For what it’s worth, my independent impression was that the fact that “fellowship” sounded more prestigious was probably a good thing, mostly because it could fit within an academic culture very well[1].
I had never made the connection to religious fellowships[2], and I don’t quite understand the argument from epistemics[3]. However, I do like the potential emphasis on doing and learning, which, I think, is a problem in the current form of most introductory fellowships (see here).
This might be very dependent on the communications strategy of each group. At our local student group, we found the connection with academia helpful; however that also raises legitimate concerns with diversity.
For what it’s worth, my independent impression was that the fact that “fellowship” sounded more prestigious was probably a good thing, mostly because it could fit within an academic culture very well[1].
I had never made the connection to religious fellowships[2], and I don’t quite understand the argument from epistemics[3]. However, I do like the potential emphasis on doing and learning, which, I think, is a problem in the current form of most introductory fellowships (see here).
This might be very dependent on the communications strategy of each group. At our local student group, we found the connection with academia helpful; however that also raises legitimate concerns with diversity.
This might be cultural; my first language is spanish, where “fellowship” is mostly used untranslated and only in the academic sense.
Why would “fellowship” point to a set of dogmas but “seminar” wouldn’t?