Harvard as the “most powerful and influential” and sakky’s comments

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
41

<p>
[quote]
Indeed, I've made it abundantly clear that I see significant value in rankings that depend primarily on objective data (such as the J.-T. University Rankings, which assess prizes, publications, citation impact, etc.) and do not assign much credibility to rankings that rely primarily on popularity surveys. And the fact is that objective rankings almost always put Harvard at the top. There is no inconsistency or selective reliance on rankings favorable to Harvard as you claim.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, J-T measures a wide range of metrics of dubious value. In particular, I still completely fail to see why a school should be awarded points for winning Nobels or Fields Medals from generations ago. Who cares about the exploits from the early 1900's? What exactly does that have to do with how good the school is today? Like I've said on other threads, MIT didn't become an established research powerhouse until WW2, and Stanford not until around the 1950's-60's. </p>

<p>"Alumni. The total number of the alumni of an institution winning Nobel Prizes and Fields Medals. Alumni are defined as those who obtain bachelor, Master's or doctoral degrees from the institution. Different weights are set according to the periods of obtaining degrees. The weight is 100% for alumni obtaining degrees in 1991-2000, 90% for alumni obtaining degrees in 1981-1990, 80% for alumni obtaining degrees in 1971-1980, and so on, and finally 10% for alumni obtaining degrees in 1901-1910. If a person obtains more than one degrees from an institution, the institution is considered once only. "</p>

<p>"Award. The total number of the staff of an institution winning Nobel prizes in physics, chemistry, medicine and economics and Fields Medal in Mathematics. Staff is defined as those who work at an institution at the time of winning the prize. Different weights are set according to the periods of winning the prizes. The weight is 100% for winners in 2001-2005, 90% for winners in 1991-2000, 80% for winners in 1981-1990, 70% for winners in 1971-1980, and so on, and finally 10% for winners in 1911-1920."</p>

<p><a href="http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006Methodology.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2006/ARWU2006Methodology.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
And how would YOU know this? You've rotated through the Johns Hopkins Hospital, MGH, and BWH yourself?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I could turn that question around and ask how would YOU know that it's NOT true? Have you rotated through those 3 hospitals yourself? </p>

<p>
[quote]
New England Journal of Medicine, so I have a reasonably good sense of where the leaders are. There have been 242 articles with authors from Hopkins in the New England Journal, 278 from the Brigham, and 3131 from Mass General (the latter number is probably inflated by the weekly Case Records of the Massachusetts General Hospital).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, there is a reason why it's called the *New England * Journal of Medicine, you know. Numerous studies regarding the sociology of science have demonstrated that your ability to publish within a particular journal is strongly influenced by how well you happen to know the editors. </p>

<p>
[quote]
In the journal Nature, there are 216 articles from Hopkins and 783 from Harvard. In the journal Science, there are 341 from Hopkiins and 851 from Harvard. In the journal Cell, there are 163 from Hopkins and 609 from Harvard. I simply don't think you can compare the amount of cutting edge research, both clinical and basic, done at Hopkins and Harvard.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, you changed the goalposts. I don't think anybody is comparing the total amount of basic research * at both schools. Nobody is contending that the Johns Hopkins natural science (biology, chemistry, or physics) departments are equivalent to Harvard's. And it precisely those departments that tend to publish in Nature and Science. None of this speaks to the quality of the *hospitals, which is what kingduke contended. </p>

<p>
[quote]
A fourth year medical student given the choice between an MGH residency program and a Hopkins program will almost always pick the MGH program, unless there are compelling personal reasons, e.g. to be with a significant other.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's interesting. I would like to see the data for this. Do you have a reference? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Whoa, now getting personal. Listen, I may have promoted how great Harvard is on this board ad nauseam, but I don't think I've said anything about how that makes me great.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice try. That's really a distinction without a difference. You have stated quite explicitly that you are a Harvard graduate. In contrast it seems that many other people here, including myself, have been deliberately quiet about exactly what their relationship is with Harvard or any of the other schools. </p>

<p>When you constantly tout "ad nauseum" one particular institution, and then you state that you happen to belong to that institution, you are effectively patting yourself on the back, and quite conspicuously so. </p>

<p>I said it before, I'll say it again, ske293. It's perfectly fine for you to be proud of your school. It's also perfectly acceptable, and indeed welcomed, for you to provide not only facts, but also defensible opinions about what you think the facts mean.</p>

<p>But there's no call for statements that you know perfectly well are outrageously indefensible. Again, I would point to your previous statement that Harvard's professional schools are easily the most powerful and influential of their class, yet later claiming that that statement does not apply to the majority of Harvard's professional schools. Or saying that the #2med school in the country has "no hope of ever catching up". Come on, what's up with that? </p>

<p>What I find most interesting of all is that I have repeatedly offered you a ladder from you to climb down from your indefensible perches, and you still won't take it. It would be so easy for you to admit that you were just being emotional and hyperbolic, and that you made statements that you realized retrospectively were too strong. Nothing wrong with that. It would be the honorable and gracious thing to do. But you still won't do it.</p>

42

<p>I think it's far more extreme to insist that Harvard Engineering is better than MIT Engineering. He was imtimating something like this based on % faculty on the National Academy of Science. When someone pointed out MIT is ranked 20 places above Harvard at engineering, he also said that Harvard is spending a lot more money on engineering as if they were really going to catch MIT. So apparently JHU Med has no chance of catching Harvard Med, but Harvard is approaching MIT's level at engineering.</p>

<p>Seriously, if he says anything like this in Cambridge he's going to be laughed out of town.</p>

43

<p>skee, as your posts become more ludicrous it's becoming less interesting to respond. But...</p>

<p>"If you read "The House of God" by Samuel Shem, there are references to a Boston hospital called MBH, or "Man's Best Hospital". It's MGH."</p>

<p>Oh dear. I didn't realize that an acronym in a novel really makes it true!</p>

<p>"A fourth year medical student given the choice between an MGH residency program and a Hopkins program will almost always pick the MGH program, unless there are compelling personal reasons, e.g. to be with a significant other."</p>

<p>If you have the background you claim, then I hope you'll realize that this statement is absurd. Students are "matched" with residency programs, and there is no such thing as revealed "choices" in the way that you imply. In case you have the urge to share anecdotes, there are <em>plenty</em> of top-tier HMS students who are honestly afraid to rank Hopkins because their programs are perceived as too tough and rigorous.</p>

<p>"Harvard has the largest and deepest pool of talent and resources in the humanities, social sciences, biological sciences, physical sciences, law, medicine, and business administration."</p>

<p>Ugh, there you go again...</p>

<p>"And how would YOU know this? You've rotated through the Johns Hopkins Hospital, MGH, and BWH yourself?"</p>

<p>I'm not the type to pull statements out of my rear end ... unlike some others. But MGH really is fabulous. US News generally ranks it between UCLA and Duke, which are both wonderful medical centers. I agree that those methodologies aren't ideal, but nothing is perfect.</p>

<p>"In addition to having visited friends who are residents and faculty at Hopkins, I've read medical textbooks, clinical journal articles, and subscribe to the New England Journal of Medicine, so I have a reasonably good sense of where the leaders are."</p>

<p>My goodness. Simply writing "I am a medical student" would have been much more concise and less pompous!</p>

44

<p>It’s becoming too much of a waste of my valuable time to individually reply to you three because your statements contain so many contradictions, exaggerations, distortions, and falsehoods. The readers will have seen the data I’ve presented above so hopefully they can make up their own minds. </p>

<p>Sakky:
1. Believes “it doesn't really matter what the reasons are. The only thing that matters is that YLS has a better cross-yield than HLS does.” – Hmmm, sounds like someone who’s losing an argument, who just doesn’t want to concede defeat when presented with overwhelming data showing complete domination of YLS by HLS in law, politics, government and pretty much every aspect of American society. Obviously, top law firms care less about the cross-yields than Sakky.
2. Believes one can’t use the word “also-ran” because 300 years later, maybe JHU may be equal to HMS. – I’m curious, can this word ever be used in any context then? Maybe we should strike it altogether from the dictionary?
3. “Uh, J-T measures a wide range of metrics of dubious value.”– I would say publications, citation impact, funding, prizes, etc. are far more legitimate than anything that the U.S. News could dream up.<br>
4. “I could turn that question around and ask how would YOU know that it's NOT true? Have you rotated through those 3 hospitals yourself?” - Duhhh, I’m not the one making the original claim here so why should I have to justify my credentials? This is very typical of your logic, Sakky. Indeed, I happen to have spent time at each of the hospitals.
5. “Numerous studies regarding the sociology of science have demonstrated that your ability to publish within a particular journal is strongly influenced by how well you happen to know the editors.” – Ummm, the last time I checked, the NEJM had a rigorous peer review system, with reviewers from all over the world. If NEJM had been as provincial in scope as you suggest, it wouldn’t command the kind of international respect it does.
6. “You have stated quite explicitly that you are a Harvard graduate. In contrast it seems that many other people here, including myself, have been deliberately quiet about exactly what their relationship is with Harvard or any of the other schools.” – Hmmm, I don’t remember explicitly saying so, but it should’ve been pretty obvious anyway from my inside knowledge. In any case, my full disclosure only enhances my legitimacy. Whereas with you three, who knows what kinds of ulterior motives you harbor? Maybe you are all Harvard rejects. Maybe you work for the U.S. News, etc. </p>

<p>Kingduke:
1. Students are "matched" with residency programs, and there is no such thing as revealed "choices" in the way that you imply. In case you have the urge to share anecdotes, there are <em>plenty</em> of top-tier HMS students who are honestly afraid to rank Hopkins because their programs are perceived as too tough and rigorous.” – Yes, but you do rank programs when you submit the match list. And Hopkins is almost invariably ranked lower. Hopkins being “tougher and more rigorous” may be a part of the reason, but so what? “Toughness”, which is euphemism for excessive work hours, excessive number of admissions per night, excessive number of patients per resident, etc. has little to do with the actual quality of patient care or medical education. Studies have shown that excessive hours lead to deterioration of patient care, more frequent errors, and lifethreatening accidents for the residents. The well-known “macho” attitude at Hopkins is something to be deplored, not celebrated. Medical students happen to be pretty smart, so of course they avoid Hopkins.
2. “I'm not the type to pull statements out of my rear end ... unlike some others. But MGH really is fabulous. US News generally ranks it between UCLA and Duke, which are both wonderful medical centers. I agree that those methodologies aren't ideal, but nothing is perfect.” – why don’t you supply some credentials yourself, then? The fact that the US News ranks MGH below UCLA (occasionally) alone proves that it’s a piece of crap. Few people at UCLA would consider themselves close to MGH or BWH.<br>
3. “Simply writing "I am a medical student" would have been much more concise and less pompous!” – It’s partly because I’ve read the NEJM which has the weekly Case Records of MGH, and that second-tier journal whose name that I can’t remember that runs the case studies of Johns Hopkins Hospital, that I don’t have much trouble saying how MGH is better clinically. So I do need to elaborate on my experiences.</p>

45

<p>ske: "Hopkins being “tougher and more rigorous” may be a part of the reason, but so what? “Toughness”, which is euphemism for excessive work hours, excessive number of admissions per night, excessive number of patients per resident, etc. has little to do with the actual quality of patient care or medical education. Studies have shown that excessive hours lead to deterioration of patient care, more frequent errors, and lifethreatening accidents for the residents. The well-known “macho” attitude at Hopkins is something to be deplored, not celebrated."</p>

<hr>

<p>That makes sense, but I read a study that the excessive work hours during residency made doctors less prone to errors after they are done with residency. Apparently, the endless repetition made the doctors more competent even if they were half-asleep during their residency.</p>

46

<p>skie, those were extremely weak arguments.</p>

<p>"Yes, but you do rank programs when you submit the match list. And Hopkins is almost invariably ranked lower."</p>

<p>There is no way to systematically obtain this data about medical student rank lists -- and if you don't know this, then you don't have the background that you claim. You may know people who claimed that they ranked one way, there there are others who claimed to make the opposite choice. You need to give this one up.</p>

<p>"“Toughness”, which is euphemism for excessive work hours, excessive number of admissions per night, excessive number of patients per resident, etc. has little to do with the actual quality of patient care or medical education ... The well-known “macho” attitude at Hopkins is something to be deplored, not celebrated. Medical students happen to be pretty smart, so of course they avoid Hopkins."</p>

<p>1) Do you mean quality of patient care -- perhaps as measured by US News?
2) The maximum number of resident work hours allowed is equal at <em>every</em> hospital, as mandated by national organizations. Either you know this also, or you don't have the background that you claim (or the experience to know the difference).
3) Math 55 at Harvard is tough, and there is a "macho" attitude associated with it too. Yes, I know because I took it. Does that mean that it is also to be "deplored, not celebrated"? If avoiding Hopkins means that medical students are so "smart" as you claim -- should the smart math students also avoid Math 55 or Math 25? Should the smart engineers avoid MIT and Caltech because they're also perceived as rigorous? Please!!!</p>

<p>Goodness, give this one up too. It's pretty clear that what you really "deplore" is that all of the Harvard hospitals are consistently ranked lower than Johns Hopkins, and that Hopkins is arguably considered a "superior" medical institution by most laypersons. You are really grasping at straws to make up excuses about this. BTW, you might be surprised how many PhD's and other educated-types outside of Boston refer to BWH as "Brigham Young Hospital or someplace like that"!!! </p>

<p>"The fact that the US News ranks MGH below UCLA (occasionally) alone proves that it’s a piece of crap. Few people at UCLA would consider themselves close to MGH or BWH."</p>

<p>Please re-read comment about pulling statements out of rear ends...</p>

<p>"It’s partly because I’ve read the NEJM ... that I don’t have much trouble saying how MGH is better clinically."</p>

<p>Oh dear, what logic. I've read the Chicago Tribune, LA Times, and NY Times. All of them discuss aspects of culture in those cities. Perhaps I should use this as a basis for claiming that Chicago is superior to LA and NY!</p>

47

<p>ske, allow my own thoughts here for a moment.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sakky:
1. Believes “it doesn't really matter what the reasons are. The only thing that matters is that YLS has a better cross-yield than HLS does.” – Hmmm, sounds like someone who’s losing an argument, who just doesn’t want to concede defeat when presented with overwhelming data showing complete domination of YLS by HLS in law, politics, government and pretty much every aspect of American society. Obviously, top law firms care less about the cross-yields than Sakky.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And in the context of the entire last thread, it REALLY doesn't matter what the reasons are. sakky was trying to put back the discussion into its proper context and the answer was, the YLS has a better cross-yield than the HLS. It doesn't matter why, only that YLS is for whatever reasons, more preferred over HLS. THAT was the context. Your other remarks about power and influence and whatnot, while fairly valid, missed the entire point completely. Is it that difficult to gauge, ske? We know Harvard is a great place. We certainly don't need you to keep telling us that.</p>

<p>
[quote]
2. Believes one can’t use the word “also-ran” because 300 years later, maybe JHU may be equal to HMS. – I’m curious, can this word ever be used in any context then? Maybe we should strike it altogether from the dictionary?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>To be frank, there was nothing wrong with you using that term. However, when you said that JHU has no hope of EVER catching up to HMS, that was a foolish statement. And you STILL haven't retracted it. In fact, I was about to comment on your wild spiel over JHU before sakky came in. Yep, it was THAT glaring of a mistake to say that JHU will never be like HMS. And you still won't take back what you said. That's just sad.</p>

<p>
[quote]
3. “Uh, J-T measures a wide range of metrics of dubious value.”– I would say publications, citation impact, funding, prizes, etc. are far more legitimate than anything that the U.S. News could dream up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The Jiaotong is so flawed it's not even funny. I remember another CCer trying to pull that citation on me, but he was ridiculed by all the other posters for it. Contradictions: How come the University of Toronto is so high up on the list? Being a Canadian, I know that it's fairly decent university. But it's not THAT great. In fact, the undergraduate experience there is extremely mediocre, and UofT certainly doesn't carry as powerful a brand name as an Ivy. And honestly, what's with all of these state universities in the Top 100, and where's Dartmouth? I would hardly believe that UW Madison carries far more "power and influence" (your favorite words ske!) than Dartmouth or Brown. But yet, that's what the J-T would have you believe. Indeed, I believe there's an overemphasis on academia on the rankings. </p>

<p>Don't even begin to legitimize the J-T over the USNWR. I guarentee you, nobody will be impressed.</p>

<p>Come on ske, don't you think you're being a little over-aggressive about forcing your opinions on Harvard? We ALL know it's a great school. But your constant and seemingly abrasive posting makes it seem like you're just a little child stamping her foot for some more cake. Even kingduke - a Harvard student - told you off.</p>

48

<p>
[quote]
Math 55 at Harvard is tough, and there is a "macho" attitude associated with it too. Yes, I know because I took it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Nice. Were you in the same session with J. Geneson?</p>

49

<p><a href="sakky%20wrote:">quote</a><br>
I don't "blindly" believe in rankings. I am simply reporting the news. YLS has a better yield than HLS does, and in particular, beats HLS in cross-admit yields.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What are the cross-admit numbers, and where can one find them?</p>

<p>Hansmann's article talks only about Yale having a yield near 80 percent.<br>
Harvard's is near 70 percent according to the above. Unless there is more or newer information, that doesn't imply any particular dominance in cross-admit battles. It could be that Yale is more self-selected, for example, or that it loses to Harvard but wins against all other schools, or that it beats Harvard by only a slight margin.</p>

50

<p>"Nice. Were you in the same session with J. Geneson?"</p>

<p>No, I'm probably a few years too old. :) But the name is familiar...</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
What are the cross-admit numbers, and where can one find them?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ask jonri on the prelaw section of CC. He apparently has access to quite a bit of data about this very question, and he was the one who I referenced in my original post in the original thread. Shall we invite him into this thread?</p>

52

<p>
[quote]
It’s becoming too much of a waste of my valuable time to individually reply to you three

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, if it has REALLY become a waste of time, then why even bother to reply at all? Nobody is forcing you to post. </p>

<p>
[quote]
because your statements contain so many contradictions, exaggerations, distortions, and falsehoods.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really? You know what they say about those who live in glass houses. What about your assertions that JHU Med has no chance of ever being able to catch up to HMS, not ever? Or that each one of Harvard's professional schools being clearly the most influential and powerful in their field? You make statements like that, and then you accuse others of "contradictions, exaggerations, distortions, and falsehoods"? Physician, I recommend that you heal thyself. </p>

<p>
[quote]
1. Believes “it doesn't really matter what the reasons are. The only thing that matters is that YLS has a better cross-yield than HLS does.” – Hmmm, sounds like someone who’s losing an argument, who just doesn’t want to concede defeat when presented with overwhelming data showing complete domination of YLS by HLS in law, politics, government and pretty much every aspect of American society. Obviously, top law firms care less about the cross-yields than Sakky.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am simply asking the question of why is it that YLS seems to be preferred to HLS. After all, let's recall the original thread that sparked this whole debate. That thread had to do with which particular law school was more preferred. It seems to me that YOU are losing the argument by refusing to deal with the questions I am positing. </p>

<p>Nobody doubts that HLS has had a larger number of highly successful graduates than YLS does. After all, given HLS's size, it ought to have more. In fact, I would strongly suspect that HLS has also had plenty more less successful grads than has YLS. When you simply have far more people, you are going to get a far higher number of ALL possible outcomes. Yet at the end of the day, whether you like it or not, YLS is a more preferred law school. </p>

<p>
[quote]
2. Believes one can’t use the word “also-ran” because 300 years later, maybe JHU may be equal to HMS. – I’m curious, can this word ever be used in any context then? Maybe we should strike it altogether from the dictionary?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I simply believe that we should not denigrate the strengths of one of the greatest schools in the world.</p>

<p>But fine, ske, have it your way. You want to call JHU Med an 'also-ran', relative to HMS? Fine. Then we are just as equally justified in calling the Harvard SPH an "also-ran" relative to JHU SPH. We can call the Harvard GSE an also-ran relative to the Teacher's College at Columbia University. And certainly, we can label the Harvard engineering department an also-ran compared to the MIT School of Engineering. I would like to see you argue, with the same intensity, that all of these Harvard professional schools are also-rans. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I would also like to hear you justify how this squares with your previous contention that every one of Harvard's professional schools are "clearly the most powerful and influential" of their field. How can (to use your logic) an "also-ran" Harvard engineering school also be the clearly most powerful and influential of all engineering schools? </p>

<p>Finally, I see that you have deliberately ducked the question about how your statement that JHU Med has no hope of ever catching up. Are you standing by your statement, or are you finally going to retract it? Frankly, knowing your tactics, I expect you to duck this question yet again. </p>

<p>
[quote]
3. “Uh, J-T measures a wide range of metrics of dubious value.”– I would say publications, citation impact, funding, prizes, etc. are far more legitimate than anything that the U.S. News could dream up.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Far more legitimate, is it? So how exactly is measuring prizes won in the 1910's legitimate? Whatever problems exist regarding the USNews metrics, I highly doubt that they are worse than measuring statistics of schools culled from generations ago. Who cares how many prizes a school won decades ago? What matters is how good the school is today. </p>

<p>
[quote]
4. “I could turn that question around and ask how would YOU know that it's NOT true? Have you rotated through those 3 hospitals yourself?” - Duhhh, I’m not the one making the original claim here so why should I have to justify my credentials? This is very typical of your logic, Sakky. Indeed, I happen to have spent time at each of the hospitals.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Duhhh, you are making the COUNTERclaim. So it is entirely fair for you to have to submit yourself to the same standard of proof that you are demanding from others. I have noticed that it is quite typical of YOUR logic to peddle standards of proof that you are not willing to partake of yourself. </p>

<p>If it is true that you have indeed spent time at each hospital, then perhaps you should enumerate exactly what you were doing at each. Basically, if you demand kingdude to reveal data of himself, it is entirely fair to you reveal information about yourself. Otherwise, don't ask for standards of proof that you are not willing to abide by. </p>

<p>Yet I see that you're not willing to do that by virtue of your following quote:</p>

<p>
[quote]
...I do need to elaborate on my experiences.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ah, but others do, right? So there is one set of rules for you, but another for everybody else. </p>

<p>
[quote]
. “Numerous studies regarding the sociology of science have demonstrated that your ability to publish within a particular journal is strongly influenced by how well you happen to know the editors.” – Ummm, the last time I checked, the NEJM had a rigorous peer review system, with reviewers from all over the world. If NEJM had been as provincial in scope as you suggest, it wouldn’t command the kind of international respect it does.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ummm, last time I checked, the NEJM's * editors * were from New England, and have been for many years. And that's precisely what I am talking about - it is the editors that hold great sway over the process. In fact, the NJEM itself ran a serious of articles that documented the problems of editorial bias within the peer-review process.</p>

<p>That's not to say that the NJEM is not a top journal, nor does the NJEM deserve to be singled out. The truth of the matter is that, in general, journals suffer from the problems of editorial bias. It may well be true that the NJEM in fact suffers from it less than most, but that hardly means that it doesn't suffer from it at all.</p>

<p>Besides, I'll put it to you this way. Take the field of sociology. The 2 top journals in sociology are almost certainly the Ameican Journal of Sociology (AJS) and the American Sociological Review (ASR). The AJS is edited and published at the University of Chicago, whereas the ASR is published by the broadly-based American Sociological Assocation. Unsurprisingly, the AJS published a far more percentage of articles from UChicago profs than does the ASR. Coincidence? I think not. </p>

<p>The truth is, journals have editorial bias, and when one particular journal is heavily geographically oriented, it is nearly inevitable that that journal will offer homefield advantage for researchers from that region. That doesn't make the journal bad, it's just a simple reality of the publication process. If you didn't realize this already, then I suppose it's good for you to learn this now.</p>

<p>
[quote]
6. “You have stated quite explicitly that you are a Harvard graduate. In contrast it seems that many other people here, including myself, have been deliberately quiet about exactly what their relationship is with Harvard or any of the other schools.” – Hmmm, I don’t remember explicitly saying so,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then let me refresh your memory. Post #12:</p>

<p>"When I was an undergraduate at Harvard (quite recently)..."</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=4125852#post4125852%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=4125852#post4125852&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
In any case, my full disclosure only enhances my legitimacy. Whereas with you three, who knows what kinds of ulterior motives you harbor? Maybe you are all Harvard rejects. Maybe you work for the U.S. News, etc.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Or maybe we arefully-fledged Harvard students, writing these posts from inside the Harvard network itself. Who knows? </p>

<p>Let me ask you a simple question. What if I am in fact a Harvard student. Would you then concede that then serves to enhance my legitimacy? Or are you going to contend that only YOUR Harvard status matters, and the status of others does not?</p>

53

<p>Wow.</p>

<p>10 characters.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
"What are the cross-admit numbers, and where can one find them?" </p>

<p>Ask jonri on the prelaw section of CC. He apparently has access to quite a bit of data about this very question, and he was the one who I referenced in my original post in the original thread.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks, but a search of Jonri's postings shows that you are confusing Yale's yield with its cross-admit results against Harvard.</p>

<p>jonri: "75% of all those admitted to Yale Law school choose it. However, 50% of Harvard College students admitted to Yale Law and Harvard Law choose Harvard Law"</p>

<p>vs</p>

<p>sakky: "I think jonri once showed that YLS beats HLS in cross-admit yields by about 3:1 (maybe even higher), and that even if we're talking about Harvard cross-admits (that is, Harvard undergrads who got into YLS and HLS), about half of them will choose YLS."</p>

<p><a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3681563#post3681563%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?p=3681563#post3681563&lt;/a>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4227880&postcount=25%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=4227880&postcount=25&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>One would imagine that Yale Law has some advantage from being ranked higher, but there is little to suggest that the H/Y cross-admit battle is heavily skewed in favor of Yale, if Yale is in fact the winner. The effect of alma mater preference on the 50 percent number may be small or large, and any Yale advantage that one might infer from that (i.e. a rate better than 50 percent with the non-Harvard alumni) would be attenuated by other factors, such as preference for Cambridge over New Haven among all but the Yale alumni.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
Thanks, but a search of Jonri's postings shows that you are confusing Yale's yield with its cross-admit results against Harvard.</p>

<p>jonri: "75% of all those admitted to Yale Law school choose it. However, 50% of Harvard College students admitted to Yale Law and Harvard Law choose Harvard Law"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Uh, search harder. I believe jonri specifically said that he had data regarding YLS vs. HLS cross-admits that show that YLS does indeed beat HLS by a wide margin, although he didn't actually present the data, and nobody pressed on him it (we all took his word on it). I believe the wording he used was something along the lines of "very few" people will take HLS over YLS if given the choice. Granted, I don't know what exactly he meant by "very few", so why not ask him? </p>

<p>I also don't see what is so particularly objectionable about my choice of a 3:1 ratio. Is that really so hard to believe? That basically means that of all of the cross-admits to HLS and YLS, 75% of them will choose YLS and 25% will choose HLS, hence, a 3:1 ratio. </p>

<p>
[quote]
One would imagine that Yale Law has some advantage from being ranked higher, but there is little to suggest that the H/Y cross-admit battle is heavily skewed in favor of Yale, if Yale is in fact the winner. The effect of alma mater preference on the 50 percent number may be small or large, and any Yale advantage that one might infer from that (i.e. a rate better than 50 percent with the non-Harvard alumni) would be attenuated by other factors, such as preference for Cambridge over New Haven among all but the Yale alumni.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It hardly has to do with just the ranking alone. I would say that the key factor that tips YLS over HLS is the grading scheme. HLS has a rather harsh and highly competitive grading scheme that starts on day one, with constant and transparent rankings. In contrast, YLS's grading scheme is far less intense that makes grades less important and rankings far more difficult to understand. The upshot is that while HLS is probably a better school if you happen to graduate at the top of your class, YLS is certainly better if you happen to graduate at the bottom, or even in the middle of your class, simply because YLS makes it hard to ascertain exactly where you did graduate within your class, and odds are, you will probably graduate in the bottom or in the middle of your class than at the top. In other words, YLS is the risk-averse choice. That fact alone would make YLS more appealing to HLS for the simple reason that most people in the world are risk-averse. {For example, most people would prefer to have a guaranteed $1 million rather than take a 20% chance of getting $10 million}. </p>

<p>But anyway, if you still dispute this point, then by all means, let's invite jonri into this conversation.</p>

56

<p>
[quote]
Far more legitimate, is it? So how exactly is measuring prizes won in the 1910's legitimate? Whatever problems exist regarding the USNews metrics, I highly doubt that they are worse than measuring statistics of schools culled from generations ago. Who cares how many prizes a school won decades ago? What matters is how good the school is today.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>But aren't prizes only a small portion of J-T's rankings? Aren't the other measures of J-T contemporary?</p>

57

<p>
[quote]
But aren't prizes only a small portion of J-T's rankings? Aren't the other measures of J-T contemporary?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A full 30% (10% for alumni, 20% for staff) of J-T has to do with prizes, and that prize category is then itself weighted on a graduated basis by when those prizes were won. </p>

<p>But the key point is that USNews's metrics are ALL contemporary. Sure, the metrics are not perfect. But at least they are contemporary. In contrast, J-T explicitly weighs certain metrics regarding events that happened many decades ago.</p>

58

<p><a href="sakky:">quote</a> Uh, search harder.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>A search of this site for all Jonri postings containing the words YALE,YLS, HLS, YHS, CHOOSE, YIELD, RANK comes up with nothing more about the Harvard/Yale cross-admit battle. Certainly no posting matching your recollection below. Care to "search harder" yourself, and display the posting in question?</p>

<p>
[quote]
I believe jonri specifically said that he had data regarding YLS vs. HLS cross-admits that show that YLS does indeed beat HLS by a wide margin, although he didn't actually present the data,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you can "search harder" and find jonri's statement or bring him to this thread to discuss what he knows, go for it. So far there is a lot of speculation but no statements based on known cross-admit data. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I also don't see what is so particularly objectionable about my choice of a 3:1 ratio. Is that really so hard to believe? That basically means that of all of the cross-admits to HLS and YLS, 75% of them will choose YLS and 25% will choose HLS, hence, a 3:1 ratio.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't object to anything; I asked for the data behind your statements. Until some data are produced, we can only speculate whether Yale wins or loses its cross-admit battles with Harvard, and if it wins, by how much, even approximately.</p>

<p>It appears from the quotations in post #54 that your 3:1 is a reference to Jonri's 75% figure (since the second sentences also match). You did the arithmetic correctly, but apparently forgot that in the first sentence, Jonri was not talking about cross-admit yield but only the overall yield.</p>

59

<p>
[quote]
A search of this site for all Jonri postings containing the words YALE,YLS, HLS, YHS, CHOOSE, YIELD, RANK comes up with nothing more about the Harvard/Yale cross-admit battle. Certainly no posting matching your recollection below. Care to "search harder" yourself, and display the posting in question?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you can "search harder" and find jonri's statement or bring him to this thread to discuss what he knows, go for it. So far there is a lot of speculation but no statements based on known cross-admit data.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
didn't object to anything; I asked for the data behind your statements. Until some data are produced, we can only speculate whether Yale wins or loses its cross-admit battles with Harvard, and if it wins, by how much, even approximately.</p>

<p>It appears from the quotations in post #54 that your 3:1 is a reference to Jonri's 75% figure (since the second sentences also match). You did the arithmetic correctly, but apparently forgot that in the first sentence, Jonri was not talking about cross-admit yield but only the overall yield.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Then let's ask him via PM and/or email. What are you scared of?</p>

<p>Heck, forget it. Since it seems like you just don't want to invite jonri to share his information, I am now going to do it. I hope to get an answer from jonri, one way or another, shortly.</p>

60

<p>I was going to let this thread die, but I see it has been resurrected. The following article has nothing to do with law school, but ske has made the dubious assertion that Harvard is far-and-away superior at math, science, engineering, and every other school of note. The following study contradicts this assertion..</p>

<p>*MIT Leads in Revolutionary Science *</p>

<hr>

<p>MIT Leads in Revolutionary Science, Harvard Declines </p>

<p>Bruce G Charlton writes
"In three studies looking at the best institutions for 'revolutionary' science, MIT emerged as best in the world. This contrasts with 'normal science' which incrementally-extends science in pre established directions."
If you're interested in reading more about how this was determined, read more below...</p>

<p>My approach has been to look at trends in the award of science Nobel prizes (Physics, Chemistry, Medicine/ Physiology and Economics — the Nobel metric) — then to expand this Nobel metric by including some similar awards. The NFLT metric adds-in Fields medal (mathematics), Lasker award for clinical medicine and the Turing award for computing science. The NLG metric is specifically aimed at measuring revolutionary biomedical science and uses the Nobel medicine, the Lasker clinical medicine and the Gairdner International award for biomedicine. MIT currently tops the tables for all three metrics: the Nobel prizes, the NFLT and the NLG. There seems little doubt it has been the premier institution of revolutionary science in the world over recent years. Also very highly ranked are Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, Caltech, Berkeley, Princeton and — in biomedicine — University of Washington at Seattle and UCSF. The big surprise is that Harvard has declined from being the top Nobel prizewinners from 1947-1986, to sixth place for Nobels; seventh for NFLT, and Harvard doesn't even reach the threshold of three awards for the biomedical NLG metric! This is despite Harvard massively dominating most of the 'normal science' research metrics (eg. number of publications and number of citations per year) — and probably implies that Harvard may have achieved very high production of scientific research at the expense of quality at the top-end."</p>

<p><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/article....7/01/15/131256%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://science.slashdot.org/article....7/01/15/131256&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>