February 7, 2017

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Tuesday february 7, 2017 vol. cxxxix no. 3

{ Feature }

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } RESEARCH

Eisgruber drafts U. researchers investigate and signs letter gendered stereotypes critiquing executive order

By Ruby Shao staff writer

By Catherine Benedict staff writer

On Feb. 2, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 and 47 other American college and university presidents sent a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to “rectify or rescind” his Jan. 27 executive order. The letter criticizing the order, which forbids entry into the U.S. by travelers from Iraq, Sudan, Iran, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen for 90 days and from Syria indefinitely, was initially outlined by Eisgruber and University of Pennsylvania President Amy Gutmann. The executive order has been criticized by Democrats, such as California Senator Kamala Harris, as a “Muslim ban,” and was announced by Trump at a speech at the Pentagon, in which he said his ulterior goal was to keep “radical Islamic terrorists” out of the country, and only admit those “who will support our country and love deeply our people.” His executive order also caps the entry of refugees into the country in 2017 at 50,000, much lower than the 110,000 refugees the Obama administration wanted to take in 2017.

The letter to Trump argues that “the order threatens both American higher education and the defining principles of our country,” as it “specifically prevents talented, law-abiding students and scholars from the affected regions from reaching our campuses.” The signatories assert that the ban is

unjustly aimed at Muslim immigrants, and that their campuses embrace “outstanding Muslim students and scholars from the United States and abroad, including the many who come from the seven affected countries.”

Moreover, the group of 48 argues that the executive order attacks the American dream of religious diversity and “[dims] the lamp of liberty and [stains] the country’s reputation.” The letter ends with an urge to “rectify the damage done by this order.”

The letter was signed by the presidents of all eight Ivy League schools and of every U.S. News and World Report “Top Ten” university, excluding the presidents of the University of Chicago and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Signatories included alumni such as Tufts University President Anthony Monaco ’81, Cornell University President Hunter Rawlings GS ’70, University of Oregon President Michael Schill ’80, and University of Michigan President Mark Schlissel ’79.

A few federal trial judges have blocked portions of the executive order, with U.S. District Judge James L. Robart issuing the widestreaching temporary halt to the ban.

At press time, the case is now in the hands of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco, and the case seems likely to reach the Supreme Court.

LECTURE

Arens discusses personal comfort systems

By Hamna Khurram staff writer

The core philosophy of personal comfort systems is to “address the person directly and not the whole space,” said Dr. Edward Arens. Arens is Professor Emeritus of Architecture at the University of California, Berkeley and the director of the Center for Environmental Research. His work with personal comfort systems is closely tied to the Center for the Built Environment at Berkeley.

An initial personal comfort system that Arens introduced to the audience was designed for office spaces. It consisted of a motion-sensitive fan, a foot warmer that uses reflective red and orange light bulbs to warm the individual’s feet, and a heating and cooling chair.

When dealing with temperature and humidity changes that make an individual more or less comfortable in their work areas, it is “100 times more efficient to condition the person directly,” said Arens.

Field tests have also demonstrated that personal comfort systems can reduce energy costs by as much as 60 percent, while rendering 90 percent of people comfortable using just the specialized chair and desk fan.

While developing personal comfort systems, Arens also

emphasized the importance of being able to target the right body parts. He cited a study in which high pressure air was applied to different parts of people’s bodies while observing the thermal character of their reactions.

“What’s interesting about these results is that under cool conditions, it’s one set of body parts that dominates, and in warm conditions it’s another set that dominates,” said Arens.

In cold conditions, the extremities — including feet, hands, and the head — experience discomfort first, while in warm conditions, the face is more receptive to discomfort.

By targeting these areas appropriately according to varying conditions, increasingly useful personal comfort systems can be created.

The heating and cooling chair, for example, uses heated resistance wire to raise an individual’s body temperature and targeted convection currents to bring down a person’s body temperature.

“There really shouldn’t be any other kinds of chairs,” said Arens. “We really want to see the world get moving.”

The event was sponsored by the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment. The lecture took place in Maeder Hall at 4:00 p.m.

Stereotypes associating brilliance with men more than women emerge in girls by age six, according to a paper coauthored by a University professor published in the journal Science on Jan. 27.

Six-year-old girls proved less likely than six-year-old boys to consider people of their own gender “really, really smart.”

The outcome unfolded as children picked among photos of males and females to identify the “really, really smart” protagonist of a story they had just heard, the “really, really smart” member of a pair, or the person corresponding to various characteristics and objects. Though at age five, boys selected their own gender 71 percent of the time and girls 69 percent, by age six, the gap widened to 65 versus 48 percent.

Relative to their male counterparts, six-year-old girls also showed less interest in games described as for the “really, really smart.” A girl picked at random would have a 64 percent lower chance of wanting to play than a boy picked at random.

Parallel results surfaced for stereotypes linking women to kindness and diligence. At six, boys alone grew less likely to associate niceness with their own gender, and girls remained as eager as them to attempt games for those who “try really, really hard.”

University philosophy professor Sarah-Jane Leslie co-authored the study with University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign doctoral student in psychology Lin Bian and New York University psychology professor Andrei Cimpian.

The article adds to a series investigating why women are

underrepresented in some academic disciplines more so than in others, Leslie said.

She and Cimpian led the initial study, published in Science on Jan. 16, 2015. It argued that fewer females work in academic disciplines whose practitioners consider innate talent the key to success, because stereotypes cast women as lacking such genius. Females might exit brilliance-oriented fields because they internalize the stereotypes, dread the effort necessary to demonstrate that the stereotypes do not apply to them, or go overlooked by colleagues and superiors, Cimpian explained.

No convincing evidence in the scientific literature suggests that women actually fare worse intellectually in maledominated fields, the authors noted.

“It’s interesting in itself to know about these stereotypes in young children and it’s interesting in itself to know about these stereotypes predicting women’s representation in certain fields,” Leslie said. “But when you put them together, then you really see that these stereotypes are impacting girls from a very young age, and probably impacting their educational choices for maybe 12 years before they even get to a college classroom.”

Since the 2015 study pioneered research into stereotypes about which gender is likelier to be brilliant than the other, the 2017 study offered the first insight into childhood acquisition of the brilliance stereotype, Leslie said.

“No one had ever thought about a whole field having a mindset, a whole field believing that it takes fixed innate ability to succeed, versus believing dedication, hard work,

growth of ability over time is the major factor,” said Stanford psychology professor Carol Dweck, whose work Leslie cited as a source of inspiration for the 2015 study. “The very nature of their hypothesis led them to look in places people hadn’t.”

Furthermore, the 2017 study was the first to examine children’s gender stereotypes concerning intelligence in general, Bian said. She explained that much literature shows that adults attribute high brainpower to males, and some literature indicates that children associate math aptitude with boys.

Because math gender stereotypes begin in five- to sevenyear-olds according to a 2011 study, the researchers chose that period for their experiment on cognitive ability stereotypes, Cimpian said. The starkness of the discrepancy at age six shocked him.

Age rather than grade matters, Leslie said. Though the team must conduct more experiments to explain why six, she suspected that the brilliance stereotype arises then as the product of extensive learning about the social world from different sources, including parents, teachers, peers, siblings, media, and popular culture.

Cimpian expressed surprise that no relation existed between whom girls perceived as earning the best marks, namely girls, and whom they considered brilliant. Cimpian speculated that perhaps girls neglect to extrapolate from judgments about their peers to judgments about women. Alternatively, he hypothesized that they already hold the attitude common among adults that good grades reveal not brilliance, but rather diligence — a striking developSee STEREOTYPES page 3

TOWN :: JAN 24, 2017

U . A F FA I R S

SPEAR Panel Argues Town’s resolution U. Should Divest from argues Private Prisons against charter school expansion

By Audrey Spensley staff writer

The University should divest from private prisons, argued three speakers at a panel hosted by Students for Prison Education and Reform and Princeton Private Prison Divest. The panelists discussed the history of prison privatization, the results of privatization in terms of efficiency and human rights, and the ethical implications of incentivizing incarceration.

“There are two stories we tell ourselves when we talk about privatization,” said Christopher Petrella, a lecturer and writing specialist at Bates College, who began the discussion.

“There’s the brief technocratic history, that for-profit prison companies were minted in the early eighties. Then there’s another story.”

He went on to argue that incentives for incarceration have existed for far longer than the past four decades and are intertwined with racial discrimination.

“When private prisons were being developed, one of the constants has been the way that the contracts make it explicit that this is about trafficking human bodies,” Carl Takei, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union National Prison Project, added. “Generally, for example, private prison contracts specify that the federal government will deliver a guaranteed amount for, let’s say, 1,500 units to the prison, with additional compensation for each additional unit delivered.” “[The prison industry] is based on the idea of turning a profit on something that is not actually a real market and is a trafficking of human beings,” he added.

The panelists also agreed that the economic benefits of privatizing prisons have not been proven.

Takei explained that the free market model does not apply to prisons because of high barriers to entry. Corporations must not only have sufficient

By Marcia Brown Head News Editor

In a packed town hall meeting for the municipality of Princeton, a resolution urging that the acting New Jersey Commissioner of Education deny Princeton Charter School’s application to expand passed with only one vote against.

Princeton Charter School educates local children from kindergarten to 8th grade. The council members are Jo Butler, Heather Howard, Lance Liverman, Bernard Miller, Timothy Quinn, and council president Jenny Crumiller, who presides

See PRISONS page 3

In Opinion

Today on Campus

Guest Contributor Trevor Klee writes about law school admissions and Guest Contributor Lou Chen writes a breakup letter to the New York Times in honor of Valentine’s Day. PAGE 6

4:30 p.m.: In the PIIRS lecture Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene, lecturerers discuss the relationships between science, technology, labor, nature and social organization in societies. A 71 Lewis A. Simpson Internationl Building.

See CHARTER page 2

WEATHER

U . A F FA I R S

HIGH

51˚

LOW

34˚

Cloudy with showers. chance of rain:

40 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday february 7, 2017

Town votes against expansion of the Princeton charter school CONTINUE Continued from page 1

............. over meetings when the mayor is not in attendance.

The meeting was opened to comments from the public, at which time observers in the crowded room presented objections or encouragements regarding the resolution.

Principal of Princeton Charter School Lawrence Patton said that, contrary to previous claims, rejecting the charter school expansion would have a negative impact. He also affirmed the legal right for charter schools to exist and gave a brief history of charter schools.

“Princeton Charter School is a grassroots charter school not managed by corporate entities,” Patton said at the town hall meeting. “Our purpose for existing is to provide a different option for Princeton parents.”

Patton said that the reason Princeton Charter is requesting permission for an expansion is due to “a community request for greater room in the Princeton Charter School.” According to Patton, an expansion would allow the addition of 76 students over two years, with 54 students added in the first year.

“It will not financially devastate Princeton Public Schools,” Patton said, adding that charter school families also pay taxes and participate in the community and “are also your constituents.”

“Do not feed into the ‘us vs. them’ narrative,” Patton said, to a smattering of applause from audience members at the town hall.

One resident urged the council not to take a position because it “would undermine community togetherness.” Another resident said that he disagreed with the proposal to expand Princeton Charter School because it would affect the entire community, specifically by harming the local public schools.

Still, residents expressed that the charter school offered another option for students in the area because one school doesn’t work for everyone. For many residents, bullying was a major concern.

“We all want what’s best for our kids,” Mayor Liz Lempert said, adding that her heart “is heavy when [she] hears about people experiencing hostility because of where they send their kids to school.”

Superintendent of Princeton Public Schools Steve Cochrane said that the meeting was not intended for the purpose of talking about the educational merits of either institution, but rather about the educational impact that expansion of the charter school would have on all students in Princeton. He said that the expansion would cost

Princeton Public Schools $1.2 million each year, which would instead be paid to the charter school every year. According to Cochrane, this cost would force the public schools to cut both teachers and programs – in addition to forcing larger class sizes.

“All of the cuts would be made at the high school where all students who attend the Princeton Charter School eventually matriculate,” Cochrane said, his comment triggering uproar from the crowd filling the room.

The Chair of the Friends of Princeton Charter School read a letter expressing disappointment that city council had not taken the opportunity to meet with them before discussing the resolution.

While one member of the audience expressed favor for the resolution because the expansion would not benefit the community as a whole, another member of the audience expressed concern and criticized the council for holding the vote at all.

“Princeton Charter School is a public school and all the students, unlike the high school, are residents of the town,” she said.

After the public comment session during the town hall meeting, city council discussed the resolution.

Butler recused herself from voting, citing a direct conflict of interest before any comments were made. Miller suggested tabling the resolution, while Howard noted that the deadline for the city comment on the issue was January 31st. Howard also noted that the town would be the fourth municipality after Highland Park, Montclair, and Red Bank to grapple with the issue.

In these times, “your local government is where more and more people are going to turn to,” Liverman said.

“Our constituents have no other outlet for their view to be expressed by the state,” Quinn said, adding that if the charter schools “know the special sauce to combat bullying” then they should be consolidated with the public schools.

Miller, who attended Princeton Public Schools and whose children also attended these schools, said he didn’t have a conflict of interest and is separating his personal opinion from his professional duties.

Miller opposed the charter school expansions, but thinks the resolution itself should be delayed. Miller voted nay.

The meeting took place at 7 p.m. on Jan. 23 in the Princeton Municipal Building.

Staff writer Jeff Zymeri contributed reporting.

Oop s, sorly, Dos theeS butherr u?

Join the ‘Prince’ copy department.

E-mail join@dailyprincetonian.com

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday february 7, 2017

page 3

Gender ste- Panelists Urge Private Prison Divestment, Say reotypes in their Benefits Have Yet to be Priven CONTINUE young children Continued from page 1

.............

CONTINUE Continued from page 1

.............

ment given that school should supply the most relevant evidence concerning someone’s intellectual ability.

Within the mostly middle class, white sample, the main result held regardless of race, socioeconomic status, or parental education. Future research will investigate how much the findings apply to other populations. Cimpian predicted some variability across cultures because stereotypes differ from place to place. However, he added that most countries endorse stereotypes that deem men better suited to math and science, so differences in the timing of their acquisition might prove minor.

University psychology professor Joan Girgus praised the study. She said it employed a reasonably standard developmental methodology, one used by a high percentage of researchers in the field.

As the immediate next step, the researchers will conduct a longitudinal study that tracks a group of children from ages five to seven, while measuring as many environmental factors as possible to determine what most predicts the emergence of the brilliance stereotype in boys and girls, Cimpian said.

He listed candidates like parents’ ideas, media exposure, and teachers’ interactions.

After determining the origins of the stereotype, the team will propose interventions to not only prevent the development of differences in how boys and girls view brilliance, but also instill a mindset of working hard rather than relying on raw talent.

“To the extent that you convey to kids that success at anything that they’re interested in is less a matter of innate ability, and more a matter of growing your skills, finding the right strategies, putting in effort, then stereotypes have less of a chance to constrict the aspirations of little boys and girls,” Cimpian said.

Undercutting the very notion of effortless brilliance will be essential, Leslie said.

After all, Dweck’s work reveals that everyone, regardless of gender, benefits from adopting the view that dedication and perseverance will improve outcomes, she explained.

“I would resist the conclusion that some people draw, which is, ‘Shouldn’t we just tell little girls they’re really smart?’ Well, certainly we shouldn’t only tell little boys that they’re really smart. But let’s just change the terms of the conversation entirely,” Leslie said.

Other empirically supported interventions include connecting girls to successful female role models and having fathers do as many household chores as mothers, she added.

She noted that the study should help eliminate the common attitude that lays the burden of overcoming stereotypes on individual women.

“No one thinks that a sixyear-old should have the personal responsibility to take a skeptical attitude toward societal gender norms,” Leslie said.

Instead, adults must collectively work to stop limiting the opportunities of young girls.

In particular, Leslie urged University students to open horizons by pursuing their ambitions, without constraints from stereotypes, so as to improve the world that children will grow up in.

capital to create facilities and security systems, they must also have political power and connections with government officials. As a result, the private prison market is effectively a duopoly, with two major corporations — Core Civic, formerly known as Correction Corporation of America (CCA) and the GEO Group, Inc. — controlling the vast majority of the market.

“There is no invisible hand functioning here,” Takei said.

With minimal competition, private prisons have little incentive to innovate but a major incentive to cut costs.

As a result of this structure, private prisons have provided little economic benefit, Judith Greene, director of Justice Strategies, a research organization dedication to criminal justice and immigration reform, argued.

“There is very little evidence not curated by economists who are funded by the industry itself that supports the notion that much, if any, money is saved by privatizing,” she said.

Greene argued that other benefits of privatization have

also yet to be proven by research. The private sector has failed to make prisons more effective than government. The argument regarding cross-fertilization — that public prisons would also benefit by adapting the more effective techniques that private prisons have pioneered — is also unsupported by research, Greene added.

“I have never found a nonindustry funded, transparent and methodologically sound study that unimpeachably proves that private prisons save taxpayer money,” Petrella noted.

Petrella added that private prisons exempt themselves from housing high-cost inmates in order to maximize profit, reading fourteen potential reasons for inmate exemption. Reasons included being over age sixty-five or having a major illness.

“The jury is back in. These people have been operating now since the mid-80s,” Greene said. “The claims on which they built their industry have basically, with the exception of research studies bankrolled by the industry [have been disproven] ... there’s little to no evidence to support those claims.”

“The problem with the private prison industry in this country is that from the very beginning it has been the enabler of bad prison policy, bad public policy,” Petrella said. “It becomes the default alternative when there is overcrowding.”

“When you’re talking about comparing private prisons to public prisons: one thing that does not exist in the public sector is the deliberate subversion of oversight in order to maximize profit,” Takei said.

“One of the easiest ways to cut costs if you’re trying to make profit is to reduce staff costs,” he added. This results in poor supervision and higher levels of violence, contraband and escape.

Takei’s legal organization found that CCA was systematically understaffing their prison and falsifying records in order to maximize profits.

Petrella said that private prisons are less effective because they are isolated from the communities they are based in.

“After Mike Brown was murdered in Ferguson, the Department of Justice investigated and published a report where they identified a number of violations at the hands of the Ferguson Police Department,” he

said. “They also made various recommendations to prevent this thing from happening.

One of their recommendations is to ensure that officers in Ferguson P[olice] D[epartment] come from Ferguson.”

An audience member asked the panelists for the primary ethical reason the University should divest from private prisons.

“Divestment broadly construed will help restore Princeton’s historical entanglement with the slave legacy,” Petrella said. “In conjunction, divesting from companies that specifically prop up immigrant detention facilities helps push back, symbolically and materially, against Woodrow Wilson’s legacy.”

“Investigative journalism has shown the power institutions like Princeton have to put this issue back in the mainstream,” Takei added.

The panel, titled “Incentivizing Incarceration: A Panel on Private Prisons” was co-sponsored by the Pace Center for Civic Engagement, Princeton University and the Mamdouha S. Bobst Center for Peace and Justice and was held in McCormick 101 on Feb. 6.

Tuesday february 7, 2017

Opinion

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

My Breakup Letter to The New York Times Lou Chen

Guest Contributor

D

ear New York Times,

In honor of Valentine’s Day, I have decided to share a breakup letter that I wrote during a period of deep heartbreak not too long ago. Please avert your eyes if unaccustomed to shattering grief.

I never thought it would come to this. I used to peruse your pages all the time — while walking to class, eating dinner, or pedaling half-heartedly on my exercise bike. Whenever our now-President did/said/pantomimed something stupid, I immediately headed to your opinion section, where I was sure to find a veritable cornucopia of op-eds lampooning him to almost orgasmic effect. As a post-pubescent teenager attending an Ivy-League school, why would I need pornography when I had you?

But our blissful, practically codependent relationship shuddered to a halt the day you broke my heart. November 8, 2016. I was sprawled on my couch with a few friends, watching state by state bleed crimson. And on my laptop in front of me, I had out your live Presidential forecast, which had been a reassuring presence in my life for the past few months. But as your needle slowly, inevitably, torturously ticked from >80 percent Clinton to >95 percent Trump, I felt something change between us.

Something irreversible. And

I knew that from that moment on, I’d never be able to look at your gorgeous black Cheltenham typeface the same way again.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been trying to find out what exactly went wrong. I went back and reread your pre-election op-eds, scouring them for clues of your imminent betrayal. And now, finally, I think I know the answer.

You made me feel safe in a way no one ever had before.

With headlines like “The Dangers of Donald Trump,” “Trump, the Bad, Bad, Businessman,” and “Trump is an Existential Threat,” you painted an image of a Trump presidency so terrible, so godforsaken, that I was lulled into believing it would never, ever happen.

Brick by marshmallow brick, you built a deliciously enticing bubble around me while simultaneously convincing me that the world outside was a deplorable hellscape called “Rural America.”

And when that bubble exploded and left you coated in strands of blue sugar, you pretended you hadn’t constructed one to begin with, publishing op-eds like “How the Obama Coalition Crumbled, Leaving an Opening for Trump,” which included head-scratching lines such as “… the electoral trends that put [Trump] within striking distance of victory were clear long before Mr. Comey sent his letter…before WikiLeaks published hacked emails from [the DNC]…even clear back in early July.”

Really? They were clear?

It might just be me (it’s not), but putting someone’s chances at winning the presidency anywhere between 10 to 20 percent in the months preceding the election doesn’t sound like you think he’s within “striking distance” of our nation’s highest office. You can’t just cover your butt once you’ve mooned the entire world from the top of your ivory tower.

Worst of all, this sense of false security often came at the expense of alienating people around us. Six days before the election, Thomas Friedman, one of your op-ed columnists, wrote an article entitled “Donald Trump Voters, Just Hear Me Out.” I’d always found your naïveté charming, even cute, but this was a bit much. We all know that if there’s a class of people Trump voters implicitly trust, it’s Oxfordeducated, stylishly-mustachioed journalists. And did you really think that this far into the election season, anyone — Clinton, Trump, or potted plant supporters alike — would change his or her mind? I mean, sure, your pal Friedman admitted that his target audience was “the people least likely to read it,” but I know you knew whom they would end up being: Democrats who needed their fears assuaged (once again) by a guy with a shiny Pulitzer Prize, and liberal-media defenders who could wave the article around as proof of sympathetic outreach to the pro-Trump community.

Not to mention that you

The LSAT, Law School, and You Trevor Klee

Guest Contributor

T

he bulk of this column will be about the LSAT and law school. But before I begin, a word of warning: before even considering going to law school, make a pros and cons list for attending law school, as well as a list of schools that you’d want to go to. Don’t go to law school unless you’re positive you want to go to law school.

Don’t go to law school unless you get into a good law school with good employment prospects. There are too many horror stories of people graduating with $150,000 in debt and a $16 per hour job — don’t become one of them.

Onto the topic at hand.

The first major part of law school admissions is your GPA. Unfortunately, Princeton’s tough grading will work against you here, as you will be competing against students from schools with easier grading. The prestige of the Princeton name will help, but only slightly. The average GPA for admits at Yale Law School is 3.93, and at Harvard it is 3.86; you will be judged against that benchmark.

My advice for dealing with GPA is take easy classes and choose an easy major. According to the report on grade deflation, the departments with the highest percentage of A’s are SLA, COM, GER, and NES. The second major part of law school admissions is the LSAT. This is the more controllable part, especially if you are reading this as a junior or senior. This does not mean it’s easy, however. I am a tutor for the LSAT, GMAT, and GRE, and the LSAT tests verbal skills more than any

other test I have taught. You will need excellent reading comprehension and logical skills to do well on the LSAT, and you will need to prepare extensively.

Start by preparing on your own. Buy the LSAC’s LSAT books, the only books with the official exams, and begin with the more recent tests.

Whichever test you take will be difficult, and you will likely be baffled by some of the test. Don’t worry! There are free answer explanations online for the tests. I’d recommend starting by looking at LSAT Hacks for your answer explanations; once you understand the explanations for the questions you got wrong, and once you are able to do them without looking at your notes, take another test. Rinse and repeat. This will be hard work, but it’s the best way to get a good score.

If you get stuck on a section, like Logic Games, start by looking around for free resources. 7Sage, for instance, is a good website that provides free assistance with Logic Games. Tutors are expensive, so they should not be your first choice. Books, like Mike Kim’s LSAT Trainer LSAT Trainer or the Powerscore LSAT Bible, are also good alternatives, if free resources aren’t cutting it.

Be cautious before enrolling in an LSAT class; these are expensive and are designed for the average student. They are good for getting that student a pretty good score, but they cannot get you the score you need to get into a top law school. As I mentioned previously, if you can’t get into a top law school, you should think very hard before attending law school at all.

Your letters of recommendation and your personal

statement are factors which also make a difference in your application. These factors are less important than GPA and LSAT scores, but you still shouldn’t neglect them.

To save space, however, I won’t talk about them in this column.

Finally, being a URM, or underrepresented minority, also makes a huge difference in your law school application. This is not controllable, but if you are African American, Native American, Puerto Rican, or Mexican American, you will have a significant advantage in law school admissions. For instance, according to myLSN’s data, 0 percent of non-URMs get into Harvard with a 167 LSAT and 3.7 GPA. Fifty percent of URMs do get into Harvard with those stats.

Remember to check off this box if it applies and, if you’re Native American, to include your tribal affiliation number.

To sum up, GPA, LSAT, and the URM box are the three most important factors in law school admission. Of those, the LSAT is the most easily controllable, but you have to be intelligent about how you approach it. Your letters of recommendation and personal statement are of lesser importance, but you still should take care of them.

Trevor Klee ’15 is a Boston GMAT, GRE, and LSAT tutor.

He can be reached at www.trevorkleetutor.com.

forgot all too easily that this was the same guy who, in his op-ed immediately preceding this one, entitled “Donald Trump, Alien to All That’s Great,” stated that Trump supporters “need to be challenged to learn faster and make good choices, because the world is not slowing down for them.” Yes, because the best way to reach out to a group of people is to imply that they learn too slowly, keep making bad decisions, and have a backwards lifestyle. You gave these opinions a respectable platform without providing a host of different perspectives to strike a much-needed balance — you just pretended to. And sometimes, pretense is far worse than outright rejection.

I will never forget our time together. I still smile thinking of those late nights I spent doing your minicrosswords. And I hope that you find someone perfect for you — maybe a recently-divorced History of English History professor from Kinghamfordshire University.

Maybe it’s time for me to reconnect with my ex — my Facebook news stream.

You’ll always be news to me, Lou Lou Chen is a sophomore from San Bernardino, Calif.

He can be reached at lychen@ princeton.edu.

vol. cxxxix

Sarah Sakha ’18

editor-in-chief

Matthew McKinlay ’18 business manager

140TH BUSINESS BOARD

Business Manager Matthew McKinlay ’18 Comptroller Mara Muslea ’20

Head of Advertising Denise Chan ’18 Head of Operations Ryan Gizzie ’18

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy J. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas Widmann ’90 Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Richard P. Dzina, Jr. ’85 William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John G. Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 Kathleen Kiely ’77 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73

NIGHT STAFF 2.6.17 Head News Editor Marcia Brown ’19 Opinion Editor Nicholas Wu ’18

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:

Take a Stand Against President Trump

T

his past weekend, I and dozens, if not hundreds, of members of the Princeton community emailed President Eisgruber and other key administrators calling upon them to denounce the Trump administration’s recent actions to ban entry into the country for people from a number of Muslim-majority countries. What we got was not a denunciation. It was not a condemnation. It was a sweet-seeming façade, nothing more. In his Jan. 29 letter to the Princeton community, Eisgruber invoked a number of anecdotes — including his parents’ flight from European wars and Princeton’s Scottish president — which betrayed a disturbing lack of attention toward the issue of racialized Islamophobia, which is by and large the sentiment behind the order. In refusing to take a firm public stand against this, President Eisgruber and the rest of the administration are tacitly enabling the proliferation of fascism.

The rules of the game have changed. Persuasion will not save us from a regime which invents its own “alternative facts,” gags scientists, threatens to delete scientific data, and will ride roughshod over any and all constitutional checks on power stopping it from its twin goals of ethnic cleansing and personal profit. It is nothing short of reprehensible for Princeton’s administration to cling to the notion of a “free marketplace of ideas” (which was never truly free) in the face of such an immediate and dire

Head Copy Editor Omkar Shende ’18 (Happy Belated Birthday!)

Managing editors Megan Laubach ’18 Grace Rehaut ’18 contributing copy editors Catherine Benedict ’20 Michael Li ’20 design Quinn Donohue ’20

threat, not just to the University, but to the continued existence of a multicultural society.

Fascism relies on silence to thrive. So far, only a handful of major institutions have actively taken a stand to decry the illegitimacy of the Trump regime’s actions. Princeton, and therefore President Eisgruber, has an incredibly powerful platform to declare that the emperor has no clothes. We can’t afford to stand by and wait for the next elections before taking action. We cannot presume that any future elections will be free or fair. We need to be in the streets, contacting any political figures who will listen to us, practicing civil disobedience wherever and however we can.

As Varys said in Game of Thones, “Power is a shadow on the wall.” If institutions and people in power do not recognize Trump’s authority, this regime will crumple like the fragile ego it is built around.

Never again, President Eisgruber. Readers, I call on you to please join the fight — before it is too late.

Ariana Natalie Myers is a Ph.D. Candidate in the History Department and can be reached at aamyers@ princeton.edu. Myers is the president of the Graduate History Association and president of the Queer Graduate Caucus.

All letters to the editor represent the views of the individuals writing them, not the views of the ‘Prince.’

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday february 7, 2017

page 5

MEN’S BASKETBALL

PHOTOS!

DAVID LIU :: PRINCETONIAN STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

DAVID LIU :: PRINCETONIAN STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Princeton basketball dunking on Penn.

Penn basketball driving by two Princeton players.

By David Liu and David Xin

By Tommy Rothman and William Snow

Princeton vs Penn: They hate us cause they ain’t us

Sports Editors

What’s the exact opposite of the remarkable 5-0 start the Tigers are enjoying this season? And the opposite of an eight-game winning streak, with victories against the likes of Harvard, Dartmouth, Yale, and Brown? Well, if we are looking in the Ivy League, Penn comes about as close as it gets.

While the Tigers are at the top of the Ivy League, the Quakers sit at the bottom. While Princeton is 5-0, Penn is 0-5. And wait, which team won the last six meetings and nine of the last 10? The answer, if it isn’t immediately obvious, is Princeton. Can a team basically out of title contention really be considered Princeton’s greatest rival?

A list of the greatest basketball rivalries of all time typically includes Lakers-Celtics, Duke-UNC, and until recently, Penn-Princeton. Of late, however, the term “rivalry” has become more or less a misnomer, an asterisk of the past. With Tuesday night’s victory, the gap between the two teams will only widen even further. One might even liken the “rivalry” between Penn-Princeton to that between Odell Beckham, Jr. and Josh Norman: there are talkers, and then there are winners.

For those who do not regularly follow Ivy League basketball, Tuesday night’s game would be analogous to an NBA match between the Spurs and the Pelicans (without Anthony Davis, of course). For those of you who don’t follow basketball, it’s like the rivalry between Tom and Jerry. Or, if you don’t like references, try picturing an egg and a very hard surface.

On one hand, you have a balanced, mature offense; Princeton has become a team that stands for consistency and selflessness.

On the other, you have a young team that might be interesting in a few years, but is still figuring

things out in the time being. For now, the only statistic the Quakers have led the league in is losses.

Don’t believe us? Here are the numbers: Princeton leads Penn in field goal percentage (44.7 to 43.2), three-point percentage (37.2 to 32.7), assists (14.1 to 13.6), rebounds, and free throw percentage. In summary, Princeton is only better on the boards, at the line, and beyond the arc (and inside the arc, for that matter).

Surely, Penn can make do with all that space in the middle of the court.

For Princeton fans who cannot travel to Tuesday night’s game, it might be helpful for us to preview the environment inside the Palestra tonight. The stadium will be packed with students thrilled and excited to celebrate the stadium’s 90th birthday. Chants of “Puck Frinceton” will fill the air.

And then, Princeton will open with a 6-0 start, before blowing the game open for a 34-17 lead by halftime. If that seems oddly specific to you, it’s because that is exactly what happened the last time these two “rivals” met. In short, it might be like that awkward moment when LeBron and the Cavaliers won Game 7 at Golden State.

Despite the odds, Penn will likely dismiss all of the above, undermining the Tigers’ accomplishments in the process.

In response to the unwarranted comments, we can only defer to none other than James Franco. As Franco noted in The Interview, “They hate us ‘cause they ain’t us.”

If we haven’t belabored the point already, it is pretty clear that the Tigers are favored tonight. And while the young Penn squad will certainly put up a good effort to reach for that ever-elusive Ivy League win, the Tigers will end the night 6-0. In the wise words of the great Uncle Drew: “Don’t reach young blood.” *This article is satire, in light of the Penn-Princeton game on February 6.

T HE DA ILY

The best place to Write Edit Opine Design Produce Illustrate Photograph Create

on campus. join@dailyprincetonian.com

Princeton vs Penn: A hearty puck frinceton

Daily Pennsylvanian Sports Editors

Dear Princetonian children, I hope this letter finds you well from the sacred and noble University of Pennsylvania. Our president, Ms. Amy Gutmann, left your school back in 2004 to pursue a career at what she decisively determined to be the nation’s superior institution, so I hope you will forgive my condescending nature towards you folks — perfectly intelligent tenants of a top-50 university yourselves.

And with that, I would like to close the book on any potential references to presidents of certain domains having ties to certain universities.

Now, I understand your beloved Tigers are 5-0 in Ivy League play, while my Quakers have sputtered to a depressing 0-5 mark.

With that in mind, one might expect the level of suspense, on a scale from “one” to “Princeton swimming,” to be fairly low.

But expand your horizons!

Search beyond! Add the two teams’ records together and you will find that the two teams have combined for a perfectly even 5-5 mark in Ivy play. Suddenly not so lopsided, no?

Now let’s factor in one more thing, for those of you who have been able to keep up thus far. Penn will have home-court advantage in this game. Our teams play better when the Quaker faithful are there to provide a boost. And while the Tigers scored a lucky football win in the state of New Jersey (and I use the term “state” very loosely), that was in large part caused by Penn’s banning all of our drunk frat bros from tailgating on Princeton’s campus. If you think Penn is going to kick drunk students off our own campus, think again. We don’t even kick arsonists off our own campus.

So the Quaker fans in the student body will be there in full force tonight. All twelve of them.

And you’re gonna feel them roar.

Wait, no, wrong mascot. Anyway, I asked a few people who said they never went to the Penn-Princeton games before because they were always during the winter and spring breaks. Those same people probably won’t make it to this one because, as one source put it, they’re “totally busy” during the academic portions of our calendar. But we’ll have plenty of alumni in the house from both schools, and they’ll bring the kind of atmosphere that you can only get from a person old enough to remember the last time either of these two programs really mattered.

Finally, the last time we hosted you guys during a normal goddamn time of the school year to host one’s biggest rival (seriously, Ivy schedule-makers?

FIVE years?), Penn won. That was also the last time we did these columns. So this game is pretty much in the bag.

But maybe Penn won’t win.

Maybe we’ll lose, and you guys will go to 6-0 and get one step closer to earning a chance to play a cherished March game on the court where we get to play all the time.

And then maybe you’ll win those games too, and head to the NCAA Tournament only to get dropped by literally any powerconference school whose highly-paid “student”-athletes have more pride than Baylor.

And then you’ll end up just like us. If you’re not first, you’re last. Shake & Quake. *This article is satire, in light of the Penn-Princeton game on February 6.

Visit our website to view photos and purchase copies! photo.dailyprincetonian.com

Follow us on Twitter! #BeAwesome

@Princetonian

Will Snow, Cole Jacobson, Jonathan Pollack, and Tommy Rothman are the sports Editors of the Daily Pennsylvanian. They can be reached at dpsports@DP.com

The Daily Princetonian is published daily except Saturday and Sunday from September through May and three times a week during January and May by The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., 48 University Place, Princeton, N.J. 08540. Mailing address: P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542. Subscription rates: Mailed in the United States $175.00 per year, $90.00 per semester. Office hours: Sunday through Friday, 1:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Telephones: Business: 609-375-8553; News and Editorial: 609-258-3632. For tips, email news@dailyprincetonian. com. Reproduction of any material in this newspaper without expressed permission of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc., is strictly prohibited. Copyright 2014, The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Daily Princetonian, P.O. Box 469, Princeton, N.J. 08542.

Sports

Tuesday february 7, 2017

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } WOMEN’S BASKETBALL

Women’s Basketball nets huge wins against Dartmouth and Harvard

By Chris Murphy staff writer

Fresh off of finals week, the Princeton Tigers aced perhaps their biggest test of the season to date.

In a wild weekend for Princeton sports, head coach Courtney Banghart netted win number 200, Princeton won an overtime thriller against rival Harvard, and the Tigers vaulted in the Ivy league standings after rattling off three straight conference victories — all three at home.

“We just came in with the confidence we needed after 20 days of practice,” noted senior captain Vanessa Smith. “We all came in aggressive and ready to play.”

Coach Banghart stated, “I told them that I think we got better these 20 days individually. Offensively I thought we have a much better feel on how to play together and defensively we are tougher and stronger.”

First up was a Friday night showdown against Dartmouth. Coach Banghart came into the game with 199 wins during her tenure at Princeton, with her first chance to earn win number 200.

Speaking for the team, Smith stated that “It [meant] everything that we could be here and give this to coach. We love breaking records around here and we are so happy for her!”

Fittingly, the milestone

win came against her alma mater, which Coach Banghart said was “very special to her, as they had done so much for me.” The Tigers won handily by a score of 85-55. The Tigers’ offense was led by a 3-point barrage; Princeton banged in 12 shots from beyond the arc in a fashion reminiscent of its coach who, in her playing career, set a conference record for made threes with 273. Overall, Princeton shot an impressive 48% from the field and made 46% of their threes.

Freshman Bella Alarie led the team with 14 points and received Rookie of the Week and Co-player of the Week for her performances against Dartmouth and Harvard. Sophomore Gabrielle Rush was right behind her, scoring 13 points. Senior Vanessa Smith — who added 11 to the cause — shot a perfect 5/5 from the f loor in the game. She also led the team in rebounds with six of the Tigers’ 41 boards in the game en route to dominating the glass.

“They mean everything,” said Smith regarding the rebounds. “It’s an energy play, especially when we get an offensive rebound. We’re looking to out-rebound every team that we play. It’s our energy and it’s a vital stat.”

Despite the impressive win and milestone victory for the team, there was no time to celebrate

as the Tigers took the f loor Saturday for a showdown against rival Harvard. In a critical showdown for the Ivy League title and eventual first seed in the March

“This is probably the best my group has come out after 20 days off since I’ve been here” Courtney Banghart head coach

tournament, the game had a “must win” feel for both teams, and its dramatic finish left those leaving Jadwin feel as if they had just seen the potential Ivy League game of the year.

The teams went back and forth throughout the game. The first half featured long runs and scoreless droughts alike by both teams, as Harvard kept trying to pull ahead, only to have Princeton claw its way back in it. Princeton ended the half on a small, albeit critical, 4-0 run that put the Tigers down only six heading into halftime.

The third quarter featured perhaps the best defensive showing of the year for the Tigers, maybe even better than the four-point

quarter earlier in the season. The Tigers took off on a 15-0 run in the third as they held the Crimson to just 1/14 shooting and outrebounded them 20-6 to take the lead. “We just really had to commit to our defensive principles,” said Rush regarding halftime adjustments. “We were giving them too many easy shots and we came together as a team and said we are going to need to gut out this win”.

From there, the game continued to go back and forth with each team hitting clutch three’s and free throws. Princeton had two late chances to end the game, but could not make a bucket and so the game entered overtime.

During the overtime period, the back and forth nature ensued. As both teams looked to grab a decisive edge, Princeton found its when Rush drained a clutch three from the right side of the arc. Two possessions later, she found herself at the charity stripe and made both free throws to ice the win for Princeton. The final score: Princeton 63, Harvard 58.

“My teammates just found me where I had to be,” stated Rush, who added three other three’s on the night and finished with 16 points. “You have to give credit to Leslie for those two big plays and everyone getting big offensive

rebounds and big assists.

They were able to find me on that huge play and that shot going in is always great to have”.

Coupled with the fireworks on the court was the off-the-court celebrations of alumni weekend. Over 30 alumni throughout multiple generations of the program came home to cheer on the Tigers. They picked quite an entertaining week to return.

“It was great to go out there and give them a great show especially after the bad weekend we had last time out,” noted Rush. “We wanted to come out and protect our home court and make sure teams realize we are not going to give up anymore losses”.

“This is probably the best my group has come out after 20 days off since I’ve been here,” said Coach Banghart. “I think this group is poised and ready to continue and get better.”

MEN’S ICE HOCKEY

Tigers upset No. 4 Penn State and beat Bulldogs, tie against Brown

By Jack Graham staff writer

The Princeton men’s ice hockey team kept busy over intersession, traveling to Philadelphia for a non-conference matchup against Penn State, as well as continuing conference play with games against Yale and Brown. The team enjoyed a successful stretch, with an upset victory over No. 4 Penn State and a win and a tie against Yale and Brown, respectively.

Despite facing a nationally-ranked Penn State team in a near-capacity NHL arena, Princeton remained undaunted, mounting a late comeback to pull off their upset in a dramatic fashion. The game began explosively, with the two teams exchanging goals within the first two minutes of play, and the match-up entered intermission with a score of 3-2, favoring Penn State. Both teams would ramp up their defensive play in the second period, with Penn State scoring the lone goal to take a 4-2 lead into the third. Princeton, however, would be saved by its high-octane offense, scoring twice early into the

third period. Freshman forward Liam Grande scored his third goal of the season at the 2:08 mark to cut the deficit to 1, and junior forward David Hallisey blasted in the tying goal on a power play shortly thereafter. The game would remain deadlocked for the rest of the period, until senior forward Ben Foster scored a tip-in off of a blocked senior forward Ryan Siiro shot, thereby securing a 5-4 Princeton win.

The following weekend, Princeton returned to conference play with road games against Yale and Brown. The Yale matchup followed the same pattern as the Penn State game, with a high-scoring first period followed by a tighter second period. The two teams exchanged goals throughout the first period, with Princeton’s goals coming courtesy of forwards junior Eric Robinson and sophomore Ryan Kuffner. Entering the third period in a 2-2 tie, Princeton quickly pulled ahead with goals from the same pair, Robinson and Kuffner, at the 2:17 and 5:15 marks, respectively; with this, the Orange and Black snatched

Tweet of the Day “Tom Brady is good at football. #SuperBowl” Tom Schreiber (@ TomSchreiber26), Midfield, Lacrosse

a 4-2 lead that it would not relinquish. In addition to the goal-scoring abilities of Robinson and Kuffner, Princeton benefitted from the playmaking prowess of Hallisey, who assisted on all four goals. Senior goalkeeper Colton Phinney was also solid in the net, making 36 saves on 38 shots.

Princeton then travelled to Providence on Saturday to play the second end of a back-to-back game against Brown. Despite maintaining a better record and position in the conference standings, the Tigers started the game sluggishly, conceding three goals to Brown in rapid succession in the first period. Princeton would claw its way back, however, with goals from sophomore forward Max Véronneau, junior defender Matt Nelson, and Kuffner, whose goal was his team-leading 13th. The score would remain locked at 3-3 throughout the third period and overtime, with Princeton escaping with a tie and a single point in the conference standings.

With a victory against a highly-ranked Penn State team, an impressive performance against Yale, and a

TIFFANY RICHARDSON :: STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

The Men’s Ice Hockey team scored an impressive win against nationally ranked Penn State as they vye in the ECAC standings.

furious come-from-behind tie against Brown, Princeton once again proved its ability to compete with the best teams in the nation.

As the team continues to grapple for a position in the ECAC, and with only 6 games remaining, the Orange and Black must find a

Stat of the Day

200 wins Head Coach Courtney Banghart notched her 200th win in an OT thriller against Harvard.

way to continue replicating this quality of play.

Follow us Check us out on Twitter on @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram on @ princetoniansports for photos!