Cornell vs. Princeton

Colleges and Universities A-Z Princeton University
41

<p>Actually, I hadn’t seen the article by Graham. I have seen multiple articles talking about the initial development of the ranking rubric, which included quotes from Mel Elfin to the effect that he knew the rubric worked when it would always make Harvard, Yale, or Princeton #1, and also talking about the short-lived “Graham era” with its apotheosis of Cal Tech.</p>

<p>PtonGrad, you are the one who overcharacterizes what I said as a “conspiracy theory”. I didn’t say it was a conspiracy at all. What I said is consistent with what I ALWAYS say about USNWR rankings – that they represent a good-faith attempt at transparent, neutral evaluation, but that they also reflect a particular argument about what makes for a good educational experience, and that argument is really subject to debate. I certainly don’t have any problem with the fact that it consistently ranks Harvard or Princeton #1. (I thought Yale and Stanford snuck in there more than once, but so be it.) Like Elfin, I would regard the rubric as not credible and consistent with common sense if it didn’t do something like that. On the other hand, I have some trouble with what happens not so much father down the list – mainly the under-valuation of larger colleges, including Cornell, but much more significantly the top public universities, and the over-valuation of private universities like Vanderbilt, Georgetown, USC with comparatively weak graduate programs.</p>

<p>When I say that USNWR values the qualities Princeton has, I mean things like not caring about the strength of a university’s professional schools. If that were taken into account – and maybe it should, because it lends vitality to the institution and creates opportunities for everyone – Princeton would probably never make it above #3 or #4, and Harvard and Stanford would trade #1 places all the time. Or sheer faculty size, as opposed to faculty-student ratio. Or number of courses actually conducted. Or diversity of programs. Or cultural offerings on campus and in the surrounding community. Considering such factors wouldn’t make Princeton look “bad” by any stretch of the imagination – it would clearly remain among the nation’s great universities. But it would definitively lose a step against some of its rivals. Meanwhile some of the things USNWR values are things that Princeton historically beats everyone in, like percentage of alumni giving. That’s surely a fine thing, but maybe a little tangential to educational experience.</p>

<p>So even though the rating rubric isn’t set up so Princeton always wins – obviously – it is set up so Princeton always competes at the very top. That’s why I believe – and will continue to say – that in most respects the USNWR’s implicit ideal of what a university should be is Princeton.</p>

<p>Was that due to some dark conspiracy of Princetonians? Of course not. And I didn’t say it was. Does it mean that I think Princeton is somehow secretly a bad university? Of course not. And I didn’t, and haven’t, and won’t say that, either. Does USNWR’s rubric represent a substantive, good faith vision of what a university should be that was created and maintained by a group of people with extensive personal experience with universities exactly like that, including Princeton? You betcha. Is it fair to discuss that in the context of explaining why the vast gap in USNWR rankings between Princeton and Cornell shouldn’t matter so much to a student who happens to like Cornell a lot? I think so.</p>

<p>It’s funny, PtonGrad. None of the Princeton people I know in real life is one-quarter as defensive and anxious about the university as you are. They know it’s the greatest, and regard the standard criticisms – too preppy, too suburban, eating clubs are evil, no medical school – as the equivalent of gnat-bites on a supermodel. Sure, they’re there, but so what? Everything has a flaw or two, but they remain confident this is the best-looking woman on Earth. But you regard everything as a vicious attack, overcharacterize it, and go into a frenzy. Despite your obvious deep loyalty to Princeton, your personality is a lot more in line with that of your OTHER main educational affiliation.</p>

42

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, you didn’t say it was a conspiracy, but it seems that you insinuated it.</p>

43

<p>JHS, with all due respect, I think the self-justification is pretty heavily on your side. My simple correction to your statement that Princeton alumni “ran” the USNWR rankings “for years” (along with all that implied) has, once again, unleashed a torrent of corrections and clarifications along with a few more tidbits of nastiness and some backtracking. I would have been happy to stop with my one sentence correction but you seemed to want to ‘prove’ it to me no matter how weak the evidence. </p>

<p>I’m glad that you’ve backed off that statement though I still disagree with your characterization of the motives of the editors. While you seem committed to believing that the USNWR ranking was designed to favor a Princeton ‘ideal’, you don’t explain then how the vast majority of the top schools on the list are heavily loaded with professional schools and are in many other ways (scale, surroundings, etc) very different from Princeton. Only Princeton and CalTech are different in that way and both are heavily research-oriented. I’m also curious about how you square your criticism of USNWR’s methodology with this statement:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Do you really believe that these rankings should rely mostly on reputational surveys? I don’t think you’ll find many who will agree with you and USNWR was roundly criticized in the beginning for being nothing more than a reputational poll. By the way, I agree with much of what you have written. I’m simply surprised that, despite your recent attempts to be a little more balanced, you can’t seem to stop yourself from taking the cheap shots when it comes to Princeton.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No defensiveness here and I don’t think I’ve ever characterized your comments as “vicious attacks”. They’re simply wrong and need correcting or are shallow and unexamined stereotypes that invite a response. </p>

<p>By the way, my friends would find it laughable that you would associate the word “frenzy” with me. I have rather the opposite reputation.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>As a Yale man you couldn’t avoid a little jab at Harvard either, eh?</p>

<p>Again, my apologies to the OP. These conversations with JHS here on the Princeton board too often lead the original conversation astray but our Yale friend will continue to be corrected when stating falsehoods or engaging in exaggeration (at least when he does so on this board). For some reason, we seem to get under his skin.</p>

<p>I suspect JHS will want the last word here so (unless it’s outrageous) I’ll leave it to him. I would hope, however, that he’ll allow the conversation sought by the OP to continue. I think we’ve both said enough and this isn’t a thread about rankings.</p>

44

<p>PtonGrad: I entered this thread, titled Cornell vs. Princeton, because some poster who named himself “Buddy McAwesome” had just assured a high school student that Princeton is “much, much better than Cornell in math and science, especially physics”, another poster had told him that Harvard and Princeton were “far apart from the other Ivies” in those areas, and two other posters – both Yalies, I think – had said that Cornell was a weak college. I thought that all of that was seriously wrong, and horrible advice for someone who affirmatively liked Cornell and was wondering if he should plan on applying ED there. I do similar things on other boards, too, when I notice them. I am especially sensitive to disrespect for Cornell, because it is rampant here, and really unjustified, and also reflects a complete lack of appreciation for the importance of Cornell in the history of American higher education.</p>

<p>In defending my view, among other things I had to explain why I didn’t see the difference in USNWR rankings as terribly important. My main argument was the one I have repeated several times – the USNWR rankings systematically favor Princeton by valuing what it has and not valuing what it doesn’t have. As a parenthetical aside, I said that Princeton alumni had run the ranking projects for years. I was referring to Sklaroff and Fallows. I mistakenly thought Fallows was a Princeton alumnus because I met him when he was living and working at Princeton in the mid-70s. You said, in no uncertain terms, that I was lying (and apparently repeating a lie others have told, which wasn’t true at all – I still don’t know what you are referring to there). I didn’t think I was lying. I still don’t.</p>

<p>You decided to have a debate about USNWR. It was nice of you to say, towards the end of your last post, that you don’t think there’s a huge academic quality difference between Princeton and Cornell, either. I don’t know exactly what we disagree on, except that I DO think reputational surveys are about the only information that actually addresses what I care about in these ratings. It would be great if people came up with better heuristics, but they haven’t, at least in my opinion. And I still think that Princeton, while heartbreakingly beautiful, is perhaps a bit over-landscaped, and that Princeton NJ is a wealthy suburban community.</p>

<p>I have no idea when I am going to trip over one of your weird sensibilities, so I don’t worry about it. I would respect you a lot more if I ever saw you step outside your role as self-appointed thought-police about Princeton. Maybe you could point me to someplace where you actually said what you thought instead of quibbling with what other people think?</p>