<p>I do not understand why posters insist on drawing conclusions about a university’s academic status based on the number of Rhodes scholars. Most universities, from solid public universities such as Georgia, Wyoming, Kansas, West Virginia, Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma to national elites such as Cal, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, MIT, Michigan and Vanderbilt and to very strong flagships such as UT-Austin and Wisconsin-Madison have produced between 20 and 40 winners in 100+ years. That’s not saying much. There are the obvious leaders (HYPS) and a few unusually strong performers (Chicago, Dartmouth, UNC, UVa and the Service Academies) and a few laggers (Johns Hopkins, Northwestern, Notre Dame and Penn), but by and large, Rhodes scholarships are not a bragging point.</p>
<p>Sam, why so defensive? I really could care less. Just pushing your buttons is pretty easy.</p>
<p>gunkanjima, I do not pretend to have an answer to that question. I think much of the funding you refer to is earmarked from the start and is not intended for scholarships. Perhaps such programs will start receiving funding in the near future. But even then, I do not think that it is possible to judge a university based on the number of Rhodes recipients.</p>
<p>Finally … We are getting closer and closer to the conclusion that drawing conclusions about the number of Rhodes is meaningless. Just as the quasi hysteria of the Nobel announcement. Just as the moronic rankings that attempt to quantify those rare and insignificant statistical events.</p>
<p>It is nothing but navel gazing and sand pounding.</p>
<p>gunkanjima, the majority of college educated people do not really care about how many Rhodes scholars their university have created, nor do most top students choose universities according to this metric. Just because universities advertise it whenever a student wins such an award does not mean it is that important. Comparing Rhodes scholarships to Football is a little much. In this regard, I must agree with xiggi. Nobel Prizes and Rhodes scholarships are not criteria that people use when judging universities.</p>
<p>This said, I agree that wealthy elite universities (and that includes Cal and Michigan) should provide students interested in such scholarships with the resources necessary to compete effectively.</p>
<p>When network/cable television broadcasters host a countdown and presentation of the Rhodes Scholarships awards, then and only then will I agree that it isn’t any different from football fame in the eyes of universities. Trust me, if given the choice, the vast majority of Stanford University supporters would prefer to win a NC in football over a Rhodes Scholarship winner every single time. Perhaps if Harvard or Yale would field a competitive football team, they might feel the same way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Gunkanjima, while I have to congratulate you for presenting cogent arguments, a number of your statements might be better served with a bit more research, or knowledge of the people you’re engaging. </p>
<p>Perhaps it was a typo or lapsus linguae, but most people here know that the passion of Alexandre for UM and the Wolverines is not that of an outsider, but one fueled by a deep connection to the school and its programs. </p>
<p>Inasmuch as I view the importance of the Rhodes, Nobel, and other prizes through a different lens, I enjoy reading your arguments. To be clear, I tend to measure the impact of programs, spending, and dedication to teaching on the overall student population. For that reason, a narrow focus on a very small program that generates interest in an equally small and narrow part of the population is not critical in my eyes. </p>
<p>This said, decrying the lack of a department specifically created to snag a couple of Rhodes in a decade is not the same battle as asking for more dedicated support of students in the pursuit of excellence. The latter is important; the first isn’t.</p>
<p>“Seriously, how much would it really cost for them to establish their own office of personnel dedicated to the Rhodes that would rival that of Harvard or Yale?”</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s about money. Setting up the program would be materially harder at Princeton or Dartmouth (for example) because they don’t have the number of Rhodes/Marshall alumni on campus that H & Y do. No Rhodes alum is interested in a job as a Rhodes coach, even for a lot of money. They do that on the side, while they are getting their JD at Yale or their MD/PhD at Harvard. In Harvard’s case, most upperclass houses actually have one of these folks in residence, eating meals with the undergrads every day. That isn’t replicable elsewhere.</p>