On the Rhodes

Interesting story in the paper last weekend about recent trends in the awarding of Rhodes Scholarships in Canada. Apparently, in recent years, many of the award-holders have been immigrants from war-torn or otherwise unstable parts of the world. All are incredibly accomplished, of course. But I think it just goes to show how competitive these elite awards have become. Of course, the bar has always been set extremely high. To wit: the year I finished grad school in Halifax, a guy from Saint Mary's won a Rhodes. He had straight As, was quarterback of the SMU football team, and tutored little kids in his spare time. But it seems like nowadays, to win a Rhodes, it's no longer enough to be an athlete with a minimum 4.0 GPA and an impressive record of volunteer work. Now, it seems, you need all that *plus* a degree from the School of Hard Knocks.

The article raised questions about whether Canadian-born applicants from secure, "pampered" backgrounds are now at a disadvantage when it comes to competing for the Rhodes. I wonder if there may be some validity to this, given my own experience. Earlier this year, I received notification from the Commonwealth Scholarship Plan - the funding scheme which allowed me to do my doctoral degree in England - that awards tenable in UK have been subject to massive funding cuts from the British Government. While it was decided to continue offering Commonwealth Scholarships to qualified candidates from developing nations, those for candidates in developed countries like Canada and New Zealand were to be eliminated (thankfully, they have since been partly reinstated). Many reasons - some of which were rather insulting - were given for this decision, but one of the most troubling was the suggestion that scholars from developed nations don't need all-expenses-paid funding. Because we're all rich and pampered, obviously. On the contrary, I can say with certainty that if I had not been a Commonwealth Scholarship recipient, there is no way I'd have been able to do my doctorate at an English university - not when tuition fees and living on a shoestring budget cost over $30,000 per annum in the mid-1990s.

So I have a bit of empathy for the Rhodie-wannabes who may feel a bit hard done by, just because they come from nice middle-class homes. But then again, life ain't fair. When I was applying for funding to do my doctorate, I remember being encouraged by a few of my professors to consider applying for the Rhodes ("They don't *all* go to jocks", as one remarked). But I knew there was no point, without a stellar extracurricular record. And I remember feeling a little resentful about that, because if I hadn't had to spend every summer plus 10-20 hours a week during the academic year working part-time, in order to pay for tuition and residence, I would have had all the time in the world for student clubs and volunteering. So to my mind, the selection criteria for the Rhodes Scholarships discriminates against economically-disadvantaged applicants, also.

I'm just glad I got through the system when I did, before tuition fees got really crazy and things like scholarship schemes were increasingly viewed by politicians as frivolities that could be easily cut from budgets. I wish the current generation luck in pursuing graduate work. Funding for education just ain't what it used to be, and the era of fully-funded studies for all those of sufficient merit is disappearing.