The title, The Women of ’73, of the Princeton Alumni Weekly article is misleading, deceptive, and confusing. The PAW, whether intentional or unintentional, made an unacceptable faux pas by waiting until page 4 of the cover to explain that the only women shown were those that graduated “in exactly four years.”
Speaking for all the women of the Class of 1973 who, like me, had to explain to friends, family, and anyone who read the article or wore ’73 class jackets at the reunion, I am appalled at the naming of the article. It is only on page 4 that a clarification is made.
The article could/should have been entitled The Women of ’73: The first four-year undergraduate class of women. I am not negating the fact that these women were remarkable. Still, I am disheartened that the 50th-year reunion article did not truly reflect the accomplishments of all women who graduated 50 years ago at Princeton.
Did transfer students in 1970 have it any easier? For me, the answer is no!
I transferred to Princeton in 1970 (my sophomore year), planning on a degree in mathematics. At that time, many math professors still needed to embrace the concept of coeducation.
I felt more prejudice because I was a woman than because I was Black. Professors would address classes with a “Good morning (or good afternoon), gentlemen,” completely ignoring my other female classmate and me even though we were sitting in the first row. I eventually transferred from the math department and graduated with a degree in statistics.
For those women of the Class of 1973 who did not attend Princeton for precisely four years, I salute you and your family members. We, too, were pioneers!
The title, The Women of ’73, of the Princeton Alumni Weekly article is misleading, deceptive, and confusing. The PAW, whether intentional or unintentional, made an unacceptable faux pas by waiting until page 4 of the cover to explain that the only women shown were those that graduated “in exactly four years.”
Speaking for all the women of the Class of 1973 who, like me, had to explain to friends, family, and anyone who read the article or wore ’73 class jackets at the reunion, I am appalled at the naming of the article. It is only on page 4 that a clarification is made.
The article could/should have been entitled The Women of ’73: The first four-year undergraduate class of women. I am not negating the fact that these women were remarkable. Still, I am disheartened that the 50th-year reunion article did not truly reflect the accomplishments of all women who graduated 50 years ago at Princeton.
Did transfer students in 1970 have it any easier? For me, the answer is no!
I transferred to Princeton in 1970 (my sophomore year), planning on a degree in mathematics. At that time, many math professors still needed to embrace the concept of coeducation.
I felt more prejudice because I was a woman than because I was Black. Professors would address classes with a “Good morning (or good afternoon), gentlemen,” completely ignoring my other female classmate and me even though we were sitting in the first row. I eventually transferred from the math department and graduated with a degree in statistics.
For those women of the Class of 1973 who did not attend Princeton for precisely four years, I salute you and your family members. We, too, were pioneers!