|By Wrathofgod64 (Wrathofgod64) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 04:24 am: Edit|
just wondering, why does harvard have so much prestige and name recognition over other schools like yale and princeton
|By Multinational (Multinational) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 05:49 am: Edit|
1. Harvard is the oldest university in the US
2. Harvard has by far the greatest annual budget
3. Harvard's faculty is unparalleled in research activity
4. Harvard's grad and professional schools (law, medicine, business, public administration) all belong to the very best
5. Harvard's prestige is disseminated all over the world by Hollywood productions and best-sellers
6. Harvard has the reputation of being liberal and accessible, not too elitist
That said, I would consider Yale and Princeton on a par with Harvard as far as undergraduate education is concerned
|By Aterashva (Aterashva) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 06:12 am: Edit|
Harvard has the prestige of being reputed as a meritocracy, something perhaps not entirely deserved. It is portrayed in films as the epitomy of the American dream. If you were smart and rich, you went to Harvard.
All throughout the world, Harvard is a symbol of the American dream. Harvard students can meet statesmen and presidents; people abroad feel they have something important to say. By contrast, abroad, princeton and yale for example (two excellent institutions, many times better than Harvard!) are non names comparatively.
So Harvard gains its prestige for possessing the image of the American dream, the keys to success.
How Harvard fares abroad in the future is directly linked to the outside world's perception of America.
Also, look at the quality of research that comes out of there. Count the nobel laureates from Harvard (see below). Of course, institutions such as Yale and Oxford are at a disadvantage because they are traditionally known as the humanities schools. But the Nobel prize is synonymous for human contribution to humanity. So Harvard wins that by about 7 prizes.
Harvard is also prestigious because it is the oldest university in America.
Count Nobel Prizes
Harvard University Cambridge MA
University of Cambridge
University of London
University of Chicago IL
California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge MA
Stanford University CA
University of California Berkeley CA
Princeton University NJ
University of Oxford
At the end of the day, however, prestige is in people's heads. And images are hard to erase, especially from ignorant people. So Harvard is the most prestigious university in the world (yes, it is reputed beyond oxford or cambridge (whose application ratios are 3 apps/places; harvard's is something like 9 apps/place)). And it is ironic that the more applicants a university rejects, the more desirable it becomes.
But that is the case.
As long as Harvard's acceptance rates keep dwindling down (11% last year; 10.3% this year), there will be more demand for it and more prestige attached to it.
Ultimately, however, it is the student, not the university that matters. Prestige can only get you so far.
|By Brunoniana (Brunoniana) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 07:03 am: Edit|
"As long as Harvard's acceptance rates keep dwindling down (11% last year; 10.3% this year)"
Actually, applications to Harvard fell by 7% this year. Last year's acceptance rate was actually lower than this year's. Yale was more selective than Harvard this year.
"(whose application ratios are 3 apps/places; harvard's is something like 9 apps/place))."
Here are the actual numbers of applications per place in the freshman class:
Yale Law School 22.6
Yale (UG) 15.4
Harvard Law School 14.5
Columbia College (UG) 14.3
Harvard (UG) 11.9
Dartmouth (UG) 11.3
Princeton (UG) 11.1
Brown (UG) 10
Upenn (UG) 7
Cornell (UG) 6
Oxford and Cambridge 3-4
|By Newyorker06 (Newyorker06) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 09:25 am: Edit|
Ahhhh, no. Yale was NOT more selective than Harvard. It might have had a lower acceptance rate (final figures won't be out 'til October) but that does not reflect the caliber of applicants.
|By Aterashva (Aterashva) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:01 am: Edit|
Ok Brunoiana, Lets look at the facts.
In 2001-2002, Yale had 12887 applicants. It accepted 16% of applicants, which is 2062 students. It had a 65% yield and thus 1340 students are attending. Thus if you take the applicants/place ratio. Yale has a 9.62 app/place ratio. If you want to talk about apps/acceptance ratios, Yale is a 6.25 apps/acceptance.
In 2001-2002, Harvard had 18161 applicants. It accepted 11%, which is 1997 people. 79% was the yield, which means 1578 people attended. This means that the app/place ratio is 11.51. Yale's was 9.62.
If you want to look at apps/ acceptances, Harvard's was 9 app/acceptance. Yale's was 6.25.
These are the facts Brunoiana. Harvard is more selective than yale.
|By Aterashva (Aterashva) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 10:43 am: Edit|
And by the way, your case for selectivity is only a minor point of my overall argument, which was why Harvard was the most prestigious university on earth.
Or has Yale won more than 8 Nobel Prizes?
|By Mzhang23 (Mzhang23) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 11:05 am: Edit|
Hopefully,you've figured out by now that Brownalum has switched names. A Brunonian is pretty much the same thing as a Brown alum.
|By Jab93 (Jab93) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 11:57 am: Edit|
Please, for love of God (or Allah, or Mother Earth, or for Random Chaos, you pick)...
Give it a rest! It is immature and tacky to
continue to debate such utter nonesense...
Here is the REAL truth: As far as quality of undergrad education, any school in the top 50
is just as good. People who obsess about prestige are those who are so insecure about their own abilities, that the desperately need the prestige of some institution to rub off on them to give them some self-worth. You are a GREAT person because of who YOU are and what YOU accomplish, not because you went to same prestigious college. Self-worth comes from within, not from the pseudo-validation of some random admissions officer.
I hope you don't choose your future spouse/life partner this way.
|By El_Diablo (El_Diablo) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 02:12 pm: Edit|
but u must admit its fun to argue sumtimes...and read about ppl arguing
|By Brunoniana (Brunoniana) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 02:33 pm: Edit|
"In 2001-2002 [NOTE: what you really are quoting here are numbers for the class of 2002, not application numbers in 2002], Yale had 12887 applicants. It accepted 16% of applicants, which is 2062 students. It had a 65% yield and thus 1340 students are attending. Thus if you take the applicants/place ratio. Yale has a 9.62 app/place ratio.
In 2001-2002, Harvard had 18161 applicants. It accepted 11%, which is 1997 people. 79% was the yield, which means 1578 people attended. This means that the app/place ratio is 11.51."
************Why are you living six years in the past?*************
THIS YEAR, Yale received 19,700 applications. That's 15.4 applications per spot. Harvard received 19,800 applications. That's 11.9 applications per spot.
THIS YEAR, the acceptance rates were 9.9% at Yale, and 10.3% at Harvard. Yale is more selective than Harvard now. Even the Harvard Crimson says so.
|By Jetboy1857 (Jetboy1857) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 03:37 pm: Edit|
You're nobel prize figures are way off... Cambridge in the UK has the most Nobel Prizes BY FAR!
The official count.
Cambridge - 80 (70 of whom hold degrees from Cambridge)
Chicago - 75 (only 24 of which have Chicago degrees)
Columbia - 64
MIT - 56
Harvard - ~40 (less if you don't count some associated ones)
The point... when it comes to the sciences... Harvard is great, but not the best.
|By Datadigit1 (Datadigit1) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 04:14 pm: Edit|
Harvard is a great university, certainly one of the world's best... but this unnecessary attitude that Harvard is somehow leaps and bounds above anyone else is just stupid. This Nobel Prize point is one perfect example. In science (which makes up half of academia) Harvard is certianly not the best... I could easily pop off a number of schools which are much better in the sciences (there is one just down the street ;-0 ). My point is that people need to get their head out of the clouds and realize that Harvard's "name" won't do nearly as much for them as some people on here seem to think! Anyway, to back up Jetboy's Nobel Prize info, here is a list of Cambridge's Nobel Alumni... at least twice as long as Harvard's list!
Cambridge Alumni Nobel Winners:
This list reads like a who's who in the history of modern science... this dosen't even include many of the other famous Cambridge scientists that were around before the prizes were given out (i.e. Newton, Darwin, ect.). You could get technical here and say that Cambridge has one less alumni since Fred Sanger won twice... but hey in my opinon if an alumnus of a school wins TWO Nobel Prizes then they deserve to be counted twice! ;-) No other unviersity in the world can produce such a distinguished list of alumni scientists... and certianly not Harvard!
Lord Rayleigh 1904 Discovered Argon
JJ Thomson Phy 1906 conductivity of gases
Ernest Rutherford 1908 Atomic structure
William Bragg 1915crystal structure using X-rays
Lawrence Bragg 1915 Analysed crystal structure using X-rays
Charles Barkla 1917 Discovered the characteristics of X-radiation
Niels Bohr 1922 Investigated atomic structure and radiation
Francis Aston 1922 Work on mass spectroscopy and the `whole number rule'
Archibald Hill 1922 Heat production in the muscles
Austen Chamberlain 1925 Work on the Locarno Pact, 1925
Charles Wilson 1927 Invented the cloud chamber
Arthur Holly Compton 1927 Discovered wavelength change in diffused X-rays
Owen Richardson 1928 Richardson's Law of electron emission of hot metals
Frederick Hopkins Med 1929 Discovered growth stimulating vitamins
Lord Adrian The function of neurons
Charles Sherrington The function of neurons
Paul Dirac 1933 Quantum mechanics
James Chadwick 1935 Discovered the neutron
Henry Dale 1936 The chemical transmission of nerve impulses
George Thomson 1937 Interference in crystals irradiated by electrons
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi 1937 Combustion in biology
Ernst Chain 1945 Discovery of penicillin
Howard Florey 1945 Discovery of penicillin
Edward Appleton 1947 Discovered the Appleton Layer
Patrick Blackett 1948 Nuclear physics and cosmic radiation
Bertrand Russell 1950 A History of Western Philosophy, 1945
Cecil Powell 1950 Photography of nuclear processes
John Cockcroft Phy 1951 Used accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei
Ernest Walton 1951 Used accelerated particles to study atomic nuclei
Richard Synge 1952 Developed partition chromatography
Archer Martin 1952 Developed partition chromatography
Hans Krebs 1953 Discovered the citric acid cycle
Max Born 1954 Fundamental research into quantum mechanics
Alexander Todd 1957 Work on nucleotides
Frederick Sanger 1958 Structure of the insulin molecule
Philip Noel 1959 Work towards global disarmament
John Kendrew 1962 Determined the structure of haemoproteins
Max Perutz 1962 Determined the structure of haemoproteins
Francis Crick Med 1962 Structure of DNA
James Watson 1962 Structure of DNA
Maurice Wilkins 1962 Structure of DNA
Alan Hodgkin 1963 Transmission of nerve impulses along a nerve fibre
Andrew Huxley 1963 Transmission of nerve impulses along a nerve fibre
Dorothy Hodgkin Che 1964 Structure of compounds used in fighting anaemia
Ronald Norrish 1967 Study of fast chemical reactions
George Porter 1967 Study of fast chemical reactions
Rodney Porter 1972 Chemical structure of antibodies
John Hicks 1972 Equilibrium theory
Brian Josephson 1973 Tunneling in superconductors and semiconductors
Patrick White 1973 For an epic and psychological narrative art which has introduced a new continent into literature
Martin Ryle 1974 For the invention of aperture synthesis
Antony Hewish Phy 1974 For the discovery of pulsars
Nevill Mott 1977 Behaviour of electrons in magnetic solids
Philip Anderson 1977 Behaviour of electrons in magnetic solids
James Meade 1977 Contributed to the theory of international trade
Pyotr Kapitsa 1978 Invented the helium liquefier
Peter Mitchell 1978 Energy transfer processes in biological systems
Abdus Salam 1979 Unification of electromagnetic and weak particle interactions
Steven Weinberg 1979 Unification of electromagnetic and weak particle interactions
Allan Cormack 1979 Development of CAT scans
Walter Gilbert 1980 Developed the theory of nucleotide links in nucleic acids
Frederick Sanger Che 1980 Developed the theory of nucleotide links in nucleic acids
Aaron Klug 1982 Determined the structure of biologically active substances
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar 1983 The evolution and devolution of stars
William Fowler 1983 The evolution and devolution of stars
Gerard Debreu 1983 Reformulation of the theory of general equilibrium
Richard Stone 1984 Developing a national income accounting system
Cesar Milstein 1984 Developed a technique for producing monoclonal antibodies
Georges Kohler 1984 Developed a technique for producing monoclonal antibodies
Norman Ramsey 1989 Developing the separated field method
James Mirrlees 1996 Studied behaviour in the absence of complete information
John Walker 1997 Studied how a spinning enzyme creates the molecule that powers cells in muscles
Amartya Sen 1998 For his contributions to welfare economics
John Pople 1998 For his development of computational methods in quantum chemistry
Alan McDiarmid 2000 For the discovery and development of conductive polymers
Paul Greengard 2000 For discoveries concerning signal transduction in the nervous system
Tim Hunt 2001 For discoveries of key regulators of the cell cycle
Joseph Stiglitz 2001 For analyses of markets with asymmetric information
John Sulston 2002 For discoveries concerning genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death
Sydney Brenner 2002 For discoveries concerning genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death
|By Daintyponygal (Daintyponygal) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 04:48 pm: Edit|
my god - you're right! Brunoiana IS brownalum!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|By Anonymous1989 (Anonymous1989) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 07:34 pm: Edit|
can't we settle with yale and harvard being just as good? All schools has their strong and weak points...who cares what statistics and figues and rankings indicate...numbers onli give a one dimensional and objective view of each school...
after all, the rankings are based on criteria which makes the whole process objective...
i say it is far more important where you feel most comfortable than going to a number 1 school than number 2...number 1 number 2...same diff...all it means is that they're both good.
|By Hoping (Hoping) on Tuesday, April 13, 2004 - 08:34 pm: Edit|
you are absolutely right both schools truly are great,its just that harvard is a little Edited. Make your points without flaming or you'll have to make your points on nonCC boards.
Report an offensive message on this page E-mail this page to a friend
|Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.|
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|