Advice about Rhodes Interviews

A faculty member who has been both a state and district selector for the Rhodes competition offers the following characterizations of the Rhodes interviews and advice:

After twelve years on two state committees and one district (all in the NE) I see a certain consistency of questioning in the 20 minutes allotted to each candidate. The first question, or short set of questions, is typically directed toward the candidate's perceived strengths, as inferred from the academic major and accomplishments (rather than the "proposal", although that may come into it). The first question may simply ask for an explanation of, say, what the experiment or senior essay is about and why it matters, where it might lead (not just at Oxford), and that usually opens up some critical issues including potential flaws, which is where committees hone in and test the candidate's powers of response and think-through. This is often the heart of the interview. The Rhodes Trust stresses the prime importance of academic and intellectual ability measured in the fullest way.

But other things get in there, if not sequentially: no mere description of the athletic or leadership activities (obvious enough from the resume), but questions about their "interface" aspects. Should something be done to curb the commercialization of sports? If so, what? How can your work against AIDS in Southern Africa be effective given the attitude of the Mbeki government?

And finally, some questions try to assess the candidate's honesty, unselfishness, and general personality. They can come through just about any topic, and are not always obvious.

The interview is the heart of the process. Not that other things don't count, but that at this level they are not always enough to distinguish one strong candidate from another. To be sure, you will be done in by a transcript that is missing too much (a breadth, say, or achieved excellence in the major), or by a recommendation couched with too many caveats, or by a personal statement that is formulaic or self-congratulatory. Try to seal off those potential flaws ahead of time.

There are two keys to the interview itself. The first is to answer the question put, not the one you want to hear, or are best prepared for, or have been advised by your Yale coaches to expect. It may be a question in more than one part, with the sequent question(s) at least partly hidden. Make sure you hear the whole question, and answer it all.

Second: once you've grasped and briefly pondered the question(s), don't tell the committee what you surmise they are looking to be told. If you are an economist, and there's a professor of economics at the table, you can surely count on his or her expertise, to which you should defer without kowtowing. But committees are harder to read than you might imagine: members may have knowledge of subjects, and views on them, that would surprise you. Don't assume that every northeastern selector, for example, has predictably liberal views on military tribunals or the death penalty.

What matters is that you answer in your own voice, not that of your Yale coaches, or the one you attribute to your interlocutor(s). Answer clearly, thoughtfully, reasonably, concisely yet in enough detail to overcome vagueness and build an argument, and you will be persuasive. And it never hurts to smile.