<p>Sorry for the confusion, I wasn’t trying to suggest a blacklist simply pointing out that it (turning down’s effect on future applicants from a school) was something that I’ve heard mentioned on multiple occasions by a college fellowship office. To be honest, I imagine that particular point is the school reacting to the student (for fear of how it makes the school look) and not anything to do with the Rhodes Committee. However, all my other comments regarding pressure in relation to the fact that there are no alternates, and hence a declined offer is a ‘wasted’ offer, is certainly true and something I’ve heard of on multiple occasions from multiple independent individuals. I think that issue, frustration over acceptance/alternate policy, is a widely accepted fact although obviously we may have to agree to disagree on that point.</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>
<p>In theory that sounds fine (and I certainly agree) but in practice it’s not the case… many people apply to both even if they have different study proposals for each one. </p>
<p>After looking over a bunch of the bios it seems that about 30%, give or take a bit, of each incoming Marshall class goes to Oxford for their first year; however, many of those (in fact probably most that aren’t doing PhDs) decide to go elsewhere for their second year of study to increase their diversity. Most non-PhD graduate courses in the UK are one year so most people on the standard two year fellowship will end up doing two masters if they’re not doing a PhD. Given that the applicant pool for both the Marshall and the Rhodes is largely the same and that all the Rhodes must go to Oxford the whole time (while many of the Oxford Marshalls go elsewhere in their second year) it kind of makes one wonder if many of the Rhodes would take their second year elsewhere if they had the option to do so. </p>
<p>I think the geographic flexibility is a huge issue for many people (again, given that, for better or worse, the applicant pool is largely the same and yet the vast majority of Marshall choose not to spend their entire tenure at Oxford). Although you do have to have a study plan for what to do during the second year, ex-Marshalls have said that they were free to change those plans during their first year so long as appropriate arrangements could be made. For someone who is 100% sure they want to go to Oxford for the whole time (either for multiple masters or a PhD) then either the Marshall or Rhodes would work… to be honest you take which one you can get! although for any other case then the Marshall comes with a big advantage. </p>
<p>Of course, let’s also not forget about the Gates Cambridge (essentially a Rhodes style worldwide program but for Cambridge) which is limited to Cambridge and not yet so well known (because it’s only a few years old) but is an excellent program. </p>
<p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>Yes, for singles, it is a bit higher although having looked into it it’s also worth pointing out that for married couples (of which there seems to be a lot more than I would have expected) the Marshall provides a top-up stipend which makes it higher than the Rhodes for those people. </p>
<p>
Our fellowship office looked into this and found out that the Marshall has never had to turn down anyone for third year funding if they wanted it. </p>
<p>
True. Although the flip side, as an ex-Marshall who wrote some comments for future applicants at our school said, is that the Marshals are at a variety of different schools (although concentrated in London, Cambridge and Oxford) and thus they often travel around on the weekends to visit and hang out with scholars elsewhere in the UK. As they wrote “You’re guaranteed to have some friends and a place place to crash in London, a place to crash in Cambridge and a place to crash is most other major UK cities too.” There also seems to be a big official diplomatic style trip once each year to somewhere in the UK (Scotland, Wales, N Ireland). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please, lets not have a X is more prestigious than Y debate… they’re pointless, impossible to quantify and annoying ;-).</p>
<p>All these programs are so hyper-competitive that one needs to have an ideal plan setup (with good backups) but, as yuiop mentioned, there’s also an element of ‘you take what you can get’ in all of this hence why most apply to many different major fellowships at once, even if they need to have slightly different study plans for each. This is in the same way that most people apply to many different undergraduate schools even though their exact proposed course of study at each school may be a bit different. </p>
<p>If one really has their heart set on a masters at Oxford and a masters at Cambridge, but you get dinged by the Marshall and accepted by the Rhodes I think you’d be a fool to turn it down (because, God forbid, you’d have to spend an extra year at Oxford)… to a certain extent you take what you can get.</p>
<p>An aside on the two years length of the scholarships:</p>
<p>Historically it was very common to use a Rhodes scholarship to study for a second undergraduate degree. It meant the student missed out the first year of the Oxford course leading up to the Preliminary exams or Moderations (depending on subject) and just studied the two years leading up to Finals. This may well have been the origin of the two years scholarship but I believe it is quite unusual nowadays.</p>
<p>The Marshall may well follow the same historical trend.</p>
<p>Thanks for all of this great information, guys. I’m really getting a good understanding of these fellowships. I don’t know if anyone can answer this, but I get the impression that Cambridge is better for mathematics than Oxford. Is this true or does it just depend on your research interests? Also, someone mentioned the Gates fellowship, can anyone explain what that is?</p>
<p>In general, yes Cambridge is famous for being strong in math (Newton is an alumnus) and science (85 Nobel prize winning alumni or faculty, most in science), although there could be particular situations where Oxford could be preferable. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Gates was set up as a sort of ‘Cambridge Rhodes’ although the funding seems a bit more flexible in terms of the length of study (e.g. anything from one year courses to PhDs). It was started a few years ago with a $210 million donation that Bill Gates made to the Cambridge. It’s still relatively unheard of outside of academic circles; however, in a few decades (once gradates start moving into high profile positions) it should be on par with the Marshall or Rhodes.</p>
<p>This is from 1995/6. Withdrawing from the Rhodes competition is not the same as turning down a Rhodes, but it is close, and shows that some folks do prefer the Marshall, for reasons suggested before. I stand corrected (by myself…)</p>
<ul>
<li> have a GPA in the top few percent of your college</li>
<li> be reasonably well rounded (i.e. a physics major who minors in french)</li>
<li> have a few close relationships with faculty</li>
<li> have done a service project of some sort. See the winner bios to get ideas.</li>
</ul>
<p>It helps if you’ve won a nationally recognized honor like a Goldwater scholarship</p>
<p>It is a good sign if you are selected to Phi Beta Kappa your junior year.</p>
<p>It is a good sign if your U gives you a leadership award or two.</p>
<p>It is a good sign if your U asks you to apply.</p>
<p>You should go to the Rhodes website and read bios of some past winners to get some idea of how varied the winners are.</p>
<p>Keep in mind the odds are high, but some kids do win - 32 a year. And the experience, from what I hear, is a wonderful one.</p>
<p>I have a good friend who won a Marshall, and an uncle who won a Fields Medal. Neither is near the top of my list of people I’d like to hang out with in a bar.</p>