Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Princeton: It's Still in New Jersey


Never thought that much about Princeton, actually. When I was applying to college, it was all men.  It was also in New Jersey, a nice part of New Jersey, but really. New Jersey?  
I wanted New England. Somewhere different. Somewhere quaint. Somewhere which felt like college. 
I didn't know what I wanted. 
As is so often the case, I judged the place by the kids who went to it from my high school. 
 I didn't like them, as a rule.

They were very bright, mostly, and very competitive, but more competitive than bright, as a rule.  They seemed jaded, self absorbed, smug, focused on success and winning the game. 

One of my friends who went there was the exception. He was brighter than he was competitive and he seemed to value people for the right reasons. He tried out for the football team but, as he unabashedly admitted, he was simply not physically tough enough. Nor mentally tough enough. 

He came to wrestling matches and marveled at the courage and toughness and grace under fire visible in the  varsity wrestlers. 

But for the most part, I had to agree with my brother and his college friends at Cornell:  They all said they wouldn't send their worst enemies to Princeton, but most of those worst types were already there.

F. Scott Fitzgerald, of course, made a great deal about his time at Princeton. 
Somehow, F. Scott always seemed just silly to me. 

I did meet an editor in Washington, from Mississippi, who is a genuinely fine person, and he had gone to Princeton and graduated, ostensibly unscathed. 

But a classmate of my son in medical school articulated something which crystallized in my own mind one thing about Princeton which seems relevant.

She was at Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons, a place with a reasonably select group of students, endowed with a wide spectrum of abilities, but in one boozy moment, when she spoke in vino veritas, she let slip to some of her suite mates why she really wasn't interested in marrying any of the men at P&S--she just could not see marrying a man who had not gone to Princeton. It would feel like marrying down, or maybe not down, but out of the tribe.

In days of yore, you'd hear a woman say something to the effect of how she just couldn't marry a gentile if she were a Jew. Clannishness, that was called, when it wasn't called foolishness.

Now this young woman was confiding to her suite mates, who were graduates of Yale and M.I.T. respectively,  and they laughed, but then they realized she was serious.

Now, Susan Patton, Princeton, class of '77,  is hitting the talk shows saying that women of Princeton should marry their male classmates because they'll never find better, and they better strike while the iron is hot, while the ovaries are full of fresh eggs and before they lose their dewy eyed allure.  When you leave Princeton, you'll never again have that concentration of able manhood so available, so thoroughly vetted and so ripe for the picking, as if men were avocados.

It's a very old world sort of notion, really. Hard headed, unsentimental. Matchmaker, find me a man with the right prospects. Love will come later.

Not that the Phantom believes in "love."

And when you think about it, is this not what those computer dating services are not all about?  Match traits, objective criteria,  to what you want.

Apart from the idea of people choosing their mates in their 20's, before they really know themselves, the idea of choosing from a pre selected population sounds a little like those camps they set up in the Third Reich, to breed beautiful blonde girls with beautiful blonde boys and produce a Master Race. They had selected for traits, as if they were breeding cattle. 

The idea that college is so important it ought to be the breeding ground of the next generation is a little hair raising. As if the selection process for the Princeton class is so refined it can produce a Master Class, if not a Master Race.

What do you think a dinner party at Ms. Patton's house would be like? Not quite Downton Abbey, I would think. No stories of Perseus and the Sea Monster. 

Money, I would think. That would be the major topic. How to make it and how to spend it. I don't know why, but that's what I think, when I think of Princeton. 

What a bore.



3 comments:

  1. Phantom,
    When I was in college, I wasn't sure I ever wanted to marry, but was quite certain I didn't want kids-I'd have dogs instead.That changed. So perhaps the Princeton grad who told her roommates she was only interested in marrying a fellow alum has changed her views, but then again, maybe she's already met and married her Princeton prince. It's a shame that youth and foolishness tend to travel as a pair. Not that age and experience guarantees increased good sense-Ms. Patton being Exhibit A of that. I saw the tail end of an interview she was doing the other day, she appeared to be babbling the same rubbish she had in the NYTimes a few months ago. Unfortunately she's not alone in her belief that things like one's alma mater or earning power are adequate criteria for choosing a mate. A good friend of mine from childhood, after her second divorce, joined one of the on-line dating services and put down as part of her criteria, that her "matches" be at least six foot tall and that they earn in the top income bracket ($150k+). To me this seemed like a recipe for a third divorce-and not so bluntly -suggested that there might be more important things to consider about a man. There were two other friends with us, one who thought it was great our newly single friend knew what she wanted and wasn't pretending otherwise or wasting time. The other friend seemed like she could go either way. Now my twice divorced friend is a very attractive woman who lives in a city where there's a larger pool of high earners than she'd find back here so she'll marry a third time, that I'm certain of. How long she stays married remains the question. It's not that I think income is of so little consequence that she should start trolling under bridges and at homeless shelters for hubby number three, it's just that considering the two previous husbands, taking a second look at attributes like honesty and kindness rather than height and income wouldn't be a bad idea. Not that some men aren't equally shallow when looking for a match, they just tend to emphasize different things, like age and a woman's figure...

    I'm not sure I understand your position on all of this though. What do you mean by you don't believe in "love"? How long have you held that belief or disbelief-surely not always. And if you don't believe in love and you agree coldly choosing one's partner by their transcript or resume is ridiculous, then just how do you suggest the lovelorn pair up?
    Maud

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maud,

    I feel a blog coming on: What is this thing called "love?"
    Or "Love is just a four lettered word."
    In brief: I definitely love my dog. I most definitely love my kids.
    With women, it's more complicated.
    For me, at least, there was that line in Roger Rabbitt where Eddie asks Jessica Rabbitt, the ravishing femme fatale, what she sees in Roger, and she replies, languidly, "He makes me laugh."
    I can say that about my own querulous, vexing, exasperating, admirable wife. She has the nastiest, most cutting wit of anyone I've known. Takes people apart with three words.
    When I was growing up, there were girls who, I realized I loved being around, and when I'd go to a party or a class or to the swimming pool and they weren't there, the time felt empty and wasted. I suppose I was "in love" with them. But, later, as a 20 something, there was a woman or two who I was "wild" about, but then she would say something or do something and it was like a switch had been thrown. Never wanted to have much to do with her again.
    I do agree with Gloria Steinem: "I cannot breed in captivity." And for Sartre and Simone de Beauvior, the whole marriage thing seems ridiculous.
    We have organized society around marriage, but we could do and are doing without it now and I'm thinking, "Good riddance."
    My younger son got married. She's delightful. They want kids. They're both doctors and don't have time for a social scene. If it works for them, fine.
    But I do not think vows or laws should hold people together.

    Phantom

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hmm. Interesting. Sounds like you could be a difficult man to please, back in the day, Phantom. The woman of your dreams says or does one thing you don't like-one false move-and it's off with her head. Yikes....I'm heading off for an extended Easter egg hunt-I'll talk to you when I get back....
    Maud

    ReplyDelete