<p>um... maybe because it is the highest acedemic distinction in the world?</p>
<p>That is one of the oldest chestnuts around. For most of its history, Rhodes scholarships were not awarded to women. Since they have been, Radcliffe and Harvard candidates have been combined. Not surprising to see Bulldog, who should know better, repeating it.</p>
<p>Radcliffe was most definitely allowed to nominate rhodes separately from harvard college, even while pretty much operating as one singular institution. Thus Harvard as a whole had, for some time, twice the number of nomination slots available. Do you deny this?</p>
<p>A hoary myth.</p>
<p>Harvard and Radcliffe fully combined operations in 1977, the same year that an Act of Parliament changed the will of Cecil Rhodes to extend the selection criteria for Rhodes Scholarships to include women.</p>
<p>Typical of Bulldog to try to perpetuate this myth. </p>
<p>Its simply its another one of the imaginary rationales used by Yalies to excuse their distant runner-up status - in this respect as in so many others.</p>
<p>Byerly, I always wonder if you are an adult or a high school student...Which is it?</p>
<p>Your comments on these boards are immature at times....</p>
<p>If a school is allowed 4 nominations only, how did harvard have 5 winners in 1996?</p>
<p>edit: when did radcliffe formally dissolve? I think it was in 1999 perhaps? I forget, but for many years women were still receiving degrees from radcliffe.</p>
<p>At least I tell the truth.</p>
<p>Harvard has had more than four winners on numerous occasions, including each of the four previous years preceding this. It has nothing to do with "extra" Radcliffe nominees, silly goose!</p>
<p>You need to learn more about how the Rhodes operates.</p>
<p>Actually harvard had 3 last year and 4 the previous year. I was talking about the American Rhodes, but maybe you were including all of them (canada, jamaica...). Whatever the case, we disagree and that's fine as well.</p>
<p>I would give you supporting links, but I rather think I'd be wasting my time, given your obvious anti-Harvard agenda.</p>
<p>dumb and dumber</p>
<p>I reckon you guys should have email arguments instead.</p>
<p>I don't know about the Radcliffe stuff but here's some stuff I found comparing the schools. The numbers are at the bottom.</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>Filling in the gaps above:</p>
<p>In 1998 Harvard had 4 Rhodes winners. In 2000 it had 2 winners.</p>
<p>And another great thread on the Princeton board.... ;)</p>
<p>Happy Thanksgiving to you all.</p>
<p>OMG Who Cares?! They're both AMAZING schools</p>
<p>To varying degrees, that is true.</p>
<p>I agree, Byerly, depending on what school is "amazing" to a lesser degree.</p>
<p>I have a suspicion that we have different schools in mind.</p>