I think what the author is looking for and what most top tier students are shooting for are two different things. She's looking for someone who is good at, what my uncle called, dinner conversation. Any dinner topic my uncle could talk for hours on. He had a reasonably well thought out position on anything one was likely to ask at the dinner table.
But most people who excel in college are exceling at going deep on something. Being the world's foremost expert at something. Dinner conversation ability is probably largely unrelated to this. In fact it might be inversely related as I could imagine that many who want to go deep, view the dinner conversation as pointless -- people's minds are made up before they come to the dinner table, and don't change.
If they're really looking for people who can answer those questions, don't look for traditional scholars, look at debaters.
"But most people who excel in college are exceling at going deep on something. "
I disagree. Undergraduate education is not about becoming the "world's expert at something". That's for grad school and a doctorate. Undergraduate education should be well-rounded with a broad exposure to many different areas. Then, if the student chooses s/he can specialize and become the "world's expert" at something they came across as an undergrad.
For most undergrads, you're right (and note, I'm not saying that this is how undergrad should or shouldn't be). But the ones that are typically celebrated are those that are doing graduate/professor level research (or public service) as undergrads, and exceling. It's the Barton Reids and Wendy Kopps of the world. Those are the people that college professors heap praise on and recommend for prestigious fellowships.
Someone who is all-around good, but doesn't go deep, is likely to go unrecognized at the Rhodes-level. You must excel at something for your department or professor to take notice.
There's an old saying about Harvard... Harvard doesn't want well-rounded students. It wants a well-rounded student body. That is it doesn't want a bunch of good students. It wants the best math student, the best physics student, the best chess player, the best violinist, the programming prodigy, etc...
My point is that we've created a system where this is the metric. And when this is, you can't be surprised that when you try to take the cream of the crop, using this metric you may not get the results you expect.
Like I said, if she picked members of the top debate teams I think she'd be very impressed that they have answers for all those questions.
But most people who excel in college are exceling at going deep on something. Being the world's foremost expert at something. Dinner conversation ability is probably largely unrelated to this. In fact it might be inversely related as I could imagine that many who want to go deep, view the dinner conversation as pointless -- people's minds are made up before they come to the dinner table, and don't change.
If they're really looking for people who can answer those questions, don't look for traditional scholars, look at debaters.