Marshall Scholars Announced!

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
1

<p>Yale = 4
Stanford = 4
Princeton = 2
Georgetown = 2
U.S. Military Academy = 2
Harvard = 1</p>

<p>Marshall Home Page <a href="http://www.marshallscholarship.org/winners.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.marshallscholarship.org/winners.html&lt;/a>
Yale News <a href="http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/05-11-28-00.all.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/opa/newsr/05-11-28-00.all.html&lt;/a>
Princeton News <a href="http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/11/29/news/13952.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/11/29/news/13952.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

2

<p><a href="http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/scholarschart.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/scholarschart.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

3

<p>Past data of Harvard looks good, however present data (This years Rhodes, & Marshall) does not show the promise as demonstrated by Yale, Stanford Princeton. Why? Could it be because of a bad selection process four years ago.
Relying more on leagacys et. al for the freshmen selection process.</p>

4

<p>Wow... you are reading waaaaay too much into one year's stats.... I cannot believe you are trying to extrapolate this back onto the admissions process four years ago. </p>

<p>These things are cyclical... looking at any ONE year out of context doesn't mean much... you have heard of the well known problem with "small-number statistics"??</p>

<p>Clearly, over many year, and many decades, Harvard has done quite well... and will in most likelihood continue to do extremely well...
Sorry, but ONE year doesn NOT constitute a pattern.</p>

5

<p>i dont really care to be honest. it doesnt affect me or harvard that they just happen to have a few bright students. is anyone going to look down on harvard because they have less rhodes or marshall scholars? and why do i care? i have no chance at becoming one, let alone getting in to one of those top schools. so whatever, i dont really care.</p>

6

<p>First in fundraising.
First in early-admission applications.
First in Marshall winners. </p>

<p>Stanford is on a roll. USNews had better recognize!</p>

7

<p>Fifth in Rankings.</p>

8

<p>USNews, of course, hasn't recognized Stanford's "roll." That was my point. Stanford deserves a far higher place.</p>

9

<p>Solely because of things like the number of students who apply and the number of Marshall winners?</p>

10

<p>ivyleague1- why don't you figure out how to spell "legacys" [sic] before you criticize the "selection process".</p>

11

<p>Well, then, does the USNews ranking measure things that are more significant? I don't think so. "Faculty resources," indeed!</p>

12

<p>Regardless, "faculty resources" seems more legitimate than "Number of Marshall winners and Rhodes Scholars."</p>

<p>Anyway, perhaps it would be helpful to know how many students of each school actually applied. It isn't entirely useful to consider the number of students that received it without considering how many actually made the attempt. That is, if you think this subject matters at all. I have my doubts.</p>

13

<p>I would probably end up agreeing with you. But Stanford still did very well this year. </p>

<p>A better indicator would be something along the lines of the WSJ rankings, if they weren't so horribly biased toward HYP.</p>

<p>"Faculty resources" is an indicator of nothing.</p>