<p>i got the impression you calculated that percentage from other numbers, like the numbers of male athletes and of male students.</p>
<p>(just noticed: i'm a CC senior member now.)</p>
<p>i don't get it, why is everyone hating on byerly? he/she is just giving some facts, not making judgements. so what if byerly happens to be right--princeton is still a great school. just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean you have to call Byerly a troll just for stating a few facts. chill out!!!</p>
<p>because when someone on the princeton board asks for some surprising facts about princeton, he comes over from the harvard board and eagerly posts "facts" that all present princeton in a relatively negative light. in this way he is "making judgements," or at least trying to influence opinion in the negative direction (although he will of course strenuously deny any such intention).</p>
<p>what "negative light?" Is having a male majority vs a female majority a "negative"?</p>
<p>as you well know, a majority in either direction is perceived to be a negative. that's why schools strive so hard for 50/50 equality, and trumpet the fact in their press releases about incoming classes.</p>
<p>i really don't think a 5% difference either way is a TERRIBLY big deal. it's not something you notice. it's 1 person in 20...big ****ing deal...dont be so defensive scottie</p>
<p>i never said it's a "terriby big deal," myself. in fact, i haven't tried to rationalize the disparity at all. my problem is not with the number, but with byerly's use of it. and as for his 27% varsity athletes "fact," well, i still dispute THAT number, as i believe it to be more like 20%. princeton's own athletic director, who should know, estimates the number for men and women together to be between 18 and 19%, including walk-ons -an estimation made in 2001, BEFORE the ivies' reduction in admission slots for football recruits.</p>
<p>My D thought the majority guy thing was cool:).</p>
<p>The majority guy thing makes me love Princeton even more!</p>
<p>Sorry, Byerly, but youre just plain wrong. The 1,300 number reported by your own Harvard Magazine is still correct. It includes junior varsity athletes who were recruited as athletes. (Note that there are other corroborating Harvard sources. See this 2001 article from the Harvard Perspective <a href="http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/%7Eperspy/old/issues/2001/may/govjocks.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.digitas.harvard.edu/~perspy/old/issues/2001/may/govjocks.html</a> Harvard, on the other hand, has 41 varsity programs and more than 1,500 varsity and junior varsity athletes in an undergraduate pool of less than 7,000 students. ) The comparable number for Princeton (including junior varsity athletes) is slightly under 1,000. </p>
<p>The numbers reported by U.S. news for Princeton include JV athletes (which Princeton has always included). Harvard does not include JV athletes in their reported counts. Feel free to check with both athletic departments yourself. (Of course you know this about Harvard since youve stated it above, but you might not know about Princetons policies. Here is a link giving an example of Princetons policy of including JV athletes in its numbers for official reports: <a href="http://www.princeton.edu/%7Epaw/archive_old/PAW96-97/05-1127/1127note.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.princeton.edu/~paw/archive_old/PAW96-97/05-1127/1127note.html</a> )</p>
<p>You are certainly correct that the numbers reported by U.S. News are supplied by the colleges, but the colleges have interpreted the requests differently. Also, U.S. News has calculated the percentages incorrectly even if you accept the reported numbers as comparable. For example, U.S. News states that Princeton has 642 male varsity athletes (again, a number that includes JV athletes) out of a total male undergraduate population of 2,548. They then inexplicably calculate this percentage as 27% rather than the correct 25%. For Harvard, they report 635 male varsity athletes (NOT including JV) out of 3,386 male undergraduates and then report the percentage as 18% instead of the correct 19%. In case you need additional proof that Harvard is not reporting its JV figures while Princeton is, consider this. The Ivy League mandates the total number of athletes that can be included in varsity programs. Since Harvard hosts three more varsity teams than Princeton, it could hardly be the case that Princeton has a higher number of varsity athletes.</p>
<p>The bottom line is that Harvards athletic program is notably larger than Princetons. However, for the 38 varsity sports that Princeton plays, it must carry the same number of athletes as Harvard. But because Princetons student body is so much smaller, that number constitutes a higher percentage of the overall undergraduate population. The expansion of Princetons undergraduate population over the coming years will not include an expansion of the number of recruited athletes, so that this percentage will drop significantly within the next four to five years.</p>
<p>The mistake you make, Byerly, is in assuming that the numbers reported to U.S. News are themselves comparable. If you doubt this, I encourage you to check in with the athletic department at Princeton.</p>
<p>By the way, on the issue of male/female percentages, similar explanations apply see <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2718294&postcount=6%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=2718294&postcount=6</a> .</p>
<p>Personal misconception: before visiting Princeton, I thought "stereotypical" rich kids were into stuffy art and classical music and intellectualism. I was wrong. The "rich kids" here have an awesome sense of modern fashion, dress to the occasion (yellow Lacoste with tweed pants at lawnparties, suit and tie at formals), and listen to diverse music (but a lot of 80s music, tons of classic rock).</p>
<p>astrofan, are you being sarcastic? because that description of "rich kids" pretty much fits all stereotypes (classic rock? tweed? lacoste? lawn parties?)</p>
<p>Princeton grad:</p>
<p>Again you are improperly mixing data from various sources, at various times, varsity and non-varsity, men and women, etc etc etc. Your data is absolutely worthless.</p>
<p>as, we evidently both believe, is yours.</p>
<p>Now Byerly, if you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to respond (with citations) to the points made by your fellow debater. (Didnt they teach you that at Harvard?) </p>
<p>The fundamental flaw in your argument is that the numbers provided by U.S. News are comparable. They are not, since Princeton includes JV athletes and Harvard does not. You seem to agree that Harvard does not. Ive given you citations to show that Princeton does, but you can certainly check with Princetons athletics department to confirm.</p>
<p>Random attacks just dont cut it. I know you can do better Byerly. (By the way, the word data is plural, so if youre going to cast aspersions you need to write Your data [are] absolutely worthless. Just thought Id help.)</p>
<p>this thread makes me glad I'm not applying to harvard or princeton. yeah yale!</p>
<p>Im sorry to hear that, jimbob, and please dont take the tone of this thread as typical. A great deal of false information is tossed about on these boards and we try to correct it when it occurs. In the end, its all good natured fun. </p>
<p>Yale is a fantastic school and Ill keep my fingers crossed for you. We still hope youll consider applying to Princeton and Harvard too!</p>
<p>Now you are acting more like your natural nasty self from days of yore - moving from disputing data (or datums) to your patented ad hominem attackums.</p>
<p>The fact remains: Princeton has a higher percentage of varsity athletes among its male undergraduate population than any other elite university. There are reasons for it, excuses for it, and explanations for it no doubt: but it happens to be true. Finis.</p>
<p>lolololol byerly attackums, nice job</p>
<p>and actually my parents are forcing me to apply to harvard, but when i told them i'd rather go to my state school than harvard they said that was fine...so technically i am applying but i'd never go</p>
<p>Oh Byerly, there you go again, but Im too easy-going to let you get under my skin. I thought that we WERE disputing facts. </p>
<p>Patented? and nasty? Now thats not very nice (and by the way, Im only kidding you about your grammar).</p>
<p>The fact remains that your data are wrong and you need to provide facts to support them if you believe them to be correct. Actually, its more a misunderstanding of what the data represent. You are correct about Princetons having a higher percentage than Harvard, though when you include the JV athletes, the difference in percentage is quite small. Princeton has a lower total number of varsity/JV athletes than Harvard and fewer varsity teams. As Ive noted, all of this will change when Princetons class sizes grow. Princeton will still have the same number of athletes, but theyll constitute a smaller percentage of the class.</p>
<p>I assume you agree with all of this since you havent provided any evidence to the contrary. Now, do you remember the virtual beer bet that we still have when the CDS forms come out? Im getting virtually thirsty!</p>