Princeton University criticized for higher enrollment from affluent public schools over others

A select few public schools are “dramatically overrepresented” in Princeton University’s admissions rates – underscoring the need for a more comprehensive recruitment strategy, argues the student newspaper.

“Given Princeton’s flaunting of its high percentage of public schoolers, the University should broaden the range of schools from which it admits — even if this means devoting resources to actively recruiting from more underserved public schools,” The Daily Princetonian wrote in a Feb. 12 opinion piece.

As an example, student journalists analyzed the rates of incoming first-year students for the class of 2016 and concluded more than two-thirds of them came from just 39 schools: 26 public, 13 private.

“Students from these schools, like all Princeton students, are doubtlessly impressive,” the newspaper wryly observed. “But that doesn’t mean they should be overrepresented nine times over.”

Furthermore, the demographics of these public schools reveal they tend to favor “affluent communities,” according to the commentary.

“When weighing the number of students that each school sent to Princeton in the Class of 2016, the average median household income of the ZIP codes of the public non-magnet schools’ is currently $183,320. This is greater than the median household incomes of 89 percent of New Jersey ZIP codes, and 1.81 times the income of the median New Jersey household.”

Student editorialists rejected the argument that this may demonstrate a “lack of interest” from applicants outside these schools. For further context, they quoted from Allison Slater Tate, a Princeton 1996 graduate and college consultant.

“Sometimes it takes one kid getting in and going from a school, and if that kid does well, [University admissions] can see that they were prepared,” Tate said. ”They can kind of trust [the high school] more.”

However, this method places undue pressure on the student, The Daily Princetonian argues.

“Representing an entire high school and facilitating connections with Princeton should not be the responsibility of a single child,” journalists wrote. “Trust is a two-way street, and Princeton must not be passive. Rather than waiting for this student to apply, Princeton should actively seek them out.”

‘Exposure to different perspectives’

Despite a stated commitment to diversity, Princeton and other liberal universities have come under fire for another type of exclusionary action – a failure to fairly represent differing ideological viewpoints, including conservatism.

“Conservative students experience what higher education has long claimed to offer: exposure to different perspectives, regular practice building and defending coherent arguments, intellectual challenges that spur creativity and growth,” wrote Dr. Lauren Wright, who teaches political science at Princeton.

“Liberal academia has largely robbed liberal students of these rewards.”

Conservatives comprise only 12% of Princeton’s undergraduate student body, Wright noted.

“Throughout college, [conservative students] hear alternative perspectives and hone their own arguments, anticipating opposition. … Nearly all of the conservatives [interviewed] said they’ve been challenged by professors or other students in classroom discussions, but just two of the liberals said the same.”