Princeton University students -- or more accurately, their parents -- can live a little easier next year as the school's Board of Trustees for the first time in forty years has decided not to increase the cost of tuition, holding it steady at $33,000. While room and board will increase by 4.2 percent, a $13 billion endowment and returns of over 20 percent on the university's investments made the decision possible. "We are aware of the concerns people have about the high cost of sending kids to college," Robert Durkee, vice president and secretary of the university told The New York Times Jan. 22. "For students who don't qualify for financial aid, this will hold the level of tuition steady for one year and we hope that will help."
As part of a $2.72 billion deal, Verizon Communications will cede control of about 1.5 million landlines in Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine to FairPoint Communications, a North Carolina-based telecommunications corporation serving customers in 18 states. The merger, which is supposed to create 600 jobs, has drawn criticism from customers who question whether FairPoint will honor Verizon's agreement to increase the availability of DSL internet access in the area.
A column published in the annual joke issue of the The Daily Princetonian, the student newspaper of Princeton University, has led many to accuse the paper of racism and insensitivity. The controversy stems from the fact that the byline of the column, Lian Ji, is very similar to the name of an 18-year-old Yale University student who is suing Princeton for bias against Asians after he was denied admission to Princeton last year. The column uses a mix of stereotypes and improper English while jokingly criticizing Princeton for the student's rejection. "Hi Princeton! Remember me? I so good at math and science," the article began. "Perfect 2400 SAT score. Ring bells?" The Daily Princetonian editorial board responded to the outcry from students and alumni, highlighting the original intent of the column. "The response surprised us: We did not seek to offend, and we sincerely regret having upset some of our readers," the editors said in a statement. "At its worst, the column was a bad joke; at its best, it provoked serious thought about issues of race, fairness and diversity."
