Gates Cambridge 2017-2018

[sherbertlemon]

23 hours ago, Triplett said:

Any news from biological sciences?

I'm curious about biological sciences invitations as well. My application status has been "awaiting consideration by department" for the past 2 months, then suddenly on Thursday it changed to "under consideration by department." This makes me a little skeptical that they even processed my Gates-Cambridge application to begin with, if it's true that it is only being looked at now. I didn't have any outstanding forms or anything, and submitted everything well before the October 12 deadline. I do have a dual citizenship and I'm wondering if for some reason I have been filed as an international applicant instead of a US one for Gates, but my entire work and educational history should make my US primary citizenship clear, and I'm pretty sure I had to indicate a "primary" and "secondary" citizenship on the Cambridge app.

Of course I could easily just not have received an interview, which statistically is much more plausible anyway! I'd love to know if any biologists have received interview invitations thus far.

[Averroes MD]

It's pretty stupid that we can't just log on to a website and confirm that we didn't get offered an interview. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Averroes MD

[Averroes MD]

10 hours ago, Averroes MD said:

It's pretty stupid that we can't just log on to a website and confirm that we didn't get offered an interview. 

It's like they saw my post. I just got a rejection email.

[sat0ri]

On 12/16/2016 at 1:06 PM, Clover22 said:

Oh I think it's actually categorized as "arts" for the Gates. (Just checked, and there are four panels: Arts, Physical Sciences, Biological Sciences, and Social Sciences

Since 100 people are invited to interview, 40 are offered the scholarship, and there are 4 section, I wonder how they distribute the number of grants between disciplines? My guess is that they interview about 20-25 from each of the four disciplines/categories, and a little less than half of the interviewees are offered a grant, so that an equal number of grants are given to each category (4 categories x 10 grants = 40 scholarships). I guess it could be possible that certain sections have more grants to award and so this might not be right.

[dragontime]

Then I suppose another thing to consider is how they decide the percentage of those who will be on an MPhil route vs Ph.d. route. Considering that, for the same amount of money they can host 3 MPhils or 1 doctorate, I am curious as to how they are factoring granting MPhils vs Doctorates. I would even question if they have a certain quota by which they will accept 2nd time Gates winners. There are just tons of curiosities on my part. 

[TempD]

To applicants in the physical sciences: I just received an invitation to interview, so it appears that they are still notifying shortlisted candidates. However, it seems likely that I'm taking the place of someone who did not accept their invitation, so I am not holding out much hope that I am highly ranked.

[eternalwait]

I submitted my application on Dec 6, and even though the deadline of my program is on January 30, it now shows "Under Consideration by Department". I wonder when I'll get a result.

[Horb]

22 hours ago, dragontime said:

Then I suppose another thing to consider is how they decide the percentage of those who will be on an MPhil route vs Ph.d. route. Considering that, for the same amount of money they can host 3 MPhils or 1 doctorate, I am curious as to how they are factoring granting MPhils vs Doctorates. I would even question if they have a certain quota by which they will accept 2nd time Gates winners. There are just tons of curiosities on my part. 

I doubt they have a funding limit in terms of "We can only select X MPhils and Y Doctorates." If anything, it is probably like the Marshall in which they select based on merit and whether or not you're likely to succeed in your intended course of study. 

[dragontime]

9 hours ago, Horb said:

I doubt they have a funding limit in terms of "We can only select X MPhils and Y Doctorates." If anything, it is probably like the Marshall in which they select based on merit and whether or not you're likely to succeed in your intended course of study. 

 

 

I certainly do not think that selecting based on merit and being mindful of the "make up" of the cohorts are mutually exclusive; they are more than likely doing both. Given that they intend to have around 90 scholars a year, it's doubtful that they would bring in a cohort solely made of doctorate candidates or one solely made of masters candidates, no matter what the merit were of the group. The Gates Cambridge annual board reports seem to suggest some sense of intentional pattern and not simple happenstance. In 2014 the cohort was 48% Doctorate and 52% Masters/MPhil. In 2015 the cohort was 45% Doctorate and 55% Masters/MPhil. And a simple look at years prior to that show similar patterns. Even the board reports suggest patterns in percentages of scholars according to discipline. So, I doubt there isn't some flexible method they use to ensure cohort diversity (in degree pursuits).  

[Horb]

1 hour ago, dragontime said:

 

I certainly do not think that selecting based on merit and being mindful of the "make up" of the cohorts are mutually exclusive; they are more than likely doing both. Given that they intend to have around 90 scholars a year, it's doubtful that they would bring in a cohort solely made of doctorate candidates or one solely made of masters candidates, no matter what the merit were of the group. The Gates Cambridge annual board reports seem to suggest some sense of intentional pattern and not simple happenstance. In 2014 the cohort was 48% Doctorate and 52% Masters/MPhil. In 2015 the cohort was 45% Doctorate and 55% Masters/MPhil. And a simple look at years prior to that show similar patterns. Even the board reports suggest patterns in percentages of scholars according to discipline. So, I doubt there isn't some flexible method they use to ensure cohort diversity (in degree pursuits).  

Yes, but my point was that it is very unlikely they say "Oh, if we fund this person, we can't fund these three people!" My point is, they don't assign dollar signs to candidates when selecting. They may go for a 50/50 split, as your numbers indicate, but that is vastly different than stating "Oh, not this person because they'd cost X amount!"

[dragontime]

On 12/22/2016 at 7:26 PM, Horb said:

Yes, but my point was that it is very unlikely they say "Oh, if we fund this person, we can't fund these three people!" My point is, they don't assign dollar signs to candidates when selecting. They may go for a 50/50 split, as your numbers indicate, but that is vastly different than stating "Oh, not this person because they'd cost X amount!"

 

The problem is, that's not what I said. I said "I wonder how they decide the percentage of MPhil vs PH.D. I simply pointed out the costs of the different programs as evidence to support the notion that they likely at least consider percentages for each program given the difference in the number of scholars they could have in the cohorts depending on the degrees scholars are pursuing. I never said that they were "not choosing people" because of how much they cost. 

[Horb]

1 hour ago, dragontime said:

The problem is, that's not what I said. I said "I wonder how they decide the percentage of MPhil vs PH.D. I simply pointed out the costs of the different programs as evidence to support the notion that they likely at least consider percentages for each program given the difference in the number of scholars they could have in the cohorts depending on the degrees scholars are pursuing. I never said that they were "not choosing people" because of how much they cost. 

I'm a little lost. How does "to support the notion that they likely at least consider percentages for each program given the difference in the number of scholars they could have in the cohorts depending on the degrees scholars are pursuing" not imply they look at costs? The numbers they could have in different cohorts makes no sense. If 32 people are awarded the scholarship in 2016, it is a cohort of 32. People choosing an MPhil or a PhD wouldn't affect that. It is still a cohort of 32. Now, if you are implying that they would fund 28 instead of 32 (random numbers) because they they included a few more PhDs (which seemed to be what you were implying), then it would be based on cost, no? What other reason would they have?

[dragontime]

2 minutes ago, Horb said:

I'm a little lost. How does "to support the notion that they likely at least consider percentages for each program given the difference in the number of scholars they could have in the cohorts depending on the degrees scholars are pursuing" not imply they look at costs? The numbers they could have in different cohorts makes no sense. If 32 people are awarded the scholarship in 2016, it is a cohort of 32. People choosing an MPhil or a PhD wouldn't affect that. It is still a cohort of 32. Now, if you are implying that they would fund 28 instead of 32 (random numbers) because they they included a few more PhDs (which seemed to be what you were implying), then it would be based on cost, no? What other reason would they have?

 

They would obviously HAVE to look at costs. The Gates Cambridge Trust is a funding entity and all funding entities look at costs because they have a budget. The Gates Cambridge Fund is a $210 million dollar donation from the Gates Foundation. According to the Gates Trust, they aim to get around 90 scholars a year and are aiming to build as large, strong and diverse of a network as possible. That would mean, as supported by the Gates Cambridge Trust notes, that budgeting that $210 million would be something they would have to take into account. In order to have that $210 million fund as many cohorts of scholars as possible (thereby creating a large network across the years), I hypothesized that the trust would likely consider the percentage of MPhil vs PH.D's because different compositions of cohorts would differently impact the budget. A class of 90 PH.D's would dramatically impact the budget and thus dramatically reduce the number of future cohorts who could be fully funded for Cambridge study. So, to extend the donation for as many cohorts/years as possible, I HYPOTHESiZED that the Trust likely had a sense of the percentage of MPhils and PH.Ds they were looking to have in each cohort. If this explanation does not suit you and you still don't understand what I am saying, then let's call it a moot issue and simply agree to disagree. 

[TempD]

If I might add something to the discussion: the $210 million initial donation is not what is directly funding the Gates scholars. Instead, it is the return on this investment that is used for funding. For most trusts, the initial donation is never distributed, so there will always be $210 million at the Trust's disposal, which they invest to earn the funds they distribute. It is likely that the cost difference between funding only PhD's and funding only MPhil's is negligible compared to the effect of the market, so seeking diversity in their scholars plays a larger role when determining the mix of successful PhD and MPhil candidates.

[Horb]

14 hours ago, TempD said:

If I might add something to the discussion: the $210 million initial donation is not what is directly funding the Gates scholars. Instead, it is the return on this investment that is used for funding. For most trusts, the initial donation is never distributed, so there will always be $210 million at the Trust's disposal, which they invest to earn the funds they distribute. It is likely that the cost difference between funding only PhD's and funding only MPhil's is negligible compared to the effect of the market, so seeking diversity in their scholars plays a larger role when determining the mix of successful PhD and MPhil candidates.

Yeah, it is the same with the Marshall, which offers three routes for their scholars to take. I've sat in on selection committees. It has never once been mentioned which track is someone on unless, you know, they aren't qualified for it. 

[dragontime]

Has anyone who is interviewing found any useful resources?

[sat0ri]

Has everyone sent in their CV's and cover photos? I thought I'd say something because the deadline is coming up, but I'm sure this group has no problem keeping deadlines.

[sat0ri]

Has anyone heard any information on the interview panel members? I'm dying of suspense.

[kaightconhead]

On 11/21/2016 at 0:24 AM, embeddedV2 said:

Sure, just checked my emails, and this was the timeline:
3 February: department offer
26 February: invited to Gates interview
22-23 March: Gates interview
24 March: Gates offer

Hey!! 

Did you get an email notification or did you have to check in your application portal for it yourself?

Congrats on getting it! I have two friends doing Gates right now, what college are you in?

[embeddedV2]

On 2017. 01. 17. at 10:32 AM, kaightconhead said:

Hey!! 

Did you get an email notification or did you have to check in your application portal for it yourself?

Congrats on getting it! I have two friends doing Gates right now, what college are you in?

I got an email about every update.

And thanks, I actually ended up declining my place - was at Cambridge for undergrad so decided to leave and came to the US for grad school. I'm sure Gates would've been a really good experience though.

[sat0ri]

Decisions out on 2/1/2017 at 10:58 AM (Wednesday following the interview, which I skyped for).
Subject line: " Gates Cambridge Scholarship decision "

I was accepted!!! This is a dream come true..

[Horb]

30 minutes ago, sat0ri said:

Decisions out on 2/1/2017 at 10:58 AM (Wednesday following the interview, which I skyped for).
Subject line: " Gates Cambridge Scholarship decision "

I was accepted!!! This is a dream come true..

CONGRATS!

[dragontime]

I got it !!!!!! I am so excited I literally cried. 

[dragontime]

Okay, I told myself if I won, I would be certain to leave the web with more useful information than I have found. Here are a few tips for future applicants. These are my personal tips, based on my journey; I encourage you to sift through, find what is useful and chuck what you think is not. 

1. From the moment you start your application you need be aware that you are tailoring it for two different audiences- the department you are applying to and the Gates Cambridge committee. These audiences are looking for some of the same things as far as academic excellence and leadership (this, after all, is what will get you moved to Gates), but Gates is incredibly mission-driven and in this way it may differ from your department. Your application needs to take into account the Gates mission and needs to deeply tie the Gates mission with the work you plan to do long term and the program you plan to pursue at Cambridge. 

2. Practice your interview- I am not one who struggles with interviews at all, but I found that there were many "blind spots" I had not considered when preparing for my interview. This is where practice interviews with my undergraduate institution were incredibly helpful. They were able to ask me questions and raise my awareness of even small things like word choice. It is useful to get a different set of eyes on your interview preparation. 

3. By the time you get to the interview- everyone is excellent. We are all equally yoked as far as accomplishment, intelligence, department support, and mission. Thus, the interview is a chance to stand out from the pack. It's a chance to sell your passion for both the work you intend to do and also for becoming a part of the Gates community. Be sure that you are prepared to speak to both. Gates Cambridge has a youtube page which you may find useful and of course, you should be LIVING on the Gates Cambridge website. You are mainly trying to prepare yourself to convincingly argue that you are an amazing fit for not only your program, but for Gates. 

4. Have fun- the interview IS going to be an amazingly friendly and personable interview. Be personable, passionate, informed and friendly. Come ready to enjoy the dialogue. 

5. Take comfort in knowing that you are now incredibly competitive for other University/college funding- I was told that funding entities tend to like to pull the names of Gates interviewees who did not win- they do so because they can be certain of the quality of applicant. 

[sat0ri]

On 2/1/2017 at 11:55 AM, Horb said:

CONGRATS!

Thank you! I've been noticing your posts since last Fulbright cycle, so I feel united by the struggle. Did you apply to Gates as well? I know so far you are a recommended for Fulbright, though I thought it was not longer for the UK (maybe Germany, because you are DAAD applicant too)