Talk:Rhodes Scholarship/Archives2006-2011

This page is an archive of the contents of Talk:Rhodes Scholarship

Older discussions

Anyone know the story with the section of the article that purports to quote rhodes's will ? Unless I'm mistaken, the large block quote is from one of his earlier wills (he wrote around six), not from the final/authoritative will. I do believe talk of a secret society was removed after the 3rd or 4th version. It seems rather disingenuous to quote an early version as if it represents Rhodes's final intentions, let alone a legally binding incarnation of those intentions. 01:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm deleting the section quoting the will. Further to the information above, the quoted material is from Rhodes's first, informal will, dated 1877. It bears no relation to the final 1902 will and it therefore contains nothing that the Rhodes Trust would ever be obliged to reject, firmly or otherwise. I have no objection to the 1877 will being quoted in the article on Rhodes himself, but since it has nothing to do with the way in which the scholarships were set up (under the 1902 will), it doesn't belong here. Ptomng 18:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Reed College has had 32 recipients and they were second behind another liberal arts college.. whats up with MIT, Duke, et cetera getting on that list on the bottom?

Why is Newfoundland listed as a country right below Canada? When did those newfies secede?

The Dominion of Newfoundland was a separate state until 1949.

There are plenty of examples of doubtful individuals who have founded great institutions. The modern Rhodes scholarship is effectively free of the baggage of its founder. The Trust deed made it clear that race and religion were to have no part in the selection criteria. By the 1920s, the number of non-white Scholars [particularly from India] was increasing, and it is just surprising that it has taken so long for the number of Scholarships to increase for India and Africa. During the last days of white Rhodesia in the 1960s, however, Ian Smith refused to allow any black men to be selected. That, however, was a fault in the process at the local level, not a policy endorsed by the Trust. -Michael McBain

In the mid 1970's, I did a study of the Rhodes Scholarship and discovered that the original intent of Sir Cecil, by the way, a notorious racist, was to educate only the white race to ensure the continued domination of the world by placing these scholars in lofty positions of governments, hopefully. Am I wrong? -Jim O'Neal (joneal1936@aol.com)

"Notable Universities" - the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has had 42 Rhodes Scholars, according to UNC's admissions page. That would place about it above Dartmouth, actually.Laneb2005 02:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard this theory before, but not having researched it in detail, I am not going to offer judgement. However, it is very clear that Rhodes had political intentions when he set up his scholarships, and I wouldn't be surprised if he did believe in the superiority of Europeans.

Cecil Rhodes indeed can be associated with racism. After all, Imperialism in Africa was virtually introduced by him. The "rush for Africa", that is. The country of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwae) is a great testament to what he has done.

As for the scholarship, the political agenda is unclear. I am considering and will most likely go for the scholarship, but have given much thought as to what the scholarship has stood for; or at least what who it has stood for.

I just delted a profoundly racist comment on this discussion page. Also, as a Virginia Tech student closely affiliated with the comings and goings of national scholarship winners, I'm quite certain we had no winner in 2004. I've removed that confusing entry as well. Ryanluck 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

"An early change was the elimination of the scholarships for Germany during World Wars I and II."

Unless the scholarship was reintroduced between the wars so that it could be eliminated a second time, or unless "eliminated" means "eliminated only for this one year", this seems impossible. Ken Arromdee 22:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The former is precisely what happened. The German scholarships were suspended in WW I, reinstated in 1930, suspended again a few years later (don't remember the precise year) and reinstated a second time in 1970. 163.1.51.77 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bergman

It seems Samuel Shem (Stephen Bergman) was in Oxford studying physiology as a Rhodes Scholar, but I have no access to the relevant records. JFW | T@lk 13:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bergman was a Rhodes scholar elected by Massachusetts to the class of 1966. He was a member of Balliol. 19:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Chart, Harvard's Numbers, Sewanee's Date

Can someone provide a more solid citation for the table? Is it based on "The Old Guard," which lists institutions with the most Rhodes Scholars from 1947 to 1998 and ran in The New York Times on January 12, 2003? The Times got it from the Rhodes Scholarship Trust.

The way the table is labeled and the numbers in it don't make much sense to me. Is it showing Rhodes Scholarships per capita? Is that why there are decimal points instead of whole numbers?

Between 2004 and 2006, Harvard counts 10 Rhodes Scholars. Harvard students and alumni have been awarded a total of at least 319 scholarships.

The chart's numbers were for *American* Rhodes Scholars only--this is a good comparison as that number has stayed solid at 32 with a fairly consistent selection process for the entire history of the scholarship. Harvard has not had 319 American Rhodes Scholars (note that your link, for example, referenced a Bermudan Rhodes Scholar).

If the Rhodes Scholarships were founded in 1902, why does Sewanee's blurb have a date of 1865? According to the dates for Cecil Rhodes' life, he would have been 11 and 12 in 1865.

I'm not trying to criticize the article--just clarify some confusion. Thanks! 21:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The numbers in the chart are confusing. I think it only makes sense if those numbers are the average for that school per year; otherwise, you can't have a non-integer value in there. 165.230.46.138 17:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Furthermore, how in the world were the intervals ('47-'98, '99-'03, '04-'06) selected? Very confusing. Someone with access to the raw data needs to redo this chart. If someone can find the raw data (I just looked for a few minutes and it didn't jump out at me from anywhere), I'd be happy to spend a few minutes doing this. --ElKevbo 17:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Table numbers completely skewed...

I've corrected the table as much as I can, based on data provided by each of the respective universities themselves (Staford, Duke, UVA)...

The table has been as far off as 18 or more in a university's total (Stanford, 66 to 84)

nominees turning down scholarship?

i didn't find any information in the article about nominees turning down the scholarship. i heard from a highly respected history teacher of mine that in the past some asian and african nominees have turned down the scholarship because of it's roots in african diamond money. i don't know for sure or have sources so...

It does happen occasionally that Scholars-elect turn down the scholarship; after all, the number of Scholars-elect is quite large (about 80 are elected each year), so you would expect that once in a while this occurs, if people find another more attractive option. I have heard of instances of this, although I don't know anyone personally who has done it. It does upset the election committees and the Trust, but there's not much to be done about it. 163.1.51.77 (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

need for revert on July 19th

Sorry about replacing the Rhodes text with Truman text. The Truman page was just started and was using the Rhodes page as a partial template. With so many tabs open at the same time, I edited the wrong one. My apologies, and thanks for catching it. --Kakistocrat 03:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I thought that was some very odd (but thorough!) vandalism... :) --ElKevbo 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University of Michigan has 25 recipients, but is not on the list.

Noteable universities

I propose removing this section. First, it's completely unsourced. Second, without a source and guidelines on noteability (or at least justification for new inclusions) it's inherently POV. Third, it's just a table of numbers with no explanation of noteability, context, history, etc. Fourth, as noted in discussions above, the data itself has been noted as being wrong on a few occasions.

This *could be* a very interesting section with information about the domination of particular institutions and perceived biases/advantages but right now it's a very bad section. --ElKevbo 17:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Money?

It would be interesting to read how big a fortune the trust assesses, and which amount those elected for a scholarship recieve.--Sasper 13:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rhodes Trust has assets of approximately GBP 250 million; Scholars on stipend receive full tuition (varies by Oxford program, but this will be about GBP 10,000-20,000) plus GBP 10,080 per year stipend and various allowances for travel, shipping luggage, and clothing, as of 2006-07. Note that the link at http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/faq.htm which specifies £820 per month is out of date. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.67.53.154 (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Harvard students don't like Oxford

The section about two Harvard students not liking Oxford seems non-notable and odd in the context of this piece. I note that this only happened a couple of days ago...

More Rhodes Scholars

I have 7 Rhodes' here who attended Aquinas College, Perth. There are pictures of them in the Notable Alumni section of that article. I wasnt sure how they are being added (eg. date, name etc). So can someone please add them, thanks.

Alexander Juett 1906
John Horan 1908
Jack Savage 1912
Alaric Pinder Boor 1913
Peter Durack 1948
Maurice Cullity 1957
Trevor Jack 1986

Thanks alot. Twenty Years 08:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are being added in chronological order. Recurring dreams 08:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sweet, ive added them all. DW ALL. Twenty Years 08:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notables

I have suspicions that some of the redlinked names here are vanity/vandalism and propose that they all be removed, unless accompanied by a good external source. If they're notable then they should have a WP article to support the claim. —Moondyne 02:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also "have suspicions that some of the redlinked names here are vanity/vandalism".

And I agree that "If they're notable then they should have a WP article to support the claim."

I'm forced to wonder about 1998's Deer Hunter (placed in the 1980s list), and some of the other redlinks are not particularly informative. e.g.

James Bathurst University Of Sussex, University Of Melbourne

Tom Krieger (Virginia and Virginia Tech) productivity consultant

Rather than delete them, I've decided to turn these three into hidden comments.

Cheers, Pdfpdf 11:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My aim is always to turn red to blue and and I'd love to see a completely blue list here. I'm happy to work with you to achieve that. My original point was that the list had a few dubious entries and as they were only a few, it'd be doing little harm to remove the reds entirely. As for deleting or commenting out, the effect is the same. It is generally accepted that its OK to have redlinks in articles as that encourages articles to be written. But we don't have to follow every guidleine literally. But I'm honestly not fussed as long as I know someone has an eye on it and it is not getting flooded with rubbish. —Moondyne 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I do like the table - much better. —Moondyne 17:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you like the table. Cheers, Pdfpdf 00:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Creating the table is going to take a while; I've "reverted" that bit of Rhodes Scholarship#Notable Rhodes Scholarship recipients and created a new page Notable Rhodes Scholars. When it's acceptable, I'll link the two and remove the "raw data" from #Notable ... recipients. (And those red links are now starting to annoy me, too!!) Pdfpdf 02:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed construction of "the table". Pdfpdf 04:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues at Talk:Notable Rhodes Scholars -- Pdfpdf 13:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allocations

I've started creating a table of allocations (by "geographic area" by year) at Rhodes Scholarship Allocations. Feel free to help!! Pdfpdf 13:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Claim to be oldest

I have removed the statement that the Rhodes is the oldest scholarship. Oxford and many other universities have had scholarships for centuries. For instance, see here for a discussion of scholarships to New College in the 14th Century. It may be that the Rhodes is the oldest purely international scholarship, but even if true we'd need a source. Robkenny 09:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I assumed (wrongly) that you were only complaining about the use of "fellowship".

It may be ... - Agreed.

Pdfpdf 09:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See: The American Rhodes Scholarships: A Review of the First Forty Years, Review author[s]: Harvie Branscomb, The American Historical Review © 1947 American Historical Association (available from JSTOR). The Rhodes Scholarships are called "the first large-scale program of international scholarships." The article notes that the Boxer indemnity scholarships came later, in 1908. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.226.194 (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery

The Cecil Rhodes page notes that the Rhodes Scholarship was founded on earnings from forced labour. Shouldn't this be noted in the page? Oblivioid (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several points:

The scholarship wasn't founded on earnings from forced labour.
- Perhaps it was funded by earnings from forced labour, but even then, that wasn't the sole source of the cash. Partially funded by is a more accurate statement.
- It was also partially funded by other dubious activities. Why single out slavery?
The article is about the scholarship, not about Rhodes' estate, nor about how Rhodes accumulated his estate. Those issues should be (and are) discussed on the Cecil Rhodes page, not on this page.
I'm not sure why you think this should be noted on this page. It doesn't seem to have a lot of relevance to the scholarship.
If you feel you must mention it, then I think a footnote and/or cross reference would be the appropriate mechanism, and you should make it clear that it was only one of the sources of income, you should probably mention the other sources (both "bad" and "good") and you should probably back it up with a supporting reference.

Personally, I think that "funded by his estate" is concise, accurate, and appropriate for this article. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post Script:

You have misquoted the Cecil Rhodes page. It said:

"Rhodes profited greatly from ruthlessly controlling Southern Africa's natural resources through his implementation of African forced labor, the proceeds of which funded the Rhodes Scholarship upon his death."

I have change that sentence to "which partially funded". Pdfpdf (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The MBA

I know that Rhodes Scholars are allowed again now to apply for the MBA, as they were a couple of years ago. This change is not reflected on the Rhodes House's (outdated) website, so I don't have a citation. Nevertheless, keep an eye on it. Rhodes Scholars can in fact do the MBA now, and I don't want an inaccuracy in the lead paragraph of this article. 86.128.27.61 (talk) 13:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I've moved it into a footnote. Pdfpdf (talk) 00:12, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland

Does anyone know why Ireland - Britain's first and most enduring colony - is not on the list? Would be interesting info. GeneralBelly (talk) 13:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple (and not very informative) answer is that Rhodes didn't include Ireland in his will.

Isn't Ireland considered part of Britain, along with England, Scotland and Wales? If so, then it isn't a colony, it's part of Britain, and the scholarships are for "colonials". If it isn't part of Britain, then I'm afraid I have no idea why it isn't included! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm assuming that you're referring to "Northern Ireland"? If you are refering to the whole island of Ireland, then I think we're back at: "because he didn't put it in the will". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil Rhodes in James Michener's "The Covenant"

The article asks for specific examples of people who "postulated" that Rhodes created the scholarships to "help spread British influence". One example: In James Michener's historical novel "The Covenant", Cecil Rhodes gives this as his reason for creating the scholarships. However, I'm not sure if this is a postulation by Michener as a historian, or one of the fictional aspects of the novel. Is there a good way to tell? Bsonrisa (talk) 15:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will and controversy about Rhodes' intentions

Have removed this section, as it was controversial, unreferenced, laced with weasel words and editorial. Oh, yeah, and misleading too (because it failed to mention that this was not the wording of his final will). Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US Rhodes Scholars by University

Hi All,

I know there used to be a list on here of which US institutions have had the most US Rhodes Scholars, and that it was removed due to incomparable and sketchy data.

That said, I saw that the official U.S. Rhodes Trust site now includes a new section that lists all US rhodes scholars by "sponsoring institution."

http://www.rhodesscholar.org/stats/

Based on the PDF found there, we can include the table below.

If anyone has time/interest to do so, many thanks, as I'm not a Wiki editor.

Best, Martin Boer (Amsterdam) / mmboer@gmail.com

Top Schools: 323 Harvard University (including Radcliffe) 217 Yale University 192 Princeton University 85 US Military Academy 82 Stanford University 60 Dartmouth University 45 Brown University 45 University of Chicago 45 University of Virginia 43 US Naval Academy 39 Duke University 39 University of North Carolina 36 MIT 35 US Air Force Academy 35 University of Washington 34 Williams College 31 Reed College 29 University of Wisconsin 27 Cornell University 27 Swarthmore College 27 University of Texas 26 Columbia University 26 University of Oklahoma 26 Vanderbilt University
77.166.139.162 (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Rhodes Scholarship

Is there no one around who is knowledgeable enough to balance the article with critical views of the scholarship? There must be authors out there who have legitimately criticized and even condemned the scholarship since the stated goal behind the scholarship by Cecil Rhodes was to gather potential world leaders for education in Britain - that in and of itself offers massive potential for criticism. Hopefully someone with the time and the inclination will be able to present this article with the opportunity for balance, since the article currently is a borderline advertisement and heaps praise upon the Rhodes scholars. Laval (talk) 02:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about Andrew Sullivan's scathing 1988 article in Spy (magazine)? [1] (It starts on page 108) ProhibitOnions ^(T) 19:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]