<p>What are some activities that qualify you for this honor (or even the nomination)?</p>
<p>I know that I need to get 5-8 recs from professors, but asides from that I'm kind of lost....</p>
<p>Any ideas?</p>
<p>Don’t worry about being a Rhodes scholar, find a passion and develop it. Then prestigious academic awards will follow.</p>
<p>Be a rhodes scholar to do research, don’t do research to become a rhodes scholar.</p>
<p>Yeah, you’re not going to be a Rhodes Scholar. You’re not even in it for the right reasons.</p>
<p>The best way to learn is to read about past scholars. Go here: [The</a> Rhodes Scholarships - Past Scholars](<a href=“Office of the American Secretary | Office of the American Secretary”>Office of the American Secretary | Office of the American Secretary)</p>
<p>It is true that thinking about “activities” sounds way too much like finding ECs for undergrad applications. Most Rhodes Scholars are truly amazing folks with several strong parts to their background. A common theme in recent years, however, is a strong compassion for and interest in helping others, be it poor in the US, those in need overseas and such. But even that is not a requirement. </p>
<p>So the advice regarding following your muse is not a bad one. The depth and excellence needed to win a Rhodes or Marshall or Gates is just too great to be done casually.</p>
<p>I’ve seen a good number of freshmen who come in obsessed with the idea of a Rhodes and focus on the end result instead of on the path to getting there. Don’t do that. </p>
<p>The people who were/are Rhodes Scholars and finalists that I know shared a few traits:</p>
<ul>
<li>Competence around people. You can’t be an obvious suck-up and you can’t be anti-social either, but you don’t have to be the life of the party. Social awkward people will have a hard time. </li>
<li>The right mix of self-confidence and humility. Some are more arrogant than others, but if you don’t have a healthy amount of self-confidence you won’t be able to get to this point. Overt arrogance is a negative too, but </li>
<li>Exceptional academic excellence. Not just a high GPA (doesn’t have to be 4.0, but should be pretty darn close unless you have special circumstances), but a record of challenging classes that shows both depth and breadth. </li>
<li>Superb relationships with faculty/mentors. Getting letters of recommendation is one thing; getting detailed, insightful, and strong letters of recommendation from over a half-dozen recommenders is something else entirely. </li>
</ul>
<p>Newmassdad’s advice is also correct. Keep in mind too that there’s a strong element of randomness and luck to the whole process, from the people on the selection committees to the other candidates you’d be going up against. Don’t obsess over it as an end in itself, but rather an extremely fortunate opportunity that you can try for if it ends up being right for you by the time your undergraduate career nears its end.</p>
<p>Thank you so much guys! And thanks for the link on past scholars!</p>
<p>I totally get what you guys are talking about, it’s like resume-padding for college. It’s just that I’m sick of always being the underdog… for once I want other people to look up to me or something. Yeah I know that sounds lame. But yeah.</p>
<p>Interestingly, I am not at all sure that being a Rhodes Scholar is all the advantage people think it is. Think of it this way: The Rhodes folks select candidates that are truly excellent. But they were excellent before they were selected. They would have excellent references whether they win or lose. </p>
<p>What this means is that most (if not all?) of those selected as finalists will go on to great achievement, whether or not they win. And this is borne out by observation.</p>
<p>So excellence should be your goal, and the payoff will follow whether or not you win the Rhodes itself.</p>
<p>Rhodes Scholars Winners Since 2000 by School</p>
<p>Harvard 38
Yale 26
Stanford 18
West Point 17
UChicago 15
Princeton 15
Duke 13
Naval Academy 12
MIT 11
Columbia 7
Brown 7
Air Force Academy 5
Dartmouth 5
Cornell 3
Northwestern 3
Penn 2
Berkeley 2
Caltech 2</p>
<p>UT-Austin also had 2 (2001 and 2008).</p>
<p>^
^
also to add-florida state university (2008, myron rolle)</p>
<p>Also 9 from wustl/washu bw 2000 and 2014</p>
<p>I’m a senior now and though I’ve faintly heard of Rhodes scholar, I know that when I get to college, I want to do research for research’s sake. Also just only 22 schools have had Rhodes Scholars since 2000? I would think that above-exceptional students who go to small schools or flagships would still get recogized. It seems like a small, concentrated pool.</p>
<p>^The list above is not all Rhodes scholars since 2000, just the schools that have produced the most winners.</p>
<p>I went to one of the schools on that list and have known several finalists and one winner. But, if you asked me, any day of the week, I would rather spend time with the finalists than with the winner. If I were picking members for any group project, I’d pick them before the winner. </p>
<p>I just state this to say that you can be a great person and not be a Rhodes Scholar. In the opinions of many, you as the person who you are may be “better” than whoever it is who wins the Rhodes.</p>
<p>Also, don’t forget that there are numerous other distinguished scholarships. I don’t think any is as famous as the Rhodes outside of academia, but within, there are equally prestigious scholarships. There are many that may fall more in line with your particular interests and profile. You should do your research and not assume that the household name is the only thing out there that matters.</p>
<p>oh ok thanks @Millancad i think your post is really insightful</p>