<p>What would people be surprised to know about Princeton?</p>
<p>Well, this isn't a misconception, but it's something interesting:</p>
<p>It was founded by "New Lighters" (Great Awakening subscribers) to train ministers. It's second and third presidents were Aaron Burr and Jonathan Edwards respectively.</p>
<p>Its colors come from William of Orange (who I think was the husband of Mary, as in William and Mary of the "Glorious Revolution")</p>
<p>I'm fairly certain about these two things</p>
<p>Continuing on the "William of Orange" tangent, this means that Princeton's traditional color orange is derived from the same source as the famous Protestant Orangemen.</p>
<p>I believe the original colors were orange and navy but later became black.</p>
<p>William was from the Orange-Nassau family; hence, Nassau Hall, Old Nassau, etc.</p>
<p>It has the highest jock-to-civilian ratio of any elite school. 27% of male undergrads are varsity athletes, vs. 21% at Yale, 20% at Dartmouth, 18% at Harvard and 13% at Stanford.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Princeton is the most heavily male of the elites, with a 53-47% male/female ratio.</p></li>
<li><p>By one commonly-used measure, Princeton is the least economically diverse elite, with 7% of undergrads qualifying for Pell grants, vs. 10% at Harvard and Yale, and 13% at Stanford.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>so much for never denigrating another school. and don't give me the "interesting fact/tidbit" defense, either; your intention above is clear.</p>
<p>Oh heck. What is wrong with a more heavily male school? One could argue that Princeton is therefore the most elite nation in the country hands down. As apparently from other recent articles high-achieving males are very hard to come by, and as it's apparent all these guys at Princeton aren't academic slackers....</p>
<p>Athletes, and I am not one and neither of my kids is recruitable for athletics, add something to a campus the same way they do to an organization, or government, or all those other bodies who love to hire athletes. Sure B might have meant to denigrate us but just ignore him:). And scottie, I am sure you have some good stats on the Pell Grant vs. middle class finaid etc. and why therefore Princeton is economically diverse:). </p>
<p>And scottie, I do appreciate you fighting the good fight.</p>
<p>Don't feed the trolls.</p>
<p>Nobody said there was anything "wrong" with the male matriculation edge - its just a fact.</p>
<p>Nor do citing Princeton's Pell stats amount to "denigration." None of the elites cover themselves with glory by this measure.</p>
<p>Indeed, Princeton gives excellent financial aid - trailing only Caltech and Harvard in the percentage of undergrads receiving aid, the "net" cost of tuition after deducting aid, and the fraction of tuition covered by the aid package for those receiving aid. </p>
<p>USNews uses these stats to calculate its "best value" list, where Princeton is 3rd behind Caltech and Harvard, but ahead of Yale and Stanford.</p>
<p>If you can't pay for college, get a loan and take it like a man. Stop *****ing about capitalistic inequaties and move past the fact that in today's day and age, money talks. If you don't like it, move to China, they'll be glad to have another slave.</p>
<p>Ah, but its the colleges themselves who care! </p>
<p>"Diversity" of every stripe - economic, ethnic, racial and geographic - is the goal to be striven for these days.</p>
<p>u.s. news rankings of "student indebtedness - least debt":</p>
<p>School / % of grads with debt / Average amount of debt
Princeton University (NJ) 15% $4,030
University of HawaiiManoa * 21% $5,379
University of TexasEl Paso * 42% $6,041 </p>
<p>I don't have a problem with people who can't pay (from lower income families), it's the people who ***** and moan about those who can pay that infuriate me. If you can't pay, take out a loan and repay it after college, getting an education is the most important thing. Don't yell at me just because I can pay.</p>
<p>ahhh I hate those types lol. To quote the legendary Pac:</p>
<p>"you gotta learn to hold your own, they get jealous when they see you with your moblie phone"</p>
<p>Byerly, your facts are off again regarding the percentage of students at Harvard and Princeton who are varsity athletes. The total number of varsity athletes at Harvard is slightly more than 1,300 (see <a href="http://www.harvardmag.com/issues/so97/ivy.2.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.harvardmag.com/issues/so97/ivy.2.html</a> a Harvard Magazine article from 1997 but the numbers havent changed much). Officially, Harvard has avoided including junior varsity athletes in its reported numbers but the Harvard Magazine article explicitly includes them. </p>
<p>Princeton has slightly under 1,000 varsity and junior varsity athletes. (see <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/04/28/sports/10443.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2004/04/28/sports/10443.shtml</a> -- these numbers have been stable for some time as well with approximately 220 applicants of varsity level caliber accepted for each class, not all of whom matriculate). At both Harvard and Princeton, a number of students are walk-ons and become JV or varsity athletes. These students are given no special preference for their athletic abilities during the admissions process.</p>
<p>Harvard has not only significantly more varsity athletes than Princeton but also more varsity teams (Harvard hosts 41 varsity teams to Princetons 38). </p>
<p>You are correct (though your percentages are wrong) that the Princeton student body contains a slightly higher percentage of admitted athletes (approximately 22% compared to Harvards approximately 20%). This is entirely due to the smaller size of the Princeton undergraduate population.</p>
<p>Princetons ongoing increase in the size of its undergraduate student body will not include any increase in the number of varsity and junior varsity athletes (see <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2001/01/17/sports/2139.shtml%5B/url%5D">http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2001/01/17/sports/2139.shtml</a> ) Thus, when the student body rises to its final target figure of approximately 5,248, the varsity and JV athletes should account for approximately 19% of the undergraduate student body, virtually identical to Harvards figure. It has been stated in numerous places that the additional students will come primarily from those interested in the arts and humanities with a special emphasis on those at the very highest end of the academic scale.</p>
<p>Your problem is that you pick and choose your sources of information in a haphazard manner and thus get numbers which can't be compared.</p>
<p>I have relied on current numbers as reported by USNews from data supplied by the schools. The bottom line is that 27% of Princeton's male undergraduates are varsity athletes - the highest proportion at any elite.</p>
<p>These numbers (and the comparable numbers at other schools) do not include intramural or "junior varsity" athletes.</p>
<p>and what exactly are those u.s. news numbers for HYPD?</p>
<p>Percentage of male students who are varsity athletes?</p>