On the whole, I was glad to see the open letter addressed to the student body from the USG about the lackluster intellectual life at Princeton. Of course I retain the right to a certain amount of cynicism, but there's no reason to deny their efforts (not that I've seen any so far) a fair chance. My current concern is that much of the University is not disposed to do so.
In the last two weeks I've heard several students voice disapproval of the sentiments expressed. They've even made the pretense of legitimate reasons for objecting to the letter. After all, they say, college isn't just about learning.
You probably don't see why that concerns me. You probably think there's a legitimate argument to be made in favor of such opinions, but to me that's part of the problem. A University is by very definition a community of scholars, a place for thinkers to congregate in order to further their intellectual endeavors. It's literally a contradiction in terms to say, "College isn't just about learning."
I think one of the primary causes of the anti-intellectualism at Princeton is the operating definition most students use for learning. Though they voice other opinions, in practice most seem to think learning is all about textbooks and lectures. They say they are open to new experiences and interested in learning from their peers whom they describe as "amazing," and, "inspiring." If this is the case, why do they sit down to dinner and exchange information only about hours of sleep versus hours of work on a given night? Sure, on Thursday and Saturday nights, one might throw in the question of, "Where are you going tonight?" but other than that there isn't much variety in meal time conversation.
Has anyone ever asked you at dinner, "What did you learn today?" If they did, wouldn't you look at them like they had four and a half heads? Yet, I would hope you had learned something that day. I don't believe in a narrow definition of learning. The most interesting learning for most people goes on from people watching and just turning things over in their head outside of lecture. Why not share these things? What's the point of getting together the country's "most promising young thinkers" if they're only going to talk about club sports and which eating clubs are members-only on a given weekend?
If you don't know what I mean by this, start by asking people about their lives before they came to Princeton. They'll tell you about their time abroad. They'll tell you about their award-winning science projects. They'll tell you about their crackpot theories they haven't talked about since they got here because they're afraid people won't care or understand. In other words, use the people around you. Use them for all they're worth and all the interesting stories they're probably hoarding for themselves.
I do think there are other reasons for the separation of academics and socializing at Princeton. The eating club system certainly doesn't help matters. The fact that the so-called faculty fellows can rarely be bothered to eat lunch in the residential colleges except sometimes at brunch when they bring their spouses is an example of one failure on the University's part. However, the majority of the blame rests squarely on the students. The very fact that we're looking around for others to motivate us — that we need the USG to step in and help — is a symptom of the problem.
Let's start to show some initiative. Try getting to know a professor on a social level. Ask him or her to have lunch with a group of classmates. Sit down to dinner one night and tell your friends about your history lecture. Tell them what you thought of it, even if it just boils down to a precise analysis about why you found it so boring and what was wrong with the professor's delivery. Go to a master's dinner and ask a question in the end. If you want to be really dramatic, go wild and stay awake during precept. Aileen Nielsen is a sophomore from Upper Black Eddy, Pa. She can be reached at anielsen@princeton.edu.