<p>There are no published limits. The limits tend to be practical, since the schools, at least for the Rhodes, rank the applicants.</p>
<p>FWIW, Harvard is known to have 50 to 60 Rhodes applicants.</p>
<p>There is no limit on the number of applicants each school can endorse/send forward.</p>
<p>Schools do not rank their applicants, although the schools write letters of endorsement for each candidate and ranking might be inferred from what is written.</p>
<p>S has been endorsed for both the Rhodes and Marshall. He has to spend this week polishing his essays and finalizing his applications. He called to ask me how much postage was now. The only stamps he has are 39 cent Superhero stamps I gave him when he was a freshman. I told him he could go to the local post office and get some three cent stamps or get some real stamps. Does he really want Superhero stamps on his Rhodes application?</p>
<p>cookiemom, I say go for the Superhero stamps! Many congrats to S! He should go to the post office anyway and get those envelopes weighed. He doesn't want to send them off, only to have them returned for insufficient postage! I would also send them certified or with some means of confirming delivery. This is too important to just drop in the dorm mail.</p>
<p>cookiemom, </p>
<p>big congrats to your son for being nominated. That in itself is "resume worthy"!</p>
<p>Interesting news for potential Rhodes Scholars: This year's scholars were told this past week that the Trust will now pay for a fourth year if necessary for DPhil degree seekers. </p>
<p>I don't know if this is an official change and whether it will apply to future scholars too, but it should take some of the pressure off those who think a 3 year British style PhD will not be good enough for their career. This is a common feeling BTW for those who want a PhD, are good enough to be competitive for a Rhodes, but feel their PhD equivalents are too short.</p>
<p>As cute as superhero stamps on a Rhodes application may be, it is imperative that your son take his app to the post office (or Fed Ex or UPS) and have it sent in some manner that he has proof of mailing. Proof of delivery is advisable as well.</p>
<p>Besides, some secretary will be opening the envelopes and discarding them . . . no one will ever see the superhero stamps.</p>
<p>On that note, I'm happy to say my Rhodes applicants all got their applications in the mail today. So Rhodes and Marshall are done. On to Goldwater/Truman/Udall (not to mention NSF and Gates-Cambridge).</p>
<p>Good luck to all the applicants!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Interesting news for potential Rhodes Scholars: This year's scholars were told this past week that the Trust will now pay for a fourth year if necessary for DPhil degree seekers.</p>
<p>I don't know if this is an official change and whether it will apply to future scholars too, but it should take some of the pressure off those who think a 3 year British style PhD will not be good enough for their career. This is a common feeling BTW for those who want a PhD, are good enough to be competitive for a Rhodes, but feel their PhD equivalents are too short.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I knew this was under consideration . . . I'm happy to hear it's been announced. Good move on the part of the Rhodes Trust!</p>
<p>
[quote]
As cute as superhero stamps on a Rhodes application may be, it is imperative that your son take his app to the post office (or Fed Ex or UPS) and have it sent in some manner that he has proof of mailing. Proof of delivery is advisable as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's exactly the advice I have given him. However, I know that undergrad admissions offices don't want you to send any mail that has to be signed for. I wasn't sure if this were true for the Rhodes as well. I advised him to contact his Rhodes adviser and ask exactly what form of mail he should use. </p>
<p>Congratulations on having all your students compete their applications. My S is planning on getting his into the mail tomorrow.</p>
<p>newmassdad, inthebiz and cookiemom,
First of all thanks for the informative posts, and Cookiemom good luck to your son, mine has also been nominated by his school, in a different field than your son, hope they both advance.
Newmass and inthe, any info on what the interview stage is like? (If that great good fortune should occur).</p>
<p>jacdad,</p>
<p>congratulations for having your son nominated!</p>
<p>The interview is in two parts, a cocktail reception Friday evening, and one or more interviews Saturday. The cocktail reception is what you can imagine. Kids can find it unbelievably stressful or can find it fun, depending on the kid and the electors they talk to. When you consider what a talented group the electors are, the kids should focus on having a good, enjoyable conversation, but I don't know how many do. ITB has a wider circle of experience with this. Maybe ITB can comment. Note too that many colleges offer practice cocktail parties with their top faculty, including former RS, playing the elector role.</p>
<p>At the end of the cocktail party, finalists draw for interview times on Saturday. Regardless of interview time, everyone re-gathers at around 3 PM while the electors meet, in case the electors want to re-interview anyone. Last year in DC/Maryland, they did not re-interview anyone, even though they had 14 finalists (12 is most common). The electors try to have their decision before 6 PM (ITB, have you seen any cases where it went later than 6 PM? That would be an awful wait for the finalists!). In DC, it was right after 5 last year.</p>
<p>The interviews can be all over the place, of course, but it would become clear to any finalist that the selectors have done their homework. And again, because of who the electors are, the interviews should not be stress interviews, but rather a conversation with very interesting people.</p>
<p>NMD,</p>
<p>You mentioned 'Rhodes, Marshall, Mitchell and Gates Cambridge'.
Are there any analogous ones given for efforts in Medical Sciences?</p>
<p>IntheBiz,
You mention that you are a fellowship advisor. Could you kindly post which scholarships exist for studies in Medical Sciences abroad?</p>
<p>Pharmagal,</p>
<p>You should spend some time reading background information at each program's website. </p>
<p>I don't know what you mean by "Medical Sciences" but I can tell you that neither the Rhodes nor the Marshall have many program restrictions. Many students do degrees in the sciences.</p>
<p>
[quote]
interesting news for potential Rhodes Scholars: This year's scholars were told this past week that the Trust will now pay for a fourth year if necessary for DPhil degree seekers.</p>
<p>I don't know if this is an official change and whether it will apply to future scholars too, but it should take some of the pressure off those who think a 3 year British style PhD will not be good enough for their career. This is a common feeling BTW for those who want a PhD, are good enough to be competitive for a Rhodes, but feel their PhD equivalents are too short.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's probably worth pointing out that 4 year PhD programs have been available for a while via the Marshall scholarship too via some arrangements and agreements between other funding bodies. For example, I've heard of some examples with science PhD students that have the second half of their studies funded by a NSF fellowship with the NSF's tuition and fee payment shortcomings (it's only $10k per year) picked up by the Marshall or funding bodies that the Marshall has agreements with (eg a trust fund at the University). This works out to be a much better deal for the student because the living stipend for the NSF is far far higher than what the Marshall or Rhodes pays.</p>
<p>From what I've heard these co-operative arrangements are done on a case-by-case basis but they seem to work out. Obviously one still needs to secure the additional funding in this example, but if ones managed to secure a Marshall then there's a pretty darn good chance they won't have much trouble getting an NSF.</p>
<p>Good luck to all the applicants for all these fantastic programs.</p>
<p>RM08,</p>
<p>Interesting to compare/contrast Rhodes versus Marshall. In the case of PhD programs, I think it fair to say that, while Marshall Scholars have frequently been able to get a third year funded by the Marshall folks, it is less automatic and numbers limited, although I don't think they've hit their internal cap the past few years. ITB may know more. It is probably fair to say, though, that Marshall scholars must jump through a few more hoops than Rhodes scholars to get a fourth year funded. I suspect it is also true that a Rhodes Scholar, if the scholar desired, could pursue NSF funding for later years of graduate work.</p>
<p>But let's face it, either of these scholarships can be a great deal for the right kid, and the Marshall CAN be a better deal for someone interested in fields that are not traditional Oxford strengths, such as the physical sciences. Depending on one's career path, the greater name recognition of the Rhodes may not even matter, especially in academe, since most academics understand that a Marshall is every bit as difficult to win as a Rhodes, and reflects just as well of the winner. </p>
<p>Truth is that either is difficult to win and even fewer win both (<10%? ITB, what have you observed?), so either is a great honor and wonderful career boost.</p>
<p>FWIW, I think winners of any of the "British Scholarships" have no difficulty receiving financial support for continuing their education. I suspect too that it has little to do with the scholarships and everything to do with what they brought to the table to win these scholarships. In fact, it would be interesting to compare winners to finalists to see if the scholarships really made that much difference. I suspect they do, but far less than is commonly supposed. Anyone aware of any research in this direction? Probably impossible to do except at an institutional level, because "finalist" lists are never released by the Rhodes or Marshall folks, to my knowledge.</p>
<p>I wasn't trying to compare scholarships or suggest one was better than the other... just pointing out additional options that are out there for people to consider.</p>
<p>I too would imagine that finalists would do equally well (or very nearly) with their careers. I imagine the same thing would be found in looking at 'prestigious' schools vs other schools. The name on your CV can never really make up for what you bring to the table. </p>
<p>I generally find that with top folks it's hard to find out that they have any of these 'prestigious' things in their past. By that I mean that the most impressive folks I know (a few of which are actually R or M scholars) would never really make a point of mentioning where they went to school or these awards in the normal course of conversation... they instead would talk about what they do and what drives them to do those things. They might only mention the R or M if you ask them where they went to school (and they say the UK) and then someone's like 'oh, that's interesting, how'd you end up over there'. </p>
<p>I find that sort of observation is a quite reliable quick litmus test whenever I first meet someone (eg is this person actually accomplished and truly impressive or are they just full of themselves and obsessed with trying to impress people by name dropping). If they spend those first few minutes rattling off stats from their CV and name dropping then I just switch off... if, instead, they impress me with who they are, what they've done and where they're going then I'm interested ;-)</p>
<p>In reading my post again, it may not have been as clear as it was to me...</p>
<p>What I mean is yes it's interesting to look where someone went to school or what award they had and then where they ended up... but to me this sort of thing is moot. </p>
<p>I'm much more interested in where someone's going, not where they've been (in hiring someone or any other big decision, or just generally). Obviously someone's track record is an indicator of how likely they will live up to expectations, but in my mind someone's potential for future success is far more valuable to me than their laundry list of past accomplishments.</p>
<p>And, in reference to my 'litmus test,' I find that almost exclusively the ones who make a point of trying to impress people with past accomplishments have had their best days behind them and the ones that focus on what drives them and what they want to accomplish have their best days in front of them.</p>
<p>Just my two cents...</p>
<p>As for medical sciences . . .</p>
<p>As newmassdad said, the Rhodes and Marshall are open to students in the sciences. BUT, they will not fund a US student to go to medical school in the UK, primarily because the medical school system is so different there. But many students who plan to go to med school in the US will apply for a Rhodes or Marshall to do related work prior to going to med school. And there have been US MDs who then got a Rhodes or Marshall for further study (although, because of age restrictions, they would have had to have gone to med school at an early age.)</p>
<p>In addition, NIH has a program for students to work on PhDs in medically related fields in which they do part of their work at Oxford or Cambridge and part in the US. This can be combined with an MD degree as well.</p>
<p>And there are many opportunities for post-docs around the world but that's a separate issue.</p>
<p>ITB,</p>
<p>Interestingly, a degree in Medicine is not a prohibited course of study under Rhodes support. The catch is that no US student would be able to complete the course in the time allotted for a Scholarship.</p>
<p>An applicant for either a Rhodes or a Marshall must carefully match up the limitations spelled out in the application materials for the scholarships with the program policies on the respective university website. For example, no medical degree at oxford is less than 4 years. For another example, there are certain degree programs the Marshall folks won't fund but the Rhodes folks will. </p>
<p>I am sure quite a few applicants each year get tripped up because they just don't study the program requirements carefully enough. This can't be winged. It needs serious review and perhaps correspondence with the department of interest.</p>
<p>Finally, ITB made reference to what NIH calls the Graduate Partnerships Program. Ity is not restricted to Rhodes or Marshall Scholars, but is highly selective. The International part of this program (Cambridge, Oxford, Karolinska Institut) is targeted toward getting participants through an MD/Phd (i.e. MSTP funded) program in 6 years for both degrees. </p>
<p>You can google for more information.</p>