Letters - February 24, 1999
Classes running 25th reunions, as mine is this year, need to consider offering a familylite plan. The cost for my family of four, excluding lodging and transportation, to attend Reunions for two days is $1,100, almost exactly equal to the average we spent, excluding lodging and transportation, on each of our latest annual weeklong vacations. When I pointed this out to one of my class's reunion organizers, his attitude was that I obviously could afford to attend Reunions, and it was my choice if I felt it wasn't worth the money.
What he fails to appreciate is that when one chooses to form a family, one establishes shared resources and certain responsibilities toward their disbursement. To attend Reunions as per the plan my class leadership has established, I must choose between diverting a significant chunk of annual college and retirement savings or denying my family a fullfledged vacation in favor of Dad's twoday nostalgia trip. Or, perhaps, selfishly blowing $325 on myself for one day (the price of four fourday passes to Busch Gardens and Water Country USA, plus 365day passes to Colonial Williamsburg).
This is not to say that I do not wish to participate in Reunions. I would be more than glad to bear my share of Prade and organizational overhead and the cost of attending the class dinner. On the other hand, I cannot justify diverting hundreds more that my wife and I have earned for elaborate outfits we will seldom, if ever, wear again, a class book full of information on people I've never met, and a twonight beer bash.
The tradition of the grand reunion with customwoven blazers, etc., may be satisfying to many, but it is just plain unjustifiable to many others, even those who could, if we chose, afford it. We need a flexible alternative to allow us to get together with our classmates without shortchanging our families. For now, the Class of 1974 is excluding a significant portion of its members from even considering attending their 25th reunion.
Daniel E. Ungar '74
Skillman, N.J.
With 1999 Reunions still in the planning stage, now is the time to restore the traditional P-rade route through the old campus, down Prospect Avenue and Roper Lane. But instead of Clarke Field, the route's terminus should be the beautiful new Princeton Stadium. The P-rade would once again be a magnificent spectacle rather than the cramped, hard-to-see affair it has become since the route was changed some years ago so that it no longer crossed Washington Road. And it would give the vastly enlarged younger classes a chance to strut their stuff.
Al Kracht '49
Chappaqua, N.Y.
I was confused by the graph in the sidebar accompanying your article on the Faculty Study Group on Undergraduate Admissions (Notebook, November 18). It appears that the numbers of minorities have been growing steadily, to a point where they now constitute close to 30 percent of all admits. Nevertheless, the article indicates considerable concern on the university's part over the inadequacy of the numbers of minorities being admitted. I assume the graph includes Asian Americans among minorities while the comments referring to inadequate numbers refer to non-Asian minorities. Could paw explain the apparent discrepancy between the comments and the accompanying graph?
Michael Malamut '82
Boston, Mass.
Editor's note: We asked Dean of Admission Fred Hargadon to reply, and here is his response:
"The Study Group's primary concern was not one of how many minority students are admitted, but rather one of why a significantly lower fraction of them, once admitted, choose to enroll at Princeton than is the case with nonminority students. The chart Mr. Malamut refers to is for enrolled students. Although our "yield" on all admitted students is among the highest in the country, it nevertheless is the case that while around 75 percent of our nonminority admits choose to enroll at Princeton, just around 55 percent of our minority-student admits choose to enroll. While the Study Group recognized that different yield rates for any number of subgroups of admitted students are the result of a variety of factors (e.g., geography, degree of familiarity with the university, the range of options particular students have, whether Princeton is their first choice, and so forth), it encouraged the university to take a good, hard look to see if there are things that we could or should be doing, doing differently, or doing better, that might increase our chances of enrolling more of the minority students we admit each year.
"On another point, Mr. Malamut is correct in surmising that a significant part of the increase in minority student enrollments at Princeton in recent years can be attributed to an increase in the number of Asian-American students choosing to enroll."
Professor of History Sean Wilentz had every right to appear before the House Judiciary Committee to express his views on the impeachment of President Clinton (Notebook, January 27). From a Princeton professor, however, I would have expected nothing less than a professional, principled, and reasoned argument.
Instead, Mr. Wilentz used this momentous occasion to brand any members of Congress who disagreed with his opinion as "zealots and fanatics." Prince-ton should have issued a press release stating that his testimony was strictly his own and did not necessarily represent the views of the university or its faculty, staff, students, or alumni. I question whether Mr. Wilentz has the right to associate publicly his indiscreet and unnecessary personal affronts with Princeton's good name.
Kevin R. Armbruster '77
Atlanta, Ga.
From June 6 to 12, along with 6,000 others, I will bicycle 560 miles from San Francisco to Los Angeles to raise money for the San Francisco AIDS Foundation. I must raise $2,500 in pledges and need help to meet my goal. For more information, I can be reached at 1029 Patrick Henry Drive, Arlington, VA 22205 (smcdowell@amrivers.org).
Suzy McDowell '94
Arlington, Va.
GO TO the Table of Contents of the current issue
GO TO PAW's
home page