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

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
61

<p><a href="sakky%20wrote:">quote</a> Then let's ask him via PM and/or email.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Great! I invited you to do so a couple of postings ago after you floated the idea.</p>

<p>
[quote]
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,

[/quote]
</p>

<p>uh, which part of the invitation did you not understand?</p>

<p>"If you can ... bring him [jonri] to this thread to discuss what he knows, go for it."</p>

<p>
[quote]
I am now going to do it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's mighty white of you. Notice, though, that even if jonri comes forward with ironclad information about a 100 percent cross-admit victory rate for Yale, that does not help you in the other matter that you so diplomatically created as an issue in its own right, i.e., claims about certain (apocryphal) postings that apparently were just your mis-recollection of real postings.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I hope to get an answer from jonri, one way or another, shortly.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lovely! And when can we expect some answer from you as to the apocryphal material you cited -- the posting that you so nicely suggested "searching harder" to find? Do you continue to insist that such a posting exists despite the negative and apparently comprehensive search results, and if so, where is it?</p>

62

<p>
[quote]
Great! I invited you to do so a couple of postings ago after you floated the idea. </p>

<p>"If you can ... bring him [jonri] to this thread to discuss what he knows, go for it."

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And exactly which part of invitation did YOU not understand? I asked YOU whether we should invite jonri in post #51. But that's not necessarily my job to do so. You could have invited him at that time. You chose not to do so. Why not? I'm happy to invite him (and I did), but why is it necessarily my job? If you really wanted to know, then you could have done so yourself. That is, unless, you don't really want to know...</p>

<p>
[quote]
That's mighty white of you. Notice, though, that even if jonri comes forward with ironclad information about a 100 percent cross-admit victory rate for Yale, that does not help you in the other matter that you so diplomatically created as an issue in its own right, i.e., claims about certain (apocryphal) postings that apparently were just your mis-recollection of real postings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Maybe they are misremembered postings. Maybe they came from somebody other jonri. Or maybe those postings got deleted. But who cares? Ultimately, at the end of the day, what matters is what the cross-yield data is between YLS and HLS, not about who exactly said what. I am willing to wait for that information. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Lovely! And when can we expect some answer from you as to the apocryphal material you cited -- the posting that you so nicely suggested "searching harder" to find? Do you continue to insist that such a posting exists despite the negative and apparently comprehensive search results, and if so, where is it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What I "insist" upon is that somebody (most likely jonri) has the data in question, and we are now in the process of locating it. You seem to be far more interested in who remembered what data than in the data itself. Ultimately what matters at the end of the day is what the cross-yield data is.</p>

63

<p>Haha, oh looks like dear president Levin was also wrong about Larry Summers.</p>

<p>Alas, two mistakes in one speech... shows even the most respected of Elis is not infallible.</p>

64

<p>Well, what seems clear is that sakky is not able to produce the data himself or find anybody else who can produce the data. Yet he is not even the slightest bit ashamed to have based his whole ridiculous argument on this statistic that doesn't even exist.</p>

<p>The other thing that you notice throughout Sakky's posts is that he almost invariably uses the U.S. News rankings as a literal measure of quality. For example, he is less resistant to the idea that HMS and HBS are at the top, presumably because they are ranked number 1 by the U.S. News. He also thinks that Columbia Ed School is better than HGSE, Hopkins Public Health School is better than HSPH, etc., presumably because they are ranked higher. His rankings almost always correlate perfectly with the U.S. News rankings. Many people would beg to differ, and in fact the U.S. News has often ranked HGSE ahead of Columbia Teachers College in the past. The whole thing, if anything, just invalidates the U.S. News rankings. </p>

<p>I have lots of comments on some of the above posts above (especially about the alleged correlation between workhours and the quality of training (LOL!!!!!), the alleged "superiority" of Hopkins clinical medicine (LOL!!!!!), the alleged "decline" of Harvard science (LOL!!!!), etc) but simply don't have the time to respond. I came back just to share this link on the U.S. News ranking of law schools.</p>

<p><a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937017%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=937017&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>" ....Indeed, as I began playing with a spreadsheet I had written to replicate the 2007 U.S. News computations, I discovered that even if Harvard had reported a perfect median LSAT of 180, it still would have been ranked third. And even if Yale had reported a median LSAT of just 153 (placing it in the “fourth tier” of law schools ranked by LSAT), 9 it still would have been ranked first. Indeed, Yale would have been ranked higher than Harvard even if both had been true – if Harvard had reported a perfect median LSAT and Yale a 153. I was stunned. Was Yale really that much better than Harvard in all other material respects? If not, what might the parts of U.S. News’ methodology that led to these counterintuitive results tell us about the validity of U.S. News’ ranking of other schools? ... "</p>

<p>"......U.S. News’ conclusions with regard to Yale and Harvard were also puzzling. The two were ranked equally by law professors; judges and practitioners ranked Yale slightly higher. Yale reported that only about 50% of its students had LSATs of 172 or higher; in absolute numbers, about 290 students (about 30% as many as Harvard). 8 Yale’s graduates passed the New York bar examination at a lower rate than Harvard’s – marginally lower, but lower nevertheless. Yale’s law library was less than half the size of Harvard’s. Yet U.S. News awarded Yale an “overall score” of 100, Harvard an “overall score” of only 91 – a nine-point difference. In the U.S. News’ universe, a nine-point difference was huge – further down the scale, for example, it meant the difference between being ranked in the top 20 and being excluded from the top 40..... "</p>

65

<p>Also check out the follwing links:</p>

<p><a href="http://law.fordham.edu/facts/wom-fact1.ihtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://law.fordham.edu/facts/wom-fact1.ihtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://law.fordham.edu/facts/wom-fact5.ihtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://law.fordham.edu/facts/wom-fact5.ihtml&lt;/a>
Most cited law journals:
1. Harvard Law Review
2. Columbia Law Review
3. Fordham Law Review
4. NYU Law Review
5. U. Penn Law Review
5. Yale Law Journal</p>

<p><a href="http://law.fordham.edu/facts/wom-fact7.ihtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://law.fordham.edu/facts/wom-fact7.ihtml&lt;/a>
Placement in top 15 law firms in the country:
1. Harvard
2. Columbia
3. NYU
.......
6. Yale</p>

<p>Placement in top 50 law firms in the country:
1. Harvard
2. NYU
3. Columbia
......
10. Yale</p>

<p>HLS publishes by far the most influential law journal in the country and churns out by far the largest number of lawyers at the top law firms in the country. But it's not the most powerful and influential law school because of some cross admit numbers that only exist in Sakky's head? Hmmmmmmm....</p>

66

<p>I have no time whatsoever but couldn't resist adding a few more lines: </p>

<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>

<p>And just where have you read these studies? The studies I referred to were landmark studies done at the Brigham and published in the New England Journal. Experience counts heavily in medicine but medicine is not just about repetition. And you accumulate EVEN MORE experience AFTER residency (that's why doctors are said to PRACTICE medicine) - it's not just a one-time thing during residency. The notion that you would make less errors 5 years after residency because you were worked to death during residency is just absurd.</p>

67

<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>1) The US News ranking does NOT meaure the quality of patient care. Just exactly which parameter in the ranking reflect the quality of patient care? And how do you measure the quality? Mortality (but teritary care hospitals get sicker patients)? The percentage of patients in the ER with chest pain who get aspirin or patients with pneumonia symptoms who get started on iv antibiotics soon after arrival? (Yes, there are such statistics but Hopkins is not at the top). Are there any services that Hopkins provides that cannot be provided at MGH? I don't think so. Are there any diagnoses that MGH physicians would miss and Hopkins physicians would get? Don't think so, either. The truth is that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to compare the quality of care, unless the difference is very obvious, such as a teritary teaching hospital versus a small community hospital. Anyone else who claims otherwise is lying. The clinical and basic research output can be measured reasonably objectively, on the other hand, and there Harvard well outranks Hopkins.</p>

<p>2) Yes, the work hour rules came into place a few years ago, because of the all the ill effects of excessive work hours I discussed, but it doesn't mean that they are enforced equally at all hospitals. Hopkins is one of the most notoriously noncompliant, if not THE MOST noncompliant, hospitals around and they came very close to losing accrediation several times because of that.</p>

<p>3) I took Math 55 also and incidentally did pretty well (got an A both semesters). I spent close to 20 hours a week on Math 55 problem sets but at no point did I have to skip meals or suffer prolonged sleep deprivation to the extent that I felt exhausted all the time. I could still go to parties and extracurricular activities. The hours I spent on Math 55 problems sets were spent purely exercising my brain and were extremely beneficial. Working 100 hours a week during residency means eating poorly and sleeping poorly to the extent that you cannnot even think properly or drive home safely. Yes, at the beginning, there is a positive correlation between more work and learning but at some point you reach a point of diminishing returns. Working 100 hours a week is at a point where you actually learn less because you are so tired.</p>

<p>To give an example, MGH puts a limit of 5 admissions per night for an intern. Hopkins does not have such a limit. A typical intern on call has to:</p>

<p>1) read the charts of the patient being admitted (which can be hundreds of pages filled with dense information)
2) look up the lab values and radiological study results of the patient being admitted
3) go and talk to the patient and do a "thorough" physical exam on the patient
4) speak to the relatives and visitors if necessary
5) speak to the patient's private physician and if the patient is being transferred from elsewhere, to the physicians from the previous hospital
6) write the orders and request new labs and radiographic studies, enter into the computer, and give specific instructions to the nurses if necessary
7) perform any procedures and draw blood on the patient if necessary
8) call consultant physicians if necessary
9) write a detailed note in the chart about the patients history, physical, and assessment and therapeutic plan
10) teach medical students on call if they are with you
11) do reading on your case if you have time</p>

<p>Even if you are the most talented intern in the world, it takes about 2 hours to do a thorough job on one admission (without cutting corners). If the case is very simple, such as cellulitis or pneumonia, it might take an hour. But on top of this you are also expected to:</p>

<p>1) cover the service for the team, meaning you are in charge of all the patients who are already hospitalized. If something goes wrong, you get paged by the nurse and it could soak up hours of your time.<br>
2) check any important lab values or perform procedures signed out by the interns who left for the night and take any action if necessary
3) answer any codes happening nearby. </p>

<p>There's just no way you can physicially do a good job on more than 5 admissions per night without sacrificing something. To claim that you can take 10 admissions a night without any problem and to think that kind of macho attitude translates into superior training is, well, STUPID.</p>

68

<p>I'm sorry you didn't get into HMS and had to go to Duke for medical school, but that happens to the best of us. Don't take it personally.</p>

69

<p>A friend of mine was applying to oncology fellowships and interviewed at Harvard and Hopkins. Harvard of course had by far the better research program but he was more clinically oriented so he was looking at Hopkins closely. He found that the patients on the Hopkins oncology units have beds that can be converted into an ICU bed so that the oncology fellow can keep them and follow them in the unit. In case you don't know, taking care of an ICU patient requires a heck of a lot more time and attention than a regular patient. Now, Hopkins oncology fellows can boast of being able to deliver ICU-level care to their patients right in their unit, and perhaps that's something they can really brag about, but if you were a cancer patient, would you really want to be taken care of by oncology fellows when you are hooked up to a ventilator and on the verge of life and death, or would you rather be in the ICU being taken care by the ICU specialists? That's the kind of Hopkins "macho" attitude I am talking about.</p>

70

<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>So? BWH was founded in the 1980s by a merger of 3 Harvard teaching hospitals so its name doesn't go back hundreds of years. Among physicians, BWH is at the pinnacle of academic medicine, which is what matters.</p>

<p>I would say that there's a larger percentage of people who spell Johns Hopkins as "John Hopkins".</p>

71

<p>"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>I clicked on your link but didn't get anything. It either never existed or probably got pulled off because of the fraudulent claims.</p>

<p>If MIT is so much better than Harvard, why is it that if there are 289 papers from Harvard published in Science (which publishes the highest-end research along with Nature) in the past 5 years but only 87 papers from MIT in the past 5 years? Why are there 265 papers from Harvard published in Nature in the past 5 years but only 71 papers from MIT during the same period? Why does MIT get a score of 69 on a scale of 100 for Harvard for highly cited researchers in Natural Sciences and Mathematics, a score of 55 on a scale of 100 for Harvard in Life Sciences, and a score of 21 versus 100 for Harvard in Medicine? (Academic Ranking of World Universities by Field 2007) Why does MIT have only 103 members in the National Academy of Sciences vs. 178 for Harvard (including teaching hospitals)? Why does the journal Science rank Harvard #1 in citation impact year after year? </p>

<p>MIT was meant to be a trade school and it's good at producing engineers who get told what to do and get the project done by the deadline. That much is true. Just stick to that and you'll be fine.</p>

72

<p>*I have no time whatsoever but couldn't resist adding a few more lines: * </p>

<p>lol. a "couple of lines" and "no time" later ...</p>

73

<p>Goodness spe293, looks like you have had another tantrum of illogical posts.</p>

<p>"There's just no way you can physicially do a good job on more than 5 admissions per night without sacrificing something. To claim that you can take 10 admissions a night without any problem and to think that kind of macho attitude translates into superior training is, well, STUPID."</p>

<p>Just because <em>you</em> cannot do something does not mean that others are not capable of it. Sorry to break this to you.</p>

<p>"BWH was founded in the 1980s by a merger of 3 Harvard teaching hospitals so its name doesn't go back hundreds of years. Among physicians, BWH is at the pinnacle of academic medicine, which is what matters. I would say that there's a larger percentage of people who spell Johns Hopkins as 'John Hopkins'."</p>

<p>Irrelevant. My point was that I have heard <em>many</em> extremely well-educated people refer to your esteemed BWH as "Brigham Young Hospital," presumably because there happens to be another institution that appears to be more widely-known among the general public. But if somebody says "John Hopkins," they are not confusing it with something else.</p>

<p>"it doesn't mean that they [work hour restrictions at hospitals] are enforced equally at all hospitals."</p>

<p>Nonsense.</p>

<p>"The truth is that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to compare the quality of care ... anyone else who claims otherwise is lying."</p>

<p>This is about the only thing you've posted that is correct. But unfortunately, just because a lowly medical student <em>thinks</em> that a set of hospitals is superior to others does not make it true. I'm sure you saw the latest US News rankings -- looks like they think "Man's Greatest" is quite a misnomer.</p>

<p>"I'm sorry you didn't get into HMS and had to go to Duke for medical school, but that happens to the best of us. Don't take it personally."</p>

<p>What makes you think I have a Duke affiliation? Don't be pulling things out of the rear end again...</p>

<p>Just to be clear, I think the Harvard teaching hospitals are fabulous. But there are several top university hospitals, several of which may even be better. And it's simply laughable to see somebody who posts claiming to be an expert in the field, yet is not even a physician.</p>

74

<p>If this thread is in anyway indicative of what HYPS grads are like, I'm very glad I didn't get in.</p>

<p>You guys don't seem smarter, just more neuortic and obssesive compulsive. I'm more envious of the high school drop out I worked for who owns 4 cell phone stores and 2 apartment buildings. He makes a lot of money and actually seems like a man of the people.</p>

75

<p>Werd wutangfinancial.</p>

<p>Regardless of the actual points at hand, ske, the way you've presented yourself on these boards was entirely unprofessional and particularly abrasive towards posters who obviously wanted nothing more than to see you shut up. For heaven's sake, you even revived a month-old thread just to continue to wack off your ego. Even a notably aggressive poster such as myself doesn't have that kind of a threshold to make a big deal out of something that's about a week old. And yet you couldn't control yourself even after a month. I feel sorry for you dude.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Absolutely. It seems like ske has forgotten how to be a human. He was so convinced that other people had to see his way, even though no one really did, that he basically lacked the qualities that people like wutangfinancial have always emphasized. I'm not sure if this may matter to you ske, but to us, there's more to life than getting into a certain school and tenaciously researching topics for your argument towards a College Confidential thread that no one will actually care to read.</p>

<p>You know. Like, actually treating other people with respect even though you respectfully disagree? Or always being tactful towards those who weren't as fortunate as you were to receive a great education. Or how about instead of constantly belittling everyone else, actually knowing how to deal with people who are different from you.</p>

<p>I shouldn't even have to be telling you this. I learned this stuff in kindergarten. And yet you, a Harvard student, are so obviously devoid of any discretion and compassion for others that I really, truly, feel sorry for you. </p>

<p>I have never actually pitied anyone on CC, because the vast majority of us are 18-19 year olds who are expected to say stupid things and make mistakes. You're what - 20-something years old, going to med school, and you can't even contain yourself? I mean, what the hell is this:</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>You are a sad, sad individual obviously without an ounce of feeling for people. I pity you. Don't take it personally though. There had to be some soulless people in this world.</p>

<p>Also dude, before you even THINK of replying to this, realize that you're arguing with an 18 year old who just really wants you to shut up. Seriously dude, you're a 20-something year old med student. You should know better. </p>

<p>Once again. I pity you.</p>

76

<p>That's nice. Now go work on your cell phone store.</p>

77

<p>haha EXCELLENT post big brother</p>

78

<p>
[quote]
Well, what seems clear is that sakky is not able to produce the data himself or find anybody else who can produce the data. Yet he is not even the slightest bit ashamed to have based his whole ridiculous argument on this statistic that doesn't even exist.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I found it strange to be lashed out at for asking what the cross admit numbers actually were (the ones that supposedly favored YLS so heavily).</p>

<p>Anyway, the current state of public information appears to be this:</p>

<p>yield for Yale is steady near 80 percent
yield for Harvard is steady near 70 percent</p>

<p>no strong reason to believe that either school beats the other in cross-yield </p>

<p>particular subpopulations of cross-admits may choose H or Y for specific reasons:
-- students with less prestigious undergrad degree may prefer overall name recognition of Harvard University
-- students wanting to become academics prefer Yale
-- people wanting corporate law may prefer Harvard
-- students who want to strive for honors may prefer Harvard
-- students who know they would NOT get honors at Harvard may prefer Yale
-- students interested in taking MBA courses would prefer Harvard
-- etc</p>

<p>On the whole I see no reason to assume anything about the net Harvard vs Yale cross-admit rates. Could be a big or small advantage to Yale, or a small advantage to Harvard, or evenly split. A web search found a survey thread on lawschooldiscussion.com, answered by 11 self described cross-admits of whom 5 went to Yale, 5 to Harvard, 1 somewhere else. Hard to conclude anything either way from the public information.</p>

79

<p>Big Brother 1984 made one of the best posts ever in the history of College Confidential. I give him my honorary slow clap.</p>

<p>OP: you got serious problems man. I don't know how you got past kindergarten. Going to Harvard does not give you the right to masturbate your ego on College Confidential or anywhere else. I too pity you. I feel sorry for the people who know you in person. I didn't think this was possible, but my respect for Harvard and its students has dropped another notch.</p>

80

<p>A classic tactic of people who can't win on substance ... ad hominem attacks.</p>

<p>Ever thought about a forceful argument based on facts instead of using crude expressions like "wack off your ego" (bigbrother) or "masturbate your ego" (slowcap) and resorting to generic name-calling? Not that it bothers me much, but it doesn't help your cause.</p>