<p>Interesting Greybeard. And what is the commonality among all those Presidents or possible Presidents? Bush, Kennedy and Gore, prominent establishment families. Dukakis is the only exception.</p>
<p>Of course the Krueger and Dale study burst Harvard's bubble and all the other "elite" college's bubbles years ago. Attend there if you must but don't expect the degree to confer any additional priviledge to your resume years down the road.</p>
<p>And Stanford had ... Herbert Hoover. (And JFK for a term after Harvard, but does that really count? He also went to Princeton for a year, for that matter.)</p>
<p>And Georgetown had good ol' Bill Clinton.</p>
<p>Jumpin' Jehosephats, of course Harvard is losing its lustre. The idea that Harvard is impossible to get into is actually starting to hurt it now. Well, at least in my honest opinion.</p>
<p>Don't get me wrong, Harvard is a great institution.. but..</p>
<p>In all the years that I have voted I have never once taken into consideration from which university the candidate graduated. I think it is a lame argument.</p>
<p>Originaloog,</p>
<p>Krueger and Dale's study looked at the earned income in 1995 (i.e. at age 40) of students who entered thirty colleges in 1976, and found that students who had been admitted to the more selective schools in the group, but had attended less selective schools, had slightly higher income at age 40 than those who had attended the more selective schools. (They came to opposite conclusion with respect to students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who clearly seemed to benefit from attending more selective schools.)</p>
<p>There are other studies that have come to different conclusions: The Hoxby study of male students who entered college in 1982. Hoxby projected that among students of comparable aptitide, alumni of the most selective colleges would average $2.9 in lifetime earnings, compared to $2.8 million for graduates of the next tier in selectivity, and $2.5 million for the graduates of all other colleges.</p>
<p>A couple of observations: lifetime earnings, and earnings at 40, are imperfect measures of success.</p>
<p>Second, neither of these studies says anything specific about whether attending Harvard or another elite school will "confer any additional privilege to your resume years down the road." Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't. I suspect that having attended Yale an Oxford was a boon to Bill Clinton's political career, and that Richard Nixon would have been less likely to have attracted favorable attention from the Republican party in Southern California if he hadn't graduated from Duke Law School.</p>
<p>My own experience is that attending "name" schools can be a two-edged sword. I've been hired three times under circumstances that led me to believe my academic pedigree was a factor. On the other hand, I was once passed over after an interview where my prospective boss mentioned that no one else in the department had attended schools as "impressive" (his word) as mine.</p>
<p>I certainly agree that rejection by a school shouldn't be cause for despair, and that attendance at any given school is no guarantee of future success.</p>
<p>"Are these schools really taking regular joes and turning them into great world leaders OR are they being fed the nation's basion of wealthy, elite legacies and spitting out someone who was already destined for something great"</p>
<p>Substitute "destined for something great", with destined to inherit a great amount of wealth.</p>
<p>I agree with Marite. The article is lightweight. I'm surprised the WSJ bothered to print such drivel.</p>
<p>I'm not saying this because I'm a H alum, but because the article is essentially valueless.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, one could say the fact that the WSJ thought it worthy of publishing makes a statement about how H is regarded.</p>
<p>The article was a lightweight, but semi-interesting read for H alums and H wannabes. Otherwise, though, who cares? Why bother publishing it?</p>
<p>Is Harvard losing its luster? By what yardstick? The record number of applicants this year? There was a great article that could have been written, but WSJ missed it completely.
A better story would have been: Is Harvard worried about its role? I'm pretty sure it is. That's why Neil Rudenstine bought a huge parcel of land in Allston; why the Harvard Corporation chose Larry Summers (an economist to Rudenstine's Renaissance specialist) to lead Harvard into new directions; why he has been emphasizing math and science and expanding the engineering division. The leading role of people who came out of math/science/engineering disciplines in today's economy has not escaped notice. Harvard traditionally had bred political leaders and opinion-makers who went into politics, journalism, diplomacy, etc... that is, into careers that built on liberal arts majors: history, government, literature. Today's shakers and movers come from more technical backgrounds. In consequence, Harvard and the other Ivies are rethinking their mission. Look at Yale's new emphasis on the biological sciences; look at Princeton's renewed focus on its engineering program; read the debates about the worth of a LAC education. The attempts of universities to be at the forefront of technological developments lead to new concerns, in particular their partnership with for-profit corporations which insist on secrecy while universities are supposed to faciliate the free flow of information and the dissemination of knowledge. These are not issues that Harvard alone is confronting, but that higher education as a whole is.
These are important issues and worth writing about. Too bad WSJ served up warmed-over stuff instead.</p>
<p>Harvard suffers from one main problem: it is taking a smaller and smaller fraction of the truly able students each year, because the population of the US keeps rising, and Harvard's freshman class size cannot keep up without transforming Harvard from what it has always been into something else that it (apparently) does not want to be. It's still a great institution, but it's "market share" of the young up-and-comers falls each decade.</p>
<p>This article simply relates anecdotes that trace the impact of this trend.</p>
<p>I think it was sour grapes. Read the end of the article:</p>
<p>"And lest I, a journalist not educated at Harvard, be accused of sour grapes, rest assured: I developed my Harvard complex long before I took my vow of poverty and succumbed to the charms of journalism. I spent several years after college working on Wall Street, during which time I was interviewed for a job with a major hedge fund. The interview did not go especially well, and the tone was set pretty much from the start. As the gentleman meeting with me scanned my r</p>
<p>There are 14 US senators with Harvard degrees, 7 each from UVA and Yale, 4 each from Oxford and GW, 3 each from Stanford and BYU, two with veterinarian degrees from Colorado State, and one with a degree from the University of Montana School of horseshoeing. (Chafee was a blacksmith for seven years, after graduating from Andover and Brown.)</p>
<p>Here's a nearly complete list:</p>
<p>Akaka
U. of Hawaii</p>
<p>Alexander
Vanderbilt, NYU</p>
<p>Allard
Colorado State</p>
<p>Allen
UVA</p>
<p>Baucus
Indiana, UVA</p>
<p>Bayh
Indiana, UVA</p>
<p>Bennett
U. of Utah</p>
<p>Biden
Delaware, Syracuse</p>
<p>Bond
Princeton, UVA</p>
<p>Boxer
Brooklyn College</p>
<p>Brownbeck
Kansas State, U. of Kansas</p>
<p>Bunning
Xavier University</p>
<p>Burns
U. of Missouri</p>
<p>Burr
Wake Forrest</p>
<p>Byrd
J.D. at American (while a sitting senator)
B.A., Marshall, 1994</p>
<p>Cantwell
Miami of Ohio</p>
<p>Carper
Ohio State, U. of Delaware</p>
<p>Chaffee
Brown, U. of Montana horseshoeing school</p>
<p>Chambliss
U. of Georgia. U. of Tennessee</p>
<p>Clinton
Wellesley, Yale</p>
<p>Coburn
Oklahoma State, U. of Oklahoma</p>
<p>Cochran
U. of Mississippi, Trinity College (Dublin)</p>
<p>Coleman
Hofstra, U. of Iowa</p>
<p>Collins
St. Lawrence</p>
<p>Conrad
Stanford, George Washington</p>
<p>Cornyn
Trinity U., St. Marys, UVA</p>
<p>Corzine
U. of Illinois, U. of Chicago</p>
<p>Craig
U. of Idaho</p>
<p>Crapo
BYU, Harvard</p>
<p>Dayton
Yale</p>
<p>DeMint
U. of Tennessee, Clemson</p>
<p>DeWine
Miami of Ohio, Ohio Northern U.</p>
<p>Dodd
Providence College, U. of Louisville</p>
<p>Dole
Duke, Harvard</p>
<p>Domenici
U. of New Mexico, U. of Denver</p>
<p>Dorgan
U. of North Dakota, U. of Denver</p>
<p>Durbin
Georgetown</p>
<p>Ensign
Oregon State, Colorado State</p>
<p>Enzi
George Washington, U. of Denver</p>
<p>Feingold
U. of Wisconsin, Oxford, Harvard</p>
<p>Feinstein
Stanford</p>
<p>Frist
Princeton, Harvard</p>
<p>Graham
U. of South Carolina</p>
<p>Grassley
U. of Northern Iowa, U. of Iowa</p>
<p>Gregg
Columbia, Boston U.</p>
<p>Hagel
Brown Institute for Radio and Television, U. of Nebraska </p>
<p>Harkin
Iowa State, Catholic U.</p>
<p>Hatch
BYU, U. of Pittsburgh</p>
<p>Hutchinson
U. of Texas</p>
<p>Inhofe
U. of Tulsa</p>
<p>Inouye
U. of Hawaii, George Washington</p>
<p>Isaakson</p>
<p>Jeffords
Yale, Harvard</p>
<p>Johnson
University of South Dakota</p>
<p>Kennedy
Harvard, UVA</p>
<p>Kerry
Yale, Boston C.</p>
<p>Kohl
U. of Wisconsin, Harvard</p>
<p>Kyl
U. of Arizona</p>
<p>Landrieu
LSU</p>
<p>Lautenberg
Columbia</p>
<p>Leahy
St. Michaels, Georgetown</p>
<p>Levin
Swarthmore, Harvard</p>
<p>Lieberman
Yale</p>
<p>Lincoln
Randolph-Macon
U. of Arkansas</p>
<p>Lott
U. of Mississippi</p>
<p>Lugar
Dennison U., Oxford</p>
<p>Martinez
Florida State</p>
<p>McCain
U.S. Naval Academy</p>
<p>McConnell
U. of Louisville, U. of Kentucky</p>
<p>Mikulski
Mount Saint Agnes, U. of Maryland</p>
<p>Murkowski
Georgetown, Willamette</p>
<p>Murray
Washington State</p>
<p>Bill Nelson
Yale, UVA</p>
<p>Ben Nelson
U. of Nebraska</p>
<p>Obama
Columbia, Harvard</p>
<p>Mark Pryor
U. of Arkansas</p>
<p>Reed
West Point, Harvard</p>
<p>Reid
Utah State, George Washington</p>
<p>Roberts
Kansas State</p>
<p>Rockefeller
Harvard, International Christian University (Tokyo)</p>
<p>Salazar
Colorado College, U. of Michigan</p>
<p>Santorum
Penn State, U. of Pittsburgh, Dickinson School of Law</p>
<p>Sarbanes
Princeton, Harvard, Oxford</p>
<p>Schumer
Harvard</p>
<p>Sessions
Huntington College, U. of Alabama</p>
<p>Shelby
U. of Alabama</p>
<p>Smith
BYU, Southwestern</p>
<p>Snowe
U. of Maine</p>
<p>Specter
Penn, Yale</p>
<p>Stabenow
Michigan State</p>
<p>Stevens
UCLA, Harvard</p>
<p>Sununu
MIT, Harvard</p>
<p>Talent
Washington U., U. of Chicago</p>
<p>Thomas
U. of Wyoming</p>
<p>Thune
Biola, U. of South Dakota</p>
<p>Vitter
Harvard, Oxford, Tulane</p>
<p>Voinovich
Ohio U., Ohio State</p>
<p>Warner
Washington and Lee, UVA</p>
<p>Wyden
Stanford, U. of Oregon</p>
<p>Does Harvard have a problem? Yes, but not the one the WSJ article discusses. The real problem is internal. Larry Summers not only suffers from foot in mouth disease, he's hiring top administrators in his own likeness. Internally, at least in areas I know, morale is suffering, both among staffers and faculty. This is directly impacting faculty and staff retention and recruiting. Summers is also providing ample fodder for the national media to take shots at the institution.</p>
<p>If/when it affects fundraising, you will see changes. </p>
<p>I do think prospective students should think twice about enrolling in an institution that is suffering from a significant degree of administrative chaos.</p>
<p>Greybeard, your comparison of the results of the Coroline Hoxby study and the Dale&Kreuger study is not an apples to apples comparison. Hoxby used three sources of data in her study, the Occupational Change in a Generation(Class of '60), the National Longitudinal Study of the Class of 1972 and the National Longitudinal Study of Youth(Class of '82). Her findings were that male graduates of elite colleges tracked in these longitudinal studies would earn more over a lifetime that graduates of less elite colleges. Excuse me , but duh!!!</p>
<p>The advantage of the Dale/Kreuger study is that they had access to the Andrew W. Mellon educational data base which tracked more than 80,000 students over a period of 25 years. Using this data base they were able to evaluate not only where students attended college but to which other colleges these students applied to and to which colleges they were accepted. What they found was much more substantial than Hoxby's rather simplistic study. They determined that a student accepted to Yale but deciding to attend Denison(both colleges were in the database of student records analyzed) would have the same lifetime earning potential, ie career success is primarily dependent on the abilities and attitudes of the individual.</p>
<p>Again this conclusion might merit a duh! However it bucks the conventional wisdom that attending an elite university in an of itself portends some significant career advantage down the road. It is why some students and their families fiercely compete for those coveted slots in the frosh class.</p>
<p>I have nothing against Harvard or any other elite college. They are wonderful places to learn and spend perhaps the most enjoyable years of ones life. Hey I have an engineering PhD from Cornell. But I am quite certain that my undergrad education for Ohio State was top notch too and that in the end, my academic abilities, work ethic and perserverence(and what PhD candidate doesn't need a LARGE dose of that) carried the day for me.</p>