<p>I'll simply point out at this juncture that Rhodes scholars are much scarcer than students who are admitted to the top twenty universities in the United States (whichever universities those are).</p>
<p>I just tossed in Rhodes as a fun factor, sorry about the diversion token adult. Here is an analogy for you Rhodes:Harvard as Ivy League:Top 100 colleges.</p>
<p>I know one of this year's Rhodes Scholars. Fantastic person and scholar, but he is no athlete.</p>
<p>I have no opinion on whether or not athletics is generally valued, but in this case it could not have been a factor.</p>
<p>By "sports", they mean "extracurriculars".</p>
<p>
[quote]
but he is no athlete.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Boy, I feel bad about how I worded that. It is an unfair description of the young man in question. He played a sport in high school, not too bad either, but did not continue to play as a member of his university's team.</p>
<p>I remember at some point that there was a lot of hoopla when the Rhodes selection committee decided that "energy to use ones talents to the full" could also be exemplfied through drama. I still think the majority do sports at least at club level.</p>
<p>The inclusion of atheticism as a criterion for Rhodes selection comes from a line in Cecil Rhodes's will stating that scholars should excel in the "manly sports" or some such phrase. Rhodes's point was not that he necessarily wanted only star athletes but that he didn't want the sterotypical wimpy bookworms.</p>
<p>I know a former Rhodes scholar and she is very smart and very unathletic. I think for her application she put that she had particpated in intramural fencing or something like that. Definitely not a star nor even a varsity athlete. And come to think of it, I don't recall that Bill Clinton was ever a varsity letterman in any sport at Georgetown either.</p>
<p>Courer - See posts 191 Link to Rhodes Scholarship page; 193 the criteria in the will verbatim; 195 sports of the 2008 Rhodes Scholars - one plays intermural Frisbee and 199. Thank you Cur and JHS for breaking it down</p>
<p>Cecil Rhodes' will also limited the scholarships to men. I recall that a few Rhodes Scholars in recent years were not men?</p>
<p>This debate over the fine points of athleticism vs Rhodes is silly, and just marks a number of posters here as clueless as to what actually goes into a competitive Rhodes application. I'll give a hint: They don't just look for one thing.</p>
<p>For those that jump to conclusions regarding the significance of the mention of sports in the bios, they might want to go back and count the number of mentions of things such as music, debate and such. And maybe those posters should ask themselves why, if sports are so important, the majority of winners have NO athletics mentioned in their short bios. By Cur's own count, 12 of 32 do. That's just 38% by my calculation.</p>
<p>Clueless , huh? How kind. And classy , too.</p>
<p>I just think some here who discount the value of athletics to a Rhodes applicant have a truly significant learning disability. They can't read for crap. ;) Can it be overlooked? Sure. It seems student body presidents stand in good stead, too even without athletics but they had something . The CalTech kid was Pres of the SB and the Prank Club. But my- there aren't a majority of those SB presidents either. Should we discount that "highlighting" too? Edit : You really can't be seriously suggesting athletics counts for nothing in a Rhodes app, can you? Does someone have to hold your hand when you cross the road?</p>
<p>If out of the group of 32 Rhodes scholars there were several of the bios by Rhodes folks on the Rhodes website highlighting the student attending Interlochen (skeet shooting, Barbies, Lithuanian Heritage Folkdancing, tatoos) , I would consider Interlochen (skeet shooting, Barbies, Lithuanian Heritage Folkdancing, tatoos) a significant plus to a Rhodes app. If that same thing was mentioned as in the official Rhodes cites above , I would not argue with someone on a internet board about their insignificance. And I certainly wouldn't call them clueless. They might take some offense. ;)</p>
<p>The Rhodes folks have made it abundantly clear that "brain a jar" kids need not apply. Vigor, service to community - it's all there. </p>
<p>There is still mention of athletics in the current application. Not in some dusty drawer. In the current app itself. It's in English, too. Not varsity athletics, mind you. Somebody else may make that argument but not me. Intramural or on your own is just fine with the committee it seems.</p>
<p>Cur, </p>
<p>thought you'd like the "classy" touches! And sorry about my learning disability... :)</p>
<p>Of course athleticism counts for something. But lots of other things do, too. At one time, the model Rhodes scholar was indeed a gentleman jock, preferably all american in some sport. Helmets were well represented. But back then, (never mind...). </p>
<p>But things have changed since then. They now allow women to win (shudders to the elders?). They define athleticism more broadly, and perhaps in ways that are hard to put into a policy like statement. Top academics are still important. So is leadership, defined more loosely than we're used to.</p>
<p>It is interesting to look at the undergrad majors of this years winners (with some allowance for interpretation due to multiple majors and crude categories on my part): 15 social science majors, 5 humanities, 9 physical science/engineering and 3 biological sciences. Frankly, the high number of physical science/engineering winners surprises me, as kids in these majors are often more one dimensional and weak Rhodes candidates, although the numbers are distorted a bit by the service academy grads, who all have these "hard" backgrounds. </p>
<p>Indeed, a strong Rhodes candidate will always have (1) outstanding academic performance, usually signalled by PBK selection as a jr.; (2) multi-dimensional strengths. Just look at the number of winners with majors in unrelated fields; (3) Strenghts or accomplishments (preferably both) outside of academics. (4) a passion for a relevant social issue, with appropriate evidence of the passion (5) good social skills - a cocktail party is a key part of the final selection; (6) strong backing of the university. One's U ranks its applicants as part of an endorsement letter, and the candidate independently must obtain a large number of rec letters.</p>
<p>As near as I can tell, there is no longer an athletic requirement. After all, it is a good way to show leadership too. And the value of athletic leadership is significant, as a lot of real world experience has shown.</p>
<p>Now, about that hand-holding....</p>
<p>Play nice, guys.</p>
<p>Back to the topic: do normal kids get into selective universities? I'm not sure what level of selectivity we are discussing here, because I think there is a big difference between HYPS and the other schools in the USNWR "top 20". </p>
<p>However, a conversation I had yesterday made me realize that many people misinterpret the significance of some students' rejections at top schools. One of our recent local vals, sporting a 4.0, a varsity athlete with a 34 ACT, was rejected from a USN top 20, the very one my son attends. My acquaintance took this as evidence that the university was almost impossible to get into, that all applicants must therefore need a 35 or a 36. Unknown to her, this student was infamous among his classmates for his "strategy" of never taking AP or honors courses, in order to ensure his 4.0. That works as short-term strategy around here, because our schools give ZERO weight to honors and AP courses in gpa and rank calculations. Not too surprisingly, many students with 10 APs and the rest honors courses ended up ranking below this guy.</p>
<p>I'll have to assume the adcom was familiar with the course offerings at his school and heavily discounted the gpa and rank, and came to some conclusions about this fellow's drive. However, many local families with kids coming up to college age do not know the whole story and have jumped to incorrect conclusions.</p>
<p>I do like the classy touches. Thanks so much. Remember to look both ways. </p>
<p>I'll let the Rhodes website continue to speak for my position. It's clear to anyone who bothers to read the linked material without an agenda. That wouldn't be all of you. ;) </p>
<p>Tattoos, folkdancing, barbies. You highlight what you value. To suggest otherwise is just .......well, clueless seems to fit here, too - clueless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A lot of high school students make this strategic mistake. They worry more about looking good in the small pond of high school than getting ready for the big pond of college.</p>
<p>The only students that do this at Ds school are kids whose only aspiration is to go to University of Oklahoma.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>Cecil Rhodes' will also limited the scholarships to men. I recall that a few Rhodes Scholars in recent years were not men?<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>Right, but the women didn't just show up one day. Advocates had to go to court in Britain and get that clause of the will overturned so that women could be included. </p>
<p>Changing the will wasn't easy because there was no ready source of money to fund the effort. British law stipulates that the money from an estate cannot be used to overturn the will the that set up the estate. Fortunately, they did eventually get it done and women were included. But the point is that the terms of the will cannot be simply ignored. If you want to change something and do things contrary to Rhodes's will, it's going to be a long and difficult process.</p>
<p>courier, please check your facts a little better next time before slamming posters who happen to take views you disagree with.
[quote]
Until 1977 no women were elected to Rhodes scholarships, because the will as interpreted by the Rhodes Trust Acts of Parliament confined the awards to 'male students', when the U.K. government introduced legislation to outlaw sex discrimination a clause in the bill permitted single-sex educational institutions and charities to continue to discriminate in favor of one sex. Following lobbying by the Rhodes Trustees, a further clause was inserted into the eventual Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 allowing single-sex education charities to seek leave to open their awards to both sexes. Under this clause the Secretary of State for Education made an order in 1976 declaring Rhodes Scholarships to be tenable by women, and nullifying the effect of the words 'manly' and 'manhood' in the will.
[/quote]
[source: About</a> The Rhodes Trust ]</p>
<p>I see no mention of "Advocates had to go to court in Britain". And curiously, the "Advocates" were the Rhodes trustees! Maybe you meant to say that, but you didn't. But your choice of word, "Advocates" when you could have said "trustees" makes me wonder.</p>
<p>Further, the will was not changed or overturned.</p>
<p>It's interesting to note that the Op defined "normal kids" as "applicants with top grades and 98-99 percentile test scores whose leadership and community service accomplishments are more reflective of a normal high school student." Defined this way the answer is: absolutely. They just need great recommendations and essays that show something that an adcom can get excited about. Do a majority of these kids get in? No. Do they get in in fairly large numbers? Yes.</p>
<br>
<blockquote> <p>courier, please check your facts a little better next time before slamming posters who happen to take views you disagree with.<<</p> </blockquote>
<br>
<p>I have not "slammed" any poster here. I'm not even talking about posters. I'm talking about Rhodes scholarship criteria and the changes that were wrought. And you are right; it was Parliament and not the courts that changed things to include women as Rhodes scholars. And FYI, by "advocates" I was referring to people who advocated allowing women in, be they Trustees, MPs, journalists, or simply fair-minded members of the public.</p>
<p>But the whether the change was brought about by the courts or Parliament, the point remains the same: the Trustees were NOT free to simply ignore the selection criteria stipulated by the will. It had to legally and formally changed.</p>