Rhodes, Gates, Marshall competitive stats

[Endoxifen]

Does anyone know where to find what stats and ECs are competitive for the Rhodes, Marshall, and Gates scholarships? I haven't been able to find a space like SDN for these scholarships.

Alternatively, has anyone here been successful/interviewed for these scholarships? If so, would you be willing to look at my stats and give your honest opinion about how competitive I am?

Thank you!

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[pbsdrinkingwhale]

.

 

[sat0ri]

Does your university have a honors college? My honors college has all sorts of information

Fulbright posts their statistics online, and they are far, far less competitive than Rhodes, Gates, Marshall, etc., with the exception of a few countries (UK, western european countries). For example, by the numbers, the UK open award is actually more competitive than Rhodes (2/165=1.2% for UK open award vs 32/2500=1.3% for US Rhodes). However, most Fulbright acceptance rates are closer to 20-40%. The competitive countries are a bit less than this (5-20%; e.g UK is 5% overall, Japan 30%, France 15%). They are still very impressive and well known awards, and would be a great way to get involved in an underserved country (hint hint). They do provide a funded way to study (research grant) or teach English (ETA) virtually anywhere in the world, but are more about cultural exchange, so you should really choose this path if you have a specific reason for going there. To be successful they require a strong connection to the country, so you probably need to get ahold of a professor ASAP and start writing a statement. I was selected as an alternate awardee ('first runner up') for the UK open award, so I could answer more about this if you'd like.
https://us.fulbrightonline.org/study-research-eta-statistics

Rhodes is the most prestigious award there is at this level (to Oxford). The most notable winner is probably Bill Clinton. The Wikipedia page is fairly helpful in putting it into context.
Rhodes Scholarship - Wikipedia

Marshall is extremely competitive and places a lot of emphasis on sheer numbers and "ambassadorial potential". They require 2 schools, including 1 non-elite (not Oxford, UCL, Cambridge, Kings, Imperial).

Churchill is to Cambridge and should also be on your differential. They tend to select from nosebleed schools (i.e., T20's).

Gates is more service oriented and is about how you'll help humanity. This lends itself really well to pre-med applicants. Average GPA 3.93.

Hm, I was really more ambitious when I began writing this but I need to get to lab. Check your college page. I'll update this if there is sufficient interest.

 

[Lucca]

3.8+. It's more important that you are a really good fit for what these programs are looking for. If you are thinking about them, prepare for them years in advance and choose the scholarship that best fits your potential application. Letters and ECs are critical as well. I got to the last round of Gates this year but didn't get it.

 

[Endoxifen]

Does your university have a honors college? My honors college has all sorts of information

Fulbright posts their statistics online, and they are far, far less competitive than Rhodes, Gates, Marshall, etc., with the exception of a few countries (UK, western european countries). For example, by the numbers, the UK open award is actually more competitive than Rhodes (2/165=1.2% for UK open award vs 32/2500=1.3% for US Rhodes). However, most Fulbright acceptance rates are closer to 20-40%. The competitive countries are a bit less than this (5-20%; e.g UK is 5% overall, Japan 30%, France 15%). They are still very impressive and well known awards, and would be a great way to get involved in an underserved country (hint hint). They do provide a funded way to study (research grant) or teach English (ETA) virtually anywhere in the world, but are more about cultural exchange, so you should really choose this path if you have a specific reason for going there. To be successful they require a strong connection to the country, so you probably need to get ahold of a professor ASAP and start writing a statement. I was selected as an alternate awardee ('first runner up') for the UK open award, so I could answer more about this if you'd like.
https://us.fulbrightonline.org/study-research-eta-statistics

Rhodes is the most prestigious award there is at this level (to Oxford). The most notable winner is probably Bill Clinton. The Wikipedia page is fairly helpful in putting it into context.
Rhodes Scholarship - Wikipedia

Marshall is extremely competitive and places a lot of emphasis on sheer numbers and "ambassadorial potential". They require 2 schools, including 1 non-elite (not Oxford, UCL, Cambridge, Kings, Imperial).

Churchill is to Cambridge and should also be on your differential. They tend to select from nosebleed schools (i.e., T20's).

Gates is more service oriented and is about how you'll help humanity. This lends itself really well to pre-med applicants. Average GPA 3.93.

Hm, I was really more ambitious when I began writing this but I need to get to lab. Check your college page. I'll update this if there is sufficient interest.

Thanks for the list. I didn't know about the Churchill scholarship. That seems right up my alley.

 

[aldol16]

These programs place extreme emphasis on numbers, or your GPA. If you have a 3.6 GPA, you could still get into a top 10 med school but you have almost zero chance of getting into these programs. It's astounding really, since GPA isn't the best measure of academic ability - some of my students with the highest GPAs are the dullest people whereas some with high but not great GPAs are stellar, brilliant students.

Also, there are various types of Fulbright. The Fulbright study grant to study in the UK is notoriously difficult to get. You're better off looking for a country where you have some tie to - like you know the language or something - and that gives you a leg up for that grant. The Fulbright teaching awards I think are easier to get.

 

[Endoxifen]

These programs place extreme emphasis on numbers, or your GPA. If you have a 3.6 GPA, you could still get into a top 10 med school but you have almost zero chance of getting into these programs. It's astounding really, since GPA isn't the best measure of academic ability - some of my students with the highest GPAs are the dullest people whereas some with high but not great GPAs are stellar, brilliant students.

Also, there are various types of Fulbright. The Fulbright study grant to study in the UK is notoriously difficult to get. You're better off looking for a country where you have some tie to - like you know the language or something - and that gives you a leg up for that grant. The Fulbright teaching awards I think are easier to get.

I definitely have the stats to be competitive. I guess we'll see what happens.

 

[enchantediris]

Grad Cafe is a forum with a lot of talk about these scholarships (and other things about grad school applications). I actually don't think your stats are the most important part of your application, because everyone who passes their institutional screening (IIRC each university can only choose to "recommend" a small number of applicants, usually 4) will have good stats.

I think it's more about your personal statement, your proprosed project, and how "hot" of a topic that project is/if someone has won with a similar proposal in recent memory. These scholarships seem to care a lot about your potential as well (e.g. investing in a person and what they will do in the future). For the Rhodes in particular – I think they care much more about the person as a whole than your GPA or number of papers published. Until recently, the "success in sports" of a person was considered as a selection criteria, for example.

If you reach the interview stage, luck also plays a large factor – one of my friends had his interview right after the election... you can imagine how well that went. Another thing to consider is that many of these scholarships have conflicting interview times (one of my friends had to pick between two). From my experience, the vast majority of people apply to several of these scholarships to maximize their chances. As I said before, I know so many amazing people who have applied to these scholarships and only one of them ended up being awarded one, so whether or not you succeed isn't a reflection of who you are or your potential to be successful in your future career.

 

[Endoxifen]

Grad Cafe is a forum with a lot of talk about these scholarships (and other things about grad school applications). I actually don't think your stats are the most important part of your application, because everyone who passes their institutional screening (IIRC each university can only choose to "recommend" a small number of applicants, usually 4) will have good stats.

I think it's more about your personal statement, your proprosed project, and how "hot" of a topic that project is/if someone has won with a similar proposal in recent memory. These scholarships seem to care a lot about your potential as well (e.g. investing in a person and what they will do in the future). For the Rhodes in particular – I think they care much more about the person as a whole than your GPA or number of papers published. Until recently, the "success in sports" of a person was considered as a selection criteria, for example.

If you reach the interview stage, luck also plays a large factor – one of my friends had his interview right after the election... you can imagine how well that went. Another thing to consider is that many of these scholarships have conflicting interview times (one of my friends had to pick between two). From my experience, the vast majority of people apply to several of these scholarships to maximize their chances. As I said before, I know so many amazing people who have applied to these scholarships and only one of them ended up being awarded one, so whether or not you succeed isn't a reflection of who you are or your potential to be successful in your future career.

I appreciate that. I'm honestly not expecting to even be interviewed. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if I was successful somewhere. Regardless, I think it's worth a shot!

 

[enchantediris]

I appreciate that. I'm honestly not expecting to even be interviewed. At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if I was successful somewhere. Regardless, I think it's worth a shot!

It's always worth a shot! I think it's one of those hope for the best but expect the worse kind of scenarios.

 

[Endoxifen]

It's always worth a shot! I think it's one of those hope for the best but expect the worse kind of scenarios.

Exactly. Considering how few people each of these accept, there's even lno we of a shot than getting into some t20 med schools.

 

[aldol16]

I think it's more about your personal statement, your proprosed project, and how "hot" of a topic that project is/if someone has won with a similar proposal in recent memory. These scholarships seem to care a lot about your potential as well (e.g. investing in a person and what they will do in the future). For the Rhodes in particular – I think they care much more about the person as a whole than your GPA or number of papers published. Until recently, the "success in sports" of a person was considered as a selection criteria, for example.

They don't get an average GPA of 3.9 among only 32 students without caring about GPA. On top of the scholarship, an upper second class degree is the minimum required for admission to most courses at Oxford, which translates to about a 3.5 in the US system depending on who you ask. Realistically, you'll need a first class degree to be competitive for Oxford, much less the Rhodes, which is 3.7-4.0.

 

[enchantediris]

They don't get an average GPA of 3.9 among only 32 students without caring about GPA. On top of the scholarship, an upper second class degree is the minimum required for admission to most courses at Oxford, which translates to about a 3.5 in the US system depending on who you ask. Realistically, you'll need a first class degree to be competitive for Oxford, much less the Rhodes, which is 3.7-4.0.

My point was not that they don't care about GPA, but that they care about so much more. There are probably thousands of people applying to these scholarships with perfect GPAs, so your stats aren't really going to distinguish you from everyone else. What will distinguish you hinges on how you convey your story and convince the judges that you have the experience and future potential.

 

[Endoxifen]

They don't get an average GPA of 3.9 among only 32 students without caring about GPA. On top of the scholarship, an upper second class degree is the minimum required for admission to most courses at Oxford, which translates to about a 3.5 in the US system depending on who you ask. Realistically, you'll need a first class degree to be competitive for Oxford, much less the Rhodes, which is 3.7-4.0.

I think, as with medical school, stats open the door and ECs get you through it. Someone who has perfect stats, but ECs will probably be ignored.

 

[Noctámbulo]

Recently went through this process and was fortunate to receive one of the ones mentioned. I agree with @enchantediris- as with medical school admissions, "stats get you to the door; extracurricular get you through it." PM me if you have any specific questions re: extracurriculars.

 

[aldol16]

My point was not that they don't care about GPA, but that they care about so much more. There are probably thousands of people applying to these scholarships with perfect GPAs, so your stats aren't really going to distinguish you from everyone else. What will distinguish you hinges on how you convey your story and convince the judges that you have the experience and future potential.

I think, as with medical school, stats open the door and ECs get you through it. Someone who has perfect stats, but ECs will probably be ignored.

Yes, I understand. I think it's obvious that stats alone won't do the trick. But my point is that your statement shouldn't be construed as meaning that somebody with stellar ECs but a 3.3 GPA has a chance at this scholarship. You don't get an average GPA of 3.9 among 32 people if you do that. Stats open the door and your ECs and luck clinch it. If you only have the ECs but the door isn't open, that's not going to help you much.

 

[Endoxifen]

Grad Cafe is a forum with a lot of talk about these scholarships (and other things about grad school applications).

I just went there... it was like bizzaro land over there. Everything was almost the same, but not quite.

 

[Yorick]

Yes, I understand. I think it's obvious that stats alone won't do the trick. But my point is that your statement shouldn't be construed as meaning that somebody with stellar ECs but a 3.3 GPA has a chance at this scholarship. You don't get an average GPA of 3.9 among 32 people if you do that. Stats open the door and your ECs and luck clinch it. If you only have the ECs but the door isn't open, that's not going to help you much.

OP is at a huge disadvantage too if he/she isn't attending an Ivy level school or a university with some sort of scholarship office. The competition for Rhodes tier scholarships is crazily competitive (obviously), but pretty much all top tier schools and even some mid tier colleges have advisers and committees made specifically for intense application and interview coaching/preparation.

@Endoxifen if your school has such advisers, then they're a better resource than us, especially if your school has produced winners for these scholarships.

 

[Endoxifen]

OP is at a huge disadvantage too if he/she isn't attending an Ivy level school or a university with some sort of scholarship office. The competition for Rhodes tier scholarships is crazily competitive (obviously), but pretty much all top tier schools and even some mid tier colleges have advisers and committees made specifically for intense application and interview coaching/preparation.

@Endoxifen if your school has such advisers, then they're a better resource than us, especially if your school has produced winners for these scholarships.

Thanks for the advice. My school does have a fellowship office and we've had all the the awards given to students at one time or another . I have a meeting scheduled with the director of the fellowship office this Friday. I've been sure to cover my bases. I thought it might be a good idea to talk with people who have been awarded one of the four, which is why I asked here too.

 

[Lucca]

OP is at a huge disadvantage too if he/she isn't attending an Ivy level school or a university with some sort of scholarship office. The competition for Rhodes tier scholarships is crazily competitive (obviously), but pretty much all top tier schools and even some mid tier colleges have advisers and committees made specifically for intense application and interview coaching/preparation.

@Endoxifen if your school has such advisers, then they're a better resource than us, especially if your school has produced winners for these scholarships.

Right, scholarships like Rhodes, Marshall, Churchill require institutional vetting so the best resource of information will be the faculty or staff responsible for heading this process at your institution.

 

[JJRousseau]

Vaguely: Rhodes is more sporty, Marshall has more of a gifted in a specialist trajectory expectation, and Gates is a bit more service-y. If you want to go to Oxford or Cambridge and are eligible to apply to these scholarships according to advising at your school, then identify programs/PIs of interest, get in contact with them and apply directly when you go through the fellowship applications. You might get funding (probably named scholarship) from departments or the University directly to study there (I applied to the Rhodes and Marshall, didn't even get an interview at either, but ended up matriculating to a fully funded position at Oxbridge.)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[Endoxifen]

Vaguely: Rhodes is more sporty, Marshall has more of a gifted in a specialist trajectory expectation, and Gates is a bit more service-y. If you want to go to Oxford or Cambridge and are eligible to apply to these scholarships according to advising at your school, then identify programs/PIs of interest, get in contact with them and apply directly when you go through the fellowship applications. You might get funding (probably named scholarship) from departments or the University directly to study there (I applied to the Rhodes and Marshall, didn't even get an interview at either, but ended up matriculating to a fully funded position at Oxbridge.)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

That's a wonderful idea. I'll definitely look into doing something like that! I got my current research away from campus by doing exactly that. Your way works perfectly for me. Thank you.

 

[JJRousseau]

That's a wonderful idea. I'll definitely look into doing something like that! I got my current research away from campus by doing exactly that. Your way works perfectly for me. Thank you.

No problem. Most of these fellowships require sponsors too, so starting this process is helpful for the fellowships in of themselves. It's much stronger to write in the personal statement - "I will work with x on y to improve z".


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

 

[aldol16]

Oh, and OP, for studying a science course through the Gates scholarship, what happens is your PI will get together with a committee in the department to make a "shortlist" of candidates that they really like. So it's actually in your best benefit to contact the PI you want to work with and work with him/her in writing your statements/proposals.

 

[Noctámbulo]

Oh, and OP, for studying a science course through the Gates scholarship, what happens is your PI will get together with a committee in the department to make a "shortlist" of candidates that they really like. So it's actually in your best benefit to contact the PI you want to work with and work with him/her in writing your statements/proposals.

This is generally good advice. I will just add that not all departments at Cambridge require a research proposal and, further, not all PIs are involved in the department's ranking process.

 

[Endoxifen]

This is generally good advice. I will just add that not all departments at Cambridge require a research proposal and, further, not all PIs are involved in the department's ranking process.

Well, that's a bit of a lottery then. Maybe I should shoot for the top then to try and maximize my chances.

 

[sat0ri]

This is generally good advice. I will just add that not all departments at Cambridge require a research proposal and, further, not all PIs are involved in the department's ranking process.

Yes I can further add that my friend applied to Gates and the respective department, was nominated by the department and later assigned a professor. He was ultimately selected for the international round, which admittedly is on a different timeline. He's at UPenn now fwiw

 

[NeutrallySpirited]

Vaguely: Rhodes is more sporty, Marshall has more of a gifted in a specialist trajectory expectation, and Gates is a bit more service-y. If you want to go to Oxford or Cambridge and are eligible to apply to these scholarships according to advising at your school, then identify programs/PIs of interest, get in contact with them and apply directly when you go through the fellowship applications. You might get funding (probably named scholarship) from departments or the University directly to study there (I applied to the Rhodes and Marshall, didn't even get an interview at either, but ended up matriculating to a fully funded position at Oxbridge.)


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile

Hey, could you please expand upon this? How were you able to get a fully funded position at Oxbridge?

 

[lacrossegirl420]

All three are very competitive, Rhodes probably the most. All my premed friends who had one of those ended up at T5’s

 

[pablo213]

All three are very competitive, Rhodes probably the most. All my premed friends who had one of those ended up at T5’s

Dang you must know some cool people

 

[chilly_md]

No need to bump a 5+ year old thread folks.