<p>Is Harvard singled out for bashing more than any other school? Not just in some of the threads on this board, but in visiting other schools with my son, it seemed as though whenever he mentioned he was also looking at Harvard, it triggered the same routine: Harvard is just a name; Harvard doesnt care about their undergraduates; Harvard undergraduates are all taught by teaching assistants, etc. </p>
<p>And do you think the Larry Summers story would still be on the front pages of national newspapers and magazines, a month and a half after the incident, if it were, say, Rick Levin and Yale? I dont think so.</p>
<p>I suppose the Harvard-centric (Harvard bashers would say arrogant) view is that, when youre number one, everyone else wants to knock you off your perch. But it does get old pretty quickly.</p>
<p>I think its because of the reputation. Schools feel threatened by H because its so highly regarded, and everything except Princeton and perhaps Yale is a step below (in overall reputation, obviously Harvard isnt the best at everything).
An anecdote:
The spokesman for big bertha golf clubs once said in response to a slew of companies boasting that their new club could outdo the BB in such and such aspect something to the effect of, "But look who they all compare themseves to."</p>
<p>Same deal with the apple ipod. whenever a hot new mp3 player comes out people ask "will this be the ipod killer? its better than the ipod at doing ______."</p>
<p>Poor old harvard will somehow just have to manage to deal with other schools striving to compare themselves to it. :(</p>
<p>Everyone likes success, but some people resent too much success. Being regarded as number one paints a big red bullseye on you.</p>
<p>Harvard University, The New York Yankees, Microsoft, McDonalds, Disney, California, WalMart, and The United States of America are all organizations that attract a lot of haters. They each have strengths and weaknesses, but some people like to bash them simply because they are continually on top.</p>
<p>Oxford University. Look at what can happen to a school that used to be number one. The British Empire. Look at what can happen to a nation that used to be the number one superpower. Nothing is static.</p>
<p>I think that Harvard has become too much of an icon. Perhaps there is some truth to Harvard's treatment of undergrads. It is important to remeber though, that harvard relies on its reputation and has wrked hard to create this image of excellence, whether or not academically it lives up to that reputation.</p>
<p>One person's truth is another person's bashing. Many of the comments lodged against Harvard are based in merit and should be responded to accordingly. All too often H boosters are quick to respond to such comments as "bashing", rather than discuss the merits of the statements made.
The "king of the hill theory" is a cop-out. Among the more commonly accepted national ranking publications, Princeton is more often recognized as the top undergraduate, non technical, college in the nation (US News, PR, Atlantic Monthly, Prowl'r College Guide, etc,etc.) than anyone else, yet you see little Princeton bashing. Part of the answer, in my mind, lies in two areas:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Harvard's president has been nothing short of a loose cannon with regard to his dealings with faculty, comments about the sexes, comments about student-teacher communications at H, etc.</p></li>
<li><p>CC contains H boosters, who unlike others, irritate fellow CCers in their absolute refusal to recognize that H may not be the best at all things. At least one of these boosters may even distort reality to achieve his or her ends.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>I have no issue with legitimate criticism or debate. Certainly, Harvard is not perfect, nor is any other school. But it does seem that people are more eager to point out Harvards imperfections (real or imagined), with more vigor, than to point out those of other schools. And I do have a problem with the repetitive recitation of stereotypes or sound bites with little or no thought or analysis (which is what I mean when I refer to bashing).</p>
<p>Ahimsa I think there is something to your point about Harvard having an iconic, larger-than-life status. No school could live up to the reputation that some would place on Harvard, and some of the focus on Harvards imperfections may be a reaction to this. (This may also be a variant of the point that people like to shoot at number one.)</p>
<p>Alpha - putting aside my disagreement with your assessment of Harvards current president, the practice of Harvard bashing well predates his tenure. It was prevalent when I was looking at colleges 30 years ago. And Ill refrain from comment on your second point, other than to note that it takes two to tango. :)</p>
<p>A big part of Harvard's achievement is having sustained its high reputation for such a long time. It's 369 years old. It was widely regarded as the top college in the US in the 17th century, the 18th century, the 19th century, the 20th century, and it's off to a pretty good start in the 21st century. It's hard to keep up a charade that long. If there weren't some real excellence behind the reputation, Harvard would have sunk in the public's estimation long ago.</p>
<p>And viewed in that context, President Summers' term, and however (un)successful it turns out to be, is but a small blip on a very big screen.</p>
<p>Not that I think Harvard is perfect. It is certainly not above criticism. But part of its strength is having the resources and will to to improve the areas that do need to be addressed. </p>
<p>Even though it is sometimes regarded as such, I am not convinced that Harvard actually is or ever was The Best School in the World, because I don't think such a thing can even be accurately defined, much less measured. </p>
<p>What I can say is that it does many, many things very well. And the usual few dissenters notwithstanding, the large majority of the students there are very pleased with the education they are getting. But because its reputation has been so good for so long, some people are automatically going to hate it for that fact alone. And there is nothing much you can do to change their minds. And why bother? The school will get along just fine without them.</p>
<p>As for the bashing on CC, an awful lot of it, frankly, is in response to Byerly, who's so desperate to prove Harvard's superiority that it's hard to resist calling him on his more outrageous assertions. As Coureur rightly points out in his excellent post above, Harvard needs no defense, so why bother?</p>
<p>Byerly doesn't have to "prove" that Harvard is superior...he's merely pointing out facts...and if those facts seem to indicate that Harvard is the best (which it is), then why blame the messenger? :)</p>
<p>To get into Oxford (or Cambridge), you generally need to be extremely strong academically. Since ECs don't play such a big part in Oxbridge admissions, you really must be tops academically, even more than for HYPSM.</p>
<p>yea, cuz I know a girl in my school who got into Oxford, and while she's very bright and probably has a 4.0, great recs, she's not an academic <em>superstar</em> on the level of those who get into HYP.</p>
<p>1) hypsm aren't even close to offering meritocratic admissions. A significant number of places are reserved for recruited athletes/legacies/ children of other potential donors. As a result, applicants who don't fall under any of the above criteria need to be academic superstars.</p>
<p>2) Oxford is completely meritocratic. As a result, the smartest applicants get in. From the UK, only academic high flyers can get in. However, because internationals pay high fees, and Oxford could do with the money, internationals may be admitted if they are not quite superstars. But standards are still really high.</p>
<p>Considering only academics, Oxford definitely has an edge over hypsm.</p>
<p>alpha, the stats for Oxford/Cambridge are not that straight forward.</p>
<p>1) students apply to a particular course. There are different ratios for different courses.</p>
<p>2) An applicant may only apply to one of Oxford or Cambridge. If it was possible to apply to both, the number of applications would double for both instituions.</p>
<p>3) The quality of applicants is unbelievably high. Most schools don't even allow students to apply to Oxbridge unless they have high grades.</p>
<p>4) Number of applications per place doesn't = quality. Universities like Bristol/Nottingham recieve upwards of 15-20 applications per place for some courses. This doesn't equate to quality at all.</p>
<p>The academic experience and application process at Oxbridge is completely different than HYPSM. Comparing the two is apples and oranges. All one can say is that top students in academics in the UK go to Oxford, Cambridge (and UCL) while the best students, whether in academics or extracurriculars in the US go to HYPSM. Trying to prove a point with stats or a ranking guide doesn't really mean anything to begin with let alone trying to prove superiority in two different university systems. I personally think that college is much more than just an academic experience, and thus oxbridge really loses out on diversity in a way by not considering extracurriculars or other non-quantified traits in applicants. But that is just my opinion. </p>