The social sector is peppered with fellowships. I have benefited from a fewmyself and have built two—one that operates across multiple countries, and another that is currently paused.
Because of this history, I stay in touch with many people running fellowships of various kinds. Recently, I ran into one such person and asked how recruitment was going. He told me they had received around 150 applications so far, with a target of 600 for the year. In the same breath, he admitted he was exhausted from reading applications—most of which he found weak and indistinguishable.
Knowing they only had space for 15–20 fellows, I asked a simple question: why optimise for 600 applications instead of focusing on how to attract the best 15–20 people available this year?
He sighed and replied that the target came from the marketing team. I’ve heard this answer many times.
Across the social sector, fellowship teams often equate reach with quality, even when their own historical data suggests otherwise. Large application volumes rarely translate into better cohorts, but they do guarantee reviewer fatigue, applicant frustration, and bloated recruitment processes. Fellowships often emphasise their exclusivity—sometimes comparing their acceptance rates to Ivy League universities—as if selectivity alone signals impact.
In my experience, an enormous amount of energy is wasted designing recruitment processes that optimise for volume rather than fit. If fellowships instead focused on identifying and attracting the strongest candidates for that specific year—through referrals, targeted outreach, or clearer positioning—they would reduce workload and likely increase impact.
But in most cases, marketing goals win. And not because they are wrong. Marketing teams understand exactly what funders like to see—and what they rarely ask about. Big numbers feel reassuring. They just don't necessarily make for better fellowships.