Talk:The Princeton Review

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Miscellaneous discussion[edit]

Please help! First time edit but just wanted add that on a personal level I agree with the sentiments expressed in "Internal Criticism," but they are just that, sentiments and not facts. Furthermore, while the expression "blushes noble etc..." certainly reads prosaically it does not fit the wikiverse. I am honestly very happy that this information has made it to wikipedia so that future workers or patrons of TPR can know what has happened to the business and make their decisions accordingly. Speaking as a former TPR teacher, the company has gone to great lengths to maintain its pristine and somewhat elitist image and I did have fears that they had somehow managed to suppress this information. However, the biased manner of representation as well as the beautiful but ultimately detrimental flowerly language only hurts the credibility of the facts provided. I do not have the words to edit this myself, I am not a wiki regular, but please do fix it as I think the passage, through its overly expressive and vehement sentiments, ends up trivializing this very serious policy change that has affected so many of us. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page is in bad shape right now. There's an extraneous fragment in the intro (second paragraph). The company is not based out of NYC anymore (it's out of Framingham). The K-12 division has been sold. Also, I'm inclined to think that the article is little more than a stub: there is much more that could be said (and has been, in previous revisions). I work for TPR, so I'm going to be careful with any edits that I do, but clearly edits are necessary, and I might make them if nobody else does in the near future. Kelandon (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreeing with all comments below--I've worked for The Princeton Review for awhile, and there are a lot of errors in this article about how it works. I checked the articles for the competitors to The Princeton Review, and their pages contain no criticisms NOR any strategy information, just basic information about the companies. I will be editing this article when I can to include accurate information. I also will remove the section on strategies as it is a violation of intellectual property and from what I recall of the agreements that any employee or student of The Princeton Review signs, it cannot be posted here without explicit permission from Princeton Review's legal eagles. I'll take care of all of this ASAP. - Vespered 11:30, 2006 April 11

To the anon editor: your contributions are welcome, but it seems you have an axe to grind against the Princeton Review and are looking to put your opinions in the article. Your contributions have a definite "point of view" slant that we try to avoid here at Wikipedia. If you wish to contribute, you must bear this in mind. Your additions regarding the current state of the company in the last two paragraphs need definite souces. Otherwise, they are not acceptable. -- Decumanus 02:15, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

I work for the Princeotn Review both as a teacher and full time. I won't act like there are no QA issues, but the information about how TPR's 200 pt score guarantee works is COMPLETELY wrong. The info here is misleading, and the facts about it are plainly contrary to this, as seen in the Enrollment Agreement that all students must sign. Score improvement is scored from any PREVIOUS OFFICIAL test, and the diagnostics are NOT used in the guarantee except if the student has never taken a SAT or PSAT.

I am also somewhat concerned that some of the information in this article is technically protected as intellectual property owned by TPR. While the quantity posted here is not much, further expansion of the "techniques" section would render buying a TPR book redundant at best. Please contact me if there are any thoughts on this.

I don't think the Recent Internal Criticism and Misleading Claims of Instructor Qualification belong. It sounds like an angry former employee or teacher with an ax to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I came here looking for the Princeton Review rankings ("Biggest Party School," "Best Campus Food," "Cutest Campus Squirrels," etc.). I'm pretty sure it's the same company as the one that does the test-prep courses that are the subject of this article. 03:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Techniques section[edit]

I'm not sure this section really belongs in an encyclopedia, since it's essentially a list of tips for taking tests. Cordless Larry 11:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Since the SAT has been taken by so many persons, (it is perhaps a sociological phenomenon), and since some people have believed that it measures aptitudes or even I.Q. (please see the SAT article "The success of SAT coaching schools, such as Kaplan, Inc. and the Princeton Review, forced the College Board to change the name again. In 1990, the name was changed to Scholastic Assessment Test, since a test that can be coached clearly did not measure inherent "scholastic aptitude", but was influenced largely by what the test subject had learned in school." and "John Katzman, founder of The Princeton Review, argues in an interview for Frontline (PBS) against its status as an IQ test."), it is interesting to see what a major critic has to say specifically about how it can be "tricked", and therefore how it is not a test for aptitude nor intelligence. Another Wikipedian 21:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV paragraphs[edit]

The first two paragraphs of the "Description" section are wildly non-neutral. I don't have time to fix this at the moment, but clearly they are in serious need of revising in light of the NPV policy. Kelandon 03:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those paragraphs were completely unsourced, and apparently added by one IP editor. I removed them from the article as apparent original research. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working for TPR section[edit]

User Audacity reverted the information I provided on Working for TPR. User classified this as useless spam. I disagree--I believe the content is of value, and is helpful in understanding the unusual culture of the company. Further, though Audacity took no issue with the POV, I strove to write the article NPOV (indeed, I worked for TPR and have no love for the company, but I wanted to give a neutral viewpoint).

Again, I do not see the section as spam. I read the spam guidelines, and saw nothing I wrote as being violative. However, I am relatively new to editing articles, so if a majority can demonstrate that what I've written is spam, I am open to changing/removing it--jlculp

I think a vote is necessary with this addition. Personally I don't really think the information, regardless of it's validity, is all that necessary. For instance, if I worked at McDonald's I wouldn't be writing about working for McDonalds, albeit there would be much I could write about and tons of interesting and/or disturbing things to report. It really doesn't belong in an article about the company--or at least to the extent that you have done. This is the chief reason I think that your information was viewed by Audacity as useless spam. b_cubed 23:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jlculp, I didn't read the info that carefully at first, but now I see that you were writing with a neutral POV, so your additions weren't spam. The reason I classified it as spam is that spammers often post lots of unverifiable material that promotes their company - e.g., "Employees of the Princeton Review are highly satisfied with their salaries". It's the kind of stuff you would find in promotional materials. While your info is not blatantly promotional, most of it still violates Wikipedia:Verifiability.
I'd rather not vote, since voting is evil. jlculp, it would be great if you could look through the information and find good sources for whatever you can, and remove the rest. Thanks, Λυδαcιτγ 01:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took it all out. Put it back if you find sources. Λυδαcιτγ 02:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, as another former employee I do agree that the culture and teacher selection process is unusual and perhaps even notable. I have no opinion as to whether this rises to a level warranting inclusion in the article. -Lciaccio (talk) 03:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tpr logo.gif[edit]

Image:Tpr logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sections on internal policy and LSAT teachers[edit]

I work for the Princeton Review and I will definitely say that every LSAT teacher that teaches the hyperlearning course had to score in the top 98th percentile on the exam. I believe that is a 172. Unfortunately, we had to let quite a few of our teachers go last year due to this change in policy. Personally, I think it is really hard to quantify a teacher's future success through previous test scores, but I'm not the director of content. I think that is the materials and techniques are so great, anyone should be able to teach the class. I can see how it would be harder "to sell" that though. October 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These sections are unsourced and not NPOV. For the sake of full disclosure, I work for the company so I will not edit the page, but I will say that the LSAT 98th percentile refers to only very few teachers who teach an accelerated version of the class, and in fact must score in the 98th percentile. Also, I'm not sure how current internal company politics are of encyclopedic value. --Chadamir (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This piece seems pretty biased. I usually don't edit on wikipedia but it struck me as a bit ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section as well as the "Recent Internal Criticism" are unsourced and non-NPOV. If an author can verify their claims that the company breaks its own policies then I will quit removing it. GeorgeHG (talk) 18:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This and the issue about LSAT instructors are related, so my comments address both. Neither is POV-neutral, nor is either cited. The LSAT instructor issue is also factually wrong. I have personal knowledge of the company's practices, and while I can't cite to those (nor should that be acceptable for me writing a section stating what the policies are), when combined with the previous editor's lack of citations, seems sufficient to pull down the offending portions of the page.

The criticisms about score releases, on the other hand, is cited. VariantsA (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPOV Dispute[edit]

It's fairly transparent that the section on Recent Internal Criticism was written by a former or present employee who feels that they've been treated unfairly by a particular office. In turn, they have written a reasonably negative-POV paragraph about their personal experience as if it were voiced by a group that they're unable to cite. The anonymous user making these edits would do well to either stop replacing the negative information when it is deleted or allow me to post a second, equally uncited, viewpoint. Obviously within a company different locales will have different experiences. Either various points of view are important or none of them are. (Signing comments I wrote while not logged in.) GeorgeHG (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 2008 Data Exposure[edit]

I noticed that the discussion of the August 2008 Data Exposure which appeared in prior versions of this page (such as has disappeared in the recent flurry of edits. Given the scope of the exposure and the widespread media coverage, I believe the data exposure section should be returned. Any objections or comments? All viewpoints welcome. Transmissionelement (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reinstated this section based on no objection from other users and the clear notability of the issue. Transmissionelement (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placement of Info re Stocks/Losses?[edit]

Hello. New AND work for TPR and therefore will not edit. But I am curious about the placement of the second paragraph (info about financial losses) in the introductory section. I don't disagree with its inclusion in the article, but the placement in the intro just reads odd and abrupt. Seems like this should have its own section? Also, the other reason it reads odd is there's no contextual data for the mention of the losses. For example: it reads as an unusually large loss, compared to the previous year, but is the loss large compared with other companies in the field? With other companies overall? The fact that the country has experienced economic strain in the last few years prompts me to ask these questions. Without the context, I don't know whether Princeton Review's losses as described reflect something about TPR, something about the industry, or something about the country as a whole. Please, someone with more experience move and/or elaborate. (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)NikkiReply[reply]

"Advertisement" section tags[edit]

I tagged a couple of sections as "advertisements" because they were overly detailed in a way that serves to promote the topic. See WP:Undue weight. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed changes[edit]

Changes requested based on change in ownership. Sourche:

Overview section: The Princeton Review is headquartered in New York, NY.

Key People: Andrew Feld, CEO Source: and

Corporate History section: Request addition of the following: On March 31, 2017, ST Unitas acquired The Princeton Review for an undisclosed sum. Source:

Privacy Concerns: Request that this section be considered for revision, as The Princeton Review is no longer owned by or associated with any dating services, and the cited privacy policy regarding web visitors is not unique to the company.

Thank you for considering these changes.

Kristen at TPR (talk) 23:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Already done  Spintendo  ᔦᔭ  21:02, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]