<p>In the past 20 years, Michigan has produced 384 Fullbright scholars. Only Harvard, Yale and Cal have produced more. In the past decade, Michigan has led the nation. Altogether, 6 other universities (Chicago, Columbia, Princeton, Stanford, UCLA and Wisconsin) have produced more than 250 recipients since 1993.</p>
<p>This thread is an invitation for goldenboy.</p>
<p>The Fullbright is a low-hanging fruit and winning one is not all that difficult depending on what country a student targets and the type of academic study he/she is interested in. Most of the Michigan winners are graduate students and not undergrads.</p>
<p>Good call res ipsa! ;)</p>
<p>I am not sure I would describe the Fulbright award as a “low hanging fruit”. Cal, Columbia, Harvard, Michigan, Princeton, Stanford and Yale often lead the nation in this count, so I am fairly certain it is a pretty serious award.</p>
<p>For the record, 43 Fulbright scholars have gone on to win the Nobel Prize. Just to put this in context, ~860 people have ever won the Nobel Prize, so Fulbright scholars represent 5% of all Nobel Prize winners. If one were to hone in on academic Nobel Prizes (not including Peace), I would guess it is ~ 7%. </p>
<p>For comparison’s sake, 3 Rhodes scholars have ever won the Nobel Prize, while only 1 Marshall scholar ever won the Nobel. </p>
<p>“Most of the Michigan winners are graduate students and not undergrads.”</p>
<p>That’s not close to being true. This year, 24 of the 40 winners (60%) were undergrads. That has been the historic ratio of undergraduate to graduate winners at Michigan, which closely mimors the overall undergraduate to graduate ratio at the University.</p>
<p>[Fulbright</a> scholars](<a href=“http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/121029/fulside]Fulbright”>http://www.ur.umich.edu/update/archives/121029/fulside)</p>
<p>But which school had the most per capita, huh? Huh?</p>
<p>“The Fullbright is a low-hanging fruit…” because Duke is, once again, below Michigan.</p>
<p>I’m sick of these posts like Philovitist feeling a need to take an angle that intends to demean the achievement. Just a sign of insecurity. </p>
<p>It is a remarkable achievement of the school and the individual winners of the grants. Can’t we keep this all positive?</p>
<p>
Michigan’s graduate population is twice the size of Duke’s and its undergraduate population is four times the size of Duke’s so chill bro. Duke students/alums actually had a higher acceptance rate for the Fullbright this year than Michigan students/alums.</p>
<p>[Top</a> Producers of U.S. Fulbright Students by Type of Institution, 2012-13 - Global - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-US/135454/]Top”>http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-US/135454/)
Duke U.: 14/36= ~39%
University of Michigan: 40/141= ~28%</p>
<p>At least Michigan did better than Harvard which had a pathetic ~23% acceptance rate and Princeton which fared even worse at ~16%. It shows you how nonsensical the Fullbright selection process is.</p>
<p>
Alexandre, you just cherry picked the elite private schools that produce a lot of Fullbright Scholars along with Cal and Michigan. Actually, Stanford and Princeton don’t do all that well.</p>
<p>[Top</a> Producers of U.S. Fulbright Students by Type of Institution, 2012-13 - Global - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-US/135454/]Top”>http://chronicle.com/article/Top-Producers-of-US/135454/)</p>
<p>Arizona State produced more Fullbrights than Columbia or Northwestern, Rutgers had a greater number than Stanford, FSU and Georgia performed better than Princeton and Cornell, etc.</p>
<p>I’m not sure you would want to use Fullbright production as an accurate gauge of school prestige unless you want to seriously rethink your heirarchy of American universities, which I think goes HYPSM and then Michigan/Cal/rest of the Ivies/Chicago/Duke/Northwestern/Hopkins/Caltech. ;)</p>
<p>“Michigan’s graduate population is twice the size of Duke’s and its undergraduate population is four times the size of Duke’s so chill bro.”</p>
<p>No, you chill. Furthermore I am not your “bro.” You really need to stop TROLLING the Michigan boards already. Somehow, I don’t think you can help yourself.</p>
<p>“I’m sick of these posts like Philovitist feeling a need to take an angle that intends to demean the achievement.”</p>
<p>His comment seems to indicate saracasm to me.</p>
<p>Oh, could be rjk; sorry Philovitist if that is what was meant.</p>
<p>yea ^_^</p>
<p>But seriously, Michigan is an awesome school and deserves their public ivy prestige. Relax.</p>
<p>“Alexandre, you just cherry picked the elite private schools that produce a lot of Fullbright Scholars along with Cal and Michigan. Actually, Stanford and Princeton don’t do all that well.”</p>
<p>Huh? I did not cherry pick. I listed the universities that have produced the most Fulbright scholars in the past 20 years:</p>
<ol>
<li>Harvard 464</li>
<li>Yale 414</li>
<li>Cal 404</li>
<li>Michigan 384</li>
<li>Columbia 328</li>
<li>Stanford 319</li>
<li>Princeton 298</li>
<li>Chicago 286</li>
<li>Wisconsin-Madison 285
10 UCLA 272</li>
<li>Duke 251</li>
</ol>
<p>“I’m not sure you would want to use Fullbright production as an accurate gauge of school prestige”</p>
<p>I do not recall assigning Michigan (or any university) any measure of prestige as a result of fulbright scholarships (or any other scholarship). Scholarships do not determine prestige.</p>
<p>“unless you want to seriously rethink your heirarchy of American universities, which I think goes HYPSM and then Michigan/Cal/rest of the Ivies/Chicago/Duke/Northwestern/Hopkins/Caltech”</p>
<p>My hierchy is merely that of the corporate and intellectual elite. I only regurgitate what those in the know believe. </p>
<p>I have recently altered my order. It used to be HYPSM followed by the twelve you listed. But I now believe that Cal, Caltech, Chicago and Columbia form a sub group between HYPSM and Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, JHU, Michigan, Northwestern and Penn. In other words:</p>
<p>HYPSM
Cal, Caltech, Chicago, Columbia
Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Duke, JHU, Michigan, Northwestern, Penn</p>
<p>But that has nothing to do with Fulbright! This thread is supposed to be about Michigan leading the nation in the production of Fulbright scholars. Let us focus on the topic at hand shall we.</p>
<p>Philovitist, to answer your question about fulbright scholars per capita for 2012-2013:</p>
<ol>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Boston College</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>WUSTL</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Georgetown</li>
<li>Columbia</li>
<li>Cal</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
<li>Johns Hopkins</li>
<li>Texas-Austin</li>
<li>Penn</li>
<li>UCLA</li>
<li>Wisconsin</li>
</ol>
<p>Very impressive T9:</p>
<ol>
<li>Yale
<ol>
<li>Chicago</li>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Boston College</li>
<li>Northwestern</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>WUSTL</li>
<li>Michigan</li>
</ol></li>
</ol>
<p>Great achievement for UM and good information for OOS on this board who look at UM as a match/safety if they miss out on their reach Ivies.</p>
<p>Yale… <3</p>
<p>Congrats UM. I find it especially impressive that not only is UM 9th per capita, but 1st amongst the publics. It would be very difficult for UM to be much higher on a per capita basis because: 1) its larger class sizes make it difficult to ever rank 1st on a per capita basis versus much smaller privates --no matter how good UM students are, the Fulbright scholarships are going to be spread amongst schools, such that UM will never get 100+ scholarships no matter how deserving the UM students might be; and 2) which is related to 1, because UM takes about 60% In-state, the quality of those students will be a little below the typical admits to the Ivies, so it will be hard to compete on a per capita basis for 60% of the class.</p>