for those of us not @ pee you, it’s a little hard to understand from the article why she is so loathed. could an “update” be provided with some more subtantive case against her? having a dog, arguing against a static curriculum, and having read the DVC hardly seem to correlate with the venom of people’s posts against her.

or is it just the grade deflation? in which case the argument against her comes off as rather self-serving.

Savage, this is what you cover: With absolutely no regard to student opinion (I want to emphasize this—NO regard), Malkiel pushed through a radical grade deflation policy that put Princetonians at a distinct disadvantage among other Ivies in the job and graduate school market. By Malkiel mandate, our GPAs were forcibly lowered: only so many A’s and B’s allowed per class, per department. So while the average Harvard student can cruise through college with a 3.6 or higher (80% graduate with honors, how nice), it requires twice the effort on the part of a Princetonian to maintain higher than a 3.5. The situation would not be so bad if Malkiel had advertised the changes to universities and employers, as she had promised to do, but she did NOT do so. The above posts are sufficient to demonstrate that very few people outside of Princeton have even heard of the policy. Malkiel claimed that our official transcripts would prominently mention the policy, but they do not: it is in light grey ink on the back of the transcript buried among miscellaneous details and description. As most applications are now facilitated by centralized data-gathering web-based services (LSAC, GMAC, etc), most graduate schools, be they law, business, medical, or academic, no longer even look at official transcripts. This is to say nothing of the perceptions of employers. Whom would you hire? The Harvard grad with the 3.6 (or higher), or the Princeton grad with a 3.5? In the uber-competitive world of finance in which many Princetonians seek employment, the choice is easily made. Princeton is alone in pursuing a grade deflation policy, and Princetonians are alone in suffering the consequences.

IVYGATE PLEASE COVER THIS: http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/29730

Easily one of the dumbest/sappiest things I’ve ever read.

anyone else think it’s funny that even jacob savage can’t work these stupid message boards and accidentally posted twice?

She’s also responsible for the D in PDF. It was previously only pass-fail.

With the massive exception of Math 55, Harvard has been cake so far. easier than HS by far

A large part of the reason that I turned down Princeton was my fear of the grade inflation… There went some of your yield, bitches.

Between grade inflation and liberalizing curriculum requirements, it has become ridiculously easy to “succeed” in the Ivy League. The idea that someone with a 3.8 in Native American Studies or Studio Art has had even remotely similar education experience to a Chemistry major with a 3.6 is absolutely ludicrous. I can take tribal drumming next term and probably get an A and in some sense be seen as doing something more worthwhile than someone getting a B+ in advanced math classes. I don’t know if going back to a canonical curriculum is the answer, but the way things are now is out of hand.

Ok Dartmouth, your red (man) baiting is showing. You could have went Jewish or African American Studies but you decided to go there. Your point is basically right but not because the curriculum could not be just as challenging, I just doubt (only by comparison with ethnic studies programs in general) that you are right. Same thing could be said of Poli Sci or Econ. That being said it is not because pursuing a Chem is so impossibly hard- it isn’t any harder than a good ethnic studies or soft science. But at least in our era of declining standards it is more quantifiable. As for the canonical curric- we need to expand it, reform it but NOT eliminate it. PS The article would have been more compelling if it concentrated on the grade deflation issue and omitted DM’s summer reading.

It would be nice if y’all could post a real retraction of the original story…the current update is tentative at best (doesn’t mention that the Tory itself disavowed the rumor-mongering). Seems a bit mean to leave the question open to those who don’t bother to click on the Prince link.

…On another note, I’m a little confused about the general perception of grade deflation as having a negative impact on grad admissions and job prospects. Does anyone have hard evidence to suggest deflation’s made it more difficult out there? Because the only non-anecdotal evidence I’ve seen (admittedly from the administration) indicates job/grad school prospects have gone up, not down, since grade inflation’s been implemented: http://www.princeton.edu/odoc/faculty/grading/faq/#comp000047219e980000000b7278c0

I know, there are likely other factors driving up those rates, but until someone does a comprehensive statistical analysis of the data showing that, controlling for the other factors, grade deflation has had a negative impact on the rates, I think we should take the raw data on its face value and admit that grade deflation hasn’t hurt grad/job prospects.

Wow, I didn’t know that Dolores Umbridge was teaching at Princeton now.

Wait until we have hard data? You’re a fool. To get that data you would need to poll all the grads applying for jobs and follow-up on their offers. Then, you would need to get employers to say why the declined to interview/offer. That will NOT happen; employers will not give you that info. 1) It’s private; 2) it opens them up to lawsuits; and, 3) why would they take the time to respond to so many inquiries?
The effect on placements is probably negative; but, the effect on morale is clearly negative. I suppose she choked down her hubbie’s argument that markets are efficient ergo all employers will figure out that Princeton students are still just as smart and capable as ever. Except that the efficient markets hypothesis is pure garbage. Whatever her reasons, she hasn’t helped Princeton grads find it in their hearts to keep Princeton so well-funded. Way to undercut the development office!