-
Interesting thoughts, but I don't think "superficial" is the right word here. I've applied to prestigious scholarships in the past, and tend to think that an equal portion of the problem is that they look for specific things, and students are well-trained to project those qualities. Everyone is trying to check the right box instead of truly following their passion.
I thought the article was pretty lame. The writer was a Rhodes scholar, and I feel like she was saying she was superior to the Rhodes scholars of today, when in reality, it’s probably more competitive than it used to be. (Based purely on population, the US has more people than it used to – based on that alone, it’s probably more competitive.) Anyway, I have a hard time believing “kids today” aren’t impressive in their own way.
The point I took away was the concern that today’s education systems aren’t adequately preparing their students for real life. Particularly in regards to critical thinking. The examples provided illustrate that point rather well, although I can’t yet determine whether today’s students are more or less prepared than those of 20 years ago.
I agree with you Jen, scholarships are FAR more competitive today than they used to be. I feel like when I was graduating from high school, all you really needed were good grades, a high SAT score, and a few activities. By the time I’d graduated from college, I don’t think I’d have qualified for the GT President’s Scholarship anymore. I’ve helped do PS interviews here in Houston a few times and what high school students are doing now blows me away.
But on the flip side, I worry that a lot of students are doing things ONLY because it will make their applications look better. And that’s not really a good thing either. I guess that’s how I interpreted it — students are so specialized in trying to get a Rhodes, for instance, that they forget how to think broadly and lose some of their common sense along the way.
Becca – true. These days, if you want to get a Rhode’s, you practically have to plan for it years in advance. Plan not to do what you’re passionate about but to get the Rhode’s, like a certain President’s scholar did. (Not sure if he ever won it.)
@Jennifer
Becca? That was me. 🙂
I would title this article Our superficial scholarships. It is ridiculous that the author chose to blame the entire American educational system when she finds that some of her candidates aren’t impressive enough. Why not blame the Rhodes Scholarships selection committee and criteria? It seems more likely that the criteria and selection committees have themselves become too narrow minded and selective. It seems like they are the ones checking boxes.
Also her disappointment in their lack of contemplation and reflection is not surprising. I have a feeling the students who are really thinking about these questions aren’t tooling away getting A’s in every advanced class they can think to finish up the day with 3 hours of lacrosse and volunteering at the hospital. It reminds me of the ridiculous standards students have to meet to enter medical school. This includes an extremely high GPA in (typically) a difficult science curriculum, 200 hours of hospital volunteering, stellar MCAT scores (which take months to study for), shadowing experiences with doctors and then dealing with the 15% acceptance rate. Seriously, what kind of people are going to be our doctors? How many brilliant and compassionate people have shunned medical school because they wanted to enjoy the one moment in life devoted to intellectual and personal freedom? And how many excellent scholars were denied Rhodes scholarships because they had a B and spent too many nights not studying for a test but arguing with suite mates about foreign policy?
The American college system is the best on the planet and it is full of tools, geniuses, and students wondering about the future of health care, war or technology. The Rhodes committee just needs to conduct more interviews and relax a bit.