This is true, and unfortunate. The precipitous drop in competitive fellowships (e.g., Rhodes) killed deflation. A 2014 report from just before deflation was discontinued cited this. Ironically, the Rhodes Trust told Princeton they loved deflation because it allowed them to filter out less-serious candidates quickly. When I was there, there was a belief among students that deflation’s stickiness in the old guard explained why Princeton lagged (and continues to lag) Harvard/Yale in fellowships.
Princetonian Coverage: https://t.co/zW00ZFZs6x
Report: https://t.co/zvKwLGLjAI
Rhodes Trust Statement, Report at 15: “We hope very much Princeton retains its standards, and frankly, would like to see other universities follow its lead.”
Yes, top law and med schools will heavily penalize anything under a 3.9 GPA. If Harvard starts lowering GPAs, then their students will see worst post-grad outcomes. Princeton experienced this when they used grade deflation.
As an undergraduate at Princeton, Robert Caro wrote wrote 234 page seniors thesis on Hemingway -- a paper so much longer than what was expected that the university instituted a "Caro rule" limiting thesis length. The child is the father of the man.
An interesting read from TAMU’s Prof. Conklin. Since it cites my piece as an example of the potential role of partisan bias in 22A scholarship, I have a few initial thoughts:
He counts law review articles on third-term loopholes and finds that pre-Trump scholarship was generally friendly, but post-Trump scholarship is generally hostile. This misses the mark for a few reasons.
The piece omits scholarship outside of law reviews. Amar made his rebuttal to Peabody and Gant (well before Trump) in his book, America’s Constitution. Volokh made similar arguments on his blog. Neither is counted.
The traditional case for the unconstitutionality of third-term loopholes is straightforward: "the drafters were imprecise but we all know what they meant." This sort of argument does not lend itself to a lengthy article—unlike Peabody’s which is quite nuanced. I am not sure that counting articles is a good proxy for bias or consensus.
Many won’t find the intentionalist argument convincing. That’s why pieces on the other side (Amar, Volokh, myself, and others) marshal other Constitutional provisions.
Lastly—and most obviously—people become interested in questions when those questions are relevant. As Conklin notes, no president since the 22A has tried to serve a third term. I don’t hide my motivation: my piece opens by surveying Trump’s statements on running again. I began looking through Madison’s Notes because I thought the question was interesting in this moment. That’s not always bias (and I don't think Conklin disagrees).
My piece can be found here: https://t.co/Eb6AeBw4aI
Conklin on 22nd Amendment Scholarship, https://t.co/DZltHSaHCo - Michael Conklin (Texas A&M University School of Law) has posted The Twenty-Second Amendment and a Trump Third Term: An Empirical Analysis of Constitutional Consensus in Academia on SSRN.
Quiroga on the IP Clause's Exclusive Right and Injunctive Relief, https://t.co/3gA5YzLme4 - Sebastian Quiroga (Yale University - Law School) has posted The Exclusive Right (University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (forthcoming 2026)) on SSRN.
The 22nd Amendment is, admittedly, poorly written. Here’s my Article 2 critique of third-term loopholes. Trump’s best bet for projecting power beyond two terms is to copy Adams and H. W. Bush, not FDR.
https://t.co/aqa7vjT3Bv
Franklin Graham at CPAC: I love Donald Trump. We'll never get another president like Donald Trump. That is why it's important we do everything we can to try to get him re-elected.
@BloggingTheBoys Since the Bucs and Panthers still play each other twice, the 2nd place NFC South team is guaranteed to have at least 7 losses. Assuming Dallas wins out (which they must to have any real shot) NFC south games do not matter.
Every single one of us has a profound interest in government at every level strictly observing due process of law. All of us should be deeply concerned by any violation of anyone's due process rights, whether in criminal or administrative matters. We might like what government can more efficiently accomplish by disregarding proper legal procedures today. But we will rue the day we licensed such governmental misconduct when, tomorrow, a different government disregards legal procedures to achieve quickly results we abhor. The government in power, whatever it is, will not always be in power. There will "arise a pharaoh who remembereded not Joseph." If we want due process for ourselves and in defense of things we cherish and believe in, we must insist on due process for everyone.
TIGERS RUN JERSEY.
Caden Pierce hit the game-winner with 4.5 seconds left to lift @PrincetonMBB over Rutgers for the second consecutive year. Pierce finished with 21 points and 14 rebounds. 🌿🏀
@StephenESachs What’s your response to the rebellion-quenching power of pardons? Hamilton in Federalist 74 and Washington in The Whiskey Rebellion tell us something about the power of pardons. Is this just not that big a problem anymore or do we need something else there to fill the gap?