<p>I can agree that the rhodes selectors look for something more than pure academic brilliance. Their published materials say as much, so it is no surprise that “brilliant scientist types who happen to be introverted and lousy at cocktail party talk followed by generalist interviews” may not make the cut. But, as cur suggested, they gotta draw the line somewhere and, as it is their scholarship…</p>
<p>More seriously, though, I think we may be taking flights of intellectual hair splitting here. Most Rhodes winners go on to lead decent, respectable, unspectacular lives. And the same can be said for most lopsided science stars as undergrads. Many more of these appear brilliant than are proved brilliant later. </p>
<p>BTW, the NYT article is a bit dated. In recent years, the Rhodes has dropped the state level competition. Now, applicants apply to one of 16 regions. Each region selects 12 (sometimes a few more) finalists, from which they select two scholars. So, in truth there is no national competition, just 16 regional ones. But the cocktail party still takes place. How much it counts no one knows.</p>
I’m still betting it’s inappropriate to start shrieking that bats are attacking you, or fire up a joint, or come in a Star Trek costume, or once the band starts playing for someone to incessantly (and with volume) request “Freebird” or “Redneck Mothers” while waving their lighter back and forth, or comment about “how Hitler was misunderstood”, or gets so drunk he can speak a foreign language and knows karate (while when sober - he can’t order at Taco Bell or fight his way out of the bag his chalupa came in), or start crying if anyone gets within their “Personal Danger Zone Forcefield”.
Just a hunch.</p>
<p>Regarding Rhodes winners, you might be surprised to see what schools have the most winners. Here are the totals for the past 11 years, having 4 or more:
Harvard, 34
Yale, 23
U Chicago, 15
USMA, 15
Duke, 14
Stanford, 13
USNA, 12
Princeton, 11
Brown, 8
Wash U, 7
Columbia, 5
MIT, 5
U Georgia, 5
U NC, 5
Wake Forest, 5
Dartmouth, 4
Georgetown, 4
ST. Olaf, 4
U Wash, 4
U VA, 4
USAF, 4
Wellesley, 4</p>
<p>Harvard, of course, leads the pack. What is less known is that they also have around 80 applicants each year. Schools like U. Chicago have around 10, and others even fewer.</p>
<p>Note also that Georgia and UNC are the most successful publics, and tied with MIT!</p>
<p>Actually, the thought of being a fly on the wall, watching 12 hyperconfident overachievers trying to best each other could be very interesting. </p>
<p>From a strategy POV, I have no idea where I would start. Low key? up front about accomplishments? Elevator pitch?</p>
<p>Under 21? to drink or not to drink? After all, they HAVE seen your resume by this point.</p>
<p>And cur, maybe the bat shreak would be more interesting than one more mother theresa clone who spent the summer trying to make crippled Indian children walk again? Heck, how many “global health” stories can you listen to in one evening?</p>
<p>I don’t hold a candle to some of you guys who seem to know an awful lot of Nobel and Rhodes winners. I only know one Rhodes Scholar, and that is just because he grew up in the place I live and his family and mine do the same kind of stuff, but he is one of the most modest young men I know. Fun, outgoing, energetic and very smart, but I can’t imagine him as a “hyperconfident overachiever” trying to wow the big guys at a cocktail party. I kind of assumed his midwestern small town Eagle Scout persona charmed them–a refreshing change from the routine, perhaps.</p>
<p>A lot, if not all, of the schools that rank high on the Rhodes list have active Rhodes Scholarship development programs and coaches. They help package the applicants. Train them in interviewing. Even hold practice cocktail parties to brush up on those skills. My brother-in-law, who attended West Point, said that a few cadets were hand-picked each year and put into to the program to be groomed for trying for the Rhodes. And it has paid off - USMA is tied for third on the list.</p>
<p>I choose the Nobel simply because prizes are awarded for literature and peace as well. </p>
<p>Recognizing that the sample is too small for conclusive analysis, I just want to say that I am not surprised that Harvard “sired” five Nobel winners since 04. I am not surprised that Berkeley, Chicago, and Swarthmore are doing well either. Where is Haverford, BTW?</p>
<p>I am somewhat surprised at the lack of representation from YPS, and very much surprised by the low representation from MIT and Cal Tech. Must be a problem with sample size.</p>
<p>Looking at newmassdad’s data, I can only conclude that while these ultra-selective institutions are reluctant to “sire” the best and the brightest, they seem to have no trouble “hiring” them (Once again, Harvard seems to be the exception). IOW, it must be by design.</p>
<p>So, when CC posters say they want to attend an “Ivy” to rub shoulder with the “best and the brightest”, they really meant the “rich and the famous”, right? Curious to know if Oxbridge are more like the Harvards or the Yales of this world.</p>
<p>That may play a small role, although of course not everyone who’s brilliant in science is also socially inept. </p>
<p>However, the major effect is the fact that top students in mathematics, physics or other hard sciences generally have very little interest in attending Oxford which then makes a Rhodes a bit useless for them. The top science and math students tend to be selected by, and attracted to, the Marshall instead since they can then attend Cambridge (which is far far better and more famous in science and math than Oxford) or any other school in the UK given the increased flexibility of the Marshall over the Rhodes. </p>
<p>However, although there are certainly some famous scientist Marshall scholars (Ray Dolby of Dolby sound fame springs to mind) the Marshall also has it’s fair share of political and humanities types too (e.g Supreme Court Justice Breyer and Tom Friedman from the New York Times).</p>
<p>rocketman is correct regarding the flexibility of the Marshall over the Rhodes. Many have also observed that the Marshall tends to select more academic types - those oriented toward academic leadership, while the Rhodes seems to have a bent for “change the world” types, but these are only superficial generalities.</p>
<p>However, I would strongly disagree that science types are more “attracted” to the Marshall, for several reasons. 1. There is so much overlap in the requirements/application process (by design, BTW) that most students apply to both. 2. The odds are so long for winning that most students would gladly take either, and apply for both. I don’t know of anyone who would say “i’ll pass on the Rhodes. Oxford is just not strong enough in ____” 3. Cambridge may be better in some areas, but Oxford is hardly shabby in any discipline. 4. The Rhodes pays more.</p>
<p>Canuckguy,
I can only address one example from Caltech. S was invited to apply for one of these scholarships, but had NO interest in more school at the moment. His friend did apply and is a winner. You did peak my curiosity, so I will try to find out more info.</p>
<p>I suspect your son made a rational decision. The effort involved in putting together a marshall/rhodes application is very high, and the odds daunting: 700-900 applicants with university endorsement for 32 rhodes, 40 marshalls. And I’m sure quite a few more start the process locally only to not get their university endorsement. </p>
<p>And on top of this, the Rhodes does not even pay travel expenses to the interview site for finalists, although the Marshall does, and some universities will, too.</p>
<p>newmassdad, I’m not up on the faculty at Oxford and Cambridge except really superficially, but the Financial Times commissioned a survey on the most influential academics in every (many?) fields and concluded that the overwhelming majority (like 80 or 90 percent or more) were in the US in every field, and especially in science. It was astounding. Part of this has to do with the egalitarian hiring policies in places like France and the paltry salaries that most European institutions including Oxbridge pay to their professors (and the egalitarian approaches to salary as well, I’d guess). So, I suspect that the reasons for academically oriented kids to apply to the Rhodes and possibly the Marshall have to do with recognition/prestige rather than the great contribution it will make their careers. There are undoubtedly important exceptions – I believe Cambridge has some great people in some of the life science areas and there are a number of great people in both places, but as a whole I suspect their reputations are much stronger than the reality of the research that is happening there. The lure of the Rhodes is largely to join a very exclusive club – and I’m told that you have to be the type of person they’d like to have dinner with. This is no knock on the Rhodes – but it is why you get Bill Clinton and Bob Reich (of whom I think highly despite his stature) and Michael Kinsley and Randall Kennedy and George Stephanopolous and quite a number of people with extraordinary public careers.</p>
<p>Here’s a list of “notable Rhodes Scholars,” ([Notable</a> Rhodes Scholars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_Rhodes_Scholars]Notable”>List of Rhodes Scholars - Wikipedia)) although who is notable is again a definitional question. It leaves off Eric Lander who is probably one of the world’s most prominent scientists (e.g., first author on the paper laying out the human genome, one of the creators of the field of genomics, see [Eric</a> Lander - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lander]Eric”>Eric Lander - Wikipedia) ). So, it is possible that the people who defined notable were more focused on public service types of positions, but in any case, I think the list is useful in highlighting a heavy interest in non-academic subjects and in leadership positions.</p>
This is sounding more and more like this might be jealousy and sour grapes. What was your personal history? Was someone close to you passed over? I’m trying to understand . (And I was somebody that would have never made it past the first lap.) I can’t imagine anyone who desired an “academic” life turning down a scholarship of this type (but for the most dire personal reasons). I can imagine tens of thousands that would say they would.</p>
<p>Both of you are on the right track. Some academically oriented kids don’t apply because they don’t see it as part of their critical path. I suspect they’ve also done the odds calculation for winning and decided the time/effort could better be invested elsewhere - winning one of these is no doubt more of a lottery than getting into HYP as an undergrad! Certainly the odds are longer. And it is true that a Rhodes or Marshall is of greater value in some fields than others. If one wants to be a pure academic in a field like physics, the award may not be of as much value. </p>
<p>Regarding the impact of time spent at Oxford (compared to anywhere else, including Cambridge) for a Rhodie, it is not appropriate to look at league tables like Financial Times (or any other) because the strength of a program as calculated in these league tables is irrelevant. At the graduate level, if one pursues a research degree, what matters is the individual thesis advisor, not the overall department. In fact, for many budding academics, a Rhodes (or Marshall) offers the quickest way to jump start a career, as either program will pay for a third year in order to allow a scholar to complete a PhD. You get the degree much faster in the UK than the US.</p>
<p>NIH has taken note of this and developed a program with Oxford and Cambridge to train PhDs in three years. Google “NIH GPP Oxford” for details.</p>
Post 23. ^^^^^^^^ I amused myself. <chucklechuckle></chucklechuckle></p>