I checked out the biographies of this year’s winners, exceptional people with exceptional activities and community involvements. How does one become like them? Grades are so integral to the scholarship that getting a high average leaves little time for anything else, much less being the president of this or that, completing a novel in your senior year, doing your own research and publishing it, being an “active bhangra dancer” (what does this mean; dancing hours at home?) And what if one is married? What if one just, outrageous idea I know, wants to relax, read a book, play soccer for fun and not to win.
Are scholarships like these putting too much pressure on students? Do they have unrealistic criteria? I knew one person who got in; she had the highest grades in her alma mater and won a lot of ancient language proficiency competitions. But then I also know of a person who maintained a straight 4.0 GPA for three years but was not admitted to a mediocre medical school.
Do these scholarships make life a series of goals and nothing substantial in between? Doesn’t it seem rather Machiavellian that every moment in your life is directed toward some end, and it is not like the end is ever achieved, for there is always new heights you must attain. Is there something wrong with this system? I find something very wrong with the fact that the Rhodes scholarship emphasizes humanitarian efforts, yet its winners are mostly those, once you read their bios, who were born with a silver spoon. What’s so humanitarian about that? Ultimately when you think about, Rhodes scholarship winners are exceptional. Yet being exceptional means that you are above the rest, they are inferior to you, and then there is something very paradoxical in your very embodiment of genius, when pitted against the Rhodes requirement of being a humanitarian and thus striving toward equality.
Major case of the sour grape syndrome here, of course.
scholarships dont have to be looking for stellar beyond steller, although the applicatons which stand out, almost definitely have a good mix of grades, and aspirations which have been connected through track record of community development or novel compassionate work which has potential for creating mass level of change and this is what most of the humanities, social and economic policies and health sciences scholarships are looking for.
diversity is also a huge factor in the current times.
hope is that deserving and truly creative pool of candidates are selected and attain a really strong level of public service which can inspire other people to excel in doing good.
i agree that common activities of life like reading a book or playing an outdoor or indoor game can make one satisfied or happy in one's own self, yet it will be nice if people can transfer their skills to other for betterment in mant lives.
You have stated a series of truisms. I am not objecting to the ideals of scholarships like the Rhodes, and in fact very greatly admire the one Rhodes elect I knew from high school and university who worked harder than anyone and greatly deserved going to Oxford. However I am talking about the feasibility of the stringent criteria, the implications of them for students whose lives become solely goal-driven, what this means for students who work hard, get very high grades, but are unable, for whatever reason, to maintain exceptional involvement in activities beyond school, and who for that reason are cut out unfairly from many prestigious scholarships like Rhodes.
The Rhodes website talks about investment in individuals and not in research projects. Yet the individual is more than his resume, more than a list of what he has done every summer. Speaking from the perspective of someone who decided long ago to forever stay in school, and having known many high achievers, it is usually not feasible to maintain high grades and at the same time be involved in so many things, head projects, write novels etc. Getting a high GPA, and not only that but understanding what you are learning and going beyond the textbooks to learn about the subject without any thought of recognition or reward is time-sapping enough.