-
Reader Comments

Thirteen join Colonial in first-round sign-ins

Written by Molly Brean, Staff Writer
Published: Monday, February 1st, 2010
Only 13 students joined Colonial Club during the first round of sign-ins, a major drop-off from the 87 members who joined the club in the first round last year.

Charter Club was the only sign-in club to fill in the ...

(back to the article)

Viewing 53 comments...

  • 1:41 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    whistleblower

    Why is Quad consistently unwilling to disclose their membership number? At least Colonial owned up to having a down year.

    2010: "Quadrangle Club president Eric Salazar ’11 declined to provide specific numbers, though he said in an e-mail to that the number of sign-ins was “comparable” to last year’s class of roughly 50 new members." http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2010/02/01/24939/

    2009: "Quad’s new membership is “closing on 50” after first round sign-ins, club president Zackory Burns ’10 said." http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/02/02/22591/

    2008: "The Daily Princetonian, however, was able to confirm sign-in numbers for each club except Quandrangle Club. The club is “not sure” of how many have signed in during the first round, Quad president Christian Harris ’09 said, and will release the numbers later this week." http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/02/04/19910/

  • 2:17 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    AC

    Did Colonial even recruit this year?

  • 3:42 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    TI Joes & Ivy Hoes

    My jaw actually dropped. 13? Poor Colonial. Poor David Hou.

    Second round FTW?

  • 3:45 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    Sophomoric

    “We aren’t cliquey, but we’re very inclusive of anyone who wants to be a ‘Drangler.’ ”

    Why is there a "but"?

  • 3:50 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    engine

    Last year: 133 (Charter) + 87 (Colonial) + 45 (Cloister) + 50 (Quad) + 80 (Terrace) = 395.

    This year: 118 (Charter) + 13 (Colonial) + 58 (Cloister) + 50 (Quad) + 86 (Terrace) = 325.

    I guess 70 less people signing in in the first round is significant. That's like 17% of last year's first round sign-ins. Guess we'll have to wait and see if 70 more people bickered this year than last... or if the clubs are just somewhat less popular this year.

  • 7:56 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    @whistleblower

    Quad doesn't give specific numbers because it probably didn't know them yet - there are sophomores that only signed up as recently as yesterday. It's not that they're trying to be secretive, they're just looser with their deadline.

  • 8:17 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    whistleblower

    @@ whistleblower:
    Actually, the whole process is automated through the PPF website now.

  • 8:33 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    @ Whistleblower

    Quad (and every other club) knew its first round numbers some time late Saturday/early Sunday. Quad traditionally doesn't report its number either due to embarassement (likely) or Grad board policy (more likely). This year they had no reason to be embarrassed because of Colonials dismal number.

  • 8:49 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    Dear Whistleblower

    Numbers aren't released from most bicker clubs.

    See: http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2008/02/11/20033/

    Cottage, Cap and Gown and Ivy all did not give specific numbers. Perhaps Quad's grad board is aligned with these grad boards?

    Revealing numbers of membership and who joined are not public information and presidents who give this information to the exact number do so knowing full well in the next second a member can e-mail and drop or add. Members are people not numbers.

  • 9:09 a.m. on Feb. 1st, 2010
    Posted by
    Chatham

    HUZZA HUZZA FOR CHARTER CLUB THE GRANDEST OF THE ALL

Page 1 of 6 | next > | last >>

Post your comments on this article

Comments:

:

Captcha

For security reasons, please enter the word in the image above.

The Daily Princetonian reserves the right to monitor and delete inappropriate comments.

 


< Back to the article


The opinions expressed here are those of the individual commenters and do not necessarily represent the views of The Daily Princetonian Publishing Company, Inc. We do not take responsibility for the opinions, facts, or claims presented by individual commenters, and reserve the right to moderate or delete inappropriate comments.