Outside of the Orange Bubble, the popular conception is that Princeton is a school of rich kids. This reputation shouldn’t surprise anyone. In 2017, The New York Times reported that 17 percent of Princeton students were from the top one percent of the income distribution, while less than 14 percent were from the bottom 60 percent — a ratio that was common among the Ivies.
But at Princeton, we often forget the sharp difference in income distributions between Princeton and the nation as a whole. The media spins a tale of great improvement: Though Princeton had once predominantly served America’s economic elite, it has done well in shedding the specter of affluence that has haunted it for centuries. After all, a whopping 65 percent of Princeton students receive some level of financial aid.
This is a persuasive narrative, but make no mistake: Princeton’s “economic diversity” is a myth. Although the numbers have improved since the 2017 article from The New York Times, just 30.8 percent of Princeton’s Class of 2026 is from the bottom 60 percent of U.S. households.
Princeton’s administration must implement a class-based affirmative action system to create a domestic student population which is socioeconomically representative of America. In the meantime, effectively serving the nation and humanity involves a realistic understanding of the world’s socioeconomic dynamics — and it starts with us recognizing that Princeton’s population, when compared to the nation as a whole, is not economically diverse.
The belief in Princeton’s supposed diversity starts before students even begin their first classes here. In their Frosh Survey, the Class of 2028 were asked if Princeton is “racially and economically diverse.” Incoming first-years tended to agree: 16.8 percent of respondents answered “very true,” while 51.5 percent answered “somewhat true.” Only 10.9 percent answered either “somewhat untrue” or “very untrue.”
Something’s wrong here. Is it representative for a demographic which makes up 60 percent of the American population to make up only around 30 percent of Princeton’s student population? Absolutely not — that’s a diversity disaster.
But Princeton’s administration buries the true scope of this disaster through deceptive statements and statistics. Yes, two-thirds of Princeton students are on financial aid, but here at Princeton, even households making $300k per year receive some level of aid. In other words, students from the 95th percentile of American households could receive financial aid at Princeton.
Instead of emphasizing the disastrous state of Princeton’s socioeconomic breakdown, Princeton’s administration diverts to a narrative of improvement. President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 attests that Princeton is “more diverse than ever in its history,” which is true, but not that impressive given Princeton’s massive shortcomings in the present moment.
Of course, Eisgruber still claims that “we have work to do” and avoids outright describing Princeton as economically diverse. But Princeton’s current failures are lost to many: The fact that roughly 70 percent of Princeton’s Class of 2028 believe that Princeton is “economically diverse” shows this.
What can be done about the underrepresentation of lower-income students at Princeton? Though not a perfect solution, class-based affirmative action can bridge some of the gaps within Princeton’s income distribution. Detractors of class-based affirmative action often cite the massive cost of providing financial aid for lower-income students, but this is Princeton: With our $34.1 billion endowment, we can certainly afford it.
To an extent, Princeton already does use class-based affirmative action: Admissions considers Pell-eligibility and household income. But Princeton’s current goals aren’t ambitious: It aims for 70 percent of the student population to be on financial aid and 22 percent to be Pell-eligible. We can do better than that.
In our admissions process, we should aim for near-perfect representation, broken down into more exact income groups — like deciles. It’s simple: The bottom 60 percent of American households should compose around 60 percent of Princeton’s domestic student population. This shouldn’t be difficult: each year, Princeton considers about 18,000 of its applicants to be “well-qualified.” From this large pool of “well-qualified” applicants, Princeton can absolutely create an economically representative student population.
But an economically diverse Princeton won’t happen overnight. In the meantime, we need to understand and acknowledge that Princeton — as it stands — has a massive lack of economic diversity — a recognition that we need in order to understand the class dynamics of what we’re being taught.
When we delude ourselves that Princeton’s student population, at least on a socioeconomic level, is somewhat representative of America as a whole, we permit it to become the model for America’s socioeconomic conditions.
And that’s a problem. Rich people, as a whole, are more sheltered from America’s worst problems. Wealthy households have higher consumer sentiment and an easier time affording housing and healthcare. Perceptions of the economy between economic classes are just different.
If we believe Princeton’s affluent student population is representative of America, we set ourselves up for failure by absorbing false, out-of-touch perceptions about the nation we seek to serve. When we do this, we fail to understand that the struggles of middle-class Americans are much more ubiquitous than we think.
Soon, we will exit the Orange Bubble and be forced to confront the struggles of the rest of America. Our understanding needs to begin now. We must become civic leaders who fight on behalf of working-class people. We must become engineers who produce wonderful infrastructure for under-developed communities. And regardless of our career paths, we must become empathetic people who understand folks from all walks of life.
If you want to understand the nation, you need to understand that this place represents the nation’s richest: Our “average” students in terms of income are in the nation’s top 20 percent. To understand the reality of the United States, look for friends who come from more modest economic backgrounds — relative to people in the nation and the world as a whole, not just Princeton — and listen to their experiences.
Most importantly, look beyond the Orange Bubble. Because here, between ivy-covered walls and ivory towers, you won’t find a true reflection of the world’s living conditions. Leave this place when you can and meet people. We don’t go to a diverse school, but we live in a diverse world — a world that’s worth understanding.
Raf Basas (he/him/his) is a first-year student from Elk Grove, Calif. intending to major in English, Politics, or SPIA. He participated in FSI, a program for first-gen/low-income students, where Princeton felt as though it lived up to the socioeconomic diversity that people claim it has. He can be reached at rb4078[at]princeton.edu or @raf.basas on Instagram.
Read More
‘How to Prosecute Genocide?’ panel hosted by Lichtenstein Institute for Self-Determination
Leela HenslerProfessor Luis Moreno Ocampo, the first chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and Anoush Baghdassarian, who currently serves as a clerk on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, discussed the ICC’s role in securing justice for victims of genocide on a global scale at a Lichtenstein Institute for Self-Determination (LISD) panel.
Professor Luis Moreno Ocampo, the first chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and Anoush Baghdassarian, who currently serves as a clerk on the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, discussed the ICC’s role in securing justice for victims of genocide on a global scale at a Lichtenstein Institute for Self-Determination (LISD) panel.
Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts speaks on trust in institutions
Sena Chang and Leela HenslerKevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, joined 50 community members in Robertson 001 for a conversation spanning declining government trust, the newly-announced Trump cabinet, and politics on college campuses. The event, titled “Should We Burn It All? A Blueprint for America’s Institutions,” was hosted by the American Whig-Cliosophic Society and moderated by Jaden Stewart ’26.
Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, joined 50 community members in Robertson 001 for a conversation spanning declining government trust, the newly-announced Trump cabinet, and politics on college campuses. The event, titled “Should We Burn It All? A Blueprint for America’s Institutions,” was hosted by the American Whig-Cliosophic Society and moderated by Jaden Stewart ’26.
Staff Picks: Men’s Soccer vs. Akron NCAA Tournament
Hayk Yengibaryan and Bryant FigueroaAfter winning the Ivy League tournament, the Tigers head to Akron, Ohio to take on the Zips in the first round of the NCAA tournament. The Daily Princetonian Sports staff gives their prediction ahead of the match.
After winning the Ivy League tournament, the Tigers head to Akron, Ohio to take on the Zips in the first round of the NCAA tournament. The Daily Princetonian Sports staff gives their prediction ahead of the match.
