Talk:Rhodes Scholarship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, which collaborates on articles related to the University of Oxford. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within University of Oxford. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
Contents |
[edit] 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)
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)
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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] 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)
-
- 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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...
[edit] 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)
- You're welcome! I thought that was some very odd (but thorough!) vandalism... :) --ElKevbo 03:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
University of Michigan has 25 recipients, but is not on the list.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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).
[edit] 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...
