Seriously, why can't Berkeley win more Rhodes Scholarships?

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of California - Berkeley
1

<p>{Allow me to preface this post by assuring everybody that this is not an attempt to troll, but rather a serious question that I hope will elicit some serious responses and perhaps even some potential proposals for reform. Also allow me to note that while this is a question of deep interest to me, I have nothing to gain from this thread, for I'm never going to win a Rhodes. But perhaps future Berkeley students can be helped by this thread.}</p>

<p>The American Rhodes Scholarship winners were recently announced and - once again - Berkeley was shut out. Several years in fact have passed since Berkeley has won a Rhodes. On the other hand, that dang university to the South won a whopping five. In fact, Stanford won more Rhodes this year alone than the total that Berkeley has won since the 80's. </p>

<p>Why is that? And can we determine some ways to improve our chances of winning? </p>

<p>Now, allow me to anticipate some objections:</p>

<p>**Berkeley simply lacks the talent pool necessary to successfully compete. This is almost certainly false, at least on an absolute numbers basis. While it may be true that the tail-end of the Berkeley student distribution may indeed not be competitive with students at the top private schools, with a total of 25k undergrads, you'd think that Berkeley could generate at least *one winner per year. After all, the top-end of the Berkeley student distribution ought to be competitive against that of any school. </p>

<p>**The Rhodes Scholarship process is biased against in-state Californians. True enough - the state of California is allotted into 2 regions with 2 Rhodes slots each (hence, total of 4 openings), which makes the California regions unusually competitive. Nevertheless, Berkeley is supposed to be the best public university in the nation, so, again, you'd expect that Berkeley could capture at least one of the 4 California slots per year. Let's also remember that not only does 15% of Berkeley's student population come from OOS, but they tend to represent a disproportionate percentage of the Berkeley's top students due to the stricter OOS admissions process. In fact, Berkeley has almost as many total OOS students as Stanford does. These students have the choice to apply to either one of the California slots or a slot that corresponds to their home state (and indeed this year, Stanford took *both Rhodes slots alloted to Texas). Hence, once again, given the strength and size of the OOS Berkeley student body, you'd think that at least one of them might win a non-California Rhodes. </p>

<p>**What's so great about the Rhodes anyway?* That's a fair point, and I'm not saying that it's the only award that should matter. But like it or not, the Rhodes has been named by news outlets such as Time Magazine as "the world's most prestigious scholarship". Lest you think that unimportant, let's frankly recognize that many (perhaps most) Berkeley students chose the school over other places to which they were admitted (i.e. other UC's) because of Berkeley's brand-name prestige. So since many Berkeley students were attracted by the prestige, it stands to reason that many Berkeley students would likewise be attracted to the prestige of the Rhodes. Furthermore, I'm sure that many Berkeley students would genuinely desire the opportunity for a free Oxford graduate education and entree to the renowned social network that the Rhodes provides. </p>

<p>So ultimately, winning the Rhodes does seem to matter. Given that, can we devise ways to help more future students win?</p>

2

<p>Did you see the U. Mich article from about 10 years ago? It cited reasons such as the anonymity of a large university, lack of mentoring of promising students and such. </p>

<p>It may be interesting to note that many of the public U that have won in recent years also have special programs to identify and nurture talent from the beginning - Morehead scholars at UNC, for example, or U. Pitt’s honors program. </p>

<p>Since the Rhodes selection process is about much more than stellar academics - just look at the bios of recent winners - is there something about the Berkeley culture that either does not encourage the kind of alternative experiences most winners have, or selects for students that have a single minded focus on, say, academics, without any interest in public service or helping others? </p>

<p>(Maybe, given the great weather in Berkeley, no one wants two years of british winters?)</p>

<p>This is an interesting question that’s relevant at several other great public universities too.</p>

3

<p><a href=“Maybe,%20given%20the%20great%20weather%20in%20Berkeley,%20no%20one%20wants%20two%20years%20of%20british%20winters?”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That can’t be it: Stanford has similarly wonderful weather, but, like I said, that hasn’t stopped them from nabbing a whopping five winners this year alone: more than Berkeley has won in over 2 decades.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>I can’t entirely agree with this. Just look at the number of social justice and service clubs/programs on campus. I would actually say that UC Berkeley students focus <em>more</em> on public service and helping others than other universitities. The issue at UCB is not lack of public service, but lack of recognition for those individuals who are going above and beyond to help others. Because Berkeley is a public university with tens of thousands of students, it’s hard to build a good rapport with your professors, which would definitely hinder you in the application process (doesn’t the scholarship require 5 or so letters of rec?). It’s also significantly harder to get recognized for outstanding work at Berkeley because there are so many other students doing the exact same thing (the anonymity factor you mentioned).</p>

5

<p>Could it be that the public unis that win these days often have dedicated programs to attract top scholars? Think Morehead or Jefferson Scholars, or even Pitt’s efforts to recruit academic stars. These folks are groomed from their first year. Moreheads often are given funding for those overseas experiences that you often find in Rhodes Scholar Bios.</p>

<p>It’s tempting to think, too, that California spreads its academic wealth around more than other states. After all, Berkeley, UCLA and UCSD could each compare favorably to the best any other state has to offer. problem with this train of thought is that, excluding Texas, California has 4X or more the population of any other state.</p>

6

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, then let me put it to you this way. Stanford won more Rhodes this year than did Berkeley, UCLA, and UCSD combined since the year 2000. {Heck, UCSD hasn’t won a single Rhodes since 98.} Hence, even on an aggregated population standpoint - in counterpoint to the notion that the state of California spreads its talent pool too thinly - the UC’s as a whole do not fare well. </p>

<p>Now to your point regarding dedicated programs that attract top scholars, maybe it’s high time that Berkeley develop one. After all, I truly hope that Berkeley is a better overall school than Pitt. So how the heck can Pitt win 4 Rhodes since 2006, whereas Berkeley has only 1? Berkeley has plenty of highly talented and high-achieving students, and I’m sure that some of them are deserving of the Rhodes. </p>

<p>[Pitt</a> graduate named Rhodes Scholar](<a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11325/1191508-298.stm]Pitt”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11325/1191508-298.stm)</p>

7

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>True what you say. I’m not comfortable comparing national private universities with our great public universities, only because the nationals can still cherry pick to a degree that public U can’t. After all, Stanford is not accountable to a state legislature. </p>

<p>I wonder what the political barriers in CA would be to a program like the Morehead-Cain Scholars program at UNC? Probably huge, which is too bad, but it reminds me of the battle in Minnesota in the late 1980s regarding tightening the academic standards at U. Minn. The state legislature forced the U to roll back tightened standards because some thought the new standards were elitist. Go figure.</p>