research universities began their teaching careers at LACs.</p>
<p>While there is less emphasis on research at LACs, initially obtaining a position is based on publications and recommendations.</p>
<p>
[quote]
see it every day here on CC. People who moaning and complaining because they got 760's on their SAT math scores instead of perfect 800's. Students who scoff at those who take regular-level classes as opposed to honors/APs. Teenagers who spend their summers in test-prep classes, filling in little ovals until they see dots swim across their field of vision. People who are bitter than those with lower SAT scores managed to get into the dream school they were rejected from, throwing blame on AA and various other excuses.</p>
<p>What has happened? Do some people not realize that there is more to life than numbers, catering to university admission officers, and trying to mold oneself into the perfect student?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly with your observations, but I don't think that those issues are the <em>result</em> of elite educations. If anything, I think they are the result of the growth of particular segments in this country who are all-consumed with prestige and getting into certain schools which "guarantee" success in the real world (narrowly defined as a certain subset of jobs). I don't lay the fault for that at the door of HYP et al, though.</p>
<p>I have thought in recent years that just because you are intellectually gifted, that doesn't mean you get to fly off to a different planet where everyone else is as gifted as you are. Therefore, you need to learn how to live in the world with less gifted people and cope/flourish. And of course, make a contribution, as 'to whom much is given, much is expected.'</p>
<p>I do think that segregating gifted students, while marvelous, can have the untoward effect of insulating them a bit from less talented folks, as this article states. Fortunately, my child who is gifted had friends who were not, and she eventually noticed on her own that she had fun with 'regular' kids but that for really interesting talks, she had more fun with the other GT kids. She liked both groups and could enjoy herself with both, but she did discover this little fact by herself and learned to act accordingly.</p>
<p>I think a lot of what's in the article is nonsense, but I do think there are a few disadvantages of an elite education, and they have some connection with what's in the article:
1. Talking to plumbers. It's silly to think that an elite education makes it impossible to talk to plumbers, or to anybody else. However, I do think an elite education--especially an elite liberal arts education--can make it harder to be close friends with people who don't have broad interests. In the workplace, for example, you may dissatisfied with people who only want to "talk shop," even if shop is law or medicine.
2. Expectations. If you have an elite education, you may have an expectation that everything else about your life after that will also be elite. For most people, it isn't.</p>