Fulbright vs Rhodes

[Anonymous]

What makes them different?

[Anonymous]

The Rhodes is exclusively for study at Oxford for two years. Fulbrights are given at all levels from post-BA on up, all over the world, in many disciplines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes them different?

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=fulbright+vs+rhodes

[Anonymous]

It's not just what they do, but who is eligible for them: the Fulbright embraces a much wider demographic of academic stages (including working professionals, actually). There are many more opportunities for Fulbrights and simply many more scholarships available. The Rhodes is very rare and extremely difficult to win. Many elite schools begin coaching application candidates for the Rhodes in their freshman year.

[Anonymous]

Not comparable in any way. US gets at most 60 a year. All for study at Oxford. Fulbrights gives 100s. The better question is comparing the Marshall (more elite) to the Rhodes.

[Anonymous]

The newer Gates Cambridge Scholarship is most similar to the Rhodes in terms of substance and prestige.

Fulbright awards has a much broader location scope. They also has unique English teaching awards.

All of these are wonderful opportunities and things that you'd keep on a CV forever.

[Anonymous]

If you can get a good job here then what's the point in teaching english on a small stipend, unless you don't need money or work experience in your professional field?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What makes them different?

My understanding is that Rhodes Scholarship winners need to be fine students who show leadership and athletic excellence. Fulbright winners need to be great scholars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes them different?

My understanding is that Rhodes Scholarship winners need to be fine students who show leadership and athletic excellence. Fulbright winners need to be great scholars.

Really? That is interesting. I know 3 Rhodes winners and none were athletes but came from ivies.

My impression of Fulbright winners is that they have shown strong commitment to community service. The one ai know went to a fine but not highly ranked college although they were a strong student there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What makes them different?

My understanding is that Rhodes Scholarship winners need to be fine students who show leadership and athletic excellence. Fulbright winners need to be great scholars.

Really? That is interesting. I know 3 Rhodes winners and none were athletes but came from ivies.

My impression of Fulbright winners is that they have shown strong commitment to community service. The one ai know went to a fine but not highly ranked college although they were a strong student there. [/quote]


The PPs information is outdated. Rhodes used to seek athletes as it did men. It was considered to be part of being a well-rounded man. I competed the first year women were allowed to compete but was an athlete and top student in my class. You must be supported by your University in your application.

Fulbrights are a mix but certainly not "great scholars". Those would be the candidates for the Marshall scholarship.