<p>holey moley that’s a lot</p>
<p>Bluejade88 I don’t know what your problem is and getting an email from you with the one word response “Stupid****” at 8 in the morning was really immature. However, besides this I would truly like to know what got you so worked up. I don’t think that I ever said anything offensive to anyone so could you please write me back telling me why you felt that it was so necessary to use such inappropriate language. Having someone write this is not only hurtful but also judgemental and I would like to clear up this discrepancy.</p>
<p>that nice analysis is ever so slightly flawed in that the scholarships are allocated in varying amounts by home state and quality of the nominees</p>
<p>so if cornell were to nominate residents of underrepresented states at top-caliber schools (let’s say, north dakota, south dakota, new mexico, mississippi), those students may have an inherent advantage over another school that may nominate residents of over-represented states (like if school x were to nominate residents of california, new york, new jersey, pennsylvania, maryland, etc.) if they are of superior quality to their peers</p>
<p>for example, the cornell north dakota resident’s competition may be from university of minnesota, university of north dakota, etc.</p>
<p>the new york resident’s competition may be harvard, cornell, mit, caltech…</p>
<p>on the other hand, if all the nominees from an underrepresented state are of exceptional quality but there are too few to merit increasing the number of scholarships for that state, then the competition is greater - though this is probably an unlikely scenario</p>
<p>end conclusion is the same though - quality of school affects quality of students, which in turn affects quality of work and performance that can merit the awarding of a goldwater scholarship</p>
<p>Good point 
I wasn’t aware the Goldwater has you apply by region. If it’s anything like the Rhodes, where students in northeast universities with a home address in under-represented states are encouraged to apply from there instead of their school (precisely due to the competition you cited), then it would make the idiosyncratic variation (null) hypothesis even more unlikely. If the incidental high number of schools with four or three winners was due to geographic variation rather than university variation, then we should find those high numbers of winners in midwestern/southern universities. Instead, we find them in the northeast, where the Goldwater has higher visibility and the competition is stiffer. That makes the probability that two northeastern universities like Cornell and MIT winning all four idiosyncratically even more unlikely, assuming they have fewer students eligible to apply from the midwest or south than midwestern or southern universities ;)</p>
<p>This cant be the full list. A Northeastern student won a Goldwater as well.</p>
<p>[Northeastern</a> student wins Goldwater scholarship | Northeastern University News](<a href=“http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2009/04/goldwaterrecipient2009.html]Northeastern”>http://www.northeastern.edu/news/stories/2009/04/goldwaterrecipient2009.html)</p>
<p>Full list is here: <a href=“http://www.act.org/goldwater/pdfdoc/2009scholars.pdf[/url]”>http://www.act.org/goldwater/pdfdoc/2009scholars.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I dont think its wise to presume the quality of school affects the quality of student. I think it really depends on the individual student.</p>
<p>i think you misunderstand the point, which is that quality schools attract quality students</p>
<p>this is not a slight against you, especially because you earned one - congratulations</p>
<p>
<br>
That sums it up completely. Thanks for the congratz</p>
<p>Some points missed in lists</p>
<p>Oberlin: 3 winners, one honorable
Clemson: 3 winners, one honorable
Hendrix College: 2 winners, 2 honorables
West Virginia University: 2 winners, 2 honorables
Davidson: 2 winners, one honorable
Swarthmore: 2 winners, one honorable
Utah State: 2 winners, one honorable
Wesleyan Univ.: 2 winners, one honorable</p>
<p>I am sure there are more – but some of these relatively small or unknown institutions should be proud.</p>