<p>How come Harvard did not have any Rhodes scholar this year. Yale, Princeton, Stanford all had Rhodes scholars. Is the quality at Harvard deteriorating?????</p>
<p>Harvard did have one
<a href="http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2005/11/20-rhodes.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2005/11/20-rhodes.html</a></p>
<p>Princeton didn't have any in the year 2000. Did that mean that the quality at Princeton was deteriorating?</p>
<p>They didn't have a Harvard College scholar this year but here's some stuff I found for Rhodes Scholarships. The numbers are at the bottom. Harvard College has had a lot of Rhodes Scholars in the past. Looks like all the HPYS numbers are awesome!</p>
<p>HYPS has had a lot of Rhodes Scholars!??</p>
<p>I never would have thought....:rolleyes:</p>
<p>A yes...a thread done in my style...with all the glorious !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>It really doesn't count that that Naval Academy fellow is at KSG. He wasn't given the RS for his graduate-school work. </p>
<p>And Harvard's high Rhodes numbers are mostly due to the fact that Radcliffe had separate nominations and therefore, Harvard University had much more.</p>
<p>That is a lie. </p>
<p>Harvard has been totally merged with Radcliffe from and after 1977 - the first year that women were eligible for Rhodes Scholarships. (A woman undergrad was among the first winners that year.)</p>
<p>Winners in recent years:</p>
<p>7 winners for 1996 - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/12.12/SevenNamedRhode.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1996/12.12/SevenNamedRhode.html</a></p>
<p>5 winners in 1997 - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/12.11/FiveWinRhodesSc.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1997/12.11/FiveWinRhodesSc.html</a></p>
<pre><code> Plus a 6th - http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/01.15/TolmieWinsRhode.html
</code></pre>
<p>2 winners in 1999 - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/12.09/rhodes.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/12.09/rhodes.html</a></p>
<p>5 winners for 2001 - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/12.13/01-rhodes.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/12.13/01-rhodes.html</a></p>
<p>5 winners for 2002 - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/12.06/rhodes.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/12.06/rhodes.html</a></p>
<pre><code> Plus a 6th - http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2001/12.13/06-intlrhodes.html
</code></pre>
<p>5 winners for 2003 - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/12.12/01-rhodes.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/12.12/01-rhodes.html</a>
Plus a 6th - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/12.04/%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2003/12.04/</a></p>
<p>6 winners for 2004 - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.02/01-rhodes.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.02/01-rhodes.html</a>
Plus a 7th and 8th - <a href="http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.09/12-rhodes.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/12.09/12-rhodes.html</a></p>
<p>1st Harvard female winner after merger with Radcliffe and in the 1st year that women were eligible - <a href="http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.24/HarvardtoCelebr.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/09.24/HarvardtoCelebr.html</a></p>
<p>The things that Stanford boosters say in threads on this Harvard Forum sometimes reflect rather badly on Stanford.</p>
<p>Well, I think its generally only this one troll, whose sentiments are colored by the fact that he applied early to Yale - where he REALLY wanted to go - but was rejected.</p>
<p>Then of course there's "Alumother" - but that's a whole 'nuther story!</p>
<p>byerly can lay down the smack like no other</p>
<p>"The things that Stanford boosters say in threads on this Harvard Forum sometimes reflect rather badly on Stanford."
Who, exactly, are you referring to? Meeee, perhaps? I'm suddenly a "Stanford booster." I suppose that's an admirable title. More of you should be the same. </p>
<p>And Byerly terms me a "troll"! LOL! Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? And his passing remark at Alumother, who is far more dignified than the Rove-like tactics our favorite Harvard booster employs... </p>
<p>Well, she can respond to that herself.</p>