<p>2 Rhodes Scholars for Columbia, beating out Yale, Penn, Dartmouth. Tied with Harvard & Princeton~</p>
<p>[Newsvine</a> - Rhodes Scholars Named for 2008](<a href=“NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News | NBC News”>NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News | NBC News)</p>
<p>[9 Rhodes Finalists interviewed @ Columbia]</p>
<p>Brief bios of these people? What’d they do to save the world?</p>
<p>[Two</a> CU Students Bring Home Rhodes | Columbia Spectator](<a href=“Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator”>Homepage - Columbia Daily Spectator)</p>
<p>Hmm, doesn’t really say. The article is pretty much a ego-stroke for the new head of Fellowships dean. But I guess he did do a good job. 9 Rhodes Finalists this year and a couple of marshall’s.</p>
<p>Bios can be found here:</p>
<p>[The</a> Rhodes Scholarships](<a href=“Office of the American Secretary | The Rhodes Scholarships”>http://www.rhodesscholar.org/)</p>
<p>Also two Marshalls.</p>
<p>uchicago with three!</p>
<p>Olive strikes me as more impressive than Bello. The latter seems to be one of several winners who help make some sort of diversity statement.</p>
<p>“Olive strikes me as more impressive than Bello. The latter seems to be one of several winners who help make some sort of diversity statement.”</p>
<p>That’s a rather petty comment. It seems quite a leap to read a paragraph and assume that reviewing assessments on energy policy is materially better than hosting a TV show and holding leadership positions in diversity groups at the notoriously political Columbia. </p>
<p>It’s a good thing you’re not a judge at Oxford.</p>
<p>Red&blue – you’re not kidding, but you should be. C2002’s comment is not in the least petty.</p>
<p>Olive, pace Bello, is far more impressive. Bello strikes me as an “interesting guy”–he has his own cooking show, is a member of a sexual-awareness group. But he’s distinctly less impressive than not just Olive, but most of the other winners. It’s really <em>jarring</em> to read his bio; it’s so much less substantial than the others!</p>
<p>I usually don’t like to make these kinds of statements but here, it’s patently obvious that Olive is more impressive. There’s a reason he won BOTH a Marshall and a Rhodes. I still can’t quite see how Bello won even one award. Amazing interviewee, I suppose.</p>
<p>Jason might not be impressive, but he is very smart and humble. The committe saw something that we probably can’t see on paper.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me, it is materially better. Cleavage-in-your-face Giada Di’Laurentis hosts a cooking show on TV, so I’m not sure how that in-and-of-itself makes one Rhodes-worthy. And I don’t find being involved in some political club that has no relevance to anything in this world outside of 116th street makes one more deserving of this uber-elite award than all the other people (including Columbians) they probably rejected.</p>
<p>And yes, I realize that I’m making a judgment based on a paragraph without knowing everything the committee knew about them. But I have to assume that the paragraph blurb discusses the most impressive aspects of their candidacy.</p>