It’s that time of year again. As room draw draws to a close, anxieties are running high. Many rising juniors like me are dealing with the reality that they won’t be able to draw into their residential college for next year and are scrambling to snag a room in the upperclass draw. But my inability to draw a junior room in my college this year has a surprising side effect: I’m likely out of luck next year, too.
Currently, there are quotas that limit how many juniors and seniors can draw into each residential college. Juniors are randomly ordered, and those later on the list are unable to select a room in their residential college. A small provision in how draw groups are ordered in the residential college draw makes it so that those who fail to draw a room in the college as juniors are effectively locked out as seniors.
All groups in room draw are assigned a weight based on various priority rules, including class year. Groups are ordered by their weight, with those with equal weights randomly ordered. Students who apply to their college’s draw receive an additional 0.1 points to their draw weight for every year they’ve lived in their college. For rising sophomores and juniors, this addition is essentially meaningless because everyone receives the 0.1 point boost. But it matters as a rising senior.
As an out-of-luck student, my draw weighting next year will be 3.2 points — three for being a senior, and 0.2 for my two years living in my residential college. But those who were successful in this year’s residential college draw will instead receive 3.3 points, meaning that they will be placed before me in the draw order with certainty.
University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill confirmed the continued implementation of this provision to me in an emailed statement. Morrill acknowledged that “a potential result of this point system is that a student who did not draw into their college as a junior may not be able to draw into their college as a senior.”
It’s unclear why this provision still exists. A few years ago, it was possible for upperclassmen to draw into a residential college that was not their own. Back then, this rule provided priority when drawing into one’s own residential college. But now, the only function of the provision is to make it much less likely for students to draw into their residential college in their senior year should they be unsuccessful the previous year. Essentially, I am penalized twice for being unlucky this year — first in my junior draw, then again in my senior draw.
When I asked Morrill for why this apparent unfairness exists, she responded that “the 0.1-point allocation was instituted to encourage junior and senior participation in the college system and is only one factor among many that impact students’ abilities to select rooms.”
This explanation makes no sense to me. The fact that I was unable to draw in my junior year is purely the result of luck and has nothing to do with whether I wanted to participate in my residential college or not. Moreover, this system has no encouraging effect on residential college participation. If I did not want to participate in the residential college system, this rule would have no impact on me. And if I changed my mind in my senior year, this rule actually does the opposite of encouraging participation — instead, it locks me out. Many students prefer drawing into their residential college due to the community and better room options it provides.
If the University were interested in equitable participation in the residential college system, it should assign a point bonus to those who failed to draw into their residential college their junior year, so that those who didn’t have a chance to live in their residential college for their junior year can have a better chance to do so in their senior year.
Though the policy may have served a useful purpose years ago, it only exacerbates unfairness in a system many students already view with suspicion. The University must abolish this unreasonable rule to restore fairness to the room draw process.
Jerry Zhu is a sophomore majoring in Economics. He serves as the community Opinion editor of The Daily Princetonian, and encourages you to submit a response to this piece or write an op-ed for the ‘Prince.’ You can reach him at jfz[at]princeton.edu.
Read More
5Terra Advisory must distance itself from human rights abuses
Kristin NagyIt’s clear that 5Terra is making the wrong choice by failing to fully investigate their own plans and attempting to build a talent pipeline between students and PIF companies, putting Princeton’s values of service and ethical leadership at risk by wading into possible involvement in human rights abuses.
It’s clear that 5Terra is making the wrong choice by failing to fully investigate their own plans and attempting to build a talent pipeline between students and PIF companies, putting Princeton’s values of service and ethical leadership at risk by wading into possible involvement in human rights abuses.
Princeton, stop using ChatGPT
Ava JohnsonWhen chatbot tools like ChatGPT are consistently used in place of basic critical thinking and simple mental tasks, we lose our ability to complete these tasks ourselves.
When chatbot tools like ChatGPT are consistently used in place of basic critical thinking and simple mental tasks, we lose our ability to complete these tasks ourselves.
Princeton students must be open-minded judges
Jorge ReyesJudges, like Justice Sotomayor, are obligated by the constraints of their roles to be impartial. Princeton students have no such obligation — we are not detached interpreters of the Constitution but rather active political agents. While our backgrounds and values rightfully shape our political views, we shouldn’t let that inhibit our ability to listen to other perspectives.
Judges, like Justice Sotomayor, are obligated by the constraints of their roles to be impartial. Princeton students have no such obligation — we are not detached interpreters of the Constitution but rather active political agents. While our backgrounds and values rightfully shape our political views, we shouldn’t let that inhibit our ability to listen to other perspectives.