<p>I think looking at the numbers over time is also important. I'd be curious to see how many Fullbright, Rhodes, Marshall and Truman scholars combined were awarded by institution over the last 20 or 30 years.</p>
<p>21 is not unusual for Michigan, nor is leading the nation in Fulbright recipients:</p>
<p>2004:
<a href="http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Nov04/r110804%5B/url%5D">http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Nov04/r110804</a></p>
<p>2003:
<a href="http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Jun04/r061104%5B/url%5D">http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?Releases/2004/Jun04/r061104</a></p>
<p>So that's 97 Fulbright scholars in four years for Michigan. </p>
<p>Although I am not sure about this, I think Michigan leads the nation in the total production of Fulbright scholars. Of course, given its unique combination of size and quality, it isn't surprising, but it is still a nice distinction.</p>
<p>Anything that gives Alexandre a chance to talk about Michigan..... :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Sarahsdad- First, I agree with others that one more ranking is not needed. However, Your stats appear to be incorrect. As far as I can tell, based on the link provided, Boston College had 13 scholars. Thus, Boston College would be ranked after Northwestern and before Hopkins.</p>
<p>"He may have come from Michigan but he did not sell Michigan like some of the guys here are selling their private schools."</p>
<p>-You must not have been on this site for too long....</p>
<p>KK, my post was relevant to this thread's discussion. And although I defend Michigan often, I find myself defending many other awesome schools that get knocked about, including your own school.</p>
<p>Can someone please post the results for undergraduate students only? Six of the first ten schools are starred and this may be creating an incorrect impression. </p>
<p>I think with vossron and misterme2009 that we need per capita adjustments. I also agree with multiple others that we need a multi-year look (last 5 or 10 years) to get a real sense of which undergraduate institutions are producing the largest number of these scholars relative to their school size.</p>
<p>Joshua007...</p>
<p>I don't think Hawkette interprets any of the data she posts incorrectly. I think you just disagree with her. </p>
<p>No one thinks Michigan isn't a great school.</p>
<p>"I don't think Hawkette interprets any of the data she posts incorrectly. I think you just disagree with her. "
I would have to agree with the above. Hawkette has provided lots of valuable, interesting data to this site. How to interpret it is up to each individual.</p>
<p>joshua007,
Do you know the breakdown of the undergraduate vs graduate school students for the schools listed previously in this thread? It would be additive to this discussion rather than your current seeming bullying approach. </p>
<p>I try to take an approach where the data and information is displayed for all to see and then permit the reader to make up his/her mind. I believe that the more information we have, the better we are able to separate hype from reality. In the case of the Fulbright Scholars, I suspect that some (like you) find value in the gross numbers while others like to know the per capita figures. Either way, I dont believe that this is a big deal in the overall evaluation of any college.</p>
<p>Let us all stick to the OP's topic...Fulbright Scholars.</p>
<p>Hawkette, most of the elite universities on the list (including Cal, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern, Penn, Stanford, UVA and Yale), with the exception of Brown, Chicago, Dartmouth and Harvard, include graduate and undergraduate scholars in their numbers. I think it would be hard to break down the list into undergraduate and graduate candidates. However, it would be cool to see how many Fulbright winners listed by university affiliation over a period of time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anything that gives Alexandre a chance to talk about Michigan.....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I very much enjoy both Alexandre and Hoedown sharing their knowledge of UMichigan. I respect their knowledge immensely and know more about colleges because they share it.</p>
<p>Perhaps I don't understand how the Fulbright program works because I don't see why breaking out the undergrads from the graduate students should be so difficult. The highest ranking school, Brown, was able to do it as were other National Universities like Johns Hopkins and Columbia which each have strong and prominent graduate programs. What's the big deal?</p>
<p>Hawkette, Brown was the highest ranked school this year. However, most years, Cal, Cornell, Harvard and Michigan lead the nation in the production of Fulbright scholars and they generally list all the winners, both undergraduate and graduate. Obviously, it would be great if universities broke it down, but if they don't, we don't really have a way to do it ourselves.</p>
<p>I tried to find u-grad only listings for some of the top schools on the list with asterisks (Duke, Yale, Penn) and couldn't find any on their websites...dang</p>
<p>here is the Fulbright website which list all scholars for the last 12 years- it lists both undergrad and graduate scholars by school. </p>
<p>thanks, thats very useful</p>
<p>Joshua, undergrad and grad don't correlate.</p>
<p>Grad strength = size, TA's, facilities like libraries
Undergrad strength = getting the undergrads to the grad/professional places they want to go, individual attention, strong overall study body rather than specific department</p>
<p>The reason it was hard for them to break out the undergrad/grad numbers was simply because Fulbright didn't provide any numbers breaking them down, and the Universities didn't submit their own numbers.</p>
<p>Isn't it the student that gets the award?.... so it doesn't really matter which schools give out how many......going to one of those schools doesn't increase ones' chance in getting it.</p>
<p>I also wonder about the importance or value of this list. Why not look at the number of faculty who have received Fulbright Scholars; wouldn't that say something of equal importance? Also, I suspect that high numbers of Fulbrights from any particular school strongly suggests that this particular school simply has someone in the appropriate office who really likes the Fulbright Program and works hard to ensure their students apply. In fact, I recently wanted to apply for a Fulbright myself, and so went back to my former university to see if they would sponsor me. Many universities will sponsor alums, no matter how long it's been since you graduated. The person in the office who takes care of that just happened to love the Fulbright Program; she was really encouraging me to apply. I was stunned at the amount of support I would have received, had I decided to complete the application. So . . . I do believe that the high numbers often just mean that the school in question simply pushes this particular Scholar Program (ie, really encourages the students to apply and gives lots of support in helping to achieve success). I also believe--like any place offering grants or scholarships, the more they've given to any one person or place, the more likely that place or person will receive more such scholarships in future-- like a built-in track record. </p>
<p>The more telling list might be the school that not only has a large number of Fulbrights, but an equally large number of other Scholarships as well (ie, Rhodes, etc). Pomona had an unusually large number of 2007 Fulbrights; what about the other Scholarships there?</p>