ity to treat the distinctiveness of particular cases, yet discern a larger
transformation that transcended those particular areas, [seeing] a
larger story within all of those smaller stories.”
Conversations with members of the Society of Fellows, the most
elite of the five funding organizations, and the only one to conduct
interviews with finalists, offer a look at what counts as intelligence in
a highly rarefied stratum of the academic world (in this competition,
applicants’ odds of being awarded a fellowship are less than one in
two hundred). These respondents tend to see intellectual refinement
as a mixture of various traits held in delicate balance. An English
professor, for example, describes the top candidate thus: “This per-
son is extremely impressive and articulate, but in a way that actually
establishes a circuit of exchange rather than everybody says one
190 / Recognizing Various Kinds of Excellence
Table 5.7Number of panelists mentioning informal criteria, by
disciplinary cluster
Humanities History Social sciences Total
Criterion N % N % N % N %
Signs of intelligence (all) 18 82 15 75 20 69 53 75
Articulate 7 32 8 40 5 17 20 28
Competent 12 54 10 50 16 55 38 53
Intelligent 13 59 6 30 11 38 30 42
Talented 4 18 0 0 7 24 11 15
Elegance and cultural capital 16 73 14 70 16 55 46 65
Cultural ease 13 59 9 45 10 34 32 45
Cultural breath 8 36 8 40 10 34 26 36
Personal qualities
Interesting 17 77 9 45 22 76 48 67
Exciting 7 32 4 20 7 24 18 25
Boring 3 13 3 15 7 24 13 18
Moral qualities (all) 8 40 9 46 11 37 29 41
Determination 8 41 4 20 9 31 22 31
Humility 7 32 4 20 4 14 15 21
Authenticity 6 27 2 10 6 21 14 19
Note:A “mention” occurs when a criterion is used during the interview.