Daily Prince Uncovers Earth-Shatteringly Elitist Document
I was all set to write an update on the Princeton USG election (Weinberg/AEPi triumphs, nobody really cares) but then, wandering the Prince’s website, I found this glorious gem, scans from a 1958 Princeton pamphlet entitled “Answers to Your Questions About the Admission of Princeton Sons.”
At a time when desegregation was the all the rage and Stanford neared a 2:1 male-to-female ratio, Old Nassau whispered sweet nothings into nepotistic alumni’s age-spotted ears: Worry not, ye rich and backwards-minded old people. Princeton holds your Y-chromosomed offspring to the absolute lowest of standards, now and forever!
And when it comes to low standards, boy, do those Princeton sons deliver:
Basically, this is a guide to George W. Bush’s life.
“Princeton Sons” goes on to answer such troubling questions as “Why don’t Princeton undergraduates look as glossy as they used to?” and “What about this business of ‘geographical spread’?” the latter of which defends Lawrenceville grads against uncivilized cowboys from uncouth and farflung territories like (shudder) Texas. In a weird way, this too seems to be about George W. Bush’s life.
The Prox has the whole pamphlet in its post, but we’ve got a very special IvyGate’s Guide to Princeton’s Legacy Admissions Guide, complete with PUSG tie-in, after the jump.
The introduction begins with an epistemological conceit: Princeton is as Princeton does, unto Princeton Fathers are born Princeton Sons. Princeton: The male-pattern baldness of universities, inherited and inevitable.
Good to know “well-rounded” has always been a euphemism for “talentless bore.” Now here’s that “geographic spread” question:
Lawrenceville is still one of Princeton’s biggest feeders, although Princeton High School—a (shudder) public high school—surpassed it years ago. As for the sartorial choices of the Princeton man and his crazy boho friends…
Well, if the GI’s started it, at least we know it’s not un-American. I’d make a HUAC joke, but by ‘58 it’s already kind of played, and PATRIOT isn’t for another half century. Isn’t progress fun? Speaking of which, check out the last page of “Princeton Sons,” where everyone covers their asses just in case Princeton goes crazy and starts admitting women or something:
Amazing how they even foresee the coming Conservative Apocalypse, i.e., the 1970’s, when Princeton Fathers’ noble values of nepotistic laziness and xenophobia would be completely upended by a “vast war-baby population,” when females and racial minorities would gambol freely cross yon Cannon Green, and when, 50 years later, a Jewish fraternity would exact ironfisted control over the USG.
28 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: aepi, alumni, great moments in college journalism, legacies, Princeton
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
December 10th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
hat tip to mark spatt.
December 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
The 2008 edition has a nicer cover I would assume.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Man, these last couple of days. Rough on Nassau. Princeton sucks.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:10 am
These days, the admission requirement “will you likely graduate” is what they use for minorities
December 11th, 2008 at 1:19 am
Anonymous is a racist piece of shit. How ashamed I am to go to school with you.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:48 am
i like how, even the midst of document that amounts to a clear affirmative action for old money wasps, you still find a way to try to tie this to affirmative action for minorities. asshat.
December 11th, 2008 at 2:24 am
Good find, Ivygate. In defense of the token racist on our board, there was some study concluding that being part of an underrepresented minority is worth more in admissions to selective colleges than alumni status.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I <3 ivygate!
December 11th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Honestly, I would rather have funloving legacies here than the social climbing tools that make up an increasing percentage of the student body.
December 11th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Penn11,
I don’t know that social scientists believe that because “some study” made a finding, that finding must be true in all cases. Usually, you need converging evidence from many studies to assume that something is generally true. That said, the point is that minorities are not held to the standard that they must simply be able to graduate. To suggest that is racist and ignorant.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
That pamphlet is typeset so nicely.
December 11th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
princeton09,
the study that penn11 is referencing is the bowen-bok study. Among its many findings, its found that black students were accepteded at the 28 examined schools at rates much (3xs) higher than academically similar white students. It was an exhaustive study that looked at admission statistics and demographics since 1951 and headed by the former presidents of Harvard and Princeton, both of whom greatly advocate affirmitive action. The study showed that minority status benefitted a student’s chance for admission greater than legacy or athlete status. The study also found that admission to these institutions greatly benefitted the minority students and significantly improved their earning potential, which is why both Bowen and Bok support affirmitive action. However, the whole point of this article is to raise discussion about who is actually “qualified” to be studying here. I would also like to note a older article that shows that minority applicants are held to much lower standards than other appicants:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3475092
So why is it currently ok to admit less academically stellar minorities and not legacies?
December 11th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“So why is it currently ok to admit less academically stellar minorities and not legacies?”
Here’s the short answer: legacies come from families who used to *own* the families of less academically stellar minorities.
And I thought Princetonians were supposed to know shit and stuff.
December 11th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
HAHAHAHA. pton just got pwned by D’07.
December 11th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
glorious, maureen, glorious
December 11th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
so are you saying that everyone who goes to Princeton came from a wealthy southern family that has been in the US since before 1865? I’m guessing you are just implying that legacies don’t need the boost that an good degree offers, since they come from upper-middle class and higher backgrounds. I would agree with you on that point, but many minority students at Princeton don’t come from lower class backgrounds. The whole point of financial aid and outreaching to the disadvantaged is to help the actually disadvantaged. Why is it ok for a black child whose parents are lawyers to be given favorable status over a white farmer’s kid, when it isn’t ok for a white legacy to be given that same boost?
December 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
This might be my favorite IvyGate post in a long, long time.
December 11th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
“Why is it ok for a black child whose parents are lawyers to be given favorable status over a white farmer’s kid, when it isn’t ok for a white legacy to be given that same boost?”
How do you think that black child’s parents became lawyers?
It takes more than a few generations to reverse the effects of slavery, discrimination, systematic murder, disenfranchisement, racism, etc. You’re living proof of this fact.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Racism will live on as long as current generations are forced to pay for the injustices of past generations.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:44 pm
p.s. this was a great find. And for the record, as much as I dislike affirmative action I find nepotism still more offensive.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
there are poor, underclass white people that would greatly benefit from affirmative action, just visit Appalachia. They have been stuck there for many generations, but people don’t want to help them and just deride them as rednecks and white trash. Someone’s skin color does not equate to his or her economic or social condition, and these two condition have a much greater effect on someone’s life outcomes than skin color. An upper class black kid’s life isn’t going to be miraculously changed by going to Princeton, he will still have all the opportunities that is social status offers regardless of where he went to school. So I still don’t understand why it is ok to prefer the minority (especially when social class is not considered) over a legacy?
December 13th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
This is phenomenal, but I wouldn’t attribute it entirely to Ivy Gate. Glorious social commentary aside, Martha Vega actually went to Mudd Library and found this pamphlet. Credit where credit due, please.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Wow. In any affirmative action discussion there’s always a douchebag like D ‘07 who thinks that people should atone for the mistakes of certain dead people completely unrelated to them just because they’re also white. To help your ignorance, that’s NOT why affirmative action was put in place. You will never this cited as the reason for affirmative action unless the citer is as ignorant as you are or has a thing against white people. The official reason, although often put more euphemistically is this: if we had no affirmative action, the resultingly overwhelmingly white (and Asian?) student body would not be demographically representative of the society for which college is supposed to prepare its students. Therefore, to best prepare the most deserving students we admit, we will also admit some minorities under less stringent criteria so the most deserving can learn from a more diverse set of peers. Another argument you may see is that the minorities come from statistically poorer pools, and so have less opportunity to go to prep school, get an SAT tutor, join the polo team, etc, so the “affirmative action” is really a statistical reflection of admissions criteria being adjusted downward to fit the circumstances while not actually admitting more innately ignorant / less deserving students. I personally don’t think the first argument is a good enough reason to have affirmative action, and that the “affirmative action” boost is stronger than would be anticipated by the second. But please, make reasonable arguments like that if you’re for it. Don’t come up with bullcrap about ancestal sin and shit like that.
December 13th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
*Correction: … You will never *see* this cited as the reason…
December 14th, 2008 at 6:10 am
Guys, guys, we’re getting distracted from what really matters here: how much ass Princeton sucks.
December 14th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
If this were true then why aren’t more latino-americans, who make up a larger percentage of the work force than african-americans, admitted into the ivy?
December 20th, 2008 at 4:06 am
“..defends Lawrenceville grads against uncivilized cowboys from uncouth and farflung territories like (shudder) Texas…”
excuse me. I’m from Houston, and I find this comment horribly offensive. Do not hold Texas at blame for the failures of George W. Bush. Bush actually made a lot of progressive movements as governor, and is one of the reasons why Medical schools in Texas are so affordable. It’s not Texas’s fault that he is failing in the Executive Branch position.
The comment about Texas was completely unnecessary and highly inappropriate.
December 21st, 2008 at 12:07 am
The reason why there aren’t more latino-americans is because they are not actually citizens and thus cannot apply for FASFA.