<p>I disagree with mini’s analysis. </p>
<p>First, as for teaching Fullbrights, the fact is that some universities offer better teach abroad programs. The Fullbrights may be more prestigious, but they involved smaller living stipends and provide less support while you are living abroad, so kids at the universities with their own programs are less likely to apply for them. </p>
<p>Second, a lot of the Fullbright projects aren’t terribly academic. I know one person who lived and worked on a “sustainable” farm in New Zealand for two years; another who apprenticed to a midwife in the Carribbean, another who traveled around Spain collecting Jewish folk tales. I’m sure all were valuable experiences for the people involved, but none of these needed standard research skills. </p>
<p>Third, while Smith does have an excellent program in foreign language, one heck of a lot of kids who do Fullbrights requiring foreign languages learned the language before going to college. The husband of a friend got one to Israel. It was all those years at a yeshiva in NYC, not his college, that gave him the language skills. </p>
<p>In all honesty, most of the kids who won Fullbrights at my kid’s university were nowhere near the top of the class. They just came up with an interesting project and/or spoke a foreign language, especially an unusual foreign language, fluently. </p>
<p>So, while I congratulate anyone who wants one and wins one, I don’t agree that the fact that a college wins a lot of them means it’s “added more value” to its students than any other college has.</p>