RSS
Facebook
Twitter
E-PrinceReader Comments
No Princeton students win 2013 Rhodes Scholarship; Cunningham ’13 wins Mitchell
Published: Sunday, November 18th, 2012
This year, for the first time since 2005, no Princeton student won a Rhodes Scholarship, the Rhodes Trust announced early Sunday morning. While six students from Harvard and seven from Yale won awards, none of the 32 winners came from ...
(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.
YEA FLANN!!!
This ariticle could have at least given credit to the finalists by mentioning them by name. That in itself is a major achievement. Why focus on the tally between Pton, Yale, and Harvard as if it's some kind of Ivy League competition? So, congrats to the finalists!
I agree with Brandon Bark
Thanks for your support, but I don't think it's the Prince's fault. The University is weirdly secretive about the nominees/finalists - not even we got to see a full list of our names.
But much love for Flann!
On the same day that the Rhodes "No Winners" article appears, we also can read that the Field Hockey team won the NCAA championship.
No doubt there are some who would see a connection. Not this author, who says "Congrats" to the Field Hockey team! Who knows, maybe there is a future Rhodes on that team.
What about Marshall scholars?
Don't you think that Flannery deserved her own article? I can't believe that the Prince would place an achievement such as hers as the second art of this article!
Yeah, poor form, Prince. Flannery deserves her own article for her impressive achievement. This piece portrays it as an afterthought, which is not just inconsiderate, but also poor journalism.
Amen. Or at least given her first billing in the title!
The Prince dropped the ball on this one. Why focus on the Rhodes Scholarship? Why dwell on the fact that we didn't win any, when we did win something else, which is just about as prestigious? The focus of this article should have been on Flannery, with the Rhodes mentioned as an afterthought.