Extra Point

Both my father (’23) and grandfather (1886) spent a year at West Virginia University before coming to Princeton. My father, at 6 foot 5 inches, was center on the basketball team and played other sports. I do not know if his, or my grandfather’s, sports abilities were a factor in their being accepted at Princeton, but I do know that both they and Princeton benefited. The argument about needing to be at Princeton for all four years to get a “cohesive” experience seems like nonsense, and perhaps a bit arrogant. Reconsider.

Whatever the other arguments for or against admitting transfer students (Extra Point, Oct. 24), football “parity” ranks at the bottom of my list. Indeed, our former president Bill Bowen *58, co-author of The Game of Life: College Sports and Educational Values, might well respond to that argument with mighty oaths were he not a true gentleman. That study’s empirical evidence, which included Princeton, identified: (a) that the true bottom line of athletics programs is red ink, (b) there’s almost no chance any more of walk-on players participating in major-sport intercollegiate competition, (c) the majority of alumni do not consider boosting support of athletics a priority, but trustee positions are over-weighted in favor of former athletes, (d) athletes on the whole have significantly lower academic performance than the general student population, (e) athletic-weighted admissions improve diversity measures by a paltry 1 percent, (f) admission committees are hesitant to admit an athlete with a stronger academic record, rather than a person the coach has specifically recruited for his team ... and the list goes on. By all means, let Princeton revisit its transfer policy, but sports parity should be given the low, or even negative, weight it deserves in the universe of values and priorities that a great university must uphold.

I think that it is absurd to not permit Princeton to do what it did before and to do what the other Ivy schools are doing. Please allow transfers quickly. If the student meets Princeton’s standards, then (s)he should be accepted if the transferee is a talented artist, a gifted musician, a Latin scholar, or an athlete, or all of the above.

Wow, did I have a negative reaction to this article. To propose that any university should adopt (or reinstate) a transfer policy simply because it needs talented athletes (football or otherwise) is offensive.

I was a junior-year transfer student in 1977 and was not chosen for my athletic prowess. We were 24 students chosen from a pool of 800. I was older than the other undergraduates and had two small children — the “token” nontraditional student. Women weren’t yet welcome on campus — never mind older, married undergraduate women with children. 

I lived off campus and missed most events because I was busy raising twin boys. I had to study at home for obvious reasons. I didn’t fit in; I was not a “magic bullet”; and yet, the other students (not the “old boys”) welcomed me with open arms. I graduated Phi Beta Kappa and went on to get a doctorate — so I believe I added, at least a little, to the University’s “luster.” 

I would urge that if the University  is going to reconsider the transfer ­policy, it do so for reasons other than  to find athletic talent. Perhaps a  search for athletes can be part of the process, but certainly not the “driver” for the policy. To reduce transfer ­students to fodder for an athletic mill is ­reprehensible.