JBS, thanks for the athletics video in your post #169, that was awesome to view.
As the AD and Provost proudly noted, Chicago finished 9th in D3 Director’s Cup standings in 2019. At the conclusion of Fall sports season this year, Chicago was 3rd in the Director’s Cup standings which was a great start to a potential Top 5 overall finish in 2020 had it not been for Covid: https://nacda.com/documents/2019/12/23//DIIIOverallDec24.pdf?id=3832
You’ll note that many of the Top 10 schools in the Fall standings are also eminent in academics (Johns Hopkins, MIT, Williams) so achieving excellence in both athletics and academics should be the only standard expected for Chicago…
It was also notable that the Provost said Chicago athletes won 11 Rhodes Scholarships since 1996… I don’t know how many Rhodes Scholarships in total Chicago students have won since 1996 but I would be willing to bet that athletes are highly over-represented compared to non-athletes in their proportions of the study body.
So ~50% of Chicago’s Rhodes Scholars since 1996 have been athletes. Seems that the University of Oxford’s Rhodes Selection Committee highly values exceptional student athletes more so than students who are merely exceptional students.
The following comment received no response, so I’m trying again:
Oxford, where the faculty in the subject that the applicant applies to study chooses the students–not a special “admissions office”–has a special note for American applicants. (my son applied to study English). Oxford says, in essence:
‘We only want to know about your academic qualifications and potential. We don’t care about your extracurricular activities. We’re not interested in your “leadership potential.” We don’t care to hear your thoughts about how you’ll make the world a better place, or how your personality has developed in high school. We only want to know about your intellect, your curiosity, and your preparation and potential to do academic work. Even though we don’t admit candidates on any basis but academic merit, students here pursue all sorts of extracurricular activities at a very high level. Somehow over the years we’ve managed to produce more than a few fairly well-known actors, artists, writers, athletes (including world record breakers and Olympians), journalists and broadcasters, business leaders, and politicians [the current PM, the 28th PM to have gone to Oxford, studied classics here].’
Oxford’s application process is based on grades, test performance on a specialized subject-specific assessment, an essay in which the candidate discusses his/her academic subject, and --most important–an interview in which the candidate is rigorously questioned by faculty members in his/her discipline.
@Mom2Melcs - it looks like Oxford cares much less about the “holistic” approach American colleges take.
@Zoom10 - I’m not sure if it’s Oxford, or the Rhodes trust that favors this. Didn’t Cecil Rhodes prefer athletes for this scholarship?
Again, as much as I love sports, I find the belief that athletic characteristics port over to so many other fields - in some sort of singular fashion - to be puzzling. Upthread, I’d posted at least a dozen activities that have similar (or greater) value, but they don’t hold nearly as much traction with colleges.
Mom, the criteria Oxford is looking for in international or British applicants to its undergrad colleges are very different than the criteria it is looking for in its Rhodes Scholars. Rhodes Scholars are picked not only for academic excellence, but also exceptional leadership and accomplishment outside the classroom.
Academic excellence alone is sufficient for undergrad admission to Oxford, but that’s just the bare minimum starting price for Rhodes Scholarship consideration.
IIRC, Originally you had to be a varsity athlete to be a Rhodes Scholar. That got expanded to include non-athletic pursuits in the 70’s along with ditching the requirement that you had to be a dude.
@Cue7, I have no idea why schools don’t expand their offerings, other than there are only so many athletes a school can have. The Amhersts and Williams of the world are already lousy with athletes. Like 50% of the student body.
I wasn’t talking about Rhodes Scholars. When my spouse was at Oxford, Rhodes Scholars were seen as “well-rounded” operators, intellectually and academically below the level of UK undergrads–and of Yanks on Marshalls and Fulbrights. (See, for instance, Andrew Sullivan, “All Rhodes Lead Nowhere in Particular,” Spy Magazine, October 1988, pp. 108-117 https://books.google.com/books?id=cIdMpKduSmkC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false)
This is always a qualified answer. Some Rhodes scholars are really smart, and others talents were in different directions. This was my big disillusionment when I realized they weren’t the apex of intellectualism. Having sat next to Bill Bradley at a few dinners, well he was a great basketball player.
To become a Rhodes now requires a focused CV building exercise and it is a political process.
These recipients are not chosen strictly on intellectual horsepower. I disagree on your husbands assessment of Rhodes being intellectuals below the UK grads of Oxbridge. Our academic system is necessarily more well rounded where they apply into the majors and are so much more focused; it’s easy to confuse specialization for intelligence.
As for the Oxford and Cambridge students I knew, they are like our HYPS and other top 20 students on average.
That was a deliciously wicked piece, @Mom2Melcs , old but undoubtedly as true as ever. Thank you. Among many gems are these, chosen almost at random:
“Rhodies possess none of the charms of the aristocracy and all the debilities: fecklessness, excessive concern that the peasants be aware of their achievement, and a certain hemophilia of character [good expression, that]. Rhodes scholars are the apotheosis of the hustling apple-pusher, the triumph of the resume-obsessed goody-goody, the epitome of the blue-chip nincompoop.”
The selectors are looking “not for their creative brilliance but for their slogging ability to make all the right career moves and please their elders.”
The selectors are distinctly NOT looking for “someone who is too competitive, too hard-edged, too self-assured - but somone who is nevertheless ‘impressive’, which means someone with a certain conversational adeptness and a certain charm… Talented people are too threatening to the selectors.”
And after the Rhodes? “Many Rhodes scholars spend their whole lives fearing failure and avoiding situations that might conceivably put them to a straight-out test.”
There is also much dope on the mechanisms insuring that Harvard and Yale maintain their perpetual lock on the Rhodes. Lord, this piece would have been useful the last time a certain disgruntled alumnus administered his annual beating to Chicago on account of its having once again been shut out of the Rhodes while Harvard romped home yet again. I suggested at the time that the underlying “problem” is that the fix is always in for Harvard and Yale and that in any event the Chicago type is not the Rhodes type. This piece abundantly substantiates both those hunches. Ask yourself whether the descriptions above seem at all applicable to UChicago students either now or in past years.
And here’s my own bit of personal testimony: The only Rhodes Scholar I ever knew personally became not merely a mediocre lawyer but a bad alcoholic with a reputation for dubious honesty. Yet he was always called “brilliant” on account of the Rhodes, and people sadly noted that “he had not lived up to his early promise.” Did the Rhodes destroy him? Or was he simply the sort whose only skill was to snag the Rhodes? A metaphysical question I am unable to answer.
In the world of Friday Night Lights kids peak in high school. In the world of the Rhodes they peak in college. In both cases it is generally a long road down thereafter. But at least the high school football star once had a genuine talent.
“ In the world of Friday Night Lights kids peak in high school. In the world of the Rhodes they peak in college. In both cases it is generally a long road down thereafter. But at least the high school football star once had a genuine talent.”
That’s a little unfair. Because the Rhodes is so highly recognized it outshines most future accomplishments. Very few go on to become president like Bill Clinton. Maybe winning a Nobel prize would gather more accolades in the future?
It’s like winning the Heisman trophy in college. What can you do as a pro that would outshine that given how we have elevated unreasonably so? It’s not the best athletes generally that win it.
Or an Olympic medal. What can you do in your career that outshines that?
Before we veer off into a discussion of Rhodes scholars, I want to reiterate my point. Oxford and Cambridge–unlike elite American schools–base their admissions decisions purely on academic and intellectual merit, not on athletic ability or that vague quality, “leadership.” Their graduates go on to be brilliant scholars–but also extraordinary athletes; celebrated actors and writers; and famous politicians (and those people pursued these endeavors in a serious way while in college). Perhaps an admissions policy that focuses on academic and intellectual qualities, alone, is not such a bad idea.
Maybe it’s changed since I was at Oxford in the 1980’s, but there were many what I would call “legacy” or “social” admits, and the quality of the students wasn’t higher than those at HYPS etc. I had many friends on the Blues rowing team who got admitted strictly on their rowing ability too. Smart but athletes first.
I think we are seeing a bit of an elitism in that Oxford statement you quoted. Perhaps the same that confronted me by a tipsy fellow rower who accused me of speaking with a “colonial accent” when we were both trying to impress the same female student. Unsuccessfully I might add!
The systems though are so different. We with our diversity of requirements, classes, late selected majors, and constant quizzes and tests. It’s really hard to compare between the systems as they reward entirely different behaviors.
. I think you are right they don’t prioritize athletics at the undergrad level. The rowers I mentioned were at the masters level. Certainly extracurricular and athletics are no where near as prioritized as we do.
It helps too that Oxbridge has far more of a monopoly on student selection.
But the raw intellect of the students is no different.
Not true. There are legacy admits at Oxford. And there are key constituents that when they make recommendations for acceptance - their recomendees get accepted, regardless of test scores or grades.
Especially in England, the rich and upper caste always get their way.
No, FStratford, you are mistaken. There are no “legacy admits.” Given the state-funded status of the universities, “legacy” admits would be a scandal. If you believe I am mistaken, please point to some documentation supporting your claim.
Let me make that argument then, using an argument for disproportionate results.
Oxbridge gets more students from 8 prep schools than anywhere else. This feeder system is a proxy for ‘legacy’ since those schools are attended by certain families from certain social classes.
An Oxbridge “offer” is made based two things: exam results and interview. Guess how those 8 prep schools dominate Oxbridge? Yup the interviews… very subjective. Very not “meritocratic”.
They may not be asking if your parents went to Oxbridge, but they may as well.
To misquote Shakespeare, a legacy status by any other name is just as sweet…
And no, I cant give you a link to a peer reviewed study proving things beyond reasonable doubt.
That question is like asking Asians 10 years ago for a link that proves that Harvard discriminates against them, and saying that “if it were true it would be a scandal”.
There is “common knowledge” out there. It takes only one lawsuit to bust things up open… it will take a while in Britain though, their culture is just not wired that way.
The important point @Fstratford mentioned: 8 elite boarding schools provide more admits than the other 2,900 combined. This of course introduces elitism.
Secondly, these admissions decisions are made at the college level not the university. You don’t apply to Oxford or Cambridge but rather a specific college.
Finally, unconditional offers allow the colleges to use predicted exams to guarantee admission if the student commits to it as their first choice. Not the actual test results.
It seems all school admissions are fundamentally subjective.
Inherent in these issues though are what is the school’s mission? To reward the hardest working high schoolers? To train future academics? To train future leaders (which of course means different skills than pure test taking ability and makes extracurricular activities very relevant )? To train those that can have the greatest impact on the world? (Which may include prominent families as they have a preset ability to impact through wealth). Or to encourage social mobility by integrating lower economic status that shows potential? Which is an important social objective.
Testing alone favors the wealthy and already established and a certain personality type.
I think a university can have a broader view of its role and combine/balance many of the above so therefore legitimately consider things like extracurricular activities.