uk fellowships

[pkr]

---

Members do not see this ad.

any other mstp applicants applying for rhodes and gates, etc. as alternatives for the next few years?

 

[j-weezy]

any other mstp applicants applying for rhodes and gates, etc. as alternatives for the next few years?

I'm not but I think solitude is.

 

[OncDoc19]

I'm applying for Rhodes, Marshall, Gates and the Oxford Fulbright. It's not an "alternative" though. I would defer my MD/PhD acceptance. The Uk has some of the world-leading institutes in my field so I would go and get a masters then come back and start my PhD at an advanced standing. I have always wanted to study abroad and this is a great time of my life to do it.

 

[pennquaker08]

I'm applying for Gates, Marshall, and Thouron (a fellowship just given by my school). I have no interest in Oxford, but there is an institute in which I would love to study at Cambridge.

 

[solitude]

I am applying for just the Rhodes. There is one lab at Oxford where I really want to study, and my school does not condone Marshall recipients studying there. I would defer my MD/PhD and pursue a Masters there, but it's just a pipe dream.

 

[j-weezy]

I am applying for just the Rhodes. There is one lab at Oxford where I really want to study, and my school does not condone Marshall recipients studying there. I would defer my MD/PhD and pursue a Masters there, but it's just a pipe dream.

What do you mean your school doesn't condone students studying there? That particular lab is off-limits for Marshall scholars or is it the school/college? Why?

 

[solitude]

What do you mean your school doesn't condone students studying there? That particular lab is off-limits for Marshall scholars or is it the school/college? Why?

Nah the lab or college isn't off-limits for Marshall scholars technically, but the office at my undergrad that runs the nomination process for those scholarships generally doesn't allow people to apply for Oxford through the Marshall. They maintain that the Rhodes is designed for study at Oxford, the Marshall is designed for study everywhere else; because they have had the Marshall committee tell them that they frown upon Marshall scholars studying at Oxford (although some do it every year), my school does not support an applicant applying for the Marshall to study at Oxford. I could have applied for the Marshall and then picked another lab at Cambridge or somewhere else in the UK, but I think I would rather just start an MD/PhD here if I can't study at a particular lab in Oxford. I think I'm being somewhat foolhardy by eschewing the Marshall, but it's not like it really matters because the chances of winning either of them are negligible.

 

[pennquaker08]

I am applying for just the Rhodes. There is one lab at Oxford where I really want to study, and my school does not condone Marshall recipients studying there. I would defer my MD/PhD and pursue a Masters there, but it's just a pipe dream.

Such an O'Neillean sentiment! Surely your prospects are not as dire as you humbly predict. You seem to have a perfectly decent shot.

 

[solitude]

Such an O'Neillean sentiment! Surely your prospects are not as dire as you humbly predict. You seem to have a perfectly decent shot.

Haha thanks for your confidence! But I really doubt it. Two years ago there were three Rhodes scholars from my school: one had received an A+ in every single course but one, while triple-majoring, along with founding a huge non-profit and doing all sorts of other crazy stuff. Another had a 4.0 and had soloed at Carnegie Hall about 5 times. The people that win these things are really quite remarkable. I'm just some dude with good grades posting on SDN!

 

[pennquaker08]

Haha thanks for your confidence! But I really doubt it. Two years ago there were three Rhodes scholars from my school: one had received an A+ in every single course but one, while triple-majoring, along with founding a huge non-profit and doing all sorts of other crazy stuff. Another had a 4.0 and had soloed at Carnegie Hall about 5 times. The people that win these things are really quite remarkable. I'm just some dude with good grades posting on SDN!

Remember, what these fellowships are looking for are two things: (1) people who know very well what they want. That is, they have a distinct game plan, they have a meticulous rationale for why studying at Oxford (or wherever) is necessary for achieving this goal, and they are able to communicate these impeccably. Somebody who plays a solo at Carnegie Hall may not be able to communicate why he or she should study at Oxford rather than a school stateside beside the obvious cache of studying abroad. Meanwhile, somebody who plays a solo on YouTube might make an excellent case for studying the promulgation of music via new media with a prime expert in the field who also happens to be the faculty master at Brasenose or some such. If you can create a compelling case for why you and Oxford are a perfect match--and it sounds that you very well may be, based on your having found a single, particular lab in which you interested (have you been in contact with the PI there?)--then you will be able to excel in this very important arena.

Next, (2) these fellowships are first and foremost interested in leadership development. As far as they are concerned, the best potential leaders for the future are those who are already building up their leadership cred now. One needn't be the president of student government, a Senate page, or a goodwill ambassador for the UN to be an excellent leader. Being a leader in one's own field is often just as powerful. In the sciences, as you well know, publishing in journals and presenting your data at conferences (the larger scale the better, obviously) improves your ability to lead in your field, to change minds, to add to the pool of human knowledge. Moreover, training others in research methods, taking on important roles in science organizations on campus or elsewhere, and the like all as well constitute leadership. After all, why would you, as a developing scientific leader, really need to answer Elizabeth Dole's phone calls? It would be a nice experience (well, then again, based on what I've heard about Liddy that may be debatable), but it wouldn't do much to advance your own process of maturation.

Naturally it helps to participate in a variety of activities and have pretty certificates and gold stars and such on your resume, but in the end if one cannot convince the committee that s/he is ideally suited to the two above points, no amount of preening will help her/him. People with good grades are a dime a dozen, but finding somebody who knows exactly how to use that learning is far rarer.

 

[solitude]

Remember, what these fellowships are looking for are two things: (1) people who know very well what they want. That is, they have a distinct game plan, they have a meticulous rationale for why studying at Oxford (or wherever) is necessary for achieving this goal, and they are able to communicate these impeccably. Somebody who plays a solo at Carnegie Hall may not be able to communicate why he or she should study at Oxford rather than a school stateside beside the obvious cache of studying abroad. Meanwhile, somebody who plays a solo on YouTube might make an excellent case for studying the promulgation of music via new media with a prime expert in the field who also happens to be the faculty master at Brasenose or some such. If you can create a compelling case for why you and Oxford are a perfect match--and it sounds that you very well may be, based on your having found a single, particular lab in which you interested (have you been in contact with the PI there?)--then you will be able to excel in this very important arena.

Next, (2) these fellowships are first and foremost interested in leadership development. As far as they are concerned, the best potential leaders for the future are those who are already building up their leadership cred now. One needn't be the president of student government, a Senate page, or a goodwill ambassador for the UN to be an excellent leader. Being a leader in one's own field is often just as powerful. In the sciences, as you well know, publishing in journals and presenting your data at conferences (the larger scale the better, obviously) improves your ability to lead in your field, to change minds, to add to the pool of human knowledge. Moreover, training others in research methods, taking on important roles in science organizations on campus or elsewhere, and the like all as well constitute leadership. After all, why would you, as a developing scientific leader, really need to answer Elizabeth Dole's phone calls? It would be a nice experience (well, then again, based on what I've heard about Liddy that may be debatable), but it wouldn't do much to advance your own process of maturation.

Naturally it helps to participate in a variety of activities and have pretty certificates and gold stars and such on your resume, but in the end if one cannot convince the committee that s/he is ideally suited to the two above points, no amount of preening will help her/him. People with good grades are a dime a dozen, but finding somebody who knows exactly how to use that learning is far rarer.

Very well said. I think you have a great grasp on what these things are all about and that you're going to have a lot of success with them. With that said, I am pessimistic because, while you're right that often individuals accumulate those credentials at the price of interpersonal skills - and I like to think that I have retained my humanity - they sometimes don't, and it only takes 32 others with similar eloquence but better credentials to shut me (or any other applicant) out.

To answer your question, yeah I have been in contact with the PI at Oxford who has recommended me to the Rhodes committee, which I understand can provide a small boost to an application.

Good luck with your applications! It sounds like you are approaching these fellowships with the right perspective and will surely reap the benefits.