<p>This thread seems to have descended into a silly hyper-over-analysis of selection criteria on whether Marshall, Rhodes, USA Today… scholars are ‘real scholars’ or not. Seriously, there should be no question that those selected for these highly prestigious awards are truly amazing individuals. Period. Can’t everyone just accept that and move on? </p>
<p>Sure, no process is perfect but I don’t think anyone can really seriously criticize those that are selected without just sounding a bit silly and disgruntled. </p>
<p>Although all these programs have specified selection criteria (which do differ between the different awards) total trust on the decisions for the Marshall and Rhodes is given to the selection committees consisting of highly accomplished individuals (with usually about a third to half being alumni scholars). At the end of the day, they’re looking for truly amazing individuals. Not just intelligent people, but those that are are intelligent and much more. As a result, the final selection pool is very diverse both in terms of subject backgrounds, personalities and lists of accomplishments. You may personally disagree with a particular person’s background or goals but I don’t think you can really suggest that they’re not brilliant. Whether or not they want to be academics is totally a moot point. Some become academics, some don’t. So what? The Marshall and Rhodes are looking for amazing people and future leaders in all fields and who plan on pursing careers in all areas… not just academics. To then criticize the programs because not everyone selected wants to be an academic is just plain silly.</p>
<p>Finally, I’d just like to make a few comments in response to these claims that no real academically motivated person would want to study in the UK and that Oxbridge has fallen way behind. Oxbridge (Oxford and Cambridge) are totally different institutions to those found in the US and therefore it’s very hard to have a side by side comparison. Furthermore, given some of the hard facts (such as the number of Nobel Prizes that Cambridge faculty and alumni have won consistently over the last century) I don’t think anyone can seriously question the fact that these are fantastic schools. There’s no question that both schools are incredibly prestigious and great places to study. I’m not going to suggest that they’re better or worse than anywhere else since it’s a moot point. Every student’s case is unique so for some one is better while for others something else is better. That’s not too hard to accept. </p>
<p>From my experience, the only time anyone ‘bashes’ Oxbridge is when they’re a bit uptight about being compared to someone with a degree from Oxbridge (e.g. someone from the Ivy League who likes to overly boast about having a degree from an old prestigious university). God forbid someone else has a degree from a, much, older and, depending on the perceptions of the audience, more prestigious university. If you think about it, there’s really no reason to ‘bash’ any university unless you’ve got some personal motivation for wanting people to not like that school… otherwise why bother with the effort? Seriously people, it’s the person with the degree, not the name of the school on a piece of paper, that makes the difference so please stop with the nonsense and move on. </p>
<p>One final point that hasn’t really been mentioned yet is the fact that not only are the top students that win these scholarships attracted to the UK for academic reasons, but also for the fact that they want to spend several years living and working outside the US. Given that most of these people have high aspirations for achieving top leadership positions in a wide range of fields this makes sense. In almost any top post, someone with significant international experience will always, always have a leg up on someone who’s spent their whole life and career in the US. As globalization continues, this only becomes more true.</p>