Princeton receives more than 35,000 applications for admission annually. “How many unsuccessful applicants,” I have asked Dean of Admission and Financial Aid Karen Richardson, “are so good that you could substitute one of them for an admitted student without any loss of quality to the entering class?”
Around 18,000, she tells me.
Eighteen thousand well qualified applicants: that’s roughly nine times the number of offers the dean can make.
When alumni hear these numbers, they often say, with amusement or regret, that they would never get admitted today. That’s not quite true, I reply. It is probably more accurate to say that if nine of you applied today, one of you might be admitted, and the other eight would likely be turned down.
One of the questions that I hear most often when discussing admission standards is, “Why don’t you just choose students on the basis of merit?” People ask this question with different targets in mind. Some object to affirmative action. Some do not think we should give any weight to athletic prowess or legacy status or to residence in underrepresented states and regions.
My answer is this: Princeton admits all students on the basis of merit, and we judge merit, as we must, on the basis of the institution’s mission.
We seek students who have the exceptional academic ability necessary to benefit fully from a Princeton education, who will contribute to the education of their peers while they are here, and who will use their education to make a difference for the better in the world. And every one of our admitted students meets this rigorous and high bar.
When merit is evaluated according to Princeton’s mission, many things matter to it. Test scores, for example, are one source of evidence about academic ability, but they are at best imperfect indicators of a student’s capacity for discovery, creativity, insight, scholarly or other achievement, leadership, or service.
Life is not a test-taking competition, and neither is college. Princeton would not do much for the world by producing graduates whose chief distinction is their test-taking skill.
That is why Princeton takes a holistic approach to admission, one that insists on academic ability but also values many kinds of merit — such as, to name just a few, a commitment to service and citizenship; the discipline to excel at school while also holding down a job; the persistence to develop artistic or athletic talent; a capacity for teamwork or collaboration; the fortitude to overcome prejudice or hardship; the courage to do right; the honesty to admit fault; and the compassion needed to understand and help others.
Most people concede the benefits of this holistic approach and the multifaceted view of merit it involves.
Yet, many people nevertheless assume students can and should be ranked on some all-things-considered metric. On this view, college admission decisions are a contest, and the “winners” have a presumptive right to a slot at Princeton.
This myth of merit-based ranking infects and distorts discussions about affirmative action, including in the cases now pending at the Supreme Court. People mistakenly say that the cases are about whether colleges should choose students on the basis of “merit” rather than taking race or other factors into account.
Race and ethnicity are among the many factors that help us to understand the challenges that applicants have overcome and the perspectives that they can add to our campus. Those are components of merit, ones that matter to this University’s mission along with the other excellences of comparably qualified applicants.
In this domain as in others, the notion of ranking is a destructive error.
We can ask which students have the academic ability and commitment to benefit from Princeton’s rigorous curriculum. We can ask what other excellences these students bring to the University. We can ask how they might collaborate with and strengthen one another at Princeton and how they might contribute to the world beyond our campus after they graduate.
These questions are meaningful ones, if also very hard to answer when assessing teenagers still on the path to adulthood.
But asking which applicants are “best?” That is a fool’s errand.
When our admission office reviews applications from more than 18,000 well qualified applicants, it is not, and cannot be, picking the “most deserving.”
Instead, our admission officers seek to assemble a class of students who will make a difference for the better at Princeton and in the world.
All the students here are talented and accomplished people who fully deserve their places on campus. But they are also lucky people, because each year we must say “no” to thousands of comparably excellent students who are equally deserving of admission.
That is one of many reasons that I am thrilled about the opening of Yeh College and New College West last August. Dean Richardson and her staff still have an impossible task, but the new residences have enabled them to add another 125 students each year who will make our campus and our world a better place.
5 Responses
Stewart A. Levin ’75
1 Year AgoIn Defense of the Impossible
I wholeheartedly agree with President Eisgruber that with nine times as many qualified applicants as available spaces on campus, there is not and cannot be a set formula for candidate selection. Every person applying is just that, a person, with unique perspectives, motivations, accomplishments, and backgrounds. The admissions committee consists of persons, with unique perspectives, motivations, accomplishments, and backgrounds. Their task to collectively select an incoming class has an inherently personal component of value that cannot be translated into mathematical data. I shudder to think what turning the selection process over to ChatGPT and other AI software would produce in light of both the many biases in the information used to train them and the well-established fact that they can deliberately produce falsity.
Shepherd G. Pryor IV ’68
1 Year AgoAccountability in Admissions
President Eisgruber ’83’s comments represent a good start toward explaining how the University selects candidates for admission.
The published comments say: “We seek students who have the exceptional academic ability necessary to benefit fully from a Princeton education, who will contribute to the education of their peers while they are here, and who will use their education to make a difference for the better in the world. And every one of our admitted students meets this rigorous and high bar.”
Congratulations to the group for making the difficult choices. However, the Princeton family deserves to also understand the basis on which applicants are rejected. In particular, what factors were used to select out the 18,000 who were deemed to be “so good that you could substitute one of them for an admitted student without any loss of quality to the entering class”?
Without transparent access to the selection criteria, the community of students, applicants, parents, and alumni are left to speculate. They may conclude that the process of narrowing the field is arbitrary: We decide, using our own criteria, which we deem to be fair. Arbitrariness would indicate an unfortunate lack of accountability.
All well governed systems include controls and audit processes to ensure accountability. Surely Princeton has such an infrastructure to maintain the integrity of a process as sensitive as admissions.
To give all interested parties a consistent starting point for reflection, and to provide a basis for constructive debate, the administration should publish a clear statement of Princeton’s admissions criteria (for both acceptance and denial), including how the criteria are applied, and how the process is audited by a disinterested party accountable to the Board of Trustees.
Jared Kieling ’71
1 Year AgoLegacy in Merit-Based Admissions
President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, in “The Meaning of ‘Merit’ in College Admissions” (President’s Page, March issue), points out that Princeton’s “holistic approach … values many kinds of merit.” He lists as examples commitment, discipline, persistence, capacity for teamwork, fortitude, courage, honesty, and compassion.
He doesn’t include legacy status, yet today’s Princeton is still giving it weight.
I’m impressed and moved when l learn that a student is a third- or fourth-generation Princetonian. Development officers and the Alumni Council have good reasons for valuing such traditions. But how well does any hereditary status sit alongside the individual merits the president named?
Murphy Sewall ’64
1 Year AgoOne in How Many?
My recall may be imperfect after so many years, but I recall hearing over 60 years ago that the number of fully qualified applicants for the Class of 1964 exceeded the number of acceptance letters by about 6 or 7 to one. In those days, there was no common application or ability to copy/paste multiple submissions to many schools. Because today’s students apply, on average, to many more schools than my generation did, it doesn’t seem that the like likelihood of a given alum being accepted again has changed very much.
From my own life, and what I know of my classmates, the admissions department of yore achieved a student body of exceptional academic ability, who contributed to the education of their peers, and made a positive difference in the world. I volunteer for the Alumni Schools Committee. In that role, I have learned that I would not like to occupy a position that has to choose the ones among the nines that receive an offer of admission. My considered conclusion is that there is no non-arbitrary method of doing so. It’s always been something of a game of chance.
I attend Reunions every five years and thoroughly enjoy interacting with every group of students who support the event. They are consistently exceptional people. Nevertheless, I am saddened by the numbers of equally exceptional young people that the Schools Committee asks me to have a brief conversation with who are unable to matriculate at the Best Damn Place of All.
Robert L. Poster ’62
1 Year AgoDefining Merit in Admissions
I am grateful for President Eisgruber’s honesty in his attempt to elucidate his concept of “merit” in our admissions policy (President’s Page, March issue); I am also disturbed by his concept of “merit.”
He seems to feel Princeton’s mission is to produce the nation’s leaders, those who will contribute most to society’s betterment; he forgets the meaning of the second word in our name: University. His expanded vision of our mission seems to have little concern for the concept of “scholarship,” which is central to the mission of any university. I would think the ability of a student to resolve intellectual issues would be a paramount consideration in considering his or her “merit” in the admissions process, far more important than his or her likely future contribution to making our world better, a judgement at which our or any other admissions department is unlikely to be very successful notwithstanding its or their “holistic” approach.
That an applicant has overcome obstacles to attaining a high level of intellectual attainment is of course a favorable factor, but history does not cast a favorable light on allowing too much leeway to admissions departments to sculpt the type of incoming class they welcome to our universities.