COMBO II and Princeton's proactiv(e) solution

Strange as it may seem, these ads are a great analog to the reason Princeton needs another Committee on Background and Opportunity (COMBO) survey. The original COMBO survey's results look quite troubling because student happiness and parents' income seem to be correlated, a disparity Princeton's generous financial aid policy was supposed to prevent.

But the survey was conducted in May 2007, before Princeton implemented its "Proactiv(e) Solution" of eating club financial aid and four-year residential colleges. Thus, the results of the original COMBO survey create the before picture that shows many of Princeton's blemishes. We need COMBO II to see the after picture and whether the "Proactiv(e) Solutions" the administration applied have cleared up the campus' problems.

There are strong reasons to believe eating club financial aid and the introduction of four-year colleges have profoundly improved the lives of students on financial aid. Back in May 2007, those on financial aid faced either financial hardship or risked social isolation. Those who wanted to join eating clubs paid on average $2,000 per year more than they did as underclassmen. Doing so meant working more campus jobs, dealing with stressful phone calls to their parents or taking out student loans at a university that prided itself on its no-loan financial aid policy. The other options, going independent or choosing a dining hall contract, were cheaper but had their own drawbacks.

Most of those not in eating clubs chose to be independent, generally the cheapest option. Being independent can work for some, but it can disconnect students from the center of social life on the Street, and it can substantially narrow one's circle of friends for those who are not social butterflies. And according to the Housing Department, only 45 upperclassmen who lived in upperclass housing chose to have dining hall contracts in 2006-07. The number was likely so low because very few other upperclassmen ate in dining halls, not to mention it appeared quite sketchy to interact almost exclusively with underclassmen.

This situation has changed dramatically since May 2007. Eating clubs are still the most expensive option, but students on financial aid only pay about a few hundred dollars more on average than they did as underclassmen. An average eating club costs about $7,200 a year, but financial aid budgets $6,700 for food for upperclassmen. Additionally, eating in dining halls is no longer such a socially isolating experience for upperclassmen. Compared with the 45 upperclassmen two years ago, there are now about 300 upperclassmen in the four-year colleges and 135 upperclassmen in upperclass dorms who have dining hall contracts. Each upperclassman also now has two free meals per week in the dining hall that they did not have back in May 2007. Students can still choose to go independent, but this option is primarily reserved for those who really want to be on their own.

A new survey - a COMBO II - is necessary to find out to what extent Princeton's "Proactiv(e) Solution" has reduced the correlation between parents' income and student happiness. To make sure the data is comparable, most of the questions asked in the original COMBO survey should be asked again. But a few additional questions should probe the impact of the particular changes at Princeton since May 2007. Specifically, how have eating club financial aid and four-year colleges changed dining decisions? (In my case, I took advantage of both and have a split plan between Mathey College and Quadrangle Club.) Among students who have chosen to eat in dining halls, how many of them would have considered eating clubs, and which eating clubs would they likely have joined?

I strongly believe COMBO II will show that the administration's "Proactiv(e) Solution" has reduced disparities based upon income, but at this point, I only have what I consider is a compelling narrative. Only a survey can empirically prove (or disprove) this hypothesis. The survey may indicate other problems in addition to dining that must be addressed. But only if we first have a COMBO II will we know that we need to have a "Clean and Clear" mind and face these additional blemishes head on.

James Coan is a Wilson School major from Kensington, Md. He can be reached at jcoan@princeton.edu.