Top 10 Producers of Prestigious Fellowships in the Past 25 Years

[noimagination]

<p>

This is silly because obviously bigger schools are going to produce more scholars, fellows. Shouldn’t it be done as a percentage?

I disagree. The percentages are fairly meaningless; no matter where you go, your odds of getting one of these scholarships would be very small if they were assigned randomly. The point is that they are not assigned randomly, and I think it does reflect well on the scholarship advising staff and supervising faculty for a school to consistently produce winners.

What? Is there anything wrong with the research conducted by K-State students who were awarded Goldwater Scholarships?</p>

<p>The quoted comment just reflects the biased belief on this forum that a university like K-State just isn’t deserving of the Goldwaters that its students received. Why is it “cherry-picking” when K-State identifies promising science students and nurtures them, but when Harvard only admits less than 10% of applicants, it’s not cherry-picking?

I don’t think that was the implication. The ‘cherry-picking’ is related to the competitions selected as components in this table; K-State has more winners of some scholarships than others. It doesn’t take anything away from K-State’s success to acknowledge the limitations of this ranking.</p>