April 26, 2018

Founded 1876 daily since 1892 online since 1998

Thursday April 26, 2018 vol. CXLII no. 51

Twitter: @princetonian Facebook: The Daily Princetonian YouTube: The Daily Princetonian Instagram: @dailyprincetonian

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

U . A F FA I R S

STUDENT LIFE

IMAGE COURTESY OF PXHERE.COM

University labs are making long term research agreements with industry to develop new therapies.

By Katie Tam Contributor

In February 2004, the anti-cancer drug Alimta, developed by late chemistry Professor Emeritus Edward Taylor in collaboration with pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, was approved by the FDA for the treatment of several forms of deadly lung cancer.

Fourteen years later, not only is Alimta still saving lives, but the University continues to reap the benefits of Taylor’s work. The U.S. patent on Alimta gave the University nearly $524 mil-

lion in royalties, some of which contributed to the construction of Frick Chemistry Laboratory on Washington Road that has housed the department of chemistry since 2010. Moreover, all thirdyear chemistry graduate students at the University now receive a fully funded fellowship sponsored by Taylor.

“Collaboration between academia and industry is really a winwin situation for both sides,” Dean for Research Pablo Debenedetti said, recounting the story of Alimta.

He explained that while

the driving force for faculty was exposure to new questions that combine scientific interest with real-world impact, companies received access to campus recruitment and the ability to partner on government grants.

Debenedetti said that the University has had a long history of collaborative research with industry, particularly in the life sciences. “Geographically, the proximity of pharmaceutical industries and the University in New Jersey make partnerships between the two feasible,” he explained.

See THESIS page 2

Despite CDC warnings U. will let us eat lettuce

STUDENT LIFE

ROBERTO HASBUN :: PRINCETONIAN NEWS CONTRIBUTOR

Dining halls salad bars offer romaine lettuce as one option amongst a multitude of greens.

By Roberto Hasbun Contributor

Dining halls will continue to serve romaine lettuce after determining that the lettuce used is not sourced from a region under warning by the Center for Disease Control.

The CDC reported an outbreak of E. coli infections linked to bags of chopped romaine lettuce, with 84 to-

In Opinion

tal infections recorded as of April 25.

The exact source of the outbreak has not been identified, but it is suspected that it came from the Yuma, Arizona, region. The CDC encouraged buyers, retailers, and restaurants to avoid lettuce sourced to that area.

Bagged salad does not typically list the region where it was grown, so it is advised to avoid eating all bagged

Contributing columnist Noa Wollstein reflects on the Princeton Preview Activities Fair in her inaugural column and contributing columnist Hunter Campbell advocates for the life of Alfie Evans.

PAGE 4

romaine lettuce with unknown origins.

“In response to the CDC warning, Campus Dining reviewed the sourcing of its romaine lettuce and determined it is not from the affected region,” said acting University spokesman Michael Hotchkiss.

“We checked with the vendors, and we found that the lettuce was not contaminated,” a Mathey and Rockefeller College dining hall manager who asked to remain anonymous commented.

“We are sure that all of our lettuce comes from California.”

“We should praise the University’s immediate action,” Riccardo Talini Lapi ’21 said.

“The University should continue to be up to date with new findings regarding the contaminated lettuce.”

“Personally, I will avoid eating lettuce at the dining hall for now,” he added.

“If the University determined that the lettuce is not contaminated, then it is probably fine,” Annie Liang ’21 said.

Eating club dining services could not be reached for comment by the time of publication.

ISABEL TING :: ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR

USG oversaw the voting process for the Honor Code referendum.

Fifth Honor Code referendum passes despite some opposition

By Isabel Ting Assistant News Editor

Over 84 percent of participating students voted in favor of the fifth Honor Code referendum included in the 2018 Undergraduate Student Government spring elections. The referendum will allow for the evaluation and replacement of the clerk and chair of the Honor Committee.

“The ‘yes’ votes [point] to the fact that there needs to be more accountability in this all-powerful chair position,” former USG Academics Chair Patrick Flanigan ’18 said.

Currently, if a student is in question of violating the Honor Code, the chair of the Honor Committee presides over the investigation, decides whether the investigation goes to hearing, choose the members who will attend the hearing, and presides over every hearing and deliberation, Flanigan explained.

He noted that the referendum is not a direct statement about any individual chair, but rather of the overall position.

Micah Herskind ’19, one of the more vocal opponents of the referendum, drew attention to Section D, which states that after the Review Committee completes its evaluation of the existing Chair or Clerk, “The independent committee will then determine by a two-thirds vote whether the sitting Clerk or Chair will be replaced in their executive capacity by the member submitting the evaluation.”

Herskind’s main criticism was that the accountability measure is linked to personal gain, as the Honor Committee member who brings forward the evaluation stands to become the new chair.

Further, he added that the newest referendum only allows current members of the Honor Committee to challenge or request for an evaluation of the existing chair or clerk, excluding members of the general student body from rais-

Today on Campus 4:30 p.m.: Asian American Collisions along the Arc of History, Past Present Future Tense — a discussion with Helen Zia’ 73, the former executive editor of Ms. Magazine, Asian American feminist and LGBTQ author and activist. 100 Jones Hall

ing concerns about the committee leadership.

Although last semester he was part of the subcommittee under the USG Academics Committee that helped pass the previous four referendums on the Honor Code, Herskind voted against this fifth referendum.

“Essentially, one member of the committee can challenge the [existing] chair to a duel, and the winner of the duel becomes the chair,” explained Herskind. “So not only is the evaluation committee deciding if the current chair is competent, but they are doing so in relation to the challenger. Accountability should not be tied to personal gain.”

The evaluation committee is made up of USG and Honor Committee members.

Herskind acknowledged that the referendum was intended to increase the accountability of the Honor Committee, which is “notoriously opaque [and] lacks any semblance of transparency,” but he ultimately believed that the new referendum would increase the toxicity of the committee.

“It will make a bad system worse,” said Herskind.

However, many students “just heard the phrase ‘accountability’” and associated this reform with the previous ones and checked the “yes” box, as seen in the overwhelming percentage of students who voted in favor of the referendum, Herskind said.

“The overarching problem is that some people think that any change is good change,” said Herskind. “I just don’t think that’s the case.”

Herskind added that the bestcase scenario, after the implementation of the referendum, is that nothing changes, but that the worst-case scenario would lead to more infighting and toxicity within the committee, creating a burden that then falls on the students that stand before the See REFERENDUM page 3

WEATHER

U. research teams work with industry to develop medicine

HIGH

68˚

LOW

41˚

Partly Cloudy chance of rain:

10 percent

page 2

The Daily Princetonian

Thursday April 26, 2018

Debenedetti: Collaboration is really a win-win RESEARCH Continued from page 1

.............

In 2006, the University opened the Merck Center for Catalysis with funding from pharmaceutical company Merck. The facility features a robotic system that sets up and monitors thousands of reactions, allowing researchers to identify biologically active compounds in a highthroughput fashion, Debenedetti said.

“The Center for Catalysis has enabled researchers in the chemistry department to partner with Merck on life-saving research,” Debenedetti said.

In the chemistry department, Paul Chirik’s lab discovered a new method to track metabolites with radioactive labeling, while David MacMillan’s group has been using light as a knob to inf luence chemical reactions, and Abigail Doyle’s group has developed artificial intelligence software to predict the yield of chemical reactions, he said.

Chirik, MacMillan, and Doyle could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.

In 2015, the chemistry department partnered with pharmaceutical company Bristol-Myers Squibb to establish the Center for Molecular Synthesis as a facility to conduct cutting-edge synthetic chemistry.

“The Center will encourage out-of-the-box research and robust conversation between scientists from both the University and Bristol-Myers Squibb,” Debenedetti said.

There are many promising collaborations still in the pipeline, Debenedetti said. A proposal to explore molecular based treatments for acne, developed by professor chemistry Mohammad Seyedsayamdost in partnership with pharmaceutical firm Johnson & Johnson, recently won the Innovation Fund for Industrial Collaborations sponsored by the Office of the Dean for Research, Debenedetti explained.

Seyedsayamdost could not be reached for comment at the time of publication.

Across the road from the chemistry department, the molecular biology department in Thomas Laboratory is also home to alliances between University scientists and researchers in pharmaceutical companies. Most recently, molecular biology professor Yibin Kang has worked with pharmaceutical corporation Amgen to develop an antibody that inhibits specific tumor cells and sensitizes bone

metastases to the action of chemotherapy.

“University labs are good at doing research with long time commitments of four to five years, using advanced platforms and models that companies might not have the expertise for,” Kang said.

However, though University laboratories are good at discovering new pathways for therapeutics, companies are often better at making and improving biologically active compounds, Kang explained.

“We have different motivations,” Kang stated.

“While universities prioritize education and the spirit of exploration, the industry is focused on product development.”

However, he emphasized that the real beneficiaries of collaborations between academia and the industry are patients.

The development of 15D11, the antibody against bone metastasis discovered by Kang’s group and researchers at Amgen, took over a decade of research, Kang said.

His previous work on breast cancer metastasis had implicated a cellular signaling pathway, Notch, in disease progress. The work was noticed by researchers at Merck, who approached Kang a decade ago to test a potential therapeutic compound that would impact the pathway.

Studies in mouse models conducted by the Kang lab demonstrated that Merck’s compound was toxic because it targets several receptors in the gastrointestinal tract rather than a specific target. A few years later, having noticed this work at a scientific conference, scientists from Amgen reached out to Kang to test an antibody that they suspected could confer both the required inhibition and specificity.

Four years of experimentation later, 15D11 was found to be an efficient drug for the treatment of breast cancer metastasis to the bone when combined with chemotherapy by blocking cancer cells’ defense mechanisms against chemotherapy, Kang said.

The next step is to move to clinical trials in patients, Kang stated, a reminder of the many thousands of lives saved by collaborative research between academia and pharmaceutical companies in the life sciences.

These partnerships are beneficial not only to universities, whose scientists are exposed to real-world problems, or industry, that gains cutting-edge academic expertise, but to the broader society in the form of life-saving drugs.

Did you know... that the ‘Prince’ has a Facebook page?

Like our page!

Procrastinate productively!

Thursday April 26, 2018

Umanzor: I have a lot of faith in the student body REFERENDUM Continued from page 1

.............

Honor Committee.

“What if neither the current chair or the challenger is good?

Then you’re still going to left with two bad options,” Herskind pointed out.

Herskind explained that since he served on the Honor Committee from his freshman fall through his sophomore spring, he has “seen how toxic” the committee is.

“I joined [the Honor Committee] because I wanted to try to reform things from the inside,” explained Herskind. “But I realized there were structural changes that needed to change that I couldn’t take on from the inside.

It is not worth my time to participate inside the system.”

Now, having left all USG and Honor Code committees, Herskind said he chooses to focus on the structural changes of the committee that he can make as “a concerned citizen.”

Class of 2019 President Chris Umanzor initially proposed the referendum, because he believed that there “needed to be greater accountability to the students.”

Beginning in the second week of April when campaigns began, Umanzor strived to convince students to vote for the referendum through email distributions, an informal Communications Committee, and individual conversations. Although the referendum overwhelmingly passed, Umanzor “was surprised” at such large support from the student body.

“I was incredibly humbled and excited when I found out how many students chose to support the referendum,” said Umanzor.

“I did not expect for those numbers to be quite as high. It is always better to enter a campaign without thinking that the student body is going to completely support the proposal, because that forces you to recraft the proposal more precisely.”

Umanzor stipulated in Section D of the referendum that only current committee members can challenge or request an evaluation because he wanted to ensure that committee members feel like they “[have] a say” and that they are “welcome to hold their leadership accountable.” He added that only “someone who has familiarity with the Honor Committee and how it functions” should be able to challenge the leadership.

Umanzor explained that although only current committee members can act, the general student population can voice their

The Daily Princetonian

concerns about the chair or clerk through other means, such as the ‘Prince’ or through their respective USG elected representatives, such as a Senator, U-Councilor, or the USG President.

Umanzor is a former news writer for the ‘Prince.’

In response to the possibility of power-hungry students using this referendum to obtain higher positions, he explained that this concern is unrealistic.

“It is not a particularly sound assumption to think that students will pursue this process for personal gain,” said Umanzor. “I have a lot more faith in the student body.”

Moreover, Umanzor pointed out that there is a “very high bar” that must be met before existing chairs or clerks are replaced by the challengers, since the evaluation is decided by elected representatives, current committee members, and former members.

“It is also important to note that the Chair position is not a glorified role,” Umanzor added.

“It requires a lot of hours and is a selfless, thankless job. There is not much glory that comes from it.”

He reported that there is a very small application pool for clerkship — only one student applied this year.

“The most important thing at the end of the day is for students to voice their opinion,” emphasized Umanzor.

Undergraduate Student Government President Rachel Yee ’19 agreed that the referendum will emphasize the importance of USG elections, since the USG will help arbitrate the review of the clerk or chair in the evaluation committee.

“We will be working closely with the referendum to make sure it is implementable,” Yee said.

“We will keep everyone informed on what the process looks like after we figure out how it will be implemented.”

Flanigan added that although internal reforms of the Honor Committee are important, the focus should be on finding a penalty that does not punish students with a year-long suspension when they make an honest mistake.

In an email statement, Chair of the Honor Committee Elizabeth Haile ’19 wrote, “The Honor Committee acknowledges the passage of the referendum and intends to work with the USG in the coming weeks to discuss concerns of Honor Committee and USG members about the implementation of the review process enumerated in the referendum.”

page 3

Opinion

Thursday April 26, 2018

page 4

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com }

Let Alfie Evans fight Hunter Campbell Columnist

If Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge’s new baby had a mysterious medical condition and doctors thought it was going to die, it is almost certain the royal parents would be allowed to exhaust every available method, anywhere in the world, to try and save their baby’s life. Unfortunately, the United Kingdom does not afford that same right to its common citizens and so today the life of two-yearold Alfie Evans hangs in the balance. He suffers from a degenerative brain condition, and his British doctors think he will soon pass away.

Instead of letting the boy’s parents take him to Rome to seek further medical treatment, his British hospital is currently starving him to death.

Several months after he was born, Alfie was diagnosed with an unknown degenerative brain condition. After fighting for over a year, his condition worsened, and the hospital believed he could not get any better. Alfie’s parents wanted to take their son to Rome to continue life-support at the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesù Pediatric Hospital and seek additional forms of treatment, but the British government has barred this from happening. Right now, Alfie is stuck in Liverpool’s Alder Hey Children’s Hospital, which was given permission by a British court to withdraw his life-support on April 23.

Because doctors at the hospital argue that Alfie will never get better, his parents are not allowed to take him to Italy, where another children’s hospital has already agreed to admit Alfie and do whatever it can to save him.

The Italian government has gone so far as to give Alfie Italian citizenship in an attempt to force British courts to allow him to leave the United Kingdom. Despite

these efforts, the courts refused. An exact quote from the court is that “the hospital must be free to do what has been determined to be in Alfie’s best interests.”

I fundamentally disagree that the hospital is in any position to decide whether a little boy who is fighting for his life should be allowed to continue his fight, or whether he must accept death as inevitable. Whether Alfie has any hope of recovery is not what the court and hospital have determined. Instead, they have decided that Alfie’s life is no longer one worth living.

Therefore, it must be morally permissible for the hospital to remove his life-support.

But the hospital is not qualified to make this decision, evidenced by the fact that on April 23 it was proven wrong about Alfie’s medical condition and his ability to fight and recover.

Since being taken off of life-support, the courageous child has managed to stay alive for 36 hours (to the time of publication). His doctors claimed he would not even last five minutes. Alfie clearly has a chance — albeit small — to pull through, but the doctors refuse to give him food or oxygen, and it took his father hours to convince them to give Alfie some water to drink. The hospital is trying to starve the boy to death instead of letting him fight.

I am no medical expert, but I can recall countless stories in which a person has miraculously survived an injury or illness despite doctors’ claims that any further medical assistance was futile. Even if the doctors are almost positive that Alfie’s unknown condition will kill him, they eliminate any chance he has of recovery by taking him off life-support.

Doctors are supposed to try their absolute hardest to save a patient, yet these ones are currently more of a threat to Alfie than his disease, considering they will not even give the poor boy some food.

The only thing we know for certain which will cause Alfie’s death is not feeding him.

His doctors were already wrong about how long he

could survive off of his lifesupport. They could also be wrong about his likelihood to recover. Therefore, the parents have the right to exhaust every option, at every hospital around the world, if there is any chance that they can save their baby boy’s life.

As we look in horror at this tragedy unfolding in the United Kingdom, we must ask ourselves an important question: Who gets to decide when life is worth living? Spending a few years in medical or law school does not make a doctor any more qualified than Alfie’s parent to answer such a normative question. What gives any human the right to decide if another person’s life is worth living, and if that person is worth fighting for? If you argue that Alfie’s continued treatment would be too painful, what do you say about all the other children who some doctors believe to have a slim chance of survival?

Doctors in Italy believe Alfie could pull through, but he may never know if they were right because he was taken off life-support. Should we just start euthanizing any child who some doctors believe will likely die from an illness, simply because the child is experiencing pain during additional treatment, even if the child’s parents want to seek further treatment at a different hospital which thinks the child could live? It is not the job of the state or any doctor to decide when someone’s life should end. Slippery slopes are real.

Alfie, being a mere child, is not in a position to tell us whether his life is worth living, and so he cannot consent to the termination of his own life. The opinion of a judge or a doctor does not replace the need for consent from the patient. If Alfie is allowed to fly to Italy and keep fighting for his life, he just might win.

When he is 18, I am sure that he will tell you he is thankful he was allowed to live and not starve to death. Even if he was not, he would only be able to decide this once he was an adult, not one day sooner.

We are all going to die one day, and we all experi-

vol. cxlii

ence pain in our lives, but that does not mean our lives should be ended without our consent. Similarly, a child experiencing pain is a normal part of its existence, and that does not mandate its death.

When a baby is born, we stab them with dozens of needles, and even more as they grow up. We all know this causes the child immense pain and suffering, but also know that a child’s life is inherently valuable. That is why we let kids go through such an awful experience — to let them have the chance to live.

Ultimately, Alfie’s death will not come from his lack of food or his unknown illness, but from the pride of courts and hospitals in Britain which refuse to accept the possibility that Alfie proves them wrong. If the boy lives, it would make the judges and doctors who seemed so sure of Alfie’s fate seem incompetent, and some may even question their ability to carry out their duties in an effective manner. I worry that they no longer have Alfie’s best interests at heart and instead are only looking out for their own images.

In the parents’ latest attempt to appeal the court’s decision to allow the hospital to remove the baby from lifesupport, the judge claimed it to be the “final chapter in the case of this extraordinary little boy.” Yet, it is only the final chapter because the court sealed his fate by allowing the hospital to stop feeding him. Too many people in power have let Alfie down and abandoned him. I reject the notion that judges and doctors can act as philosopher kings who get to tell parents that their child must die; that is effectively the death penalty. The doctors were already wrong about how long Alfie could survive off of life-support. He is a courageous child who has already pulled off one miracle, and considering his medical condition is so poorly understood, he deserves to keep on trying. Let Alfie Evans fight.

Hunter Campbell is a sophomore from East Arlington, Vt. He can be reached at hunterc@ princeton.edu.

Exclusive even before matriculation

Noa Wollstein

Contributing Columnist

I have been yelling at prefrosh for two hours. My throat, sore even when I first entered into the deafening jungle of Dillon Gymnasium, cracks and splutters.

“Are you a dancer? Are you a dancer?”

The words continuously cycle through my lips as the never-ending wave of shockingly young faces shuffle past.

I shove flyers in hands, get email addresses from the enthusiastic, and try to negotiate a “yes” from the uninterested. It is clear that some of the incoming freshmen feel betrayed by the reality lurking behind the innocent words “Activities Fair.” Their eyes imploringly beg, “Why is everyone being so intense about joining every club, group, and initiative? Why is everyone screaming?”

The fierce dedication to affiliation represented in the noisy gym seems to showcase a student culture that is contingent on division. Maybe this is extrapolating meaning from the negligible. But maybe not. As former president Shirley Tilghman noted in my conversation with her, the existence and pervasive exclusivity of eating clubs has

previously been recognized as the most common reason that admitted students choose to attend other universities.

Prefrosh are wary of a social scene that is so divisive that students must be discretely grouped in order to even eat.

With that in mind, does the activities fair really only convey our benign enthusiasm for our extracurricular activities, or does it express an inability to escape social separation in any aspect of Princeton life?

As students already acclimated to the realities of Princeton life, we may scoff at the idea that the culture surrounding extracurricular activities is another manifestation of eating club-like social exclusivity. It is clear that opportunities for meeting fellow students are diverse, manifold, and not wholly contingent on participation in some club or group. A club takes on its rational gravity as an outlet through which to pursue a passion and meet others with common interests. Though for some an extracurricular may define their college experience, it is by no means an essential component of oncampus life.

But this is not the reality presented to the nervous prefrosh by the pandemonium of the activities fair. The end-

less gallery of trifolds flanked by hundreds of students in emblazoned t-shirts screeching about their undying love for their club or organization confirms the suspicion that Princeton life can only be navigated through group association. Rather than presenting an image of the University as a place filled with excited students simultaneously indulging hobbies, growing as artists, or making social change, fragmentation and exclusivity seem to be the cornerstones of University life.

Even if this idea does not completely turn a prefrosh off from committing to Princeton, it has the potential to install anxiety in their shadowy conception of college. At a time when students should be encouraged to branch out and explore new interests, incoming freshmen may think that they need to stick to what they know in order to get into a group and make friends. A rejection from a dance company or an a capella group that would initially be a slight disappointment may devolve into an apparent dismissal from the Princeton social sphere.

Feeling obligated to immediately plunge into extra-curricular activities so as to build up a social circle may create undue stress for students strug-

gling to adjust to a Princeton workload.

Though I criticize the propagation of an image of the University as being wholly contingent on associational culture, I am definitively part of the problem. I stood in front of the tri-fold, I wore the emblazoned t-shirt, and I literally lost my voice screaming about my love for my dance company. Given the extremely fun and rewarding nature of my own participation in extracurricular activities, and desire for others to have similarly positive experiences, I do not anticipate that my behavior will change in the future. It would nevertheless be valuable for me and the countless other equally enthusiastic students on this campus to keep in mind the lurking fears of prefrosh when hosting them and talking to them at Preview.

The University’s yield rates are consistently lower than those of other competitive universities such as Harvard and Stanford, and we should thoughtfully reflect on our conduct during the prospective students’ only visit to campus accordingly. Instead of only explaining how great the myriad groups here are, playing into our cliquish reputation, we should assure the prefrosh that it’s all right

editor-in-chief

Marcia Brown ’19 business manager

Ryan Gizzie ’19

BOARD OF TRUSTEES president Thomas E. Weber ’89 vice president Craig Bloom ’88 secretary Betsy L. Minkin ’77 treasurer Douglas J. Widmann ’90 Kathleen Crown William R. Elfers ’71 Stephen Fuzesi ’00 Zachary A. Goldfarb ’05 John Horan ’74 Joshua Katz Kathleen Kiely ’77 Rick Klein ’98 James T. MacGregor ’66 Alexia Quadrani Marcelo Rochabrun ’15 Richard W. Thaler, Jr. ’73 Lisa Belkin ‘82 Francesca Barber trustees emeriti Gregory L. Diskant ’70 Jerry Raymond ’73 Michael E. Seger ’71 Annalyn Swan ’73

142ND MANAGING BOARD managing editors Isabel Hsu ’19 Claire Lee ’19 head news editors Claire Thornton ’19 Jeff Zymeri ’20 associate news editors Allie Spensley ’20 Audrey Spensley ’20 Ariel Chen ’20 associate news and film editor Sarah Warman Hirschfield ’20 head opinion editor Emily Erdos ’19 associate opinion editors Samuel Parsons ’19 Jon Ort ’21 head sports editors David Xin ’19 Chris Murphy ’20 associate sports editors Miranda Hasty ’19 Jack Graham ’20 head street editors Danielle Hoffman ’20 Lyric Perot ’20 digital operations manager Sarah Bowen ’20 associate chief copy editors Marina Latif ’19 Arthur Mateos ’19 head design editor Rachel Brill ’19 cartoons editor Tashi Treadway ’19 head photo editor Risa Gelles-Watnick ’21

NIGHT STAFF assistant chief copy editor Catherine Benedict ’20 copy Ava Jiang ’21 Jade Olurin ’21 design Quinn Donohue ’20

to take time to adjust to college life before plunging into extracurricular activities and groups. We should talk to them about all the friends we met at orientation, during nights out, and through mutual acquaintances. We should make the conscious effort to stress patience in the face of the potential loneliness, and emphasize that everyone finds their place eventually. We have the unique opportunity to shape not only how these incoming students approach their college experiences, but their choice of which school to attend. This is not a responsibility to be taken lightly.

Noa Wollstein is at a first-year from Plainview, New York. She can be reached at noaw@princeton.edu.

The Daily Princetonian

Thursday April 26, 2018

Still need time

Sophia Gavrilenko ’20 ..................................................

Personality Survey:

1) During lecture you are... a) asking the professor questions. b) doodling all over your notes. c) correcting grammar mistakes. d) watching videos on youtube.com e) calculating the opportunity cost of sitting in lecture.

2) Your favorite hidden pasttime is... a) getting the scoop on your roommate’s relationships. b) stalking people’s Facebook pictures. c) finding dangling modifiers in your readings. d) managing your blog. e) lurking outside 48 University Place.

3) The first thing that you noticed was... a) the word “survey.” b) the logo set in the background. c) the extra “t” in “pasttime.” d) the o’s and i’s that look like binary code from far away. e) the fact that this is a super-cool ad for The Daily Princetonian.

If you answered mostly “a,” you are a reporter in the making!

If you answered mostly “b,” you are a design connoisseur, with unlimited photography talents!

If you answered mostly “c,” you are anal enough to be a copy editor!

If you answered mostly “d,” you are a multimedia and web designing whiz!

And if you answered mostly “e,” you are obsessed with the ‘Prince’ and should come join the Editorial Board and Business staff!

Contact join@dailyprincetonian.com!

page 5

Thursday April 26, 2018

Sports

page 6

{ www.dailyprincetonian.com } BASEBALL

Baseball to face Yale this weekend

COURTESY OF GOPRINCETONTIGERS.COM

Baseball struggled to score runs in its three losses to Harvard this week.

By Tom Salotti Staff Writer

Baseball takes on Yale (17–17 overall, 11–4 Ivy) at home this weekend, hoping to recover from being swept in a three-game series against Harvard earlier this week.

The Tigers (7–32, 4–16) will play a doubleheader on Saturday and one game on Sunday at Clarke Field. It is imperative for the team to win all three games in the series this weekend — even one loss could put the Tigers out of contention for the Ivy League championship.

When the two teams faced off last year, Princeton lost 0–8 and 1–3 in the two-game series. Yale went on to win the division and Ivy League championship and earned a spot in the NCAA Division I baseball tournament.

The last time the Tigers and Bulldogs played a three-game series was in the 2016 Ivy League championship. Despite having lost both regular season games to Yale, Princeton took two of three in an exciting championship series and advanced to the NCAA tournament. The Tigers lost in the first round of their regional bracket.

Last weekend, the Tigers won their three games against Columbia (14–24 , 9–6) in New York. After losing the first game on Saturday, 2–0, Princeton rallied in afternoon to crush the Lions, 10–5.

On Sunday, Princeton clutched the win, 7–6. Columbia had the lead until the top of the seventh inning, when Princeton scored five runs to secure the game. Sunday’s game allowed the Tigers to take the series against Columbia for the first time since

2011.

Two days later, on Tuesday morning, baseball fell to Harvard (19–17, 9–6) in Princeton’s first loss in conference play against the Crimson in three years by a score of 1–5. Later that day, the Tigers lost 6–13 in the biggest loss to Harvard since the 2015 season.

On Wednesday afternoon, the Tigers lost again, 3–8, enabling the Crimson to complete a sweep of the series.

The past three games have been the first time Princeton has been swept by an opponent in the Ivy League this season, and the second time the Tigers have conceded a series — the first being against Penn (12–22–1, 6–8–1) two weeks ago. The three other series played with conference opponents, however, have all been wins.

After a local match against Monmouth (16–20) next Thursday, the Tigers will head to Hanover, N.H., for the weekend to finish off their regular season with three games against Dartmouth (10– 19–1, 6–5–1). Last year, the Tigers won one and lost one to the Big Green in Hanover.

With the new Ivy League baseball format in effect this year where the two teams with the best records in the conference advance to the championship series, the Tigers’ chance at qualifying relies on important wins against Yale and Dartmouth. But focusing on the present is what is best for the team, according to head coach Scott Bradley.

“You can’t look too far ahead or you’re going to get yourself in trouble,” he said. “You just have to take an attack one weekend at a time.”

Tweet of the Day “Congratulations to @princetongolf ’s Maya Walton, the 2018 @IvyLeague Player of the Year!”

Princeton Tigers (@PUTIGERS)

Stat of the Day

April 27, 2015 The last time women’s water polo, ranked tenth in the country, was defeated at DeNunzio Pool.

Follow us Check us out on Twitter @princesports for live news and reports, and on Instagram @princetoniansports for photos!