Schools Ranked by # of Fulbright Scholars

<p>D.T.: I only mentioned Pomona, because the original post led with that story, followed by a list of 2007 Fulbrights at other (larger?) universities. So, Pomona would appear to have had a lot in 2007, breaking their own record. No underlying attitude at all. </p>

<p>My point was really less about Pomona, and more about using that school--since they had a lot-- (or any on that list with a relatively high number of 2007 Fulbright awardees) to determine if they have an equally high number of Rhodes or Goldwaters or Marshalls, or other scholarships. If you read my earlier post, I was commenting that, sometimes, it may just be that someone in the appropriate office really pushes for their students to apply for Fulbrights (and offers a lot of support in the application process), as opposed to Rhodes and others. Or it could be that the same school has an equally impressive number of Rhodes, et al.. To my mind, an equally large number of additional impressive scholarships would be more telling, than simply a large number of one type of scholarship, and no other. Read my earlier post about that; it's pretty clear what I meant.</p>

<p>Alexandre: With regard to your post #77 above, see my post #12. I did that for UNC-CH (as much as I could find on a quick web site search). Each school probably has that information listed.</p>

<p>Sakky, the Rhodes and Marshall awards are given out to a handful of individuals each year. All in all, with the exception of 5 or 6 universities (we know which ones I am referring to), elite universities like Brown, Cal, Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Michigan, Northwestern or Penn have produced far fewer than 100 such scholars combined in the entire history (105 years in the case of Rhodes and 52 years in the case of Marshall) of those two awards. Winning those awards is an amazing distinction, but it is more a question of luck than ability.</p>

<p>Some other UChicago random "awards" facts.</p>

<p>Most Fulbright-Hayes Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad fellowships for 16 consecutive years</p>

<p>In the past 5 years:
6 Rhodes Scholarships
4 Marshall Scholarships
3 Truman Scholarships
2 Gates Cambridge Scholarships</p>

<p>
[quote]
Still, it would be cool to see the total number of Marshall, Truman, Rhodes and Fulbright award winners listed by institution.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Here are Swarthmore's totals (note: detailed records were kept for the Rhodes from 1920, for the others from 1970 or so).</p>

<p>138 Fulbright (since 1967)
8 Marshall
26 Rhodes
21 Truman</p>

<p>The complete list is here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/StuHonors.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/institutional_research/StuHonors.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>The Rhodes numbers may have been bolstered by the fact that two consecutive Swarthmore Presidents had been the American Secretary of the Rhodes scholarship.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Winning those awards is an amazing distinction, but it is more a question of luck than ability.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Actually, I think it should be pointed out that it's also a matter of institutional support. Let's face it. Some schools (i.e. those very top universities) are very very efficient at producing lots of Rhodes (and presumably Marshall) Scholars. They have an entire system set up to churn out Scholars like clockwork. Other schools, not so much.</p>

<p>Here's what the last Cal Rhodes winner has to say about it.</p>

<p>*not only should more Berkeley students be applying for the Oxford education the Rhodes supports, but the institution should be more active in identifying potential selectees and guiding them through the process.</p>

<p>That neither of these things are happening to the extent he’d recommend, Luthra says, is easily accounted for. Berkeley undergrads, he believes, tend to “psych themselves out” about their chances of winning a prize that they see as awarded more often to their private-college counterparts than to public-university students. Yet as a group, he insists, his peers are far more accomplished than they give themselves credit for — with nothing to fear from competition with the Ivy League types who are selected for the Rhodes on what sometimes seems a revolving-door basis. (Harvard, for example, placed 5 students among the 32 selected nationwide this year; last year it placed 6.) </p>

<p>The second discouraging factor, according to Luthra, is that Berkeley faculty aren’t doing as much as they could to encourage qualified students to apply. </p>

<p>The fact that Berkeley has sent precisely three students to Oxford in just under 30 years, with long intervals between each winner, has a self-fulfilling aspect to it, Luthra believes. “There’s a slippery slope of self-confidence,” he says, “that you encounter when someone hasn’t won from here in two years, then three, then thirteen. I was talking to some juniors who I thought would make great candidates, and they believed no one from Berkeley had ever won! “</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>“The level of faculty awareness about the scholarship itself is tremendous, obviously,” Luthra says, “but it’s at the next level — where a faculty member decides to actually nominate a student or two, or to approach qualified students and tell them about the scholarship — that the steps aren’t being taken. They have a huge role to play, probably the biggest role in the process — since so many students will never hear about the Rhodes in the first place if a faculty member doesn’t tell them about it and encourage them to apply.”</p>

<p>Getting to know students as individuals
There’s more to faculty involvement in Rhodes candidacies than that, of course — including the writing of letters of recommendation , which to be effective must show a more detailed familiarity with a student’s academic skills than is acquired at the podium in a 600-seat lecture hall. But it’s a vitalpart of the process, and one that, according to Alicia Hayes, program coordinator of the Scholarship Connection Office, contributes more than Luthra acknowledges to the reluctance of Berkeley students to follow through on their impulse to apply for a Rhodes or other prestigious scholarship. </p>

<p>“I don’t think that our students here at Berkeley believe there’s a bias against public universities,” she says. “Their fears stem instead from the requirement of getting recommendation letters from faculty members. I see that frequently; I think it’s the most challenging aspect of applying for these kinds of scholarships at a big campus like this.”</p>

<p>One faculty member with extensive experience in the Rhodes application process agrees with Hayes. Steven Botterill, associate professor of Italian Studies, chaired the Rhodes/Mitchell/Marshall subcommittee this past year. “At Ivy League colleges, with their smaller student bodies and more intimate faculty/student ratios,” he observes, “the process of grooming potential Rhodes Scholars begins early on in a student’s undergraduate career. By the time students at Berkeley make closer contact with faculty, it’s often their junior year – and that’s a bit late to be building the kind of close intellectual relationship with a faculty member that supports the recommendation the Rhodes committees want to see. We’ve seen it year after year here: With the best will in the world, Berkeley faculty don’t get to know students as individuals when they’re teaching large lower-division courses with 700 or 800 students.”</p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2003/02/19_rhode.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2003/02/19_rhode.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Here's what the campus newspaper of the University of Michigan (the Michigan Daily) had to say about it.</p>

<p>*The reason Harvard and Yale students regularly account for about 40 percent of Rhodes Scholarship winners isn't because their top students are substantially brighter than their peers at other prestigious colleges. </p>

<p>Harvard and Yale students fare better because their schools are better at identifying, recruiting and coaching students who are bright enough to win prestigious scholarships and awards. ...</p>

<p>The University's Rhodes drought seems to have more to do with having too few applicants than having too many nominees. </p>

<p>Monts acknowledged that the University has a hard time recruiting Rhodes applicants compared with schools like Harvard and Yale. </p>

<p>"We just don't have the mechanisms that some of the smaller prestigious private schools have," Monts said. </p>

<p>At schools like Yale, students interact closely with faculty for their whole college career. Small classes - ones taught by professors, not graduate students - are a regular feature of a student's schedule from their first day on campus. This close contact allows Yale faculty to identify outstanding students early, refer them to the Yale office of International Education and Fellowship Programs and encourage then to apply. </p>

<p>The University of Michigan does not have a similar infrastructure. The first time most students hear about the scholarships from the University is when they receive a mass e-mail from Lester Monts' office - an impersonal message that is neither signed nor has a reply address. Not surprisingly, few students attend the informational sessions put on by the council and even fewer apply for University endorsement. </p>

<p>Furthermore, Monts said the University does not an internal recruitment mechanism like that of Yale or Harvard. Many students, especially underclassmen, aren't close enough to their professors to get noticed.</p>

<p>"Many times we don't really discover the genius of students until they are nominated by faculty," Monts said. "In a way, our students are on their own the first two years."</p>

<p>The University does not lack potential Rhodes Scholarship winners. Every year, University of Michigan graduates gain places in the most prestigious graduate and professional schools in the world. </p>

<p>The quality of students is high, but the University still doesn't win its share of Rhodes Scholarships. </p>

<p>LSA senior Dan Ray is one example of missed potential. Ray, who will be attending Harvard Law in the fall and who teaches LSAT courses, won the University's most competitive merit-based scholarship. But even though the University singled out Ray as one of its top four students by awarding him the Bentley Scholarship, they did not make a significant effort to encourage him to apply for a prestigious British scholarship. </p>

<p>Ray simply received the same mass e-mail that every other 3.7 GPA student at the University does. </p>

<p>The University's lack of Rhodes infrastructure is not insignificant. Applying for a Rhodes, Marshall or Mitchell scholarship is a lot of work. An applicant must secure numerous letters of recommendation and be prepared for intensive interviews if they are selected as a finalist. The University does provide mock interviews and help with letters of recommendation for the students it decides to endorse. But the preparation pales in comparison to a nominee from Yale. There, applicants are walked through the process by a few employees who work full-time coaching Yale students for prestigious British scholarships. By contrast, the University hasn't dedicated even one full-time employee to the undertaking.</p>

<p>Monts said the students nominated by the University should have no trouble winning prestigious awards. </p>

<p>"We get people to the national levels," Monts said. </p>

<p>"And after the national level, it is a crap shoot."</p>

<p>There is a bit of subjectivity to all highly competitive, interview-based awards. </p>

<p>But the reason the University does not win more Rhodes Scholarships is not because of the random nature of the process, as Monts suggests. </p>

<p>Rather it is because the University does not make a serious effort to tap its vast potential of competitive Rhodes applicants and fails to give them the support they need to win. *</p>

<p><a href="http://www.michigandaily.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=78998cfa-3f9a-4dbb-925c-9a47a33e4c3f%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.michigandaily.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=78998cfa-3f9a-4dbb-925c-9a47a33e4c3f&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Think of it this way, Alexandre. Cal has about 23k undergrads. Michigan has about 25k. With that kind of size, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that each school could win at least 1 Rhodes a year. Yet the fact of the matter is, Cal hasn't won one since 2003, Michigan not since 2004 (and that was a Michigan graduate student who won). This year alone, Harvard won 10. That's right - * ten * Rhodes. Yes, the students at Harvard are indeed better than at Cal or Michigan, but come on, they're not THAT much better so as to explain that kind of difference in Scholarship wins. I don't ask for Cal or Michigan to match Harvard in terms of total wins (and certainly not in per-capita wins), but I think given their size, I think it's not unreasonable to expect each of them to produce 1 Rhodes a year. </p>

<p>So while I agree with you that luck has something to do with it, I think there are a lot of institutional factors at work also. I have seen some students who I think might have won the Rhodes, or at least have been strong contenders, if they had gone to another school. Heck, Alexandre, give your accomplishments, you might have won had you gone to another school.</p>

<p>I managed to find the number of Rhodes, Marshall and Truman scholars (along with Goldwater and Udall scholars) by institution, for the past twenty years. As Sakky correctly points out, this list only goes back to 1986. I can't find comparative statistics for a longer period of time, but I would imagine that they are substantially different. Anyway, for the past twenty years, Harvard seems to be the overall leader: <a href="http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/scholarstop10of5.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.mediarelations.k-state.edu/WEB/News/NewsReleases/scholarstop10of5.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Wake Forest had 7 Fulbright scholars, which is pretty impressive considering our size. We have 11 Rhodes Scholars in the last 20 years and 4 in the last 4 years.</p>

<h1>1 Harvard University (248)</h1>

<h1>3 Columbia University (202)</h1>

<h1>5 Yale University (190)</h1>

<h1>6 Stanford University (181)</h1>

<h1>7 Brown University (175)</h1>

<h1>8 Princeton University (160)</h1>

<h1>9 Duke University (153)</h1>

<h1>12 University of Pennsylvania (140)</h1>

<h1>13 University of Chicago (127)</h1>

<h1>14 Cornell University (121)</h1>

<p>Top privates in Fullbright over the past decade.</p>

<ol>
<li>Harvard</li>
<li>Yale</li>
<li>Princeton</li>
<li>Stanford</li>
<li>Duke</li>
<li>Brown</li>
<li>K-State</li>
<li>Chicago </li>
<li>MIT</li>
<li>Cornell</li>
</ol>

<p>Top 10 in Truman, Marshall, Goldwater since 1986.</p>

<p>Overlap is pretty extreme: Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Duke, Brown, and Chicago are the top privates in both in terms of scholars.</p>

<p>TheThoughtProcess, is there a reason why you are only listing private universities? Research universities, whehter they are private or public, are pretty identical if they are of a similar calibre. Cal has produced more Fulbright, Marhsall and Rhodes scholars combined (223) since 1997 than any university in the nation save only Harvard. Michigan, with its 203 recipients of those three awards, is 5th in the nation behind Harvard, Cal, Columbia and Yale. Only 10 private universities (Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Stanford, Brown, Princeton, Duke, Penn, Chicago and Cornell (in the order) have produced more than 100 recipients of those three awards over the last decade, so even as a ratio of the total student population, Cal and Michigan have performed admirably and should be included in your list.</p>

<p>Because the size of the student bodies are similar, so it saves time instead of having to do it per capita. </p>

<p>I agree Cal and Mich should be on the list, they are both top 10 in both of the lists provided by you and the K-State site.</p>

<p>Why not just do it awards divided by total student body. That would be the best assessment IMO.</p>

<p>Honestly, I don't know what the big deal about Goldwater is. The award is only up to $7500per year. I'd think Gates Cambridge is better, at least as far as the money goes. It seems to me K-state put it there only because K-state wouldn't be on the list if Goldwater weren't included.</p>

<p>Per Capita: (sum of Truman, Marshall, Rhodes from 1986 and Fulbright over past 10 years, divided by class size)</p>

<p>Harvard
Yale
Princeton
Stanford
Brown
Duke
Chicago
Cornell</p>

<p>I couldn't include MIT, Penn, Northwestern, because they didn't have data for Truman, Rhodes, Udall, and Marshall. Michigan and Berkeley don't fare well per capita, but they are both top 5 in absolute numbers.</p>

<p>ThethoughtProcess, Cal has 33,000 students and Michigan has 40,000 students. Cornell and Penn have a combined 40,000 students (exactly the same size and graduate to undergraduate ratio as Michigan). Together, they have produced roughly 280 Fulbright, Marshall and Rhodes scholars over the last decade, compared to 220 for Cal and 200 for Michigan. Cal's ratio is as high as Penn's and Cornell's and Michigan is only slightly lower.</p>

<p>Alex, I took the undergrad average student body size...now I realize this wasn't the best way to do it.</p>

<p>Yes, the natural assumption is too look purely at the undergraduate student population, although even then, Cal and Michigan still do well relative to Cornell and Penn. However, many Fulbright winners are graduate students (at Harvard, Yale and Columbia, more than 50% of their Fulbright recipients are graduate students) and a significant number of Rhodes scholars are also graduate students. In my numbers above, I included thwe total number of recipients, both graduate and undergraduate because some institutions, like Cal, Chicago, Cornel, Duke, Michigan, Penn and Stanford, did not break it down. So to be fair to the schools that did, liek Brown, Columbia, Harvard and Yale, I included their graduate recipients.</p>

<p>
[quote]
So, your criterion of a good college is its ability to support its students to win prestigious Scholarships?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It's not the only measure of course. But it is a measure. I am convinced that there are some students at Berkeley and Michigan (and other schools) who will not win a major scholarship who would have if they had gone to another school. </p>

<p>In particular, take Adrian Down, Berkeley's University Medalist this year (basically, Berkeley's version of the valedictorian). He's had an amazing career at Berkeley. So why didn't he win any of the major scholarships? And it's not just Adrian Down. With the exception of Kishan, who did win the Goldwater, why didn't any of the Medal finalists win any of the major scholarships? </p>

<p><a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/05/02_medalist.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/05/02_medalist.shtml&lt;/a>
<a href="http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/05/04_umedal-finalist.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/05/04_umedal-finalist.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I agree with Sakky here. Michigan has produced just 2 Rhodes Scholars and just 5 Marshall scholars in the last 10 years. Cal has produced fewer I believe. Given the size and talent level of their student population, Cal and Michigan should have far more success then they are currently having. Those two schools should be more active in helping interested students with their dreams. Those relative low numbers are clearly an indication of how little involved the administrations at Cal and Michigan are in helping their qualified students win those awards. That does not make the schools weaker overall, but I certainly is an area that could use serious improvement.</p>

<p>
[quote]
However, I do not agree that that should be a criterion for assessing colleges.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, why not? If you're a student who wants to win a Rhodes, shouldn't you want to choose the school that will give you the best chance of success, even if those odds are still quite low? </p>

<p>Consider the reverse situation. Let's say my dream is to get to the NFL. My choices are that I can either go to Harvard. Or I can try to walk-on at Michigan. I think I'll take the latter, despite the fact that very few Michigan walk-ons will make it to the NFL. My odds are still better than if I had gone to Harvard. </p>

<p>Assessing colleges, at least to me, inherently means assessing which college is going to give you the greatest chance of success at whatever goal you have.</p>