**Cheers:**

Take Your Child to Work Day; USC Mind ice bucket challenge; Kickstart energy drink; cold brew; SZA & Kendrick Lamar Grand National Tour 

**Jeers:**

AP season, humid air, litter, running out of pencil lead, expensive review books, school tissues, nosebleeds, performative activism

Cheers and Jeers: April 2025

Walk into any grocery store in America, and you’re bound to find shelves full of ultra-processed foods wrapped in shiny plastic packaging. Ultra-processed goods, products that are prepared using industrial methods, are often high in sugar, salt, and fat. For these reasons, many health professionals and critics on social media have taken to advocating for consumption of “whole” foods such as fruits and vegetables. Although reaching for an apple is decidedly healthier than grabbing a bag of chips, both foods can be sources of a less-discussed health threat — microplastics.


Microplastics are defined as small pieces of plastic less than five millimeters long, and result from the natural degradation of plastic products, such as packaging, synthetic textiles, and paint. Since the coinage of the term “microplastics” in a 2004 University of Plymouth study, its negative effects on marine organisms have been well-established. However, microplastics aren’t just a problem for our environment — they have begun to find their way into the foods that we consume on a daily basis.


For example, a 2020 study by Catania University discovered that carrots and apples contained high levels of microplastics, likely due to absorption of microplastic-contaminated water. Additionally, according to a National Institutes of Health study from 2023, tea bags made with certain plastics can release billions of very small microplastics into cups of tea. Marine organisms consumed by humans can also have thousands of larger microplastics, and any foods stored in plastic containers contain thousands of plastic particles of all sizes. When consumed, these microplastics have been shown to mimic hormones, messenger chemicals within the body. One study from the American Chemical Society found that a gene called TRPV4 was over-expressed due to microplastics acting as growth factors, leading to respiratory issues. Microplastics can contribute to an increased risk of cancer, neurological diseases, and respiratory issues. They also exacerbate pre-existing medical issues, or activate latent disease-causing genes in the body. 


In particular, many of the microplastics in humans arise from a process known as biomagnification. Because of pollution, there are many plastic particles floating in the ocean. Small organisms eat these plastics, and they are then consumed by predators. The plastics move up in the food chain, becoming more and more concentrated in the tissue of the apex predators. When a human proceeds to eat this animal, they receive a portion of the many microplastics present in the ocean. Biomagnification occurs in a similar sense for land animals like chickens and cows, which often consume contaminated plants. In all cases, the original source of microplastics are man-made materials that pollute the environment.


This is not a problem that can be solved through selection in what we eat, but instead needs to be solved at its origin. We fill our oceans with trash, destroying the single geographic feature that gave rise to all life. As a society, we need to change to save our planet, our oceans, our marine life, and ourselves. Large societal shift begins with small, personal steps. Right here at PHS, students can make a meaningful impact in the fight against microplastic pollution. From the cafeteria to the vending machines, we make daily choices that either contribute to or help combat this growing health and environmental crisis. 


If you want to stay away from these life-threatening, cancer-causing particles, start by putting your water bottles in the recycling. The next time you go to the cafeteria or Tiger Café, choose items with less plastic packaging. Bring your own reusable water bottle instead of purchasing plastic beverage bottles from the vending machine. Even small changes like using your own reusable utensils or avoiding plastic straws count. These changes may seem insignificant, but together, we can reduce sources of microplastics that end up in our food, and in our bodies.

Photo: Julia Li

Izzah Memon ’27 eats a bag of chips during break.

Microplastics are a macro problem

The lunch bell rings at 11:33, and fourth period ends as hundreds of students pour out of classrooms and into the halls of Princeton High School. Some students head to the library, while others head to the guidance office. Some just walk laps — earbuds in, heads down, skipping lunch for the third, maybe fourth day in a row. It is not a diet. It is not a protest. It is not always a choice. 


For too many students, lunch has become optional. Not because they are not hungry — they are — but because 35 minutes is not enough time to eat, finish an essay, ask a teacher a question, and review for the quiz they have next period. In the past few years, there has been an unhealthy exaggeration of high school performance and how it affects the futures of these students. Because of this, when given the choice between nourishing the body and “getting ahead” in their studies, the choice seems trivial.


This is not just a PHS problem. According to a 2020 national survey by Yale University, 75 percent of high school students report having negative feelings toward school. The general sentiment seems to be that these students feel negatively towards school because of apathy or laziness. The truth, though, is that these students are under copious amounts of stress, driving them to have these negative feelings.


A New York Times article written by Tim Donahue stated that “we [as a society] have pushed high school students into maximizing every part of their days and nights.” Students feel like they need to do more and more in order to stay afloat. Self-care takes a backseat because students feel like they need to do so much in order to distinguish themselves. They need to get perfect grades, take the hardest classes, be a part of every extracurricular under the sun. Of course, under all of this pressure, physical needs become an afterthought.


The way students cope with this stress is not always visible — but it is often unhealthy. Skipping meals, sleeping in fragments, and studying at midnight. It becomes a game of sacrifice: what can be dropped to make room for everything else? For too many, the answer is lunch. A study from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health found that students given less than 20 minutes to eat consumed significantly less food and nutrients. When the body is not given the nutrients it needs to function properly, productivity drops. This, in turn, harms students’ academic performance.
When students are skipping meals just to keep up — when they feel they have to choose between eating and succeeding — something is wrong with the system, not the student.


We need to stop pretending that this is normal.


Lunch should not be a luxury. It should not be treated as expendable. It is time — real, uninterrupted time — to eat, decompress, exist as something other than a GPA.


So the questions posed are, how do we take back our lunch periods? How do we take our lives back from the grind that academia has instilled in us? There is no single fix, but there are places to start — both as individuals and as a school.


At a school-wide level, the goal should not just be more time. It should be better use of the time we already have. Lunch needs to be protected. No required meetings, no mandatory makeups, unless a student chooses them. The school can also help by making lunch more accessible — a pre-order system or even a simple form could cut down the lines that push students away. And if we are serious about student wellness, the message needs to be loud and clear: eating and resting are not optional, they are essential. Teachers and administrators should say that out loud. Not just in emails during Mental Health Week, but every day, in how they schedule, how they speak, and what they prioritize.


But change cannot just come from the top. It starts with what we do, too. That might mean bringing food from home instead of skipping lunch. Taking ten minutes to sit down and actually eat. Using free periods to slow down instead of squeezing in more. Outside of school, it means setting boundaries — around sleep, around work, around the pressure to always do more. And maybe most of all, it means shifting how we think. Getting the perfect grades and getting into a top college are not the most important things in your life. More than that, needing rest does not mean you are failing. Taking care of yourself is not weakness — it is proof that you are still trying to live, even in a system that tells you to do the opposite.


So when the lunch bell rings at 11:33, you do not need to run. You can stop. You can eat. You can let that be enough.

Photo: Julia Li


Ksenia Petukh ’27 eats lunch and studies in the IDEAS Center.

Lunch is for eating, not cooking

Bridget McAloon '27: "It has to be Kinder Buenos. I'm a sugar fiend."


Priya Bakshi '25: "I just like to chew gum ... I think it helps me concentrate."


Ian Lee '28: "I like to eat chips while I'm studying ... Doritos, Lays."


Lile Kapanadze '26: "Red Bull ... because it's an energy drink and it helps me study."

PHS Speaks Out: What is your favorite study snack?

“Stop GENDER DISCRIMINATION in debate,” reads the cover slide of the hit 2024 Instagram post by the Debate Hotline. This particular post collected (at the time of writing this article) a whopping 2,164 likes and 247 shares, making it probably one of the most notable moments of feminist activism in the high school debate space in recent years. 


Any debater with an Instagram account would likely recall the viral impact of this post. Across my feed, debaters of all genders shared the post, creating a powerful moment of solidarity. This moment mirrored activism in other competitive academic spaces — from the #WomenInSTEM movement addressing gender gaps in mathematics competitions to the Women’s Chess Initiative highlighting similar disparities in chess. Nonprofit organizations have proliferated across these disciplines, each focused on promoting gender equality in their respective activities. In debate specifically, feminism has become perhaps an integral movement. Yet despite this widespread activism, gender disparities persist across all these academic spaces. In mathematics, women still represent less than twenty-five percent of International Mathematical Olympiad participants. In chess, women account for just eleven percent of rated players worldwide. In debate, the disparity remains since the viral post. This raises a critical question that transcends any single discipline: Is our current approach to addressing gender discrimination in academic competitions actually effective?


To approach an answer, we can examine the Debate Hotline post and how the debate space handles inclusive activism. The post features quoted testimonies from female debaters describing misogynistic social encounters they have experienced: “At the Harvard tournament, I advanced in out-rounds. When a male friend of mine found out, he congratulated me by saying ‘have my babies,’” recounted one anonymous submission. Beyond these accounts, the post presents three key statistics: women are 18.8 percent less likely to win Varsity elimination rounds, 30 percent more likely to quit debate altogether, and notably absent from half of all national circuit finals. They end with a call-to-action urging debaters to sign a petition that demands the NSDA to implement mandatory judge bias training. 


The message of the post reflects the message of the overall feminist movement in debate: biased judging leads to female debaters losing rounds, which drives them out of the activity, ultimately hurting their academic and life opportunities. This rhetoric also follows through in Fem-Kritiks, a popular argument (usually made by female debaters) that urges the judge to drop the opposing team (usually male), and for the opposing team to forfeit the round. This is done in order to even out the win-loss disparity by addressing judge bias.


The problem with this widespread rhetoric is that it is only partially true; a closer look at Yi and Nie’s 2020 study “An Empirical Study of Gender Differences in Competitive High School Debate” reveals something crucial. In Varsity rounds, the study found “a large difference in win rates between teams of different gender compositions, with female-female teams 17.1 percent less likely and male-female teams 10.0 percent less likely to win a debate round against male-male teams.” However, they also found “no gender gap in win rates for novice debaters.”


If the thesis of female push-out being due to judge bias is to be believed, why is there no sex disparity in novice round results? The study follows this discovery by suggesting that “the disparity does not occur from innate entry ability differences, but rather appears alongside experience in debate.” In the results section, Yi and Nie continues that “some possible causes of this gap result from a female debater’s environment: potential bias in the amount of resources allocated to competitors by coaches, the gender-hostile environment of a team, or the effect of the perceived stereotype of the activity, to name a few examples.”


This pattern extends beyond debate and into other competitive academic spaces. Chess, for instance, has implemented structural solutions by creating women-only sections and tournaments since 1927. Yet despite these institutional changes, the gender disparity in chess still exists today. The underlying cause mirrors what we see in debate, which is a hostile social climate. Female chess players consistently report implicit exclusion from the broader chess community, which pushes them out from participating. In many academic environments, female participants describe being excluded from study groups, having their contributions minimized, and facing heightened scrutiny of their abilities. These experiences, not competition results alone, ultimately drive many talented women away despite their proven capabilities.


Although misogyny and other forms of inequity is a systemic problem in academic spaces, we need to stop focusing on that — however counterintuitive it sounds. Exclusively deeming the issue to be systemic is how we arrived at our current position. It removes responsibility from the individual. If you are someone who cares about and wishes to solve inequality in the academic space, it is time to address the issue on a personal level: how you deal with and react to hostile situations. Have you stood up for others? Have you excluded team members from resources? Have you actively denounced crude, inappropriate behavior? Have you stopped perpetrators from participating in leadership? 


I’m not demeaning current feminist initiatives. Their focus on institutional change remains important. But perhaps we need to focus elsewhere; perhaps our activism has become too copy-paste, too shallow, too performative; perhaps we need to look elsewhere, deeper, within ourselves. Our efforts must address the social climate that shapes our activity from within, not just the institutional structures above. While continuing to advocate for structural change, let’s recognize that creating truly inclusive spaces begins with us.

Why inclusive initiatives are failing in the academic space

 It is well-accepted that the sense of American security collapsed along with the World Trade Center back in 2001. From a country dazed and confused, the War on Terror began, and, soon enough, our generation was born: a population hyper-aware of and sensitive to instances of terrorism.

The September 11 attacks certainly dwarfed any instance of non-war violence that the United States had seen in the preceding decades — but terrorism did not start in the twenty-first century. Many students may remember learning about John Brown, who killed several pro-slavery expansionists and attempted a raid on Harpers Ferry to further the cause of abolition. Brown became a Union martyr in the years following his execution, and even today, many don’t necessarily deem him a terrorist.

To better understand Brown’s case, consider the definition of terrorism: an act of violence against non-combatants for a political aim. Non-combatants are everyday civilians who are not directly partaking in hostilities, while combatants are the actors in the conflict. Besides a simple semantic separation, this implies a distinction between the right to protection held by each group. Supposedly, the United States conducts war — an action justified in that it kills people who chose to fight — and its enemies conduct terrorism — an action unjustified in that it kills people who chose nothing. Brown never killed a truly “neutral” person, neither from his perspective nor ours today, because for both, to defend slavery constitutes such an abhorrent belief that it becomes violent by nature. But for the wider view of his day, abolition had become so polarized as a political issue that “neutrality” in its matter meant simply not engaging in physical violence for the cause.

Therefore, complications arise when evaluating who truly counts as a combatant. Somewhere between John Brown’s raid and the September 11 attacks may lie someone like Ted Kaczynski, otherwise known as the Unabomber. In Kaczynski’s manifesto, he detailed his fear that modern technological advancements would trigger a world without nature, human freedom and dignity. By mailing bombs to university professors conducting STEM research, airline executives, and advertisers, Kaczynski acted upon his extreme political opinions. With knowledge on the extent of global warming, Kaczynski might have very well argued that the everyday choices of Americans to use ecological resources such as gas and electricity and water, made them combatants against the Earth itself, which he defended.

The question of who is a combatant has come to a larger stage in the trial of Luigi Mangione. Even without any legal determination as to whether or not he murdered United Healthcare CEO Mark Thompson, Mangione has become a folk hero for his alleged action. To his defenders, the insurance CEO is responsible for the violent action of causing people to suffer unmanageable healthcare fees, whereas Luigi, if guilty, is only a victimized soldier in the class warfare that the rich started. The prosecution, meanwhile, sees a man murdered for doing his legal job and a terrorist responsible for that murder.

What made these cases compelling and generally socially accepted? Figures such as John Brown, Ted Kaczynski, and Luigi Mangione based their actions off of well researched, passionately defended ideological positions that tapped into public grievances. Their targets were not random but individuals seen as combatants responsible for systemic issues, whether it be slavery, the degeneration of humanity, or healthcare inequality. Their actions were not intended to instill fear into the general public but rather a distinct resistance towards a combatant.

In a community like Princeton, where student activism is often passionate and socially conscious, it’s important to ask: how do we define resistance, and where do we draw the line between protest and violence? While we don’t condone acts of harm, we can reflect on the motivations behind historical and controversial figures to understand how they were able to make people so deeply moved by injustice. PHS activists can learn that effective change comes not just from emotion, but from informed, strategic action that taps into shared concerns and presents compelling narratives.

What we can learn from controversial figures

President Trump’s recent funding cuts to colleges and public schools has hit especially hard here in Princeton, a town internationally recognized for its high standards of education. The government has cut many research grants at Princeton University as well as colleges and universities across the U.S., and it is currently threatening to pull funding immediately from public K-12 schools if they do not eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

The shutting down of the DOE impacts Princeton in various ways. The DOE enforces the implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (commonly referred to as a 504 plan), a federal civil rights law that protects the rights of individuals with disabilities in programs receiving federal funding. In particular, Section 504 formally outlines accommodations and support services for students with disabilities, such as allocating extra time for testing. Without 504 plans, students who need these plans may not be given them, leading to them not succeeding as much as they could because their right to accommodations was taken away.

These decisions have already faced mass pushback from many in the nation, including in Princeton. Hundreds of students, professors, and Princeton community members congregated by the Princeton Public Library on April 5, partaking in the national wave of protests on “Hands Off Day,” with over 1,200 other rallies all over the country. Gatherers protested Elon Musk and Trump’s efforts to pull funding from various government initiatives, such as Medicaid, Social Security, and the Department of Education (DOE).

With these developments, access to education is becoming a privilege and democracy is deprioritized. Since 1979, the DOE has fought for students’ rights, advocating for inclusion of female, disabled, LGBTQ, and all minority students. With the Trump administration slashing 50% of its workforce, the DOE  is likely to fade away as a central authority in maintaining standards for equitable and quality education. Every school is impacted, especially those in rural or under-resourced communities.  

If education is no longer a civil right, high educational standards are now a privilege reserved for the highest tax brackets and the wealthiest zip codes. By trading educational standards in the name of “government efficiency,” we are quickly letting go of the American principle of opportunity and upward mobility.

 Our education system should strive to dismantle systemic barriers. The Trump administration’s policies certainly will make it so that inequality will become institutionalized in the one place that ought to provide an equitable launchpad to the real world. While some students receive shiny, new, updated textbooks and modern labs, others that are less fortunate will be struggling to learn with outdated materials and crumbling infrastructure.

The social inequalities that fester unchecked in society will bleed into schools and dismantle the educational promise of equal opportunity. If we are serious about upholding our ideals of equal opportunity, and if schools are meant to be a stepping stone to our future, education can not be relegated to a gamble. 

To the government: thank you for proving to us that you are willing to jeopardize the education of millions of capable, smart, and ambitious American students. Thank you for proving that you do not care for improving equality. We hear you loud and clear. 

Stop putting education in budget cuts

Cheers and Jeers

   Having a tutor does not guarantee success. That is the mistake too many students make. The assumption goes like this: if you are struggling in a class, hiring a tutor will fix everything. A tutor will reteach the material, clarify confusion, and help you complete assignments. If you sit through lessons, understanding will come eventually. But that is not how learning works.


Students who rely on tutors as a safety net — thinking they can check out during class because they will “just relearn it later” — are setting themselves up for failure. A tutor is not a replacement for active engagement. They are not an alternative to thinking for yourself.


PHS students know this pattern too well. You can walk into the IDEAS Center on any given afternoon and see tutoring sessions happening at nearly every table. Some students are asking questions, engaging in discussion, and working through problems themselves. Others sit back, listen passively, and nod as if absorption was automatic. Then, they go home, take the test a few days later, and are surprised when their grade does not reflect all those hours with their tutor.


The reality is that success depends on active learning. That means asking questions in the moment, staying engaged with the material, and making an effort before seeking outside help. It means attempting the homework before assuming you need a tutor to walk you through it.


Tutors are not a shortcut. They should be a supplement: a way to refine understanding, clarify difficult concepts, and receive guidance on problem areas. The students who see real results from tutoring are the ones who already engage in class, who struggle first before seeking help, and who come to their tutor with specific questions instead of waiting to be spoon-fed the material. PHS offers plenty of resources for students: teachers who hold office hours, peer tutoring programs, and the IDEAS Center. However, none of it matters if students refuse to take the initiative themselves. The bottom line? If you are zoning out in class, thinking your tutor will handle it later, you are wasting time — yours, your tutor’s, and your teacher’s. The real work happens in the classroom. Tutors can help, but only if you are willing to help yourself first.

Photo: Charley Hu
Stellan Song ’28 and Vinay Lele ’28 study together in the IDEAS Center.

Tutors are not shortcuts to success

Conversations at PHS are often embedded with strings of expletives, which occasionally result in teachers warning students about their language. This seemingly normal occurrence demonstrates that although profanity has become desensitized for younger generations, it still carries weight for the older population and in professional environments. According to a paper from the International Journal of Literature, Language, and Linguistics (IJLLL), a survey comparing Generations X, Y, and Z reported that only 4 percent of Generation Z respondents reported no use of profanity, contrasting with a larger 43 percent of Generation X participants. Despite this disconnect between profanity and past generations, most popular curse words have deep historic roots and come directly from the Middle Ages.


According to the Saturday Evening Post, profanity in medieval times mostly revolved around religion and eventually became associated with immodesty. These examples allude to a greater trend in profanity — historically, profanity matches the needs and desires of its users and the society it exists in. For example, general profanity revolved around racial slurs in societies where racial discrimination was a norm. Today, what we define as profanity is once again changing, and it will likely cause a rift between Generation Z and older generations such as Generation X. For example, the word “damn” was considered a serious profanity in the 16th century. However, in the modern era, its profane nature has more or less dissipated. For instance, The New York Times and other major print publications have loose regulations surrounding the printing of  “damn” in article titles, but will only include the word “f—” in “highly contentious quotations and interview transcripts”. The IJLLL paper found that Generation Z is more likely to use profanity light-heartedly or in casual conversation. Words currently still generally considered profane, such as “f—” or “s—,” may join “damn” and quickly lose that designation if they continue to be used in normal contexts.


   In contrast to “damn,” certain words have had their profane statuses elevated. The r-slur, which began as a professional medical term for neurodivergent people, quickly became common profane vocabulary. After various social movements pointed out the r-slur’s derogatory nature towards neurodivergency, it began to be considered as a slur. Its slur status was then solidified in 2010 when President Barack Obama signed “Rosa’s Law,” which changed “mental retardation” to “intellectual disability.” It’s likely that the next wave of profanity will not be any new, strange words, but rather a revival of what is currently considered unacceptable. For example, most PHS students have likely heard at least one slur in the hallways. Offensive slurs such as the f-slur and the r-slur that have been phased out of popular vocabulary seem to be making a worrying comeback. Interestingly, this coincides with the rise of conservatism among U.S. youth alongside racism, misogyny, xenophobia, homophobia, etc. These ideas and associated slang spread quickly in the fast-paced digital age, contributing to the loss of meaning for otherwise offensive words.


It is important to recall, though, that these changes in profanity are generally concentrated in younger generations. Older generations are less likely to change their perception of words they have always known as profane. This results in a generational language gap — when younger generations casually use words older generations may still perceive as highly hurtful, it can cause conflict. In the workplace, which many PHS students are only years away from entering, this dissonance could have particularly negative effects. Although curse words being used more casually isn’t inherently negative, it is important for younger people to remember that language does not change at the same rate for everyone.


As we, the younger half of Gen Z, begin to enter the professional sphere and transition into a world where we are not always mostly surrounded by our peers, we should start to be more mindful of our words — we will need to communicate effectively with other people, and profane language, although more casual for young people, is intrinsically divisive.


Traditional curse words are losing their meaning for younger people as they use them as casual terms, not as expressions of significant emotion. These developments should be taken seriously, as they will not only create far-reaching professional and interpersonal consequences, but could also accelerate the use of bigoted slurs in common conversation. Although these linguistic developments seem out of our hands, by consciously making an effort to remove profanity from our vocabularies, we can still make a difference.

The evolution of profanity

In its first top-five finish since 2022, PHS’s
Euro Challenge team earned fourth place
at the Euro Challenge national competition
on May 7. Euro Challenge, a competition
co-funded by the European Union (EU),
encourages students in the United States
to learn about European Union economic
policies by proposing solutions to realworld economic issues faced by an EU
nation of the team’s choosing.


This year, the PHS team addressed
issues in Lithuania regarding growth and
competitiveness, such as wealth inequality,
economic stagnation, and rural-urban
disparities. Their solutions were evaluated
on their creativity, effectiveness, and
feasibility, criteria the team sought to meet
with a particular solution which used AI
to combat financial corruption.


“We [proposed] implementing ... an AI
system that sifts through large amounts of
data so [the system] can find suspicious
tax filings. This is much faster and more
efficient when it comes to identifying these
false tax filings ... it decreases tax fraud,
and the government is earning more,” said
Helen Yu ’27, a member of the presentation
panel at Nationals.


Euro Challenge consists of three rounds
of competitions held in New York City: a
preliminary round, then a semifinal and
finals round. The team first presented a
15-minute slideshow on the country’s
economic problems and their proposed
solutions to a panel of judges, followed
by a 10-minute Q&A on the team’s
recommendations.


The judges of Euro Challenge are often
leaders in finance and economics fields or
are economic policy workers within the
EU, which helped the team develop their
solutions.


“They were the chief financial officers
or advisors of major investment banks, so
[there were] definitely a lot of people who
were really specialized in this field,” said Yu.
“And it was really interesting to see what
they had to say and what questions they
had, because it’s completely different from
what high school students would tell you.”


The preparation for the competition starts
early in the year, after seven of the applicants
are selected for the team following tryouts
for interested underclassmen. The team
first researched the economic state of
their chosen nation, then categorized the
economic issues in the country under root
causes and proposed solutions for these
issues. Finally, the team heavily practiced
the Q&A portion of the presentation, one
of the most important parts for the team’s
score.


“[The] captains would give me questions,
and we’d have to come up with responses
on the spot. Just having this as a routine
really helped prepare us, because you could
just take whatever question came at us, no
matter if we really knew how to answer it
or not. Having that practice also helped us
be coherent as a group,” said Yu.


The team also had to practice soft
skills like public speaking and effective
communication to help them communicate
their policies to judges.


“I think the most important skill is
being able to speak in a conversational way
because when the judges are asking you
questions – you’re trying to convince them
out of their concerns about your solutions,
but you’re not debating people ... I had a bit
of debate experience, but what Euro taught
me was how to convince people instead of
how to win an argument,” said Sebastian
Balestri ’28, another member of the team.


Through the months that the team
spent for preparation, Euro Challenge
members built connections that will extend
beyond the competition. They were able to
capitalize on each other’s strengths to create
a strong team for the national competion.


 “[Before] becoming a captain, I had a
lot of meaningful experiences interacting
with my captains at the time. I think they
really gave me a lot of insight into not only
econ[omics] and topics pertaining to Euro
Challenge, but also bigger things pertaining
to personal life, especially with school and
future tracks that you could take beyond
that,” said Emma Liu ’26, current co-captain
of the Euro Challenge team.

Photo Courtesy: Elif Cam

Sebastian Balestri ’28, Joshua Huang ’28, Jane Hu ’27, Emma Liu ’26, Aritra Ray ’27, Elif Cam ’26, and Helen Yu ’27 met Jovita Neliupšien, Ambassador of the European Union to the United States

Euro Challenge wins fourth place at Nationals

Spring recap

As the school year comes to a close, it can be tempting to sit back and relax, letting the whole summer blur past while you stay indoors and retreat to the online world. While relaxing is crucial, staying physically fit can be just as important.


Exercise has numerous health benefits, but without school sports in the summer, it can be hard to find ways to stay healthy. Fortunately, staying active doesn’t mean you have to do vigorous exercise every day. Even something as simple and small as going outside for a stroll can be beneficial.



Parks are a great place to spend time outside and enjoy the nice summer weather. Whether it’s taking a walk or walking your dog, parks are there for you to get some fresh air. Smoyer Park is a classic, with open fields and ponds, which is a nice and peaceful environment to walk through. Marquand Park offers labelled trees and well-kept trails, perfect for those who love nature. For those sports and skateboard enthusiasts, Hilltop Park contains a soccer field, baseball/softball diamond, basketball courts, and a whole skate park. These parks are perfect for sports lovers that play sports even outside of the school season, like Sebastian Balestri ’28.



“I like playing tennis, so sometimes during the summer I like going to certain parks with tennis courts and just play tennis with my friends,” said Balestri.



The Community Park Pool is also open during the summer, and swimming is a great way to stay active, with your body burning calories to stay warm and swimming itself being a strenuous activity. Pools are the place to go if you just want to spend time with your family, cool off, or just have fun and fool around with your friends.



There are a number of hiking trails in and around Princeton too. The Watershed Reserve, located in Hopewell Valley, has over 10 miles of trails and supports one of the largest nature centers in New Jersey. Within Princeton are the Herrontown Woods, which is open to the public everyday free of charge, and the 5.2 mile Stony Brook trail. For those who are willing to travel the distance, the Sourland Mountain Preserve is 30 minutes away with hiking trails that have amazing views and beautiful rock formations.



“Over the summer I like to hike at the Watershed Reserve because I really like the environment there. I like to go there when the sun is about to rise to get a good view,” said Gavin Macatangay ’27.



As for indoor activities, there are also many options nearby. Gyms such as Planet Fitness offer a traditional gym experience, while places like the Gravity Vault have other options, such as rock climbing.



The key to staying active is keeping consistent while making the most out of your summer, even if the things you do are small and simple. Staying active doesn’t mean missing out on the summer fun, it means making the most out of the time that you have.

Photo: Emily Kim


Lily Berkery ’26, Kalina Tacheva ’26, and Mercy Ebong ’26 walk laps during gym.

Ways to stay active after school ends

“Charlie the Chocolate Factory” takes
a twist at the Odyssey of the Mind World
Finals, as Chef Oopsie Doopsie (an oompa
loompa) overthrows Willy Wonka and
decides to use the factory for a dinner
party instead.


But things soon go awry for Chef Oopsie
Doopsie as his guests begin reacting poorly
to his concoctions (including hair toffee),
and at the last moment Chef Oopsie
Doopsie decides to pursue his true passion
instead: becoming an opera singer.


Joy Chen ’27 , Claire Yang ’27, Viola
Que ’27, and Julia Li ’27 and Luna Xu ’28
competed and performed this skit from
May 21–24 at the Odyssey of the Mind
World Finals in Michigan. Odyssey of
the Mind is an international competition
encouraging students to use creativity in
a theatrical performance that responds to
one of five prompts, while incorporating
STEM or literarature-related topics. This
year, the PHS team chose the prompt
“Classics...Cooking with Books,” where
they were challenged to create a skit based
on “an original chef character inspired by
classic literature.”


 In addition to creating the skit, the team
also had to create props and costumes out
of materials totalling no more than $140,
which led the team to use recycled materials
— using cardboard and construction paper
to make large green wigs for the Oompa
Loompas and a mechanical lazy susan to
present the dishes.


The largest part of the judge’s final score
are the creative aspects of the skit, which
encouraged the team to think in a different
way than usual. Que noted that some of the
most engaging presentations came from
younger competitors in the elementary
and middle school divisions.


“[In] Odyssey of the Mind, you think
in a different way — like [someone] at a
younger age. I think as you get older, in
high school, [you’re] afraid to be judged,”
said Que. “[But] when you do Odyssey of
the Mind, anything goes. If you want to
do something, you can do it, and nobody’s
going to judge you, even if it sounds silly.”


The team began each session with a brain
dump, coming up with ideas, trying out
different possibilities, and dividing up the
work according to the strengths of each
member. Marcus Strum ’27, a member of
a different team in the PHS Odyssey of the
Mind club, noted the strong work ethic of
the team that qualified for Worlds.


“Before the competition, there’s typically
several working sessions at people’s houses
and script writing sessions over FaceTime.
The team that went to worlds this year
worked all day going into a sleepover,”
said Strum.


Throughout the year, the team fundraised
for their event and journey to Worlds
through GoFundMe and chocolate bar
sales, as the trip was not supported
financially by the school.


“It was unfortunate that for all the
hard work we [put in that] we [weren’t]
able to get funded by the school on our
trip, even though we were also going to
be representing Princeton High School
at [an] international competition ... with
thousands of people,” said Que.


Although Que admits that the team
was initially unfamiliar with Odyssey of
the Mind, their experience at Worlds,
where they ultimately placed 25th out of
38 teams in their category, has energized
and motivated the team to perform even
better next year.


“It’s made me excited for next year,
because I [realized that] if I put my mind
to [something], I can make whatever I
want, and it can be a fun experience. If you
want to make something really cool, like,
mechanical gadget, or a robot ... [I realized]
you can do it,” said Que.

Photo Courtesy: Jacqueline Katz

From left to right: Viola Que ’27, Julia Li ’27, Joy Chen ’27, Luna Xu ’28, and Claire
Yang ’27 after their performance of ‘Chef Oopsie’s Revelation’ at World Finals.

PHS Odyssey of the Mind team competes at Worlds

Word fun in the summer sun

While most students are introduced to history through textbooks, few recognize the educational value that historical films can provide. Although these films are not always historically accurate, they offer a captivating way to introduce students to the complexities in the past. By recreating stories, movie directors are able to transform historical events into engaging and entertaining experiences, bringing life to events in ways textbooks cannot. While these films may include slight modifications to the original storyline, they provide a powerful passage for students to learn about history’s most fascinating people and events.

One of the most effective ways films can teach history to students is by humanizing real events by providing personal stories. “Black Hawk Down,” for instance — set during the Somali Civil War — follows the crew of a Black Hawk helicopter which was shot down in the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993. The movie plunges students into the chaos of warfare, with soldiers fighting for their lives and losing their loved ones, showing the dangers and troubles of a soldier at battle. This helps students understand the fear that the soldiers faced during the conflict.

Furthermore, in “Selena,” a movie directed by Gregory Nava about Selena Quintanilla-Perez, one of the most famous Mexican American singers in the 20th century, students are able to learn beyond her fame and into her personal struggles. While a famous singer like Selena may appear jubilant on stage, singing and laughing with a big smile, the film sheds light on the discrimination and challenges Selena faces growing up. For example, when Selena and her sister are shopping to buy Selena a dress, they encounter an unpleasant interaction with the sales associate who discriminates against the two sisters because of their skin color. While issues with discrimination may be taught in classes, historical films like “Selena” provide firsthand experience for students to understand the troubles to a greater extent.

Similarly, “Hacksaw Ridge,” a film about Desmond Doss — a U.S. soldier who saved tens of lives during WWII without carrying a single weapon — also provides a powerful depiction of the war and prompts students to engage with the past. This movie not only teaches facts about the war, but also proposes themes like the complexity of heroism and moral conviction. By focusing on Doss, the film teaches students about conscience, faith, and perseverance.

Films also provide opportunities for students to discuss the complexities in history. Take “Schindler’s List,” for example — while it highlights the horrors of the Holocaust, it also raises important questions about morals, courage, and how power in the hands of one can influence the lives of others. The movie encourages students to consider the deeper implications behind the Holocaust, rather than observing from the surface. Teachers can use certain scenes, such as the burning of thousands of books, to spark conversations about broader historical themes such as propaganda, resistance, and consequences of discrimination. Additionally, students are also encouraged to identify what historical details are included — and left out — developing a stronger understanding of how the media portrays history. This not only enhances students’ critical thinking skill, but also their ability to analyze media literature.

In the end, historical films — while not always 100 percent historically accurate — offer a meaningful and engaging way to revisit the past. Through powerful stories and deeper discussions, movies like “Black Hawk Down” and “Schindler’s List” make historical events more accessible and emotionally resonant. When used in educational settings, these films can spark curiosity and encourage critical thinking, turning entertainment into a valuable learning experience.

Photo: Katherine Chen


After learning about the Holocaust and WWII, Mr. Campbell’s APUSH Period 2 class watches Schindler’s List.

Opinions