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.

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).

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.

And Harvard has 394 with an undergrad class of 7,240. It received 10 of the 32 Rhodes yesterday (one was a Rhodes International Prize), which decimates your argument.

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.

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.

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

There are fewer troll sock puppets starting fake threads on Fairfax Underground.

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”.

Anonymous wrote:USNA also has ANOTHER Rhodes Scholar - their 21st in the past 22 years.

55 total

USNA also has ANOTHER Rhodes Scholar - their 21st in the past 22 years.

Anonymous wrote:That’s amazing! UVA seems to have a good reputation with their faculty and their students.

Of course it’s good. It’s the fifth best public in the country.

That’s amazing! UVA seems to have a good reputation with their faculty and their students.

All those Rhodes Scholars and no Nobel or Fields prize winners. Pretty unremarkable.

Pathetic thread, honestly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is Rhodes a big deal? Its scope and selection is so narrow and limited to civic leaderships and English speaking/culture.
People here are treating it like Nobel Prizes, which is a joke.

Not a big deal at all except for Insecure UVA boosters.

Lol of course it’s a big deal. It’s without question the single most prestigious scholarship that can be awarded to a graduating senior from a US University. It’s “not a big deal” only if one is jealous of UVA.

It's only a big deal if the person wants to go study at Oxford. Not everyone cares about that. But, ok. UVA is awesome. There.. does that make you feel better?

My STEM kid and their STEM major friends still wouldn't look at UVA, though.

Ask your STEM kid if they’d take a Rhodes Scholarship and get back to me.

DP.
I asked my MIT kid and they had no interest whatsoever and thought it was a random idea to study in UK.

If you think that makes your kid look good, I got news for you . . .

The MIT kid already looks good. I'm sure most UVA kids would pick MIT over UVA if finances weren't an issue.