<p>rocket,</p>
<p>OK. Truce… :)</p>
<p>The fact is that if one truly believes a Cambridge (or LSE etc.) education in one’s field is better, one should then just apply to the Marshall and not bother with the Rhodes. And if one believed this, I suspect it would be reflected in the college endorsement anyway. Beyond geographic flexibility, there is not much reason to choose a Marshall over the Rhodes as the Rhodes has a few advantages that might not be always obvious:</p>
<ul>
<li> the living stipend is higher.</li>
<li> a 3rd year for a PhD is close to automatic, whereas the Marshall limits the number of 3rd years</li>
<li> Rhodes winners are part of a community at Oxford and have access to the Rhodes house.</li>
</ul>
<p>Whether or not one gets a bigger career boost with a Rhodes over a Marshall I will leave to others to debate. I think those in the know recognize that either is of similar merit. I will point out, though, that in some fields, such as law and consulting, being a Rhodes Scholar is probably of greater value to the employer for PR purposes. (and they DO promote these things!)</p>