Boasting an impressive array of alumni including Bill Clinton, Nicholas Kristof and David Souter, the Rhodes Scholarship is regarded as a launching-pad for some of the most accomplished college-aged intellectuals in the nation. When, however, Harvard graduates Marissa Dell and Swati Mylavarapu published an op-ed in the Harvard Crimson relating their own sub-par experiences as Rhodes Scholars, they generated a firestorm of debate about whether the world’s oldest international scholarship program merits the renown that it has amassed.

Warning undergraduates to “think twice before attending the Rhodes scholarship information session,” in an opinions piece entitled “Oxford Blues,” Dell and Mylavarapu described the library facilities at Oxford as “less than inspiring,” and their overall educational experiences at Britain’s oldest university as “frustrating.” Painting a particularly grim picture of the prospect of research at Oxford, the editorial warned future Rhodes Scholars with hopes of conducting independent research. “You will likely spend most of your time in touch with Harvard librarians to access materials not available at Oxford, and you will probably be asking your undergraduate advisor for research funding and advice,” the op-ed read.

And what of the famed tutorial system, in which prominent faculty mentor up-and-coming young scholars? “If you have visions of debates with famous Nobel Prize winners,” wrote the two authors, “expect instead to be taught in a lecture hall by an apathetic post-doc.”

The complaints outlined in the editorial reached far beyond the academic life at Oxford: The authors argued that the social life at the university was sub-par, in part because of the fact that “everything — including coffee shops and pharmacies” closes at 5 p.m. in the town of Oxford.

The reaction to the editorial has been wide-spread. Over 200 comments were posted to the Crimson’s web site, many of which criticized the authors for being overly negative and petty in their complaints about Oxford. In a follow-up features article, Elliot F. Gerson, the administrator of the American Rhodes Trust, reflected on what it means to be a Rhodes Scholar. “One of the worries that we have and the price of the fame of the scholarship,” admitted Gerson in the article, “is that is that a lot of successful American students, instead of asking, ‘What is it that I really want to do and why,’ ask themselves, ‘What is the next most competitive thing I can apply for?’”

To grain a perspective on the issue, The Daily interviewed Sarah Schulman ‘05, a current Rhodes Scholar at Oxford completing her doctorate in Social Policy and Social Work. A Human Biology major who was active in clinical and social-science research at Stanford, Schulman says that Oxford

TSD: The major concerns that the authors express are that the research facilities at Oxford — both in terms of library resources and faculty mentors — are lacking compared to Harvard. Do you do research at Oxford? How is your relationship with faculty mentors? How is the advising, compared to Stanford?

SS: Like any graduate school, Oxford has strong programs and weaker programs. Prospective applicants should choose Oxford not just because it is Oxford, but because it is a good fit with the applicants’ academic interests and passions. My academic interest — children, youth, and family policy — is outside of the scope of my department. While this can lead to some frustration, one of the virtues of the Oxford system is its complete flexibility. As an Oxford DPhil [Ph.D.] Student, 100 percent of my time is devoted to research. This means I can spend my day making connections with academics and researchers external to my department and outside of Oxford. Once I adjusted to the fact that there would be little institutional support for my research — meaning faculty mentors and library resources were not always accessible or relevant to my topic — I realized how much I was learning by building bridges and setting up the research for myself. Stanford couldn’t have prepared me better — the incredible institutional support I received for doing research as an undergraduate provided me with a model for how to go about laying the groundwork for myself. Sure, I would love a more engaged faculty mentor at Oxford — but, at the end of the day, I made a decision to attend a graduate program that is not perfectly aligned with the research I do.

TSD: Both of the authors of the Crimson op-ed are doing their Oxford programs in Economic and Social History. Could their problems be local to their departments?

SS: Universities are rarely superb at all things. Engineers may choose Stanford over NYU, while drama students may choose NYU over Stanford. The same is true at Oxford. Oxford really specializes in core academic disciplines like philosophy, political theory, and literature. Only recently (given Oxford’s lengthy history!) has Oxford begun investing in interdisciplinary, applied fields. In my experience, these newer programs are less rigorous and far less established, leaving students to have to navigate more on their own.

TSD: The authors of the article talk about how Harvard’s reputation made things difficult for them at Oxford, both in the Rhodes House and with other Oxford students. How does your Stanford degree serve you in Oxford? Does Stanford have a reputation in Oxford?

SS: My Stanford degree has served me incredibly well at Oxford — except for making it hard to acclimate to Oxford’s rainy climate. I have never encountered any ill feelings towards me because of my Stanford affiliation. If anything, I feel I have a lot to live up to given the track record Stanford has for sending extraordinary students to Oxford.

TSD: How was Stanford’s advising program for the Rhodes?

SS: Stanford provided excellent guidance before, during and after the completion of the Rhodes process. Because the process is so unique, with so many layers to it, this guidance tended to be more focused on the scholarship itself, rather than the Oxford experience. While it is the applicants’ job to ask whether the Rhodes Scholarship and Oxford University is the right path for them, I think advising programs can jumpstart that critical thinking by helping students apply the same criteria they would use to gauge any other graduate school opportunity.

TSD: The authors suggest taking some time off before applying to the Rhodes program — do you agree or disagree?

SS: The best part of the Oxford experience is getting to know and converse with students from a truly broad range of backgrounds and diverse academic experiences. What makes these interactions so satisfying is that, for the most part, Oxford students are really grounded: They know themselves and they know what they want. As long as prospective Rhodes have that self-awareness — whether it was acquired before or after taking some time off — I say, go forward with the Rhodes process!

TSD: Is there anything about the Rhodes program that surprised you? Do you have any advice of your own for students considering applying for the Rhodes program?

SS: For me, Oxford’s value comes from the intangibles. The late-night conversations you have with friends at the pub, riding on the back of your professor’s bicycle to dinner at college, drinking 100-year-old port and having picnics in the meadow once the seemingly never-ending rain becomes never-ending sun. It took me awhile to appreciate this aspect of the Oxford experience. I learned how important it is to adjust and realign your expectations at the start of a new opportunity and not continually compare where you are now with where you have been. Oxford is different than Stanford, so a whole new set of standards needs to apply.