<p>I actually own a "Harvard: the Stanford of the East" t-shirt; also a "Harvard: the Michigan of the East" t-shirt, and a "Harvard: the Duke of the North" t-shirt!</p>
<p>Revealingly, there are no counterpart models on sale in Cambridge!</p>
<p>"The Yale Daily News is forever bleeding; it is covered in the crimson blood of another school. Over six issues of the News (from Oct. 15-22) there were seven front-page articles concerning Harvard University, a somewhat well-known institution of higher education in the city of Cambridge, Mass. These articles range from the relevant (Harvard's alcohol policy for The Game) to the slightly irrelevant (the salary of Harvard's financial advisers) to the completely irrelevant (a Harvard grad student's manslaughter conviction), and yet all have found a way onto these same pages. Why is this the case? Because it's Harvard...."</p>
<p>..........................</p>
<p>"Thus Yale affords us an optimal understanding of the two extremes of humanity: We perceive our awesome dominance over (almost) all else, but humbly recognize the existence of One above us. Thus is life; how good things get is never how good we would wish them to be. This is what gives us our humanity, what makes moderately sized blobs of flesh and blood such as ourselves so fascinating. It's the tragedy of human existence, and the sooner we can appreciate it, in Yale and in ourselves, the better off we will be. And if not, we can always look down on Princeton."</p>
<p>In regards to the lack of heckling t-shirts in Cambridge, it's would be quite easy to simply dismiss that as haughty arrogance.</p>
<p>And yet, a real Harvardian: "In 50 years, Stanford may no longer be known as the Harvard of the West. Rather, we may become the Stanford of the East. Until then, a few of us will guiltily pray before John Harvard's statue that another California energy crisis will force the technology and innovation back to the old East."</p>
<p>Be sure to study hard for that Math 51 class.</p>
<p>Are you referring to me?</p>
<p>Yeah, I am planning on it, big time. Thanks.</p>
<p>I don't understand what the utility of cross-admit statistics are to an individual who has a choice to make. Sure, I understand why institutions obsess over such data from a market perspective... but what role should such data play for a student.</p>
<p>Say a given student gets admitted to two relatively close schools in the rankings... student does research and visits both, and determines that college B is clearly the best fit. Later, he finds out that college A wins cross-admit battles 80%-20%. So what? Should such student second-guess the decision and follow the herds? I mean, if 80% choose college A, they must know something, right? Nonsense.</p>
<p>That often happens though--kids will go EA (indicating it's their first choice) to Yale or Stanford, get into Y or S, and then get into Harvard regular.</p>
<p>Most of the time, they'll pick Harvard.</p>
<p>Many student's can't do an overnight visit at every school they're admitted to, and even if they do visit their top two choices, many of them may find that neither school is "clearly the best fit" -- both seem terrific. In that situation, the decision-making of other students is a perfectly reasonable factor to consider.</p>
<p>Which is all fine & good, but the top applicants should really be doing more research into the academic experience and campus life rather than being a sheep and following the herd.</p>
<p>What Hanna is saying is that, often, the best way to research is to visit the schools, and many students aren't able to do so.</p>
<p>(Ie, the 75% or 80% of top candidates who settle on Harvard rather than Yale, Princeton, Stanford or MIT are "sheep" following the "herd" vs the 20% or 25% who pick another school, implying that those picking Harvard utilized less care in making their selection than those who ended up elsewhere.)</p>
<p>Indeed, it is possible that a sizable fraction of those resisting Mother Harvard's embrace were influenced by "sheep-like" factors themselves! </p>
<p>For example, many west coasters may pick Stanford simply because they are askeered to be living too far from Mummy, Daddy and the rest of the "herd", </p>
<p>... or the applicant's parents may have legacy ties to SYPM, resulting in pressure on the little "lambies" to matriculate at Mummy or Daddy's alma mater despite its relative lack of prestige!</p>
<p>... so this "sheep" and "herd" factor can cut both ways!</p>
<p>Byerly: "resulting in pressure on the little "lambies" to matriculate at Mummy or Daddy's alma mater despite its relative lack of prestige!"</p>
<p>If you are implying that, relative to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, MIT, and Stanford lack any type of prestige, you are simply displaying your arrogant ignorance. PYMS do not lack prestige in any sense-- Harvard is their peer institution-- their sister, not their mother.</p>
<p>And yet this extended metaphor seems to be mostly referring to Harvard, no?</p>
<p>Nah, I think it's fine to admit that Harvard indeed has far more prestige than SYMP. That's like a given. </p>
<p>The real question is whether or not Harvard can maintain its lead. I personally don't think it can. Either Stanford or MIT will overtake Harvard in the future.</p>
<p>How, exactly, can the anti-Harvard types sneer that people only pick Harvard over SYMP for "the prestige" without implying that those worthy schools somehow fall short in the "prestige" department? </p>
<p>Personally, I think the whole "prestige" putdown is overdone.</p>
<p>Most admits to multiple top schools - including Harvard - only make their choice after a great deal of thought about (1) where they will have the best educational experience, and (2) where they want to spend the next four years. Far more often than not, they have visted the campuses they are considering.</p>
<p>I readily concede that - as surveys show - the attractions of the Cambridge/Boston setting are a powerful recruiting aid for Harvard.</p>
<p>Collegeperson...</p>
<p>Harvard's endowment is about the same as Stanford & Yale's COMBINED... Believe that Harvard is not going to slip quietly into the night... more than any other university, it has the resources to reposition itself to rectify any apparent weaknesses... </p>
<p>Harvard's only institutional weakness is engineering... which it is rapidly trying to improve... but that is a multi-decade problem, not easy to fix... but Harvard does have the resources to do it over the long haul.</p>
<p>Uuug... all that to say that I don't think Stanford is inferior... it's not at all inferior... with the rise of Stanford in the past few decades, I think we've entered a long period where both institutions will co-equally dominate... it helps that they are on opposite coasts...</p>
<p>For Stanford to "co-equally dominate", it will have to depend on a huge run-up in its Google stock!</p>
<p>Endowment per FTE - selected schools (FY 2004)</p>
<p>Princeton: $1,492,065
Harvard: $1,225,639
Yale: $1,133,431
Stanford: $744,618
Rice: $685,347
Caltech: $602,217
MIT: $580,479</p>
<p>I don't think that's a problem. Stanford fundraises on a level that is equal to Harvard.</p>
<p>Shall we cite some fundraising per FTE data, which indicates future endowment much better?</p>
<p>Stanford $35,310.17
Harvard: $31,612
Yale: $23,851
Princeton: $19,008</p>
<p>Certainly impressive, no?</p>
<p>Could someone remind me again why anyone should care about any of this? </p>
<p>Harvard is a wonderful place, so are YSPM, and many other colleges. What is the point?</p>
<p>Anyone interested in cross-admit statistics might take a look at the last few chapters of "The Chosen" - a new book about admissions practices at Harvard, Yale and Princeton over the years. </p>
<p>While information for every year is not given, there are numerous references to cross-admit data between 1950 and 2002.</p>