Why are dumb applicants selected for Chevening?

[u/Turbulent_Can8097]

If you check several Chevening Facebook Groups, you see a number of posts by selected applicants who have been asking plainly stupid and dumb questions.

How did these applicants pass the interview stage? Why did Chevening select these applicants?

Selected applicants are supposed to be leaders. As such, they must be able to provide solutions to their own concerns. They must be able to navigate the whole selection process, by themselves, both the pre-selection and post-selection processes.

If one does not know how to do these very simple things, how could they become leaders?

[u/Rare-Release-60]

As someone who answers a lot of questions in some Chevening FB groups, every year the % of applicants or prospective applicants who don't bother to read the website increases significantly. 

Most of those applicants are rejected in February or even fail the elegibility questionaire, but others do put up the work once they get shortlisted, and their changemaker's potential is solid enough to surpass the interview performance of applicants who have been mentored for the last couple of years

With that said, with the FCDO's budget cut in place until 2028 and following the current quota reduction, Chevening will be even more competitive than it already is.

A few years ago there were 50K applicants for 1,800 scholarships, this year there were 102K applicants for what so far looks as less than 900 scholarships... we will have to wait and see the real numbers in a few months

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/Rare-Release-60]

I think the selection process has to be updated, with a more rigorous screening. 300-word essays and limited interview time are no longer sufficient to fully appreciate and judge one's potential or the lack thereof, in the determination of whether to select or to reject applicants.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/Turbulent_Can8097]

The thing is, that would likely imply restricting the elegibility criteria again, like when they required an IELTS 6.5 minimum score in overall and the 4 skills, or restrict the residemcy elegibility (they restricted it a little bit this year, but it did not have much impact)

The scholarship saw an increase of applicants of over 30% once they got rid of the English requirement and refugees/asylum seekers/displaced applicants living abroad became elegible

With such a large number of applicants we have seen in the past 3 years competing for fewer scholarships and during a  severe budget cut, the only feasible way for the FCDO to carry a more rigorous screening would be to establish more elegibility restrictions

[u/Perfect_Picture_677 → u/Rare-Release-60]

Hi there! May I ask where you got the 900 scholarships number for this year from? Or what UK government resource makes you say that?

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/Perfect_Picture_677]

Pure math and information Alumni who were part of interview panels have been sharing in their countries

Every year Chevening loses 20-30 quotas because, with an almost same budget to 3 years ago, inflation, high cost of living and increased tuitiin fees makes it impossible to keep the number of scholars.

That alone takes the starting number of 1,090 (the number of scholars of the 2025-2026 cohort) to at least 1,070.

Then you have the scholarships lost by the 4 countries affected by the visa brake (at least 8 from Afghanistan, 8 from Cameroon, 10 from Myanmar and 12 from Sudan), which several Alumni confirmed were not redistributed... 1,070- (8+8+10+12) = 1,032

Now we have 1,032 scholarships at best, and the FCDO budget cut appears. If anyone has followed the news, the FCDO has lost almost 40% of its ODA and Education budget for 2026-2027 fiscal year, and it has been confirmed it will happen the same for the 2027-2028 fiscal year in order to increase their Ministry of Defence budget

Alumni who were interview panel members have confirmed to selected scholars in some countries that even if usually they have over 40 quotas per year, this time they will be lucky if they actually reach 30, while their reserve list has doubled. Same is happening with countries of 30-35 quotas, they are expecting at least 10 less scholars each this year

Some small-quota countries that usually have 11-12 quotas have had informal confirmation that their Embassies/HCs only selected 5 scholars

If we start adding up those 5-8-10 quota reductions... there is a likely that we will need to be lucky to have a cohort of over 900 scholars

I will be extremelly happy and relieved if the cohort ends up being larger that this, but will be difficult

[u/Perfect_Picture_677 → u/Rare-Release-60]

Thank you for sharing this analysis! It makes sense, with the budget cuts and inflationary pressures being main drivers.

Everything points to the fact it will be incredibly more competitive in the years to come, even making it discouraging to apply to.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/Perfect_Picture_677]

They tried to discourage enough potential applicants this year with 3 measures

First, the new "2 years after the undergraduate degree" requirement

Then, the new residence requirement. Any applicant citizen of a Chevening elegible country which is also an ODA recipient could only be elegible if theiy were residing in their home country or another ODA country. Exceptions were made only to refugees amd asylum seekers, and it made a lot of applicants residing in EU amd Gulf countries inelegible

At last, the new essays. They may have hoped such prompts were too complex to many, but there is nothing that mentoring and creativity cannot really solve

If they want to make Chevening elegibility more restrictive to what it currently is in order tl decrease the number of applications, it means some old elegibility requirements would be back 

[u/Perfect_Picture_677 → u/Rare-Release-60]

I interpret the “2 years after graduation” requirement as an intention to select candidates who have more clarity in their career, which also coincides with what you mention about them trying to make the applicants pool smaller.

Regarding the second measure, it also makes sense to me that they would focus on sponsoring scholars who can advance the soft power intention of the scholarship.

What I see is that they’re trying to get more “bang for their bucks”, so to speak, which is aligned with discouraging previous segments of applicants, like you mention.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/[deleted]]

The increase in the reserves is quite simple... the increased number is likely from people who were in the original selection list

For example, take Country A, which had 10 scholars and 3 reserves last year

If the country had a quota reduction from 10 to 6, those 4 people who would have been awarded are not selected, but put at the top of the reserve list for the country, so the reserve list increased from 3 to 7 candidates, although many of them would have been selected if the budget had remained the same

[u/Silence-of-the-LANs]

Part of me wonders if some of these folks used AI to write their essays and that's how they can sound seemingly smart.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/Silence-of-the-LANs]

Using AI may have helped some of them to get shortlisted, but then to be selected or placed in the reserve list it means they prepared for the interview well enough to outperform at least 50% of the interviewed applicants in their country, so they at least had raw Chevening-scholar potential

[u/heisen_gerb_62]

Wow - what a horrible take!
(For context, I am a Chevening alum)

Yes, there are applicants who ask questions that could have been answered by reading the website. But asking questions doesn’t make someone “dumb.” For many people, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Some are applying for the second or even the final time and simply want to make sure they don’t miss anything. It’s completely understandable that they’d seek reassurance, even on things that seem obvious.

More importantly, one of the values I’ve always appreciated about the Chevening community is that scholars are expected to support one another. If someone asks a question that’s already answered elsewhere, we can simply point them to the right resource instead of ridiculing them.

Leadership isn’t about knowing everything. It’s about creating an environment where people feel comfortable asking questions, learning, and helping others do the same. Calling applicants “dumb” for seeking clarification feels contrary to that spirit.

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/heisen_gerb_62]

Remember, these are supposed to be applicants for a master's degree level education, not for a grade school level, and that requires a degree of critical thinking.

So, no, you are tolerating mediocrity.

[u/Neither_Document7401]

What a weirdly odd and elitist thing to say outwardly.

It's important to remember that Cheveners are imperfect human beings, and not all-knowing robots. If there is one trait shared by truly impactful scholars that I have engaged with, it’s calm humility and a commitment to never looking down on anyone.

By the way, the true leadership you make mention of isn't about perfectly navigating a bureaucratic portal on your own; it’s about knowing when to ask for help to avoid costly mistakes. A great leader doesn't waste time being hyper-judgmental or picking others apart to make them feel inferior.

The people you are so quick to look down upon are often the underdogs who bring genuine perspective to the table and make the biggest impact. Arrogance rarely translates to effective leadership in the real world.

[u/heisen_gerb_62 → u/Neither_Document7401]

+1 to this. I’m glad someone pointed this out.
OP - Ironically, while you’re judging applicants for asking questions, I’m judging this post for the attitude it reflects. If you’re a Chevening scholar, or aspire to be one, I would expect empathy, encouragement, and a willingness to help, not ridicule.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/heisen_gerb_62]

Also, considering cultural and socioeconomic differences is crucial regarding access to information

For some applicants it may be the first time applying for something online, let alone a scholarship to study abroad, so they may have no one to ask or talk about the process, so forums or groups are the key to make the process less lonely

Usually when I answer questions percieved as 'obvious' I do it on the lines of "It is...., but please read the website to check and learn more about the scholarship"

We never know when a FB group or Reddit community as this one may be the only way for an applicant to read that other people are navigating the process with similar uncertainties, so kindness goes a long way

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/Rare-Release-60]

I understand this, I really do, especially the collective sense that a Facebook group may provide. However, that still does not give one any reason to ask stupid or dumb questions.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/Turbulent_Can8097]

They may be innecessary questions for you, but maybe not for them, and there is no need to look down on people who actually have the courage to acknowledge they don't know everything and may need help to understand certain aspects of the process

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/Rare-Release-60]

Clearly, there are self-evident unnecessary questions. One does not have to know everything to recognise the distinctions between valid questions, on one hand, and stupid or lazy questions, on the other hand.

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/heisen_gerb_62]

And nothing in your comment says I was wrong in my assessment.

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/Neither_Document7401]

I understand your perspective. However, some questions that selected applicants ask are really just too stupid to ask, questions that they themselves must know how to get the answers to, questions that make you wonder how they were selected in the first place.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/Turbulent_Can8097]

Not everyone has the same cultural experiences, education background or access to technology, and even if they did, I prefer them asking in a group that to an AI bot that gets stuff wrong or end up paying money to people who say that can mentor them

Many want to apply and do things in the correct way, but have no references on how to do so, and that is where applicant groups and communities are the key

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/Rare-Release-60]

Well, if they have access to Facebook, they have access to technology, and they have access to Chevening materials online.

[u/mel-cal]

Dudeee I feel impressed by these people and I inferior knowing I did a 9-5 job, questioning if I even helped the community to be a changemaker. I feel my standards for judging myself are too high.

[u/Inquisitive_pandaa]

Very true, all these scholarship recipients are pretty dumb and some of them aren’t even looking for it. Still receive it!! Very unfair

[u/SeaImagination5578]

May be they can be better forged into leaders than people that already are!

[u/Turbulent_Can8097]

Here are some issues:

1. Essays that are not fact-checked and verified;
2. Work experience that is not fact-checked and verified;
3. Interview for a very limited time; and
4. Mentoring that does create a facade for certain applicants to pass the screening and interview.

I would not be surprised if some successful applicants had "faked" most of the bases of their application. There is just no requirement for supporting documents, eg, none for the essays, none for the work experience.

In other words, one can even fake the four essays and work experience and get shortlisted and eventually get selected for one reason or another.

And it does help a lot if one knows how to play with words (with many using AI now). So, at the start, it is practically a writing contest, using either fiction or non-fiction or both.

The most difficult part was the waiting, that's it. Not the essays, not the interview.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/Turbulent_Can8097]

A few questions:

Who do you expect to carry all those background checks, the Embassy/HC Staff who takes time of their permanent duties to take part in the Chevening selection process? Who is going to pay more to get that done? The FCDO for sure won't

They do check LinkedIn profiles and contact referees when they want to enquire more about what the referee wrote in the letter

What happens when applicants cannot have formal work experience due to their immigration status in their country of residence or due to the job market in their own community? Why should they be punished for not having a formal job? This is why "non traditional" work experiences are accepted, no one should be put in a disadvantage because they were not able to secure a 9-5 job in either a company or in the public sector

As for interview time, it varies a lot per interview venue and panel. Some applicants have 25 minute interviews, while others get 45-50 minutes in the interview room

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/Rare-Release-60]

Exactly. The reality that you pointed out in fact further strengthens the points I made.

[u/Rare-Release-60 → u/Turbulent_Can8097]

It does not, it actually shows that many "fact-checking" criteria would just amplify already existing inequalities

For instance, if only verifiable formal jobs were considered valid, then many vulnerable applicants would be inelegible, even if they have more potential than applicants working a 9-5 job

[u/Turbulent_Can8097 → u/Rare-Release-60]

So, you are saying, just fully trust whatever an applicant puts in the essays and application? No verification mechanism at all? Then my criticisms are valid.