UVA has ANOTHER Rhodes Scholar

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve been saying it for years, UVA is the best school in the South and Duke can’t hold a candle to it.

In all those years, has anybody not laughed in your face?

I'm not that poster but Duke is now $86K a year. UVA is $37K a year for in-state. We didn't even LOOK at Duke much less apply. That is a HUGE after tax difference of almost $50K a year x 4 years. We have to make $360K to clear that difference. No college is worth that.

It’s definitely a stretch without financial aid but T10 schools generally give fantastic aid if you really can’t afford the full price

you are confusing merit aid with financial aid. most of us are full pay.

Agreed, but Duke is one of the schools we would pay full for. Along with HPSM, Penn, Columbia, Yale, Caltech

It would have been irrelevant but some UVA troll was talking about how Duke was their kid's backup, which obviously makes no sense and probably why PP commented on schools they would pay for.


Pfft. You do realize that most people reading here cannot afford $86K a year in after-tax dollars? And even though they saved mightily cannot afford that? And even after FAFSA and CSS will receive no financial or merit aid. But you do you! Why are you on a UVA page if you are that entitled?

Why don't you add USC to the list. It's now $93K a year.

Why are you so triggered? PP literally was talking about their own family, not about what everyone else should do.


how is a list about affording Duke, HPSM, Penn, Columbia, Yale, Caltech not an insensitive post on a thread about a public institution? Goody for them but utterly irrelevant! I don't go on threads about community college and say "well in my family we can pay for USC, Columbia, Northeastern," etc. It's not triggering. It's in bad taste. And irrelevant to the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools that are really impressive are the tiny schools that no one has ever heard of that occasionally produce a Rhodes, Watson, Marshall etc.

The big schools often have a whole team of adult professionals who prep the kids and it is almost a team effort. My kid won a prestigious fellowship and four different individuals read his application and helped him prep for the interview etc. And at the military academies they often identify candidates in sophomore year and provide opportunities to improve the application in summers etc. Theynprovide targeted research opportunities etc.

I have also sat on prize committees and you can tell whose application has been massaged. Kids have a better sense of what they want to study, are better prepared to undertake that study, are applying to the right program etc.

There is a reason the university folks say “WE got six prestigious fellowships last year.”

I thought it was interesting that so many of the Rhodes were Indian-Americans. Also interesting that they have diverse interests. No real pattern like “everybody just wants to study AI”.

Big schools in general don't do as well as smaller schools on a per capita basis. These smaller schools often have more focused undergraduate resources (these are scholarships for undergraduates) than larger universities on a per capita basis. Even in Virginia there is an example. UVA supporters are justifiably proud that their school has produced Rhodes Scholars. But Washington and Lee has had 18 Rhodes Scholars vs. 55 at UVA. UVA has 9.4X as many undergraduates, so on a per capita basis, Washington and Lee produces 3X as many Rhodes Scholars as UVA. Davidson would be nearly 4X as productive, etc.

VMI has had 9 Rhodes Scholars and has 1,500 undergraduates. UVA has had 55 with 17,000. VMI has been nearly 2X more productive on a per capita basis than UVA as well.

I disagree and Harvard's numbers are just one example. It probably depends upon the school but my SLAC did nothing to prepare me for the Rhodes or Marshall interviews. Zero. Nada. I made it to regionals for both and was blown away by the Ivy kids who had been extensively prepped (for the Rhodes you apply either from the state in which your university sits or your home state). Most ivy kids apply from home stats because, statistically, they have a better chance at it in their home region (see Bill Clinton - Arkansas). It wasn't until I was in law school later that I learned just how much stock the big universities put into prepping their students for the Rhodes competition. Looking back I was a complete rube at the interview level (regionals).

Harvard, Yale and Princeton undergraduate enrollments combined are only a little less than UVA total. They are not large schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools that are really impressive are the tiny schools that no one has ever heard of that occasionally produce a Rhodes, Watson, Marshall etc.

The big schools often have a whole team of adult professionals who prep the kids and it is almost a team effort. My kid won a prestigious fellowship and four different individuals read his application and helped him prep for the interview etc. And at the military academies they often identify candidates in sophomore year and provide opportunities to improve the application in summers etc. Theynprovide targeted research opportunities etc.

I have also sat on prize committees and you can tell whose application has been massaged. Kids have a better sense of what they want to study, are better prepared to undertake that study, are applying to the right program etc.

There is a reason the university folks say “WE got six prestigious fellowships last year.”

I thought it was interesting that so many of the Rhodes were Indian-Americans. Also interesting that they have diverse interests. No real pattern like “everybody just wants to study AI”.

Big schools in general don't do as well as smaller schools on a per capita basis. These smaller schools often have more focused undergraduate resources (these are scholarships for undergraduates) than larger universities on a per capita basis. Even in Virginia there is an example. UVA supporters are justifiably proud that their school has produced Rhodes Scholars. But Washington and Lee has had 18 Rhodes Scholars vs. 55 at UVA. UVA has 9.4X as many undergraduates, so on a per capita basis, Washington and Lee produces 3X as many Rhodes Scholars as UVA. Davidson would be nearly 4X as productive, etc.

VMI has had 9 Rhodes Scholars and has 1,500 undergraduates. UVA has had 55 with 17,000. VMI has been nearly 2X more productive on a per capita basis than UVA as well.

I disagree and Harvard's numbers are just one example. It probably depends upon the school but my SLAC did nothing to prepare me for the Rhodes or Marshall interviews. Zero. Nada. I made it to regionals for both and was blown away by the Ivy kids who had been extensively prepped (for the Rhodes you apply either from the state in which your university sits or your home state). Most ivy kids apply from home stats because, statistically, they have a better chance at it in their home region (see Bill Clinton - Arkansas). It wasn't until I was in law school later that I learned just how much stock the big universities put into prepping their students for the Rhodes competition. Looking back I was a complete rube at the interview level (regionals).

Harvard, Yale and Princeton undergraduate enrollments combined are only a little less than UVA total. They are not large schools.

But you or PP was talking about small SLACs like Wash & Lee, Davidson, VMI, etc. My SLAC (1600) did nothing to prepare anyone for competitive scholarships. In comparison, Harvard (7,250) has a veritable machine that helps select and groom the competitors..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The schools that are really impressive are the tiny schools that no one has ever heard of that occasionally produce a Rhodes, Watson, Marshall etc.

The big schools often have a whole team of adult professionals who prep the kids and it is almost a team effort. My kid won a prestigious fellowship and four different individuals read his application and helped him prep for the interview etc. And at the military academies they often identify candidates in sophomore year and provide opportunities to improve the application in summers etc. Theynprovide targeted research opportunities etc.

I have also sat on prize committees and you can tell whose application has been massaged. Kids have a better sense of what they want to study, are better prepared to undertake that study, are applying to the right program etc.

There is a reason the university folks say “WE got six prestigious fellowships last year.”

I thought it was interesting that so many of the Rhodes were Indian-Americans. Also interesting that they have diverse interests. No real pattern like “everybody just wants to study AI”.

Big schools in general don't do as well as smaller schools on a per capita basis. These smaller schools often have more focused undergraduate resources (these are scholarships for undergraduates) than larger universities on a per capita basis. Even in Virginia there is an example. UVA supporters are justifiably proud that their school has produced Rhodes Scholars. But Washington and Lee has had 18 Rhodes Scholars vs. 55 at UVA. UVA has 9.4X as many undergraduates, so on a per capita basis, Washington and Lee produces 3X as many Rhodes Scholars as UVA. Davidson would be nearly 4X as productive, etc.

VMI has had 9 Rhodes Scholars and has 1,500 undergraduates. UVA has had 55 with 17,000. VMI has been nearly 2X more productive on a per capita basis than UVA as well.

I disagree and Harvard's numbers are just one example. It probably depends upon the school but my SLAC did nothing to prepare me for the Rhodes or Marshall interviews. Zero. Nada. I made it to regionals for both and was blown away by the Ivy kids who had been extensively prepped (for the Rhodes you apply either from the state in which your university sits or your home state). Most ivy kids apply from home stats because, statistically, they have a better chance at it in their home region (see Bill Clinton - Arkansas). It wasn't until I was in law school later that I learned just how much stock the big universities put into prepping their students for the Rhodes competition. Looking back I was a complete rube at the interview level (regionals).

Harvard, Yale and Princeton undergraduate enrollments combined are only a little less than UVA total. They are not large schools.

But you or PP was talking about small SLACs like Wash & Lee, Davidson, VMI, etc. My SLAC (1600) did nothing to prepare anyone for competitive scholarships. In comparison, Harvard (7,250) has a veritable machine that helps select and groom the competitors..

I just disagreed with the assertion that big schools have the advantage. Most of the top producing schools do not have large undergraduate enrollments.

[Anonymous]

Here’s the write up on the latest UVA winner:

https://news.virginia.edu/content/public-health-researcher-receives-rhodes-scholarship

[Anonymous]

At UVA, it must get tiring to keep winning all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At UVA, it must get tiring to keep winning all the time.

people sure are tired of the UVA boosters all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At UVA, it must get tiring to keep winning all the time.

people sure are tired of the UVA boosters all the time.

Literally. How does that PP in good faith say UVA is better than Stanford and Duke? Completely mind boggling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At UVA, it must get tiring to keep winning all the time.

When you can’t brag about the quality of the STEM education at UVA , you can about a scholarship that sometimes benefits one student per year. If winning at UVA means you’re falling behind other public schools (#5 at USNWR now), then enjoy your so called victory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At UVA, it must get tiring to keep winning all the time.

people sure are tired of the UVA boosters all the time.

Literally. How does that PP in good faith say UVA is better than Stanford and Duke? Completely mind boggling.

No one said that. They compared costs of in-state ($37K per year) to costs of Stanford (over $330K for four years) and Duke ($86K a year = over $330K).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At UVA, it must get tiring to keep winning all the time.

people sure are tired of the UVA boosters all the time.

Literally. How does that PP in good faith say UVA is better than Stanford and Duke? Completely mind boggling.

No one said that. They compared costs of in-state ($37K per year) to costs of Stanford (over $330K for four years) and Duke ($86K a year = over $330K).

Someone did say that. Obviously could be a troll.

"Stanford and Duke had 0 this year, just further confirms UVA>Stanford and Duke. And you best believe Stanford and Duke were trying just as hard to get Rhodes Scholars."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At UVA, it must get tiring to keep winning all the time.

We’re #8! We’re #8!

[Anonymous]

The last few UVA Rhodes Scholars have been Jefferson Scholars. To me that indicates a couple of things.

1. They are using the Jefferson to buy incredibly talented students who otherwise might well have gone to more highly rated schools. That's fine with me - it's kind of the whole point of the program.

2. The Jefferson provides opportunities for research and leadership that translate well into successful Rhodes applications. And then UVA identifies students who are likely to be competitive for national fellowships/scholarships and helps with their application prep. Again - a smart idea that many top universities employ!

But the reality is that UVA's Rhodes recipients are drawn from a very small cohort of students handpicked for a full scholarship to attend UVA, and then are provided bonus opportunities that look great on applications, and then receive scholarship application assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At UVA, it must get tiring to keep winning all the time.

I know it's so amazing!

[Anonymous]

The anti-UVa troll whose signature cry for help is to pretend to be a UVa booster so he can then attack his fake persona has started to actually boost UVa with his feigned boosting. Who would have known about the Rhodes Scholar announcement without the troll thread that he created? Not me . . .