A Note From the Editor: This month we had our Rose Research Ambassadors/Rhodes Finalist (E)lliot Hueske and (J)onathan Tanaka discuss their experiences preparing, applying and interviewing for the Rhodes Scholarship.
A Photo of Oxford University,
Photo Credit: Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/University-of-Oxford
J: Why did I apply to the Rhodes? Let’s be honest, there’s a lot of prestige associated with the Rhodes and that would be very beneficial for advancing a career inside or outside of academia. Many professors advising me were saying that a lot of Rhodes Scholars do not end up going into academia, but it’s beneficial for any career in which you’re interested – though probably not for investment banking or for many types of law. The other thing is I’m very interested in communities and, reflecting in the past on the various communities of which I’ve been a part, they’ve made me who I am. So, if you’re interested in quite high-caliber communities that really take you to whatever next threshold you’d like to achieve, something like the Rhodes would be really good because of how high-caliber members of that community are. I guess I’ve also heard of the Rhodes Scholarship for a long time, so it has been in the back of my mind for a while. How about you?
E: Speaking to the community aspect of it, from my understanding, I think approaching interdisciplinary life and research is handled in a very different way at Oxford. So at American institutions it’s easier to kind of take that approach between the different departments, and yet I guess at Oxford it’s harder to do that on a departmental level, but there are these high-table meals where people congregate in a dining environment and you’ll sit next to someone whose from a biochemistry department, for example, or a sociology person and that’s how they cultivate interdisciplinary perspectives and I think that’s an interesting way to do that, so that was compelling to me. But I also think Rhodes spoke to me because it promotes these action-oriented roles and that is what I want to do with my background in leadership.
J: That sounds great. I think if we demystify the process a bit, this conversation might be especially helpful for many people. How would you generally describe the entire process?
E: Right, I mean the process started back in July to apply for institutional nomination. Did you know from the start that you were going to do Rhodes?
J: I definitely knew. I was pretty sure almost about a year in advance. I was pretty sure I was going to go for Rhodes, Marshall, and I also did Churchill, but I didn’t get the institutional nomination. Churchill is for STEM at Cambridge.
E: For what? Oh, for mathematics?
J: Yeah, your question is exactly why it was challenging. I had to make an argument for why mathematical foundations and logic ought to be considered STEM disciplines, which is an uphill battle. Certainly, if one is interested in the Rhodes for some of the reasons that we have spoken about – for advancing academic careers and these sorts of things – and one is interested in STEM, one should also consider Churchill and Marshall. I also applied for the Marshall and was nominated, but I didn’t get to the finalist round. So, I can’t comment too much on the Marshall. The most beneficial thing at the end of the day is that even though neither of us received the Rhodes, it was very interesting to learn about the process and participate in the experience.
E: And I think it’s also important to keep in mind that finalist status also holds a weight. And I think that for me, interviewing is always a very poor subject, I don’t take myself to be a good interviewer, but going through the mock interviews was really helpful and something that can be applied to any kind of job or fellowship applications.
J: I definitely agree. I remember when I heard that I was a finalist, the committee told me to celebrate, and that seemed a bit weird – what am I celebrating exactly if in two weeks I enter into the final stage? Probabilistically speaking, I won’t get it, so why am I celebrating? It did take some convincing, but that’s something worth reiterating. Being a Rhodes finalist is something considered highly impressive and worth celebrating in itself.
E: Right, I think there is this initial sense of disappointment when you figure out that you’re not selected. Yet just going to that social interview was eye-opening in the sense that I got to know everyone else and all of the other candidates were exceptionally creative and talented and accomplished so I was like, this could go to anyone here.
J: I think a lot of people are worried about getting five to eight recommendations.
E: Right! Who did you ask?
J: I asked four philosophy professors and four non-philosophy professors.
E: So yours were all academic?
J: Yeah mine were all academics, and that’s something worth mentioning: they do not all have to be professors. How many of yours were academics?
E: Well I guess TA’s are considered character references, so I asked two TA’s, four professors, and two people from student leadership. Character references speak to non-academic roles, they don’t have to be in a position of extracurricular affiliation, but it’s more of a broader category to give a better picture of who you are as a person given that the writing samples are so limited.
J: What I tried to do was diversify my profile beyond philosophy, even though I was applying for philosophy. Part of the reason for that is this well-known quote by Cecil Rhodes when he was initially instituting the scholarship, in which he remarked that it should not be given to those who are merely “bookworms.” Part of what that means is that they are looking for that interdisciplinary flair that you were mentioning and that you’re not so narrowly focused. What did you think about the Zoom format for the social interview?
E: I thought it was somewhat strange, maybe not what I was expecting, in a good way! What about your social interview experience?
J: Yeah the Zoom format was weird, and it felt very artificial. There’s always a bit of hesitation before you start speaking, and it was unclear when someone else was going to start speaking. I think in future years the social interview will be in person. We’ll see if that pans out, but the in-person format would be more natural for talking to people one-on-one or in small groups, which is much more conducive to conversation.
E: Yes! Especially because we’re so reliant on reading the social cues of someone else and that feels almost impossible on Zoom having to navigate through the different little window boxes and just picking up on the environmental feedback is kind of gone. Maybe we should talk about the different levels of the application? Because there are many phases starting with institutional nomination in the summer, then officially applying to Rhodes in October, and then hearing back about finalists. I was only told about my interview about a week before my interview.
J: Oh really? I was told two weeks in advance, I guess it depends on the district.
E: Right. So do you have any suggestions on how to manage the different levels to this because it can be overwhelming.
J: I would say, if you’re able, start early and get some lists of possible recommenders formulated. It’s not the end of the world if you’re unable, but the main constraint for time is being reasonable about how much time you give your recommenders. Other than that, act as though the submission for institutional nomination is your final submission. You can then guarantee it’s close to your best work and there’s always the possibility of marginal improvement before the national competition, if you are nominated. Take advantage of talking to advisors at URF, other professors, and perhaps other Rhodes scholars or finalists. At the final stage, try to enjoy it and not get too stressed. Perhaps my biggest takeaways in the process came from this realization: when the procedure is as selective as the Rhodes, it becomes more about subjective choice regarding the projects and people in which they decide to invest. In that sense, there are little grounds for being too nervous.