"I believe that a true scholar should have no interest in fame and prizes and that is exactly the reason I declined all the prizes given to me so far" You gave the answer in your question. Explain what you said right here. That is a valuable reason. Just be careful not to sound patronizing.

A true scholar accepts other people's kindness and support, even if they don't need it. In short, accepting the award makes your university look good too, and encourages the next cycle of students to work hard to be like you.

@WetlabWalter That is another question, even if I agree with you, let's try to persuade OP ! :)

Awards help you get funding. A researcher without funding is not a researcher. Don't be naive.

Actually, fame is an important aspect in modern academia. It seems to me that the more famous you are, the more freedom, sway, and security you have, in various regards.

I take it that you also declined all of your grades, not wanting to be given any credit for your courses?

@JonCuster It's not the same thing. Everybody gets a grade. It's a standard assessment. A prize is outside of the regular curriculum, unless he participated in a competition and won an award. Even the later case has prizes by default. I assume OP is talking about a prize he didn't ask for.

@CaptainEmacs - while true on one hand, on the other graduation prizes are also often a 'standard assessment' by the faculty, given out every year based on the same set of criteria. If you have the highest GPA, you will be the valedictorian, for example. Prize X to best thesis in the English department. And so forth. My advice to the OP - accept the prize graciously, and continue to do so in similar situations. Remember - you are a human and should partake in human society which includes mutual recognition.

Am I the only one surprised that the University is still trying to give "prizes" to this spoilsport after several years of declining every single one?

that is exactly the reason I declined all the prizes given to me so far (I want to remain a true scholar) Logical conclusion: you think anyone who accepts a prize is not a "true scholar" (whatever that means). I don't see a way to say that politely, as it is in fact rather condescending.

Regardless of the other comments/answers, from a perspective of character I would never decline a prize or gift given to me, even not if it is a prize to shame me for wrongdoing for example. Just accept the damn medal/prize, smile, shake hands and get on with it.

There's a difference between being a scholar for the money & fame, and being a scholar who sometimes gets those as a recognition for his/her efforts and achievements. I don't see why a bright individual as yourself would mix these two notions. While you're the only person who knows what is in your heart, you just appear to others as patronizing and condescending. This is, of course, different from not accepting honors from entities that you deem immoral, for example.

@Aditya - What will you do if you are part of a research team and the team is awarded an honor in a ceremony where each member of the team is handed a certificate?

@NajibIdrissi It is condescending, but then again, one can derive a similar "logical conclusion" from the comment by Wetlab Walter (which has received 43 upvotes) in which he claims that by declining other people's kindness and support, the OP must not be a true scholar.

Out of curiosity, how did you come to this belief that a "true scholar" should have no interest in prizes? What do you mean by "true scholar", and why do you equate "accepting a prize that's been awarded" with "having an interest in prizes"?

@Jin I upvoted both WetlabWalter's comment and Najibldrissi's. WetlabWalter is adopting OP's own term as a basis for discussion; Najibldrissi is challenging the OP's terminology and pointing out that his proposed course of action probably can't be performed politely. These are certainly different approaches, but they don't invalidate or contradict each other, let alone indicate "hypocrisy" even if Najibldrissi were to upvote WetlabWalter or vice-versa.

Some context for people who aren't intimately aware of it: Mathematician Grigori Perelman, working outside the university structure, solved the Poincare conjecture in 2003 (possibly the most challenging problem solved in our lifetime). He was subsequently awarded a Fields Medal and the Millennium Prize, the latter with a $1M cash award. But he declined both for reasons very similar to those expressed in the question here. My immediate impression is that the OP seeks to emulate someone like Perelman. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

Sartre refused the Nobel en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Paul_Sartre#Late_life_and_death and Virginia Wool declined to join an all-men prestigious title. Both felt they would be assimilated and used by the enemy, so to say; do you have such a message?

Whilst this sort of modesty may be unusual/surprising to those of us in the West (and indeed, to the OP's compatriots at the Australian university in question) I suspect it may be understandable or commonplace in other cultures. That the OP's username is common in Indian/Hindu communities, known for their modesty, may perhaps be of some relevance.

I for one am happy that OP is actually standing up for their values, rather than blindly kowtowing to authority. It pays to stand up to authoritarian academics (such as one of the answerers- and for that matter, @LightnessRacesinOrbit too) than see your values buried in a set of compromises that are deemed necessary to survival in academia. Go for it! Critics will always have their own axes to grind, and professors, deans, etc. are absolutely no exception.

I think it would be pretty cool if you declined a prize to tell the authorities where to go. To make a statement against them for being against you at every step and now trying to take credit by giving you a prize. But, this doesn't seem to be your reason. You're not doing this to prove a point against the authority who didn't support you. You're doing this to prove a point about yourself. That's another thing entirely.

I wonder if the OP also thinks that a "true scholar" should decline a salary (that would be in line with Perelman, I guess).

What the heck is the "university medal" anyway?

Many Australian universities give out the University Medal for top performers in a given degree. It's like graduating summa cum laude in American colleges.

Initially I agreed with you that a "true scholar" should not have interest in fame and prizes. But I checked my dictionary, which defines a scholar to be one who is a specialist in the subject or who through study has gained mastery in the subject.

(contd) Based on this definition, it is possible for a true scholar to desire fame and glory - the question (of determining if one is a scholar) is only whether the person has attained mastery in some field. In fact the community gives more opportunities to study further/research/etc to those who have shown potential (including through awards).

(contd) Perhaps you meant something else: that a person who is interested in learning or seeking the truth for its own sake would continue to do so even if they do not get any awards. ?? If you are a true scholar (and so you like your subject enough that you want to work on it full time further to become a specialist), then you would want to get a salary and opportunities to be able to do that, which requires support/awards/recognition/etc.

Jon Custer's comment is really a key question, if one thinks about it properly. Typically only a few students are given an "A+" grade in any given class, if any at all. So by the asker's argument that a true scholar should have no interest in fame and prizes, they should either insist on not getting the A+ grade on their transcript (otherwise it would bring them special recognition) or they should not attend any university course that uses such a grading system.

So you say you believe that a 'true scholar has no interest in these things, which is why you reject them. Not because you have no interest in them, but because you are trying to emulate a 'true scholar'. Are you not tacitly admitting that you are not a true scholar? In which case you should accept them.

@PKG: I request that you remove your name-calling. Why did you call me an "authoritarian academic"?

stay true to urself and be who you want to be. you dont have to be forced into playing the system like everyone else. ignore all these people trying to criticize u and feeling butthurt because they feel like you are putting yourself up higher than them. if another "academic" is going to be offended that you didn't accept a prize based on your beliefs on this matter, then they are the ones at fault for not trying to understand your position and respecting your values and beliefs. they are truly selfish, under the guise of unselfishness.

@LightnessRacesinOrbit: I request that //you// remove your name-calling. Why did you call the OP a "spoilsport"? (despite his detailing his reasons)

@PKG "spoilsport" may not be particularly polite, but it's at least an accurate characterization of what OP is doing (regardless of reasons). I don't quite see how Lightness's comment indicates "authoritarian" tendencies. (Personally, I'd be more offended by "authoritarian," since authoritarianism is ideologically abhorrent both to me and to much of the general public, whereas "spoilsport" is, I think, typically understood as mild teasing, along the lines of "stick-in-the-mud". That said, I can see how both terms could cause offense.)

@KyleStrand, no matter what the OP's stance is, it's the responsibility of the rest of us to ensure he gets treated with respect. He's in a very valid moral dilemma (at least, the way I see it). The fact that someone immediately calls him a spoilsport (or whatever other name) reflects badly on them, certainly not on the rational OP. It's not a good response to the question, and imo deserves to be called out. I feel bad that the OP, stuck in such a situation, was addressed thusly. Please note that "authoritarian" is the name given to those who put down dissenters.

@PKG I agree that OP should be treated with respect (though I didn't personally consider either of your comments disrespectful enough to flag them as "offensive"). What bothers me is that instead of recognizing that "authoritarian" was an insult, you just turned Lightness's criticism back on them.