The $45 fee applies to any student who drops a course in the third through ninth weeks of the semester and is assessed on a per-course basis. Supporters of the fee claim that in its absence, students would enroll in many classes and only drop at the last possible opportunity. This would have a detrimental effect, especially in capped enrollment classes, since the students who dropped those courses prevented others from taking them. Furthermore, professors who spend time carefully sorting and balancing precepts could have their work undone if many students decide to drop the course after precepts have been scheduled.
While these outcomes are undesirable, they are unlikely to become more pronounced in the absence of the fee. Very few students decide whether to drop a course — an important decision affecting a student’s academic future — based on the $45 fee imposed by the University. As such, eliminating the fee would do little to change student behavior. Given that the aforementioned problems do not seem to exist currently, the impact of eliminating the fee would be minimal.
The concern about precepts is also unfounded. In the majority of courses, the precept schedule is set by the beginning of the second week — before the deadline for students to drop classes without paying the fee. Most students wait until the second week to drop a class, so even under the status quo, precept assignments can become unbalanced and a precept may be smaller than planned. Eliminating the fee would not change this: The stated problems would simply surface later in the semester, as students would face slightly less pressure to drop a course in the second week.
Finally, when the fee does impact student behavior, it does not encourage students to remain in a course, but only to drop courses earlier than they otherwise would have. If students are unsure about whether to drop a course in the first two weeks of school, they may err on the side of caution and drop the course in the second week, fearing they will incur the fee later on. Thus, to the extent that the fine does modify student behavior, it may artificially limit the intellectual curiosity of some students.
While a fee that covers the administrative costs of students dropping courses could be justified, the current $45 fine is clearly in excess of any costs the University incurs. It is clear that the University is attempting to use the fine as a disincentive to dropping classes, but this action is ineffective and unnecessary. The fine essentially functions as a nuisance fee, and its elimination is unlikely to create significant problems. Ending the policy of nickel-and-diming students through this fee would allow students more time to make informed decisions on their coursework without facing unnecessary pressure from the University.
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
