<p>From Merriam-Webster's in-line edition:</p>
<p>Main Entry: alum·nus
Pronunciation: &-'l&m-n&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural alum·ni /-"nI/
Etymology: Latin, foster son, pupil, from alere to nourish -- more at OLD
1 : one who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university
2 : one who is a former member, employee, contributor, or inmate</p>
<p>Zephyr,</p>
<p>It is actually Thomas who went to HC undergrad, not Souter. It is interesting to note that Roberts wife is also a grad of HC and an attorney.</p>
<p>Thomas went to Holy Cross as an undergrad.</p>
<p>From "Answers.com":</p>
<p>"Souter was born in Melrose, Massachusetts. He was the only child of Joseph A. Souter and Helen Hackett Souter. His father was a banker, who died in 1976. He spent most of his childhood and adolescence at his family's farm in Weare, New Hampshire. He attended Concord High School, graduating in 1957.</p>
<p>"He went on to Harvard College, from which he received his A.B., majoring in philosophy and writing a senior thesis on Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. He graduated from Harvard magna cum laude in 1961. He was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. He was a Rhodes Scholar and chose to attend Magdalen College, Oxford, where he received an A.B. in Jurisprudence from Oxford University and an M.A. in 1963. He then entered Harvard Law School, graduating in 1966."</p>
<p>Apparently a recent president of the U. Washington Alumni Association was a dropout, as is a recipient of their highest alumni award. Anyone with one semester of credits is an alumnus there:</p>
<p>But this is getting repetitive...</p>
<p>greybeard...according to definition #2 i am a student and alumnus of princeton at the same time.</p>
<p>You were an inmate at Princeton? ;)</p>
<p>haha oh yeah, locked up in the MAE lab.</p>
<p>
[quote]
>>I will wait for Hanna's latest response to post#45 - which, rephrased, is that if alumni really are just former students and not necessarily graduates, then why is that all other schools don't see it that way?<<</p>
<p>Sorry Sakky, but Stanford follows Harvards practice of claiming students who did not graduate as alumni. Tiger Woods is constantly referred to as Eldrick "Tiger" Woods '98 on alumni websites and magazines. See this article for an example:</p>
<p>They claim the Google founders as alums too. So it's nothing unique to Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, as far as the Google guys are concerned, they were awarded master's degrees from Stanford. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Yale specifically states that dropouts are considered to be alumni. They only require completion of one semester for the alumni designation:</p>
<p>Sorry, Sakky. This one isn't going your way.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>
[quote]
From Merriam-Webster's in-line edition:</p>
<p>Main Entry: alum·nus
Pronunciation: &-'l&m-n&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural alum·ni /-"nI/
Etymology: Latin, foster son, pupil, from alere to nourish -- more at OLD
1 : one who has attended or has graduated from a particular school, college, or university
2 : one who is a former member, employee, contributor, or inmate
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fine, guys, I'll put my cards on the table. Berkeley apparently does not put you into the alumni database if you have never graduated. I know this because I know quite a few people who flunked out of Berkeley. Lo and behold, they don't appear in the Berkeley alumni database. I also know people who transferred out of Berkeley who don't appear in the Berkeley alumni database.</p>
<p>Hey, if you want to prove me wrong, name me a person who went to Berkeley, but didn't graduate, and I'll see whether that person appears in the database. </p>
<p>Hence, my point is that apparently some schools have different interpretations of how to define an alumni. If an alumni is always defined to be somebody who attended the school, regardless of whether he graduated or not, then apparently somebody forgot to tell Berkeley about that. From what I can see, there seems to be no standard definition of 'alumni' that all schools agree upon. Some schools apparently interpret it to mean anybody who has matriculated. Others apparently interpret it to mean only those who graduated. </p>
<p>The point is that it is not 'obvious' that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is considered to be a Harvard alumni. The granting of alumni status seems to be something that is performed on a case-by-case basis, varying according to the school. There seems to be no hard and fast rule about what an alumni is and isn't. If Harvard wants to call Ginsburg an alumni based on their interpretation of the word 'alumni', then so be it. But that doesn't mean that all schools agree with that interpretation.</p>
<p>Which begs the question that I asked before - if it is so 'obvious' that alumni are just former students, and not just gradutaes, then why don't all schools see it that way. Is Berkeley being stupid? Do the Berkeley administrators not know how to read the dictionary? Why is it that I can't find friends of mine in the Berkeley database who went to Berkeley many years ago, but never graduated?</p>
<p>Sakky - I think we can agree that UC Berkeley does not claim Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an alumna.</p>
<p>She is, however, an alumna of Harvard Law School, which if what the argument was about in the first place.</p>
<p>But earlier you were asserting:</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Hence, it is entirely possible that this is some eccentricity on Harvard's part. Which is why I would like to hear of the practices at peer schools.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>In response to which it was shown that at least Stanford, Yale, and UW follow Harvard's practice. On the other side we have what you are telling us about Berkeley. </p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Which begs the question that I asked before - if it is so 'obvious' that alumni are just former students, and not just gradutaes, then why don't all schools see it that way. Is Berkeley being stupid? Do the Berkeley administrators not know how to read the dictionary? Why is it that I can't find friends of mine in the Berkeley database who went to Berkeley many years ago, but never graduated?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>The trend here , based on what data we have for "peer institutions", is that the differing practices look more like an eccentricity on Berkekley's part rather than Harvard's.</p>
<p>Coureur, it may very well be so that this is merely an eccentricity on Berkeley's part. So I will continue to ask around (not here, but privately) what the practices are at other peer schools.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, I think what we have found is that there is apparently no consensus about what the definition of an 'alumni' is. Some schools define it one way, other schools define it another way.</p>
<p>You're a stubborn kid, aren't you?</p>
<p>What goes around comes around, Byerly.</p>
<p>So you still don't think the nomination of Judge Roberts will be confirmed?</p>
<p>This thread is really childish and silly. Does counting the number of "alumni" from a given school (and arguing about the definition of the word "alumnus") really prove anything? </p>
<p>And what criteria should be used to count? One could argue that the undergraduate degree should be used, in which case Stanford (4 current justices) has far more graduates than any other school. Guess that means Stanford is best in the country for pre-law education?</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>So I will continue to ask around (not here, but privately) what the practices are at other peer schools.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Okay, great. Get back to us as soon as you get it all figured out, or when O.J. finds the real killer - whichever comes first.</p>
<p>Alum,</p>
<p>Hey, don't knock "childish and silly." It still works for me.</p>
<p>Alum,</p>
<p>It really is. Makes for a very amusing read, though.</p>
<p>You're right, thinkjose and Alum, it got quite out of hand. Kind of ridiculous, arguing over the exact definition of "alumni." </p>
<p>As for the confirmation chances, Byerly, Roberts will reach the SC, although probably with some loud Democratic dissent from Messrs Kennedy and Kerry. How big of a majority will our favorite patrician-turned-evangelical Frist be able to deliver? His record is opaque and he isn't loudly conservative like Bork (or Gonzales for that matter). Really, he isn't that bad from a Democratic perspective, and it could have been much worse. I'll be watching carefully to see what happens when Rehnquist retires.</p>
<p>"I'll be watching carefully to see what happens when Rehnquist retires."</p>
<p>I have no idea what will happen from a legal perspective. But the number of Stanford "alumni" will decrease, and the number of Harvard "alumni" will increase if Roberts is confirmed. Therefore Harvard will become even more superior than it already is. Does anything else really matter? :)</p>