<p>Half of the 32 scholars came from the Ivy League, led by Yale (7) and Harvard (6) with Cornell (2) and Brown (1). Also getting multiple winners were Stanford, West Point, and the US Naval Academy with 2 each.</p>
<p>Schools in addtion to Brown, schools that produced one Rhodes winner this year were Georgia, Georgia Tech, UNC, Univ. of Oklahoma, Montana State, The College of Idaho, UVa, Wofford, and Luther College.</p>
<p>Harvard and Yale undergraduates account for 13 of the 32 Rhodes winners this year. That’s shocking, unbelievable, unfathomable…WHAT? They couldn’t find at least one other deserving candidate from UChicago, Princeton, Caltech, Dartmouth, etc.? Strange.</p>
<p>16 districts - 32 winners. </p>
<p>That is why!</p>
<p>Yeah, I think the cliquey nature of this scholarship is getting ridiculous.</p>
<p>I think a large factor in Yale and Harvard’s dominance of the Rhodes Scholarship is the fact that they probably have the best scholarship advisers–i.e., people whose sole professional responsibility is to help students get scholarships like this one–and the best connections within the Rhodes Trust. That being said, are the Rhodes Scholarship interviewers really that incapable of separating a candidate’s merit from the promotional efforts of his or her school? Harvard and Yale address this problem in their undergraduate admission policies when they try to consider applicants holistically, without penalizing applicants for coming from underperforming high schools or having indifferent college counselors, and yet here they exploit a very similar system to their full advantage. I suppose the context is very different.</p>
<p>Another observation: Almost all of this year’s Rhodes Scholars fit into one of 2-3 general academic/extracurricular profiles: 1. an interest in international relations/political science/development economics with some experience doing rich white people things in Africa OR studying Chinese/Tibetan/Hindi through immersion; 2. an interest in biophysics/biology/biomedical engineering with the ultimate goal of becoming a doctor and public health advocate, possibly with an extra Oxford degree in medical anthropology; or 3. studying gender studies/English/poli sci and tutoring other students and working as a student journalist, with the intention to become a ‘journalist’ or social justice advocate (any long-term plans about capturing the US presidency are blatantly omitted).</p>
<p>I’m not saying these are not impressive or worthy goals and accomplishments, but it is dreadfully boring to read the same bio over and over again. Should have stuck at least one interesting person in there.</p>
<p>Oh good, a Berkeley winner.</p>
<p>Worthy of a parking space!</p>
<p>^^No, only Nobel Prize winners get a reserved parking space at Berkeley. A Rhodes probably gets you your own slot in the bicycle rack.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well,the people awarding the scholarship are associated with Oxford, not Harvard or Yale. So it’s not like there is some old boys alumni pipeline in action.</p>
<p>And if you think about it, it’s no more cliquey or ridiculous than many other very high honors where your alma mater becomes a defacto part of the equation. E.g. for at least 28 straight years (Jan. 1989 to Jan. 2017) the main occupant of the White House will have been a graduate of the either Harvard or Yale (or both). And it would have still been true had Romney been elected. And all nine of the current US Supreme court justices went to either Harvard law school or Yale law school. Plus eight of the nine justices also earned their bachelors degrees from either Ivy League colleges or Stanford as well. </p>
<p>Trends as strong as those are not random accidents.</p>
<p>Massachusetts and Connecticut are their own district in the Rhodes Trust’s eyes (each district should have an average population of 20 million, but MA and CT combined are only 10 million). So there may be some bias to Harvard/Yale built into how districts are viewed. (A student can apply in the district of his/her home state or his/her college, if different. MA and CT students are very overrepresented at H and Y, which confers an advantage in this case.)</p>
<p>Region (districts): share of the US population, share of the 32 awards, over/underrepresentation</p>
<p>Northeast (1-4, excluding WV): 18% of country, 22 to 25% of awards, 20% to 37% overrepresentation
New England (1-2, excluding NJ): 4.5% of country, 9.4% of awards, 108% overrepresentation
New England+NJ (1-2): 7.3% of country, 12.5% of awards, 71% overrepresentation
East Coast (1-6, excluding GA and WV): 26% of country, 31% to 34% of awards, 20% to 32% overrepresentation
MA and CT: 10 million, 3.2% of country, 6.25% of awards, 95% overrepresentation</p>
<p>West: (14-16): 20.2% of country, 18.8% of awards, -7% underrepresentation
West (15-16): 18.8% of country, 12.5% of awards, -33.5% underrepresentation
West Coast (WA, OR, CA): 15.4% of country, 9.4% to 12.5% of awards, -39% to -20% underrepresentation
California: 38 million, 12.1% of country, 6.25% of awards, -48% underrepresentation</p>
<p>The Rhodes Trust says that all districts are equal in the FAQ, but it is telling that a full 25% of the words on the application process are about state residency (4 out of 26 questions); and the answer on how to determine state residency is the longest in the entire FAQ document. If all districts are equal and the choice of which district (home state or the state of the college) is simply one of convenience, then why is this issue addressed at such length by the Rhodes Trust?</p>
<p>It is up to you to decide whether variations in the popularity of applying (i.e. how many apply per 1000 of a state’s population?) and in the average competitiveness of the applicants can accurately explain the distribution.</p>
<p>Coureur, although technically correct, Bader Ginsburg did attend Harvard, but her degrees are from Cornell and Columbia. Her Harvard degree is honorary.</p>
<p>The Columbia Law degree might give a hint.</p>
<p>The current resident of the White House might be inspired by Taft at a later stage. Stopping short of a political comment here.</p>
<p>eigth of the nine Supreme court justices could not have gone to Ivy League Schools since at least two went to Jesuit schools-Thomas(Holy Cross) and Scalia (Georgetown).</p>
<p>^^You are right; it’s only 7 of 9. I forgot that Scalia had gone to Georgetown.</p>
<p>Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Harvard degree may be honorary, but her enrollment and attendance at Harvard law school was the real thing. She got 2/3rds of her law school education at Harvard, transferring to Columbia (to follow her husband to NY) only for her final year.</p>
<p>I have said it for some time. How many Rhodes Scholars produced by a university is not an indicator of academic quality. Schools like Cal, Columbia, Cornell, Michigan, Northwestern and Penn have not done as well as schools like Brown, Chicago, Duke, UNC, UVa and the Academies. Actually, if one were to use Rhodes scholars as an indication of academic quality, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska and Oklahoma are on par with Cal, Columbia, Cornell and Michigan and superior to Northwestern and Penn. </p>
<p>There are several simple reasons why some universities do better than others, and they have little to do with academic excellence. One of them has already been mentioned by xiggi. Another are the resources dedicated to the scholarship. Harvard and Yale, who lead the nation in Rhodes Scholars by a significant margin, have an entire office with personnel dedicated solely to the scholarship. Other universities who do well most likely dedicated more resources to the scholarship than those that do not do as well.</p>
<p>Last year’s #:</p>
<p>Stanford - 5
Harvard - 4
Yale -1 (another one from Yale Law)</p>
<p>For two years:</p>
<p>Yale - 8
Harvard - 8
Stanford - 7</p>
<p>It is a good year for Yale. But, not so lucky for the Nobel Prize, out of 9 individuals in the world who won the Nobel Prizes this year, two from Stanford.</p>
<p>
Heh. Yeah, he does! Dual degrees in EECS and Bioengineering with minor in Physics. 
[Grass</a> Valley man to attend Oxford as a Rhodes scholar - Education - The Sacramento Bee](<a href=“http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/19/4996054/grass-valley-man-to-attend-oxford.html]Grass”>http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/19/4996054/grass-valley-man-to-attend-oxford.html)</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>…and two Harvard alumni as well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Permit me to debunk this comment. When you are interviewed for the Rhodes, you are interviewed by a committee of previous Rhodes winners in your district. In the USA, naturally, these would all be Americans. The British have absolutely NOTHING to do with selecting the Rhodes. Now, when you think of all the prior Rhodes scholars who came from the Ivies, and you know then that the preponderance of interviewers would then be from the Ivies, can we not understand that there might be some Ivy bias within all of these committees? I think so. Indeed, it is obvious.</p>
<p>I have not fact checked, but there appears to be a lot of bad arithmetic in this thread:
4/26 = 15%</p>
<p>and
when Harvard’s total would be 6+4 = 10</p>
<p>All of the boosters here need to brush up on the basics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. The Rhodes is another one of those punch-the-ticket, check the boxes kinds of awards that you see on FastWeb all the time. The political correctness just makes one want turn blue. It used to be you had to be a pretty good athlete (another ticket punch), but this qualification has been dumbed down to almost nothing. The Ivies really do have a lock on this award with the self-reinforcing nature of the committees being primarily Ivy and the applicants being strongly Ivy. The Rhodes interviewers are usually lawyers or doctors or other “servants” of the people, and very very few are actual businessmen. If you look at the names of the previous Rhodes scholars, only a very very very few have had any impact any different that any who weren’t Rhodes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry for this. A result of not showing work, and a reflection of how much I care about H. :)</p>