<p>Winners</a> Announced</p>
<p>Other universities that produced multiple Marshall Scholars this year included the University of Chicago, Stanford, Rice, UPenn and Harvard.</p>
<p>Uh . . . right. And the 31 winners represented 22 different colleges or universities. And in 2009 there were 36 winners representing 28 different colleges or universities, and the big winner was the Naval Academy with 4. Nice individual award, but what it tells us about the schools is approximately zilch. </p>
<p>Nothing to see here. Move on.</p>
<p>“Nothing to see here. Move on.”</p>
<p>Except another example of a Dukie desparately trying to equate his school with HYPSM. …</p>
<p>
Wow, I just wanted to give some recognition to some of the schools that had multiple Marshall recipients this year (including my school admittedly) with a friendly service announcement but your response is laughably ignorant.</p>
<p>First off, its the same 6-8 (HYPS, Brown, Chicago, Duke, etc.) schools that are consistently represented in the Marshall Fellowship competition year after year so its not an arbitrary distinction as you seem to be suggesting. The usual suspects do so well in the competition because they have terrific research opportunities, advising and undergraduate focus.</p>
<p>You’re completely wrong when you say the Marshall Scholars list tells us approximately zilch about the quality of the schools they attended. Sure, UC Santa Cruz or Syracuse don’t suddenly become academic powerhouses just because they produced Marshall Scholars this year but it’s a rare and frankly once in a century type of occurrence for these sorts of schools while the tippy top private universities have students who win Marshall scholarships and it’s no coincidence. Just like the Rhodes, the school is intimately involved in every step of the way in the successful candidacy of a Marshall Scholar from the identification of talent (admissions) to the provision of high-level research and service learning opportunities (institutional support) to the assistance in the application and interview process (advising).</p>
<p>Also, I don’t understand the purpose of you highlighting the Naval Academy’s success in the Marshall competition a couple of years back. All three major service academies are extremely well-regarded and produce brilliant individuals with great leadership skills-all traits that are of tantamount importance for success in the Rhodes and Marshall Scholarship selection process.</p>
<p>Gee, I’m going to make a wild guess and say you attended a school that doesn’t have a great track record with the Marshall Scholarship.</p>
<p>
Ah, I see that U of M’s resident ■■■■■ is back in action again tonight. At least Duke is comparable to the top Ivies in some meaningful measures unlike your alma mater. Our students know how to spell the word “desperately” too.;)</p>
<p>When you collect this data over several years, and aggregate it with other awards (like the Rhodes), then I agree it does start to tell you something about these schools. Although to do it right you’d need to calcuate based on per capita awards to students in similar arts & science programs.</p>
<p>This kind of outcome measurement is not well represented in the US News criteria. As far as I know, no major ranking measures post-graduate outcomes against predictors such as admission criteria. A less selective school with strong outcomes may be providing a better education than schools that take only the cream of the crop. USNWR (following Washington Monthly) has started to measure the difference between predicted and actual outcomes in graduation rates, but not in other performance factors.</p>