Rhodes Scholarship Interview: First Hand Accounts

This is a collection of Rhodes Scholarship Interview experiences, described in the first person by 2013 finalists.  Included is a detailed list of two finalist's personalized interview questions.  This will be updated as I receive more information from 2013 finalists and winners.

In response to my own experience as a 2012 Rhodes finalist in District 14, described in detail here, I had the great privilege of mentoring a number of finalists as they prepared for their respective interviews.  Two of these individuals went on to be named Rhodes Scholars!  And a great number of others walked away rightfully excited and proud to have represented their respective districts in what is known as the Olympics of academia.

Thank you, sincerely, to these four individuals who took the time to share their thoughts with me.  If you interviewed for the Rhodes Scholarship, and are willing to contribute, please write me, and I would be thrilled to be able to add your thoughts here! 

The point of this?  To help any strongly motivated individual, no matter their background or their university's access to resources, in their pursuit of something amazing.

My belief?  That world changers can come from any corner of the world -- no matter how small or previously unheard of.

Thank you for your contribution!!  And God bless.

Analiesse M (Isherwood) Carter
2012 Rhodes Scholarship District 14 Finalist
Western Washington University, Bachelors of Arts in Behavioral Neuroscience
University of Washington School of Medicine, MD 2015

Jessica Wamala

Rhodes Scholar District 1

I GOT IT!!!! Thank you SO much! I definitely took your advice to heart! It was crazy; like the freaking Hunger Games! I enjoyed getting to know the other finalists, but there was still so much anxiety to be had.  The interview went okay (ferocious), but I survived.  The cocktail hour, on the other hand, was nice and chill. Very low key. And the panelists were genuinely enthusiastic about meeting us! Thank you again for all the advice!

Suzanna Fritzberg

Rhodes Scholar District 14

Beyond all of my wildest expectations, I've actually been named a Rhodes Scholar for  district 14! I'm still a little in shock - I thought I'd bombed the interview, and was concentrating just on keeping a positive attitude (like you recommended!) and so this has really blindsided me.

I think your advice and observations were really on point - the judges didn't seem to be looking for anything in particular except a good attitude and perhaps some other qualities that remain a mystery. The other candidate chosen had a completely different personality and area of study than I did, so it certainly doesn't seem like the judges had a type in mind.

I think the biggest thing I took away from the weekend was just sheer number of talented, interesting people I was able to meet. The 15 other finalists were engaging, kind, and very fun to talk to - I almost wished a disaster movie scenario would break out in the city of Seattle because I think our group's reaction would've made great blockbuster material. :)

Thank you so much for sharing your story on your blog, and for your generosity in talking more over the phone - my biggest goal going into the weekend was to have fun and stay positive, and the rewards of that are much bigger than I'd expected.

My Absolute Best,

Suzanna

Alexander Sun

District 14 Finalist

The interview experience - meeting the candidates and the panelists - was definitely extraordinary!  So many smart and talented people in one room!   I wanted to give you a summary of the experience below. It is almost exactly like you described in your blog, which has been an invaluable resource!
____________

Panelists:
*Rob Mitchell:  Attorney, K&L Gates. District 14 Secretary
*Gerry Grinstein: Former CEO of Delta Airline, currently heads a venture group. The only panelist who is not a former Rhodes Scholar
*John Melin: CEO of Brown & Haley candy company, famous for Almond Roca
Doug Holmgren: Industry position, D.Phil in Physics
Laura Shackelton: Works at the Gates Foundation, Seattle. D.Phil in Virology at Oxford
Courtney Voelker: Resident, MD/PhD student
Jessica Teich: In first class of women Rhodes Scholars

On Friday at noon, we met in the lobby of the 29th floor of K&L Gates. Name cards with our home universities were placed on a table for us to pick up. We deposited our transcripts with the administrative assistant, Dawnelle Patterson.

We hung out in the lobby talking with other applicants until 12:10, at which time the panelists ushered us into the lunch room for introductions. In the lunch room, we were arranged into a large circle with panelists interspersed randomly. We then announced our names, hometowns, universities, and intended course of study at Oxford.

Then, we proceeded with a three course lunch. Two panelists sat at each table and chatted with the applicants. Every twenty minutes, the panelists would get up and rotate. At the end of the lunch, we were shown to the company library, where we would be allowed to stay in between interviews.

The interviews were held in a large meeting room at K&L Gates, the downtown Seattle law firm that the District 14 secretary (Rob Mitchell) works at.

6 individuals interviewed on Friday, from 2:30 to 5:35 pm.
The other 9 applicants interviewed on Saturday, from 8:30 to 2:55 pm.
Interviews were 25 minutes long, approximately.

Questions:
Laura Shackelton: (In relation to a part of my personal statement): If you were made CEO of a major pharma company, what problem would you tackle, in which you could make the biggest impact in the shortest amount of time?
John Melin: (Following up to Laura's question, and in relation to my personal statement) He asked a series of questions in regards to pharmaceutical companies and their social responsibility versus profit motive. They were meant to challenge my point of view and to see if I could support my argument.
John Melin: What is your favorite movie? (Answer: Silver Linings Playbook)
Jessica Teich: Follow up to movie question: Doesn't the movie's glossing over the actuality of depression run counter to your ideals as a physician?
Jessica Teich: What can the Rhodes Scholarship do for you?
Gerry Grinstein: What would you do if President Obama made you the Surgeon General?
Gerry Grinstein: What do you do in your free time?
Gerry Grinstein: We're almost out of time. Do you have anything you would like to add?

Interviewees/Finalists for District 14 (pictured below):
Steven Kyle Cook: Columbia
Harshini Jayaram: MIT
Priyanka Saha: MIT
Adriana Cherskov: Princeton
Patrick Tate: Montana State University
Gennie Gebhart: University of Washington
Mika Weinstein: University of Oregon
Britta Stime: Gonzaga
Ahmad Nasir: West Point
Kirsten Tilleman: Oregon State and UCSB
Narintohn Luangrath: Boston University
Mark Fischer: Northwestern
Alexander Sun: UCLA
Suzanna Marie Fritzberg: Yale (Winner)
Andrew Scott Lea: Harvard (Winner)

2013-2014 Rhodes District 14 Finalists

 

Mika Weinstein

District 14 Finalist

I arrived at K&L Gates about ten minutes early and introduced myself to other finalists while we waited in the lobby area. We mingled and talked until everyone arrived, including the interviewers. The receptionist collected our official transcripts and then we headed into another room for lunch. Again, we mingled while drinking some sparkling cider. The interviewer who was in my cluster impressed us by going around and speaking to each of our study interests just based on name tags. After another ten minutes or so, Rob Mitchell got everyone’s attention. He asked that each of us share our name, hometown, undergraduate degree program, and proposed area of study at Oxford. There were sixteen finalists and seven interviewers. 

After introductions, we sat down at three different tables with labeled name placards. We had five finalists and two interviewers at our table for the appetizer course.  The interviewers asked us who had come the farthest, but after that, were relatively quiet. I asked them many questions and was surprised that none of the other candidates took the opportunity to be assertive. Honestly, it was pretty awkward. A few others did jump in at different points but I was the main driver of conversation. I must have been stuck with a shy table because we could hear lively conversation at the other tables. I mainly asked about Oxford and which colleges they attended and we talked a bit about President Obama’s visit to Seattle. 

The main course was very different. We had three interviewers at our table and we naturally split up into conversations with two or three people in each. I mainly spoke with the interviewer next to me and another finalist, Stephen. We talked about ultra-marathons and other extreme sports for a while. Somehow we got on the topic of sexual violence policy on college campuses. We talked about the lack of acknowledgement for gender dynamics in sexual violence which led to a conversation on the gender dynamics of shooting massacres in the US. After a bit of good conversation, the interviewer stopped us, explaining that she wasn’t supposed to talk about her politics, and returned the subject to sports. 

The dessert course was again a full table conversation with the last two interviewers. We talked about fishing, which led to a short aside about my stepfamily in Bhutan (one of them had been fishing in Bhutan). We talked about marathons and ultra-marathons again for a while as well. At some point we talked about the generational differences in defining historical moments (JFK’s shooting v 9/11) and how that continues to impact society. 

The entire mingling and lunch portion went from about noon to 2pm, and the first interview was at 2:30pm. At the end of lunch, they passed out a schedule of interview slots which had been randomly selected. I was slotted for the last interview, 2:30pm on Saturday. They gave us a tour of the floor, particularly the library where we were told to hang out and get to know one another, and the room where we would be interviewing. They also showed us the “waiting room” where we would be fetched from, which had a computer and desk in it. 

After about ten minutes of chatting in the library, most of us decided to head out and explore the area a little. Almost all of the finalists were from Seattle or the outlying area (and then one from Spokane, one from Eugene, one from Alaska, one from Montana, me from California, and maybe one or two others who were from somewhere else in Oregon or Washington – none from Idaho or Wyoming). We took a ride on a Ferris wheel and then headed back to the office because of the cold. Someone set up a google doc with all of our contact information so that we could communicate about dinner or other things. Generally the tone was very friendly, not competitive, and the camaraderie only increased from there. One girl, who had competed as a finalist in Southern California the year before, said that we were much friendlier and closer than the SoCal group. 

That evening, after resting and seeing my dad for a few hours, I went to dinner with three other finalists. One of them had set up GroupMe, a group texting service, so that we could easily contact everyone. From there we met up with another finalist for a few drinks at a nearby bar. We exchanged stories about the level of preparation we had received and how the interviews had gone. All four of them had interviewed that day. The girls from OSU/UCSB and Gonzaga/Queens University Belfast (both of them had already started grad school) received almost no institutional support. Each of them had found one former finalist/scholar who mentored them and did one mock interview, but it was relatively informal. The girl from MIT had a bit more formal of a mock interview, but all agreed that their mocks were nothing like the real interview. 

On the other hand, the guy from Northwestern had been in contact with their Office of Fellowships since he was called in his sophomore year. They gave him explicit advice on what to do over the next few years (ex. Learn another language or two, be sure to run his marathon before the interview, not after), which he wasn’t entirely comfortable with. He graduated in June, but the school paid to fly him back from Colombia for six days of intensive mock interviews (he couldn’t even remember how many he did – at least five). They then flew him to San Francisco for his Marshall interview and Seattle for the Rhodes. 

The guy from Northwestern felt that his interview had gone as well as it could have, and it was obvious he was prepared for it. Two of the girls did not feel like they had performed their best, and were surprised at the more personal questions, which they had not been prepared for. Through later conversations with some of the other finalists, it was obvious that the level of preparation played a huge role in how they felt the interview went. I remember seeing Suzanna (the girl from Yale who won) reviewing what looked like very well organized and extensive notes before her interview.

I was asleep by 11:30 and got a good 9 hours of sleep. The next morning I went to Pike Place Market with my dad and then got ready and reviewed my notes again before heading over to the office. They were running a little behind schedule but before long I was in the holding room, reviewing notes, practicing responses out loud, and meditating a little. The chairman came to get me and pointed to my water glass when I arrived. One of them acknowledged how hard it was go last and noted that because of my last name, I was probably used to it. We laughed and generally I felt very relaxed going in. I’ll list the questions here, and while I can’t remember the exact order, it was something like this:

•  One of your recommenders described you as being “idealistic but not naïve” and “realistic but not pessimistic”. Can you provide another binary like this to describe yourself?
•  A long intro but basically – thinking about issues like bioenergy, how do you decide between food and the environment? 
•  Who is someone you admire in your field? 
•  What are one or two of the biggest problems facing the US food system and what are a few policy ideas to address them?
•  What do you think about consolidating food nutrition labels to just proteins, fats, and carbs? 
•   Why are you interested in those particular Master degrees?
•  What do you like to do? What do you read and listen to in your free time? 
•  What’s your ideal career path? 
•  Have you ever had to be hard on someone to get them to do something? 
•  Would you support a tax on commuters into cities to subsidize public transportation?
•  You talk about fasting in your personal statement. Is this something we should encourage more people to partake in?

These questions were not far off from the types of questions I was asked during my mock interviews, though I think in some cases the ones in my mock were actually better. There was no particular order in which different interviewers asked questions and one man asked the clear majority of questions, while some only asked one. Some of them I felt like I answered clearly and confidently, while a few caught me off guard (notably 9, 10). I did tell them that I needed a second to think for question 9. At some points (especially on the policy related questions) they interrupted me and asked a different question. Overall, I did feel like I smiled more and showed more of my interest/personality in the real interview than in my mocks, but it didn’t feel like a winning interview and I’m not entirely sure why.

At the end of my 20-25 minutes, the chair said that the time was up and asked if I wanted to share anything else. I thanked them all and then said something along the lines of: “I do want to share one more thing, because I think it provides some insight into who I am. I have spent a fair amount of time in prison over the last few years, because of my class and various workshops, and I’ll be TAing a class in a maximum security prison in the spring. The guys always love having us in, but often wonder what compels us to return and work with them. My theory is that there is something inherent to human nature that wants to connect with people who have had radically different life experiences from our own. Learning about how those connections revitalize me has been just as important as other parts of my education at Oregon.” I could tell from the “mmm”s and nodding that they were impressed and that it was the right note to end on. It might have been the strongest moment in my interview. 

When I came back out, everyone was waiting in the reception area. We chatted and played some trivia games while we waited. It took them a little more than 2 hours to deliberate. When they returned, everyone stood and they acknowledged how great the group was. After they announced the winners, they came around and shook everyone’s hands. Doug, one of the interviewers who had sat with me at the first course, told me that I was one of his strongest candidates. I told him how much I appreciated knowing that. We all left on friendly terms and agreed to stay in touch.