The Daily Princetonian - Mar. 26, 2019

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Tuesday March 26, 2019 vol. cxliii no. 30

Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

U . A F FA I R S

Colleagues, students reflect on Krueger’s legacy, achievements

By Allan Shen staff writer

Prominent labor economist, former economic adviser to the Clinton and Obama administrations, and University economics professor Alan B. Krueger died in his home in Princeton N.J., on Saturday, March 16. He was 58.

According to a family statement released by the University, the cause of Krueger’s death was suicide.

Specializing in labor economics, Krueger was the James Madison Professor of Political Economy at the University. He was also the founding director of the Princeton University Survey Research Center.

Krueger was an important figure in the movement to push the study of economics towards a more empirical approach based on statistics and less reliance on economic theory. Krueger applied this mindset to many topics from healthcare to terrorism to education.

“Alan [Krueger] was the rare academic who could do it all: brilliant researcher, great teacher, fantastic adviser and accomplished public servant,” remarked Wolfgang Pesendorfer, the Theodore A. Wells ’29 Professor of Economics and Chair of the Department of Economics, “his passing is a devastating loss for all of us.”

Krueger is most well-known in the field of economics for his research on the effects of minimum wage on employment. His study with Harvard

economist Lawrence Katz and UC Berkeley economist David Card showed that an increase in the minimum wage did not result in a reduction in employment, contrary to conservative belief. The study has been controversial but widely influential.

“I don’t think there’s anyone in the last 40 years who’s done more to put economics on a sounder scientific basis and who was more influential in the social sciences in making empirical research credible and believable,” Katz said in an interview with The Daily Princetonian.

Krueger was born in Livingston, N.J., on September 17th, 1960, to his father Norman, an accountant, and his mother Rhoda, a first-grade school teacher.

After receiving a B.S. with honors in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University in 1983, Krueger went on to pursue graduate studies in economics at Harvard University, earning a master’s degree in 1985 followed by a Ph.D. in 1987.

In 1987, after receiving his doctorate, Krueger took up a joint faculty position as an assistant professor in the Department of Economics and the Woodrow Wilson School at the University, where he remained for the rest of his life.

In July of 1992, Krueger became the Lynn Bendheim See KRUEGER page 2

MARIE-ROSE SHEINERMAN / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN.

Sir Steve Cowley, director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Lab, spoke at the CPUC meeting on Monday, Mar. 25.

CPUC meeting discusses PPPL, Ban the Box again

By Marie-Rose Sheinerman assistant news editor

At a meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) on Monday, March 25, the council heard from a broad range of speakers, including the heads of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL), McCarter Theater, and Undergraduate Student Government (USG).

Continuing a pattern of questioning from multiple previous CPUC meetings, students raised

ON CAMPUS

the issue of “Ban the Box,” a movement pushed on campus

by Students for Prison Education and Reform (SPEAR), during a Q&A that kicked off the meeting.

This is the fourth time that Ban the Box has been brought up at a CPUC meeting this academic year.

Ban the Box is an ex-offender rights campaign, aimed at persuading higher education institutions and employers to remove the application question that asks whether the applicant

has a criminal record.

President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 reiterated that the University values its “holistic approach” to admission for all of its students, which gives Admissions access to a wide variety of information that allows for evaluation of a given student in the context of his entire life.

The most tense moment of the Q&A came when Micah Herskind ’19, the former president of SPEAR, pushed Eisgruber on what he sees as the University’s See CPUC page 3

BEYOND THE BUBBLE

Mueller ’66 reports no evidence of collusion staff writer

EMILY SPALDING / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Blink-182’s Mark Hoppus speaks with music professor Steven Mackey about the evolution of the band.

Mark Hoppus discusses Blink-182, musical evolution

By Emily Spalding senior writer

“My friends say I should act my age, what’s my age again?”

Mark Hoppus, co-lead vocalist and bassist of the pop punk band Blink-182, asks in the 1999 hit song “What’s My Age Again?” On Monday night, right before Hoppus and the

In Opinion

William Shubael Conant Professor of Music Steven Mackey began “A Conversation with Mark Hoppus,” the Princeton Nassoons, adorned in their signature blazers and orange and black ties, posed this question to Hoppus himself as they serenaded him in front of a sold-out crowd in Berlind Theater.

Editoral assistant Madeleine Marr evaluates Dinky troubles on a local and national scale and Contributing Columnist Brigitte Harbers discusses how and when students should decide to take courses. PAGE 6

“The youthful rebellion of [Blink-182’s music] as a high schooler is always fun, and even now in college, not taking themselves too seriously but still having a great musicality, that’s something I tried to bring in my arrangement and the performance,” Charlie Hemler ’20, the arranger and soloist of the performance See HOPPUS page 4

Today on Campus

On Friday, March 22, Special Counsel Robert Mueller ’66 delivered his long-awaited report on Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The report emphasized that the Special Counsel neither alleges the president committed a crime nor fully exonerates him.

The report came after nearly two years of investigation into the 2016 election. Prior to its conclusion, Mueller’s investigation received extensive media coverage.

As Mueller filed charges against several people associated with Trump in 2017, including Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort and former National Security advisor Michael Flynn, news of the ongoing investigation stirred an often-contentious national debate over the president’s ethics.

While many lawmakers continually praised the investigation as a democratic and necessary check on government power, some criticized it as politically motivated. Trump frequently fed

12:00p.m.: PRISM is pleased to host its Annual Research Symposium. Faculty, students, staff and research collaborators will discuss materials science, technology and engineering programs, progress and future directions.

Maeder Hall Auditorium, 86 Olden Street

into this debate by referring to the investigation as a “WITCH HUNT!” on Twitter.

On Sunday, Attorney General William P. Barr made a summary of the report public.

The report summary stated that the Special Counsel found two main Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election.

The first was by the Russian organization Internet Research Agency (IRA), which sought to “sow social discord” by publishing disinformation on social media sites. The second was by the Russian government, which hacked into computers to “gather and disseminate information to influence the election.”

According to the report summary, these hackers stole emails from Hillary Clinton’s campaign and organizations of the Democratic Party and published them on various platforms such as WikiLeaks.

The report summary noted that it had charged several Russian infiltrators in connection to these events, but that it did not find that anyone associated with the Trump campaign “conSee MUELLER page 4

WEATHER

By David Veldran

HIGH

48˚

LOW

26˚

Sunny chance of rain:

0 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday March 26, 2019

Katz: I never stopped learning from Alan KRUEGER Continued from page 1

RALPH ALSWANG/CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS

Alan Krueger was a prominent labor economist who served as an adviser to both the Clinton and Obama administrations.

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

Thoman, Class of 1976 and Robert Bendheim, Class of 1937 Professor in Economics and Public Affairs, a title he held until February of 2019, when he was named the James Madison Professor of Political Economy just over a month before his death.

Katz, a frequent collaborator with Krueger who became an assistant professor at Harvard when Krueger was still a graduate student there, reflected on his friendship with Krueger and praised him for his scholarship.

“I never stopped learning from Alan and talking to him about issues in economics, wage differentials, the role of firms in wage-setting, stuff that Alan revolutionized,” Katz recalled in an interview with The Daily Princetonian.

“Firestone Library was where the industrial relations section [of the economics department] was, and it used to close at midnight; [Krueger] would get so engaged and get locked in, because there was no idea he didn’t want to continue pursuing.”

Economics graduate student Jessica Brown, whom

Krueger advised, articulated her gratitude to Krueger as a supportive advisor.

“His time was always in high demand around the profession, [but] he was never too busy for me and always found the time to meet with me when I asked,” Brown said. “He took pride in ensuring his students were prepared for seminars; he would meet with me ahead of time and tell me what questions he thought [the audience] would ask, and he was always right.”

In addition to his scholarly work, Krueger committed himself to public service under two Democratic presidential administrations.

From August 1994 to August 1995, Krueger served as the Chief Economist of U.S. Department of Labor under President Bill Clinton, succeeding Lawrence Katz.

According to a profile by Princeton Alumni Weekly from 2014, after serving in the Clinton Administration, Krueger swore that he would “never go back to Washington” due to the sheer amount of pressure and responsibility.

However, Krueger was convinced into returning to government service in late 2008 by then-Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner amid the

catastrophic financial crisis.

As Krueger recalled in the profile, “[Geithner] said, ‘The economy’s in a free fall. Why don’t you come to Treasury and work on big, consequential things?’ That was his line.

And I couldn’t say no.”

Under the administration of President Barack Obama, Krueger first served as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy from May 2009 to November 2010, then as the Chief Economist of the U.S. Department of Treasury, and lastly as the 27th Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from November 2011 to August 2013.

In the Department of Treasury, Krueger worked to help the administration to respond to the economic recession that resulted from the financial crisis. In the Council of Economic Advisers, Krueger focused on economic inequality and opportunity, formulating the “Great Gatsby Curve,” which stated that countries with greater economic inequality are more likely to have weaker intergenerational economic mobility.

In a statement released on March 18, President Barack Obama praised Krueger as “someone who was deeper than numbers on a screen or charts on a page.”

Lawrence H. Summers, one of Krueger’s Ph.D. advisors who served as Secretary of Treasury in the Clinton Administration, highlighted Krueger’s preoccupation with data-driven scholarly work and policy analysis. According to Summers, Krueger had an “obsession with having the right data to answer the question.”

Summers had also penned an op-ed for the Washington Post as a tribute to Krueger.

“Lots of economists believe in being clever for the sake of being clever, Alan always wanted to find the best data on the most important question,” Summers said in an interview with the ‘Prince.’ “Most people brought their opinions; he brought his analysis. No one has made greater contributions to labor economics [than Krueger] in the last 30 years.”

Richard H. Thaler, the recipient of the 2017 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences who contributed to Krueger’s new book, wrote in an email to the ‘Prince’ that “the trite expression ‘gentleman and a scholar’ comes to mind” when speaking about Krueger. “[He was] thoughtful, caring, and wonderful to be around. So versatile!” Thaler wrote in the email.

A devoted fan of music, Krueger recently taught ECO 208: The Economics of Music in the fall of 2018 at the University.

The class had evolved from a freshman seminar that he taught in the previous academic year. Krueger’s new book, due out in June, is also about the economics of the music industry.

Alan Krueger is survived by his wife Lisa Simon Krueger, a Cornell classmate; his father, Norman; his mother, Rhoda; his brother, Richard; his sister, Barbara; and his two adult children, Benjamin ’12 and Sydney ’14.

This story was updated on Monday, Mar. 25, 2019.

Done reading your ‘Prince’?

Recycle

Tuesday March 26, 2019

Herskind: Princeton is a part of the problem as much as it likes to think it’s a part of the solution CPUC

Continued from page 1

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

continued valuing of information “from a system we know is racist and classicist.”

Eisgruber responded that, while he “appreciates there is a disagreement,” he has already responded to this and similar questions previously and will not repeat his responses, directing Herskind to CPUC minutes and articles from The Daily Princetonian.

“The Daily Princetonian has actually reported accurately on these meetings,” Eisgruber said.

After the meeting, Herskind expressed his frustration in an interview with the ‘Prince.’

“The fact that the president of Princeton University won’t say the criminal justice system is racist … shows Princeton is a part of the problem as much as it likes to think it’s a part of the solution,” he said.

He and the other eight members of SPEAR present at the meeting had walked out at the conclusion of the Q&A. After the Q&A, Sir Steve Cowley, who is the director of the PPPL, spoke about the PPPL’s future in working with the U.S. Strategic Plan for Burning Plasma Research to develop energy through nuclear fusion capabilities.

He first discussed the history of the PPPL, starting with Lyman Spitzer, a visionary in the field, who was the head of astrophysics at the University when Crowley first came to the University as a graduate student in 1951. He then traced the trajectory of the lab’s work with nuclear fusion through the latter 20th century.

Now, in accordance with a statement released by the National Academy of Sciences in December 2018, the PPPL will play a key role in the U.S.’s goal of constructing a “pilot plant,” a

The Daily Princetonian

machine Crowley simplified as “something that produces more energy than it consumes.”

At the meeting, Michael Rosenberg, managing director of the McCarter Theater, spoke about the unique positioning of the theater on the University campus and the potential power therein, saying he considers the space “a real world lab right here on your campus.”

“Our future lies at the intersection of really great scholar[ship] with really great art,” he reiterated multiple times throughout the presentation.

According to Rosenberg, McCarter is one of the greatest arts organizations in New Jersey and hosts over 130,000 attendees annually.

Rosenberg noted that McCarter has unveiled next year’s program, which will include many additions. This upcoming year, McCarter will be hosting The New Yorker’s radio hour and welcoming The Moth, a storytelling performance group, to the McCarter stage for the first time.

The theater also plans to soon include a cabaret space, which student groups would be able to reserve for free time in collaboration with theater staff.

In her address to the council, USG President Zarnab Virk ’20 outlined for the council the role of the USG as a liaison between undergraduate students and the administration.

She spoke about the main priorities of the USG for the coming year, including increasing resources for independent students, adjusting the social calendar to the impending calendar change in 2020, and easing student access to transportation, perhaps through a program that would give free credit on ridesharing apps.

This month’s CPUC meeting was held on March 25 at 4:30 p.m. in Betts Auditorium in the Architecture Building.

News.

Opinions.

Sports.

Every day.

join@dailyprincetonian.com

page 3

page 4

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday March 26, 2019

Mueller report does not exonerate President Trump

MUELLER Continued from page 1

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

PETE SOUZA / THE WHITE HOUSE

Special Counsel Robert Mueller ‘66 submitted his report on Russian interference on Friday.

spired or coordinated” with the IRA or the Russian government.

In a second section, the report summary noted that the Special Counsel also investigated concerns that Trump’s actions constituted an obstruction of justice.

It stated that the Special Counsel “did not draw a conclusion — one way or the other — as to whether the examined conduct constituted obstruction.”

According to the summary, the Special Counsel “leaves it to the Attorney General to determine whether the conduct described in the report constitutes a crime.”

Barr then explained in the summary that he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided not to charge Trump with obstruction of justice. He emphasized that this decision was made due to lack of evidence rather than consideration of legal privileges to which a sitting president may be entitled.

Recent discussion of impeachment has often cited the need to wait for the findings of Mueller’s report.

However, the anti-climactic result — the report’s inconclusiveness and Barr’s decision not to charge the president — may stall or altogether obviate plans for impeachment.

Charles Cameron, professor of politics and public affairs at the University, wrote to The Daily Princetonian in an email that impeachment is “off the table.”

“If the report had been more damaging for the president, House Democrats would have been compelled to move ahead with impeachment,” he wrote.

He added that the report’s findings represents only a short-term gain for the president, who will now face “two years of daily damage control with no obvious wins in sight.” On the other side, he noted that Democrats hopeful to regain the White House in 2020 “will have a solid chance of winning the referendum [on Trump]” in 2020 by “sticking to their knitting — investigating bad behavior and selecting the strongest possible nominee.”

Paul Frymer, who teaches politics and directs the Program in Law and Public Affairs at the University, also framed the findings as a short-term success for the president. In an email to the ‘Prince,’ he wrote that it would be merely speculative to predict long-term consequences until the full report is released to Congress or the public.

“It is certainly possible (and likely) that Democrats will interpret the report differently than the Attorney General who was appointed by President Trump,” Frymer wrote.

He also directly called the report’s conclusion into question, arguing that the president “succeeded in setting a very high bar for the [Mueller] Report — needing to show actual “collusion,” something that is very hard to prove.” He added that this higher standard makes it “not terribly surprising that the Report did not find collusion.”

The Daily Princetonian

Tuesday March 26, 2019

page 5

Hoppus: People who listen to Blink know that we have a heart HOPPUS

Continued from page 1

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

said.

With catchy songs like “All the Small Things” and “First Date,” and over 50 million records sold worldwide, Blink-182 has had a tremendous influence on the pop punk genre.

Hoppus and Mackey discussed the cultural impact and timelessness of Blink-182’s music, analyzing songs including “Rock Show,” “Feeling Myself,” and, of course, “What’s My Age Again?” to illustrate how the group’s sound has evolved since its founding in 1992.

“Blink has gone through so many iterations,” Hoppus said.

“It’s kind of become this multi-

generational thing.”

Mackey and Hoppus focused a majority of the conversation on Blink-182’s writing and creative processes, walking through how certain songs came to be. Hoppus shared stories about how songs like “Rock Show” and “First Date” were written quickly and out of anger at their manager for not liking their demo for the album that became the 2001 album Take Off Your Pants and Jacket, which has now sold over 14 million copies worldwide.

“Both ended up being great songs and songs we still play today,” Hoppus said. “The impetus for [‘Rock Show’] was, I’m just going to go and write a song against you, and that ended up being a success.”

You could be this guy.

Write for the ‘Prince.’

Email join@dailyprincetonian.com

Hoppus noted how new recording techniques and demands from producers have changed the way the group approaches songwriting today versus when they first started.

However, he added that the songwriting dynamic in the group has remained the same.

“The best work that Blink ever does is when we’re opposed to one another,” Hoppus said. “That’s when our songwriting works best, when there is this weird push and pull between all of us.”

Today, Blink-182’s fan base

continues to grow, and the band is set to release their eighth studio album this summer. Hoppus explained that the core of the group’s identity has not changed since the beginning, and that is why Blink-182 has maintained its relevance nearly three decades later.

“Blink has always had this core fan base that has been very loyal,” Hoppus said. “And even though we were never critical darlings, people who listen to Blink know that we have a heart, and that we work really

hard, and that we’re true to ourselves, and that we try to put on a good show, and they’ve always stuck with us.”

“We’ve always felt like we were the outsiders and we’ve always taken that as a badge of honor,” he added.

The event was sponsored by the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students and took place at 7:30 p.m. in Berlind Theater.

A Q&A with Mark Hoppus will be published in print and online on Wednesday, March 27.

Opinion

Tuesday March 26, 2019

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

The end of America’s planes, trains, and automobiles Madeleine Marr

Editorial Assistant

W

hen the news that the Princeton Dinky service would be temporarily closed, “Save the Dinky” petitions immediately appeared near the service as passengers expressed their frustration with the line shutdown. Since October, passengers have complained that the bus replacement has been “leaving commuters behind and causing them to miss their train connections.”

While disgruntled patrons were assured that the shutdown would only last a semester, that date has now been pushed to June 30 — causing Mayor Liz Lempert to comment: “We all thought the services would be restored sometime in January … that deadline came and went, and now we’re into the second quarter.” Lempert said, “It’s hard to 100 percent believe what we’re told.”

Missed deadlines and frustrating replacements exemplify the monumental problems facing the American transportation and infrastructure systems today. Our public transportation systems, as well as our roads, bridges, and electrical grids, are woefully outdated and desperately underfunded.

Yet infrastructure seems to be

a bipartisan concern — Donald Trump’s infrastructure plan was lauded as the only proposal he suggested that could bridge the aisle. But policies on both sides ignore the problem that has become apparent to Princeton residents during this Dinky debacle — repairing and updating existing infrastructure is not profitable, so it is not a priority. And that is having devastating effects on the country’s advancement.

Donald Trump’s infrastructure proposal, which largely died in Congress due to Republican opposition, included a plan to “offer $137 billion in tax breaks to private investors who would finance toll roads, toll bridges, or other projects that generate their own revenue streams.” After decades of extensive projects, there is not a large demand for more roads.

This plan ignored the larger need for repairs of existing roads and bridges, as well as the restoration of disintegrating water mains in places like Flint, Michigan, and the modernization of our airports.

Economists agree that there are larger returns for fixing existing infrastructure, but that would require spending billions on public work projects that don’t lend themselves to large private investments or flashy opening ceremonies. While a plan that addresses the real needs of the American infrastructure system is necessary, it faces the double jeopardy of large government investment and low political payoff.

This combination, along with

a relatively low interest in infrastructure until something goes wrong (see the difference in attention the Dinky got before and after the shutdown), makes it difficult for politicians to rationalize spending billions of dollars on the projects we ultimately need.

The most egregious part of Trump’s plan is the emphasis on private investments. A “public-private partnership” (PPP) generally runs like this: private firms send bids to the relevant government authority for the rights to a project like a road, raising money to construct and maintain that road for a designated period of time. The firm’s money is returned through tolls or payments from the state.

While the state isn’t receiving any of the money the road generates, the private company theoretically has more incentive to keep costs low and finish on time due to its investment.

On its face, it seems to be a good compromise. However, these PPPs are very rare and relatively unsuccessful. They also run the very high risk of corporate exploitation: wealthy investors have more resources and better lawyers than state governments, allowing them to finesse deals that cause the state to lose money in the long run. Furthermore, many of the truly worthwhile infrastructure projects, like those involving rail transit, aren’t profitable and will never attract investors.

A dependence on these partnerships is not a sustainable solution for infrastructure renewal.

While politicians in DC de-

bate the merits of private versus public funding, the Dinky remains shut down. The New York City subway system remains astonishingly bad, plagued with delays, shutdowns, smells, and accidents. The DC Metro struggles with similar issues, leading the Washington Examiner to name it “the worst in the world.”

Governor Murphy released a report on NJ Transit detailing problems including a shortage of engineers (the source of the Dinky delays), a lack of spare parts, an uncommunicative agency, and an inconsistent source of funding.

A viable solution must be devised to address the failings of our public transportation systems — and viability ultimately depends on consistent investment. The private investment model depends too much on profit to be a widely used tool in infrastructure projects, and is not an option in the most glaring cases anyway. Instead, the federal and state governments must rededicate funds towards infrastructure projects, investing in jobs and communities via projects that update existing infrastructure. Creative revenue sources, such as the gas tax, can make up some of this funding, but until Congress is willing to make infrastructure spending a priority and allocate funds accordingly, the Dinky, and similar systems all over the country, will remain paralyzed.

Madeleine Marr is a sophomore from Newtown Square, Pa. She can be reached at mmarr@princeton. edu.

Work for the most respected news source on campus.

vol. cxliii

editor-in-chief

Chris Murphy ’20 business manager

Taylor Jean-Jacques’20 BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 trustees Francesca Barber David Baumgarten ’06 Kathleen Crown Gabriel Debenedetti ’12 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 Michael Grabell ’03 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Kavita Saini ’09 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Abigail Williams ’14 trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 William R. Elfers ’71 Kathleen Kiely ’77 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73 trustees ex officio Chris Murphy ’20 Taylor Jean-Jacques’20

143RD MANAGING BOARD managing editors Samuel Aftel ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 Jon Ort ’21 head news editors Benjamin Ball ’21 Ivy Truong ’21 associate news editors Linh Nguyen ’21 Claire Silberman ’22 Katja Stroke-Adolphe ’20 head opinion editor Cy Watsky ’21 associate opinion editors Rachel Kennedy ’21 Ethan Li ’22 head sports editor Jack Graham ’20 associate sports editors Tom Salotti ’21 Alissa Selover ’21 features editor Samantha Shapiro ’21 head prospect editor Dora Zhao ’21 associate prospect editor Noa Wollstein ’21 chief copy editors Lydia Choi ’21 Elizabeth Parker ’21 associate copy editors Jade Olurin ’21 Christian Flores ’21 head design editor Charlotte Adamo ’21 associate design editor Harsimran Makkad ’22 cartoon editors Zaza Asatiani ’21 Jonathan Zhi ’21 head video editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 associate video editor Mark Dodici ’22 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20

NIGHT STAFF design Irina Liu ’21 Kenny Peng ’22 copy Catherine Yu ’21

join@dailyprincetonian.com

Opinion

Tuesday March 26, 2019

page 7

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Reevaluating your future: when is the right time?

Brigette Harbers

Contributing Columnist

W

e are rapidly approaching the middle of the spring semester after what feels like a very short January and February. The past few weeks have flown by, and once again, we are facing midterms. For some first-years, classes this semester will define the track they will take in their studies during the remainder of their years here. So, what do you do if you find yourself doing worse than imagined in classes for what you once thought was your major? Are the results you’re receiving now an opportunity to explore other areas of interest? Now is the best time to ask yourself whether this is a good time to genuinely reevaluate your future rather than jumping to conclusions that you have no chance at succeeding in the current areas you are in.

As someone who excelled at STEM-related courses in high

school, I felt confident in my abilities as a STEM student when coming into Princeton. I could even say I was excited.

But after the first half of my Chemistry 201 semester, I started second guessing my abilities as a scientist. Having entered Princeton thinking I wanted to be a molecular biology major, I felt defeated after receiving low grades in the class and began to wonder if it would be worth continuing as a pure science major, especially when I was enjoying my other non-STEM classes While facing challenges in the realm of study you want to pursue can be discouraging, those challenges are actually necessary in helping you to evaluate just how serious you are about your intended area of study. I’ve come to realize that if you’re not willing to put in the effort and directly address the areas you are struggling in, you probably shouldn’t be pursuing the path you started on.

Obviously, it can be difficult to both recognize and accept when to make the decision to change your trajectory. Thus, I want to present a couple of thoughts to consider when feeling unsure about where you’re going and

what you should be doing to achieve maximum success, both in school and when thinking about a future outside of Princeton.

One of the most important aspects of Princeton to understand is that many of the “Introduction to” classes work as weed-out classes to narrow down the pool of departmental majors and focus on solidifying the passion and discipline in students who truly want to continue in those areas. Thus, rather than immediately becoming discouraged by feeling challenged or confused in such classes, remember that they are meant to be difficult.

A low grade in a class like CHM 201 or PHY 103 is not the end of the world, nor is it a sign that you should be seriously considering a change in concentration. Especially for first-years, those classes are not representative of your ability to be successful and do not reflect whether you will fit into a particular department. However, if you feel like you would not be willing to put in the effort in future years or that there is nothing to look forward to in upcoming semesters for your major, it might be a good idea

to think about other areas of academia that you are interested in.

With that said, recognize that changing your plans — if you decide to do so — is not out of the ordinary. The purpose of a liberal arts education is to create well-rounded students who have had the chance to explore a variety of disciplines. Thus, it is only natural that you may feel a pull every so often to classes that are completely opposite to ones you may have excelled in prior to college. If you come to the conclusion that one of those other areas of interest would better suit your attention, take the opportunity of the flexibility within the Princeton curriculum to take classes in that subject and test the waters.

Worst comes to worst, you’ve gained more knowledge in an area where you may previously have had none.

I am a strong believer in not allowing a midterm grade to determine your fate as a student. The overall experience in a class and the level of comfort and willingness to try should be what motivates your engagement with the material.

However, there also comes a point where each student must

From the Creators of Jenga adam wickham ’22 ..................................................

Have opinions?

Join the opinion section!

Email: join@dailyprincetonian.com

decide what is important to them, whether that is a high GPA, passion for what they are learning, security in job prospects for after college, or a little of everything. In that case, it becomes necessary to evaluate your priorities and to have the conversation of whether to stay where you are academically.

Even though I had a rough first semester in chemistry and was tempted to start looking at other possible concentration paths, I’ve found that I needed that first semester adjustment period to reset my point of reference for success and what would be required of me to meet my goals. My classes are still challenging, but I recognize that I am passionate enough about the department and the subject to stay where I am, regardless of the long nights where I question if it will all be worth it in the end. Don’t worry if you’re not feeling the same way this spring. Princeton has many amazing options to explore, and what is college for if not experimenting?

Brigitte Harbers is a first-year from New York, N.Y. She can be reached at bharbers@princeton. edu.

Tuesday March 26, 2019

Sports

page 8

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } MEN’S BASKETBALL

Men’s basketball loses 83–77 to Yale in Ivy semifinal despite second-half rally

By Jack Graham Head Sports Editor

After the first half against Yale in the Ivy tournament semifinal, it was looking bleak for Princeton men’s basketball. Down 12 at the home court of an opponent who had already beaten them twice, the Tigers appeared outmatched.

A blowout, however, would not have been in the spirit of March.

Third-seeded Princeton (16–12, 8–6 Ivy) launched a comeback, rallying to take a seven-point lead over second-seeded Yale (21–7, 10–4) with five minutes to play.

An experienced Yale squad led by NBA prospect Miye Oni found a way to win anyway, defeating Princeton 83–77 to earn an opportunity to play Harvard in the final tomorrow.

“We definitely put ourselves in a position to win,” said Princeton head coach Mitch Henderson.

“That’s a testament to [senior guard] Myles [Stephens] and the rest of the seniors.”

One could argue that the game’s decisive moment was not a basket or defensive stand, but a foul call. With Princeton

leading 71–66 with 3:10 remaining, Stephens was whistled for his fifth foul for making light contact with Oni, sidelining him for the rest of the game.

Without their best defender and All-Ivy first teamer on the floor, the Tigers had no answer for Oni, who scored Yale’s next six points to tie the game at 72.

“They were on me, so of course I’m going to say I disagree,” Stephens said about the foul calls. “But it is what it is, and we’ve got to play through it.”

With Stephens gone, Princeton relied on a lineup consisting of three first-years, sophomore forward Jerome Desrosiers, and junior center Richmond Aririguzoh.

They battled but weren’t able to make the big play needed to secure a win.

Yale forward Blake Reynolds drilled a three with 38 seconds remaining to give Yale a 77–74 lead, and the Bulldogs made their free throws in the game’s final seconds.

“Credit goes to them,” said Henderson. “16 for 16 from the line. They needed to be, and we needed a couple more shots.”

“Watching the game and watching the young guys compete, I was ac-

tually really confident,“ Stephens said. “Of course I wish I was out there, but I’m really proud of how they were playing.”

In the first half, Princeton kept pace with Yale for the first few minutes before the Bulldogs began to pull away. Princeton made too many mistakes defensively, leaving Yale players open for threes and shots at the rim. Yale took a seemingly commanding 46–34 lead into halftime.

“We’ve got them right where we want them,” Henderson joked when asked about his halftime message. “We’ve really struggled to score, and we had 33 [sic] points at halftime, [so] I said we’re doing great. We’ve just got to start guarding them.”

The Tigers evidently found this motivating. In the second half, a reinvigorated Princeton team emerged. First-year guard Ethan Wright started the half with a layup, then Desrosiers hit a three.

Stephens knocked down a few baskets to cut Yale’s lead to one as Princeton’s fan section roared. In all, the Tigers began the half on a 17–2 run to take a 51– 48 lead with 13:39 to play.

“If I was to describe the number one thing I like

about coaching, it was the way they were playing in the second half,” said Henderson. “They were having such a good time, [and] every play was working that we called.”

As impressive as the run was, it wouldn’t be enough. Yale shot 50.8 percent from the field and 100 percent from the free-throw line. Oni had 23 points, 10 of which came in the final five minutes, as the Bulldogs overcame a seven-point deficit of their own to earn the win.

The Tigers weren’t at full strength for the tournament. They played without guard Devin Cannady, who took a voluntary leave of absence from Princeton midway through the season, and sophomore guard Ryan Schwieger, injured with a concussion. In their absence, the Tigers shot just 6–24 from three, though they had some timely ones in the second half.

Despite the Ivy League logo replacing the Yale logo at midcourt of John J. Lee Amphitheater in New Haven, host Yale enjoyed a home-court, and home-crowd, advantage.

Stephens didn’t think that played a factor.

“In the second half

when we made that run, you could hear our fans,” he said. “I think it was pretty even, particularly in the second half.”

Aririguzoh led Princeton in scoring with 23 points on 8–11 shooting.

Llewellyn had 17 points, 13 of which came in the second half, in one of his best offensive performances in Ivy play.

“It’s so unfair to put expectations on someone that needs growth and time,” Henderson said about Llewellyn. “You saw some signs tonight of what he’s going to be.”

Yale will play top-seeded Harvard, who beat Penn today, in the championship game Sunday at noon in New Haven for an automatic NCAA tournament bid. For Princeton, who won’t accept an invitation to a lesser postseason tournament, the offseason starts today.

“I think it just goes to show you how hard winning is and how devoted to the details you have to be, so when you come to these situations and you’re missing a guy like Myles, other guys can step up,” Aririguzoh said. “It makes you want to go back into the gym and just pay attention to those little details.”

JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

JACK GRAHAM / THE DAILY PRINCETONIAN

Head coach Mitch Henderson on the sideline during Princeton’s loss

Tweet of the Day

Myles Stephens and Princeton came up short against Yale Saturday.

Stat of the Day

“Congratulations to Patrick Brucki of @tigerwres- 11 tling, the Suburban Transit Princeton Athlete of Princeton baseball Andrew Gnazzo set the Week” a new career high with 11 strikeouts in @PUTigers

eight innings.

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