<p>Good point gunkanjima. I do not know why those universities do not dedicate more resources to the Rhodes scholarship. As you point out, those schools have the resources to make it happen. I suspect it is because universities always ask a basic question; “is this the best use of our resources”? Endowing a couple of chairs and an office for one scholarship will be considered wasteful by some.</p>
<p>Its not just the Rhodes scholarship Alexandre; the top 10 private schools dominate when it comes to helping students win other prestigious fellowships like the Marshall, Truman, Churchill, Mitchell, and the Cambridge Gates. There’s just an overall theme of excellence when it comes to the undergraduate program at these universities.</p>
<p>^^^ Was there a reason why you omitted Fulbright?</p>
<p>Rhodes Scholars are hardly the same thing they used to be. Most use it not as a badge of honor to pursue scholarly research, but as a ticket to a lucrative wall-street job. That being said, I dont care that some schools were grossly overrepresented.</p>
<p>Marshall >>> Rhodes. Much more meritocratic selection process.</p>
<p>If Harvard and Yale really had candidates that were that much better than those of other schools, why aren’t they also dominating awards like Marshall and Truman? The Rhodes process is the most BS of all of them, and it shows.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here is one reason. </p>
<p>Start with the admission that many schools are mostly local or regional. Compare this schools such as Harvard and Yale that recruit and enroll from much farther distances than their own states. In the case of the Rhodes, this is important as only two students emerge from each of the 16 districts. </p>
<p>Well, back to your mega-sized state university … how do you justify the creation of a department that will perhaps “deliver” a couple of successful candidates each decade. How does that work in relation to the size of your enrollment and also in relation to your … stated mission. </p>
<p>Blind hogs and acorns come to mind!</p>
<p>
Marshall 1954-2012
Harvard 256
Princeton 126
Yale 113
Stanford 87
MIT 65
Brown 46
Cornell 33
Columbia 30
Duke 27
Dartmouth 26
Rice 24
Chicago 23
Georgetown 21
Northwestern 20
Johns Hopkins 15
Penn 11</p>
<p>Marshall 2002-2012
Stanford 27
Princeton 19
Yale 18
Harvard 15
MIT 15
Brown 6
…(others)…</p>
<p>Truman 1977-2012
Harvard 62
Stanford 61
Yale 56
Duke 41
Brown 34
Princeton 32
Chicago 27
Columbia 26
Georgetown 25
Dartmouth 23
Cornell 22
MIT 21
Penn 18
WUStL 14
JHU 14
Northwestern 13
Rice 10</p>
<p>Truman 2002-2012
Harvard 15
Stanford 14
Yale 11
Brown 10
Chicago 10
Georgetown 9
MIT 8
Cornell 7
Penn 7
WUStL 7
Duke 6
JHU 6
Princeton 6
Columbia 4
Dartmouth 4
Rice 3
Northwestern 1</p>
<p>Numbers courtesy of Northwestern’s OIR.</p>
<p>
While laudable, it still raises questions. This is what, the 5th or so winner in the last 50 years? This despite Berkeley actually having MORE top scoring students than Harvard or any of the other Ivies.</p>
<p>I strongly agree with gunkanjima…public universities need to provide more support to students in snagging top fellowships. Indeed, some (most notably UNC, UVA, USMA, and USNA) already do. I don’t buy the spreading of resources excuse; these universities spend buckets of money on bureaucracy and red tape, and I think money could be found. </p>
<p>Many say that students win because they attended Harvard. I wonder if it’s perhaps equally fair to say that some win despite attending a large public. </p>
<p>[Michigan</a> Daily | The real reason you didn’t win a Rhodes scholarship](<a href=“http://www.michigandaily.com/content/real-reason-you-didnt-win-rhodes-scholarship]Michigan”>The real reason you didn't win a Rhodes scholarship)</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s all about winning fellowships. I think programs and offices like the ones mentioned at Harvard are indicative of the resources thrown at undergraduates in general.</p>
<p>
While I won’t speak for Goldenboy, the Fulbright poses many problems when comparing numbers.
[ul][<em>]Graduate students and even faculty can win them.
[</em>]Some countries are FAR more competitive than others. Winning a scholarship to Cyprus, well, that’s pretty good. Winning one to the UK…that’s impressive indeed.
[*]Colleges do not always distinguish between the multiple Fulbright programs (i.e. research and English teaching). Again, some are much more competitive than others.[/ul]</p>
<p>Warblersrule, I do not have Marshall figures for 2011 and 2012, but I do have the official totals from 1954-2010, and they look different from yours, which oddly enough, does not include LACs and public univerities. Perhaps Northwestern was just including private universities in their list, but even then, some of those numbers seem inflated (I doubt Harvard had 21 winners in 2 years, Yale 10, Duke and MIT 7 each, Chicago and Rice 5 each etc…):</p>
<p>1954-2010
Harvard University 235
Princeton University 118
Yale University 103
Stanford University 79
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 58
Brown University 44
United States Military Academy 33
Cornell University 30
University of California-Berkeley 28
Columbia University 26
Dartmouth College 26
United States Naval Academy 24
Tulane University 23
University of Texas-Austin 22
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign 21
Duke University 20
Georgetown University 20
Rice University 19
Bryn Mawr College 18
Northwestern University 18
University of Wisconsin-Madison 18
University of Chicago 17
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor 16
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill 16
Williams College 16
Indiana University-Bloomington 15
Arizona State University 14
Michigan State University 14
Johns Hopkins University 13
Occidental College 13
Pomona College 13
University of California-Los Angeles 13
Vanderbilt University 13
California Institute of Technology 12
Kansas State University 12
Wellesley College 12
Smith College 11
United States Air Force Academy 11
Swarthmore College 10
University of Pennsylvania 10 (for some reason, Penn lags when it comes to Rhodes and Marshall scholars)</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.marshallscholarship.org/about/USInstitutions1954-2010forwebsite.pdf[/url]”>http://www.marshallscholarship.org/about/USInstitutions1954-2010forwebsite.pdf</a></p>
<p>"Originally Posted by rjkofnovi </p>
<p>Was there a reason why you omitted Fulbright?"</p>
<p>Gee, I don’t seem to recall typing the above statement in this thread Warblers. Care to elaborate?</p>
<p>^
LOL! I seem to be getting careless in my old age. That statement should be attributed to RML.</p>
<p>Alexandre, I make no claims about the accuracy of Northwestern’s data; it was simply the only list I had available. I am more willing to trust the official list, obviously.</p>
<p>I hear you Warblersrule, but I am concerned with why Northwestern left out so many universities. It is clearly attempting to promote itself. I am running the Truman figures as we speak, and again, several Publics and LACs were left out. I will post the Truman figures soon.</p>
<p>On a separate note, I do not agree with your reasoning for leaving our the Fulbright award. Professors are clearly listed separately from students. Separating undergraduate from graduate student will take time, but it can be done.</p>
<p>Neither Alexandre nor warblersrule posted the most up to date Marshall Scholarship figures.</p>
<p>Here is the official source: <a href=“http://www.marshallscholarship.org/about/USInstitutions1954-2012.pdf[/url]”>http://www.marshallscholarship.org/about/USInstitutions1954-2012.pdf</a> </p>
<p>Marshall 1954 to 2012</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard/Radcliffe: 237</li>
<li>Princeton: 124</li>
<li>Yale: 108</li>
<li>Stanford: 83</li>
<li>MIT: 60</li>
<li>Brown/Pembroke: 45</li>
<li>Cornell: 31</li>
<li>Columbia/Barnard </li>
<li>UC Berkeley: 28</li>
<li>Dartmouth: 26</li>
<li>Duke: 24</li>
<li>Rice: 23</li>
<li>Tulane: 23</li>
<li>Illinois: 22</li>
<li>Texas: 22</li>
<li>Georgetown: 21</li>
<li>Chicago: 20</li>
<li>Northwestern: 18</li>
<li>Wisconsin: 18</li>
<li>Indiana: 17</li>
<li>Michigan: 17</li>
<li>Williams: 17</li>
<li>UNC Chapel Hill: 16</li>
<li>Michigan State: 15</li>
<li>Arizona State: 15</li>
<li>Emory: 14</li>
<li>Penn: 14</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins: 13</li>
<li>Pomona: 13</li>
<li>Vanderbilt: 13</li>
</ol>
<p>Wash U and CMU have less than 10 Marshall Scholars a piece. Amherst has 9 and Swarthmore has 11 scholars a piece.</p>
<p>In the last 10 years though…</p>
<p>Stanford: 28
Princeton: 22
Yale: 21
Harvard: 17
MIT: 15
Duke: 11
Brown: 8</p>
<p>Its always the same private schools that seem to do well in every competition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not a matter of resources in absolute terms. It’s a matter of RETURN on the spent resources. If the numbers quoted above are indeed correct, it is pretty clear that the highly sought fellowships and awards are very much the domain of the private schools and the private schools that have had success in grabbing those awards.</p>
<p>Again, the mega university do not have a great incentive in spending resources in an illusory and probably futile attempt to play catch up. Like it or not, there are reasons why the very best students flock to the schools listed in the first spots of the USNews and do not grab a seat at their own state schools. The issue of prestige has been raised here over and over, but you could easily add the precise support for those top students in remaining competitive for those fancy awards. </p>
<p>On a side note, perhaps one way to compete (as Michigan did in the recent past with success) is to convince students who earned an undergraduate degree at one of those top schools to return for a Master’s degree and use that springboard to compete for the Rhodes.</p>
<p>By the way, the number of high scorers at the mega university when used to compare with the HYPS of the world is just a meaningless canard. Those uber-selective awards do seem to cull their successful candidates from the … very top, and not from a bit lower.</p>
<p>In a way, there are a few Ivy League players who end up playing in the NFL, but that is not what the 8 schools focus on. The same could be said for your mega state academic factories … ensuring they get a couple of Rhodes every decade is simply not their focus. Providing a great education to the many competitive students in their state and region is!</p>
<p>Berkeley and Michigan undergraduates, even the smartest ones, are probably not on par with the best of the best from the top 10 private schools. The only reason UVA and UNC win so many Rhodes and Marshall fellowships is because they give out full ride scholarships to their top applicants which lead to many of them spurning HYPS in favor of a full ride to an elite public school.</p>
<p>Michigan offers the Shipman but they still seem to fare poorly.</p>
<p>goldenboy, You are mistaken about UVa. UVa’s aid is primarily need based, not merit based. There are only a few Jefferson Scholars a year , which is full tuition, and that program is not administered by UVa. UVa’s honors programs are the Echols (arts and sciences) and Rodman (engineering) and there is NO money attached to these programs.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>With respect to students, this is incorrect. I don’t know about Michigan, but at UCs the grad programs are heavily dominated by CA residents, as they should be. You can see it in the UC statistical report: </p>
<p>For the Fall of 2011 (most recent year listed) </p>
<p>Berkeley
CA grad students: 6222
OOS grad student: 1214
International grad students: 1700</p>
<p>UCLA<br>
CA grad students: 7460
OOS grad student: 1070
International grad students: 1896</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2011/statsumm2011.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ucop.edu/ucophome/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2011/statsumm2011.pdf</a></p>
<p>Regarding UNC, could there be any correlation between the uber selective OOS Morehead that attracts top students from outside the region and becoming a Rhodes four years later?</p>
<p>Speculation on my part but perhaps some have looked into this before.</p>
<p>
Wow, this is quite a strong claim. I wonder what made you say that, goldenboy?</p>
<p>At Harvard med, Harvard law, HBS, Yale Law, JHU Med, Stanford GSB, Stanford Law and MIT/Caltech Eng’g, Berkeley and Michigan grads continue to win places there, beating top graduates from your so-called, top 10.</p>
<p>We’ve been through this before RML; besides CalTech and MIT which are self-selecting into math/science, HYPS/Penn/Duke/Dartmouth are stronger feeders into the most elite professional programs than Berkeley and much stronger than Michigan. A difference exists even at the absolute level but per capital numbers would reflect very poorly or Berkeley and Michigan.</p>
<p>22. Michigan State: 15
23. Emory: 14
23. Penn: 14
24. Johns Hopkins: 13
24. Vanderbilt: 13</p>
<p>I see! :p</p>