Is Yale on the decline?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Yale University
1

<p>Has Yale lost its relevance in the modern world because it is so weak in critical areas such as science and technology, compared to "peer" schools? Even Harvard, which has been traditionally "small" in engineering, is undertaking an ambitious multi-year expansion in an attempt to dramatically strengthen its programs in these multidisciplinary areas. I wonder if Yale has the resources and infrastructure to do anything of that scale.</p>

<p>Is it possible for Yale to continue to be competitive as a major research university in the future, or is it destined to become a very high-end liberal arts school such as Amherst?</p>

<p>Can Yale succeed without a neighboring metropolitan area to support technology transfer (such as Boston, Silicon Valley, Research Triangle Park, etc)? I don't think being 1-2 hrs from NYC counts.</p>

<p>In anticipation of a few possible responses:</p>

<p>a) I know the "teaching" and "sense of community among students" at Yale are supposed to be excellent ... but I doubt any of this has much relevance for the overall "quality" of a major research university. After all, these things could be said for Williams, Haverford, etc.</p>

<p>b) I know that Yale has recently invested $x million in a couple new science-tech facilities, but this isn't even on the same order of magnitude as what's been proposed by Harvard (or what has been going on for years at MIT, Stanford ... and even Cornell, Michigan, Duke, etc).</p>

<p>c) This message is not intended as a flame.</p>

2

<p>"I wonder if Yale has the resources and infrastructure to do anything of that scale."</p>

<p>With the second largest endownment in the world, there really aren't many limits on what Yale can do.</p>

3

<p>Many of our country's leaders are not scientists or technology whizes.
Yale has influence because the students who pass through its gates are prepared to make contributions in a variety of fields. Social sciences and biological sciences are quite strong at Yale, as are the humanities and the arts. Leaders come in many forms.</p>

4

<p>Plus, I think some good scientists come to/from Yale...:p</p>

5

<p>I agree. Yale has a decent number of top scientists. It doesn't stack up against Harvard or MIT or Stanford, but when compared to the rest of the field, it is clearly a leading center of scientific research. Maybe not in top 5, but probably in top 10.</p>

<p>National Academy of Sciences members spring 2006</p>

<p>Harvard 164
Berkeley 126
Stanford 125
MIT 106
Princeton 70
Caltech 68
UCSD 63
Yale 62
Chicago 41
Columbia 41
Cornell 39
Penn 35
UCLA 32
UCSF 31
Michigan 27
Duke 19
Brown 10
Dartmouth 2</p>

<p>Harvard just added another 6 members for a total of 170.</p>

6

<p>Yale is great at Mathematics, Biology, Molecular Biophysics & Biochemistry and Neuroscience. CC could be a bad source of information. Yale is weaker at physics, chemistry, engineering, applied sciences and philosophy. That's about it. Not that it matters at the undergrad level. Yale is only getting better at its sciences and its UG natural science majors receive great recognition by the best med schools in the country.</p>

<p>Example: Is let's say Berkeley stronger in science? You betcha. Is it easier for Yalies to get into med school despite that fact? Ooooh yeah. The recognition of the most selective institutions in the world is convincing enough for me. Yale is here to stay.</p>

7

<p>That's a pretty decent run-through. Yale bio sciences are especially pretty nice.</p>

8

<p>My 2 cents worth on this:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Yale is a great university with superb students.</p></li>
<li><p>Engineering, science, etc will become much more important in the future than in the past. Although it's absolutely true that "many of our country's leaders are not scientists or technology whizzes," it's undeniable that technology is becoming much more crucial than ever before for being globally competitive. Yale will likely need to find a way to keep up in this respect.</p></li>
<li><p>Yale does have superb biology-oriented departments, but I agree that they're further behind in the "hard" sciences, engineering, etc. One major problem is that science is rapidly becoming much more collaborative (biologists need to work with computer scientists, physicists, etc to approach modern problems). This is something that Stanford and Harvard figured out a long time ago, and devoted major resources to. Will it be increasingly tough for Yale to keep up, even in "soft" fields like biology, without having institutional excellence in throughout all fields of science & engineering? Who knows...</p></li>
</ul>

9

<p>I'm having a hard time seeing how you come to the conclusion that Yale is on the decline. Relative to when? If anything, I would suggest that the Levin administration has been fairly positive.</p>

<p>With amazing resources (huge endowment, library, history) Yale can and is patching up whatever "weak spots" it may have.</p>

10

<p>kingduke:</p>

<p>Has Yale lost its relevance in the modern world because it is so weak in critical areas such as science and technology ...</p>

<p>Yale is not "so weak" in science and technology. This isn't exactly a community college we're talking about. As well, what are your criteria for being "strong" in science and technology? Lots of research being churned out? The quality of undergraduate education at universities is often only tenuously connected to the quality of research. A person who is great at research can be absolutely horrid at interacting with students and conducting classes that make students sit up straight in their chairs and hold their attention for the entire three hours or so of the lecture. Teaching takes enough of a backseat to research at major institutions as it is (1). Even if Yale science research doesn't garner as much publicity as science research at Harvard and Berkeley, it doesn't mean that Yale professors aren't doing a wonderful job teaching students. In that sense, Yale is a leader in science and technology in that the students leave the institution well-prepared scholars.</p>

<p>(1) <a href="http://www.practicingsafescience.org/news/04052006.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.practicingsafescience.org/news/04052006.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>Can Yale succeed without a neighboring metropolitan area to support technology transfer (such as Boston, Silicon Valley, Research Triangle Park, etc)? I don't think being 1-2 hrs from NYC counts.</p>

<p>Why wouldn't being 1-2 hours from NYC count? It's not as if science researchers at Yale have to have an arm of the industry located right in New Haven or otherwise they wouldn't know what to do all day long. Scientists regularly travel for conferences and to collaborate with other scientists, anyway, so being a short train ride from New York isn't quite the setback you think it is. Furthermore, with Yale's reputation, the university doesn't have to stress over keeping in touch with the industry; the industry keeps in touch with Yale.</p>

<p>snack:</p>

<p>... it's undeniable that technology is becoming much more crucial than ever before for being globally competitive. Yale will likely need to find a way to keep up in this respect.</p>

<p>Yale realized this long before you did. Like someone above mentioned, the university has spent an incredible amount of money constructing new science buildings, starting up new programs, and generally improving the study of sciences at Yale.</p>

<p>*One major problem is that science is rapidly becoming much more collaborative (biologists need to work with computer scientists, physicists, etc to approach modern problems). This is something that Stanford and Harvard figured out a long time ago, and devoted major resources to. *</p>

<p>You mean interdisciplinary fields like biophysics (integrating physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and at times, engineering)? I just want to point out that Yale actually has an undergraduate molecular biophysics department (the same department that also manages the graduate biophysics program). Harvard and Stanford do not. Harvard does have a biophysics honours option in the physics department, but the requirements are something along the lines of students having to fulfill all the physics requirements and then adding on two or three biology courses of the student's choice. The biophysics aspect of the degree seems like an afterthought. On the other hand, here's an example of what you could expect at Yale: <a href="http://www.yale.edu/opa/v34.n26/story2.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yale.edu/opa/v34.n26/story2.html&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p>

<p>"[The initiative] integrates so many of Yale's objectives for the enhancement of undergraduate education: hands-on scientific discovery, close contact with leading faculty, truly interdisciplinary perspectives and first-hand experience of other lands and cultures."</p>

<p>So I would actually go as far as to say that Yale is leading the pack in fields such as undergraduate-level biophysics (which is really all I care about at this point), and definitely holding its own as one of the best institutions in the world for graduate-level biophysics.</p>

11

<p>"Even if Yale science research doesn't garner as much publicity as science research at Harvard and Berkeley, it doesn't mean that Yale professors aren't doing a wonderful job teaching students. In that sense, Yale is a leader in science and technology in that the students leave the institution well-prepared scholars."</p>

<p>I've know that Yale professors have a reputation for being great teachers, but that is not relevant to my point. Although great teachers are certainly important, they do little for the prestige and influence of major universities compared to research. As I said above, I'm sure that Amherst has great teachers just like Yale, whereas perhaps Harvard/MIT/Stanford may not -- but does Yale aspire to be a high-level Amherst rather than one of the "major" players?</p>

<p>My point was that from the overall institutional perspective, the science and technology research at Yale does not approach that of what you'd consider its "peer" institutions (e.g. see the post about National Academy of Sciences members above).</p>

<p>"Scientists regularly travel for conferences and to collaborate with other scientists, anyway, so being a short train ride from New York isn't quite the setback you think it is. Furthermore, with Yale's reputation, the university doesn't have to stress over keeping in touch with the industry; the industry keeps in touch with Yale."</p>

<p>Yes and no. I was referring to technology transfer with industry (which is becoming much more important than ever before -- in biotechnology, engineering, etc). Of course tech transfer and scientific collaboration are both possible from a distance ... but the distance (whether it's 2 or 12 hours) is a big impediment. New Haven has no significant science or technology industry, although Levin would like to cultivate it. On the other hand, there are world-class technology parks in Boston, Silicon Valley, San Diego, Austin, Durham, etc -- that have been doing this since before we were born. (BTW, NYC isn't on that list anyway!) With all due respect, to assume that industry (whether they're established firms or starups) will automatically reach out to cultivate relationships with Yale --unless the university makes a serious effort to establish itself in this area -- is seriously delusional.</p>

12

<p>Kingduke, honestly, the quality of research matters a lot more in terms of grad schools than it does for undergrads, even for undergrads doing research (most go to other institutions anyway for much of their summer research).</p>

13

<p>It usually doesn't matter but sometimes it does. Harvard undergrads who work in the lab of famous professors often get their names in hot publications and get recommendations from these professors. That can help tremendously if you are trying to get into Ph.D. programs or medical schools. Which isn't to say that a glowing recommendation from a less distinguished professor won't work, but a well-known Harvard professor is even better.</p>

14

<p>And a Yale student can't work in a Harvard or MIT or Caltech lab?</p>

15

<p>They can, of course, during the summer, but probably not during the term. Harvard undergrads work during the term with professors at the Cambridge campus and at the Med School. Often they write their senior honors theses with them.</p>

16

<p>My daughter recently turned down MIT and Stanford to attend Yale. When we were there for Bulldog Days, many of the students on both the science and Engineering tours were deciding between Stanford and Yale and the end result was that almost everyone decided on Yale. The reason? They were smart enough to recognize that Yale offered opportunties for undergrads that couldn't be matched by some other schools that may have more members in the National Academy, but these members are focused on having grad students, not undergrads, in their labs.</p>

17

<p>She should've considered smaller schools like Amherst, Williams, Wellesley, Smith, and Swarthmore then. Their professors are hired and promoted almost entirely based on teaching so they put their heart and soul into teaching. They also do a little bit of research on the side, usually in an area that's not too competitive, so undergraduates can really learn science in a nurturing and relaxed environment. Many are successful, and quite a few Harvard Ph.D. students come from these top-notch small liberal arts schools and go onto become good scientists.</p>

<p>Yale hires and promotes its faculty primarily based on research, just like any other leading research university. No matter how much you guys pay lip service to "focus on undergrads", Yale professors' priorities will lie in publishing good papers, not teaching undergraduates. Otherwise they won't stay around for tenure.</p>

18

<p>I think most of the responses on this thread (except ske293) have misinterpreted my original point. I was never arguing that Yale students (undergrad or grad) don't have a good, nurturing environment for learning. In many ways, Yale may be better than Harvard, MIT, Stanford, etc in these respects.</p>

<p>But Amherst/Williams/etc offer all of those things (those liberal arts schools typically have higher % students become PhD's than any others!), and perhaps even better than Yale. Of course Yalies will have access to fine research labs -- for 99% of undergrads, it won't make any educational difference whether they work in Yale labs or MIT labs (or Amherst labs, for that matter). But teaching and "availbility of reserach facilities suitable for providing undergrads with good educational experiences" have very little to do with the overall quality of an institution.</p>

<p>My point was that I suspect that Yale's overall "quality" and "relevance" may be at risk based on the direction that Yale has been taking in recent decades, compared to that of its competitors. A couple people wrote that Yale has a big endowment and has invested $ in new science/technology facilities. Those are true, but honestly those investments/resources/focus pale in comparison to what its competitors (even schools like Cornell/Duke/Michigan ... let alone Stanford/Harvard/MIT) are doing. And by my interpretation, those competitors have been doing it for decades before Yale even appeared to realize that it was falling behind...</p>

19

<p>"They were smart enough to recognize that Yale offered opportunties for undergrads that couldn't be matched by some other schools that may have more members in the National Academy, but these members are focused on having grad students, not undergrads, in their labs."</p>

<p>Members of the NAS/NAE/IOM/etc are probably more focused on their postdocs (or building larger reserach infrastructures for their institutions) than on teaching their graduate students!!!</p>

20

<p>ske193, my daughter also turned down Swarthmore (although she was very impressed with the school) because she felt that at Yale she could get the best of what the liberal arts schools offer with the best of what a research university could offer. She was very impressed, as were her father and I, with the enthusiasm of the Yale faculty and students. She was personally invited by faculty members to come to their classes and they were willing to speak at length to her. We heard from students who got involved in research as freshman. I contrast this to my son's experience at Stanford, where the professors say to come back after you've taken this or that class; it means come back when you're a grad student.</p>

<p>My husband is a faculty member at a large public university and when he's taught in the summer, he always has a few Harvard students in his class. They talk about the remoteness of the Harvard faculty. He recently found irony in the fact that his recommendation helped a Harvard undergrad get into Harvard medical school. That's why my daughter didn't bother applying to Harvard. She'd love to go to Harvard for grad school, but why not get the best combination for a science enthusiast: Yale undergrad and Harvard or MIT for a PhD.</p>