<p>I guess, really, my issue is that asking if Yale is relevant is like asking if the army is true.</p>
<p>It may be good, it may be bad, it may be effective, it may not be - but describing a school as <em>relevant</em> just sounds either elitist or nonsense to me.</p>
<p>Again, the whole point is that this discussion should not use rankings. Statistics is a start, but in no way can end the discussion. You all were making good points on both sides before the appeals to authority started.</p>
<p>They do serve as a common metric in order to distinguish, generally, the aptitude of a school in certain fields of academia. By displaying high-ranking scores, proponents of a certain school can get it recognised as a top-tier school. The ordinal ranking from there is, admittedly, wholly subjective. But the hierarchal ranking of strata of higher education benefits, I feel, from such rankings, insufficient as they may be in explicating the finer points.</p>
<p>what else can you say to debunk the OP's notion that Yale is no longer a leading research institution or his incorrect notions on the strengths of yale (like the econ department)?</p>
<p>You can't simply point to a number to win this argument. I do think Yale is relevant, and I think many good points were made to support that thought. So yes, I believe you should be able to simply "tell him so." The point that Yalies are prominent in America was a good one, and I have no doubt others will be made. When I have something to contribute to the discussion I will, but statistics are not the answer to this one.</p>
<p>hahahahah oy</p>
<p>gee.</p>
<p>Temper, temper.</p>
<p>ecwasmyhome, I agree with you 100%. It's an inane question without any meaningful answer.</p>
<p>Word up, Hanna</p>
<p>I think the OP has made a relevant point in that the "modern fields" or areas of study such as bio-technology, bio-engineering or computer sciences are the very fields in which Yale is weakest. </p>
<p>There is no doubt that Yale is, in my opinion, the best university in the world to study humanities or the arts yet, it is found lacking in engineering, natural sciences and, to some extent, social sciences when compared to its equally prestigious peer institutions. Therefore, a university such as Yale, which strives to be the very best educational institution in the world, falls behind universities such as Harvard and Stanford, which are very strong across the entire intellectual spectrum.</p>
<p>Regarding rankings:</p>
<p>
[quote]
They do serve as a common metric in order to distinguish, generally, the aptitude of a school in certain fields of academia. By displaying high-ranking scores, proponents of a certain school can get it recognised as a top-tier school. The ordinal ranking from there is, admittedly, wholly subjective. But the hierarchal ranking of strata of higher education benefits, I feel, from such rankings, insufficient as they may be in explicating the finer points.
[/quote]
Still, rankings may not be used to separate HYP. The rankings change every year, and Yale is only one point below Princeton and Harvard this year. That means absolutely nothing.</p>
<p>I tend to agree with the OP's comments. True that Yale is strong in the humanities, and that it has a superb undergraduate institution (and law school). But it is very weak in may of the fields mentioned ... IMO, the "rankings" posted throughout this thread only support that statement, particularly for an instituion that is considered among the nation's most elite.</p>
<p>Richard Levin will have a very tough task in building the university's infrastructure to keep it competitive in years to come.</p>
<p>Oh my. Princetonian here and while I hate Yale, I really don't see how you can call it irrelevant. Sciencewise, Yale has great Biology programs and while its Math/Physics are not as strong as that of Harvard/Princeton, its a bit absurd to say Yale sucks because its not better than the best. Meanwhile, Yale has a fantastic humanities program and this humanities emphasis perhaps explains why they have fewer Nobel Lauretes. </p>
<p>While I like the results of USNews rankings, I really don't see how something that puts Penn/Duke on equal grounds as Stanford/MIT could be considered accurate. Those Sciencewatch rankings are equally flawed as they make no corrections for an insitution's size, thereby hurting schools like Caltech and Princeton. The NRC rankings are the best but as has been said, they are outdated.</p>
<p>Yale is a great school and I really don't see how anyone could argue that. Stanford and Harvard may be great universities but for an undergraduate education, I would pick Yale or Princeton (as I did!) over them in a heartbeat.</p>
<p>Yale is a very good school, and is still relevant.</p>
<p>fof Liberal Arts best schools Harvard, Yale, Pton and otherivy.</p>
<p>For tech MIT, UCB, Stanford.</p>
<p>A tech major with Harvard,MIT,Yale and UCB admit will go to either UCB?Stanford or MIT 90% of the time. Why any tech major with credentials apply to HYP is beyond me.</p>
<p>Any other would pick would pick HYP 90% of the time.</p>
<p>From a European point of view Yale is definitely still relevant in the increasingly globalized world. </p>
<p>Today a leading Danish newspaper ran a full-page article with a headline which loosely translates into Where presidents are created. The article was an all out tribute to Yale, its academic achievements and the prestige that surrounds it. Also, during the American presidential election last year, which was followed (all too) closely by Danish media, the fact that both candidates had been attending the elitist Yale University was repeatedly mentioned. </p>
<p>Even though other great U.S schools are also known to the Danish public, only 2 of them really stand out. Harvard has a reputation as the worlds leading research institution while Yale is known for being an elitist nesting place for future world leaders The ultimate frontrunner in the discipline of networking if you will. This might not be a true stereotype actually I pray it isnt, as the elitism has strong connotations to arrogance and narcissism but it underlines the strengths of the Yale brand worldwide. </p>
<p>This of course only shows that Yale indeed still holds a lot of prestige worldwide and shows nothing of its actual accomplishments. However the statement about how the humanities and Yale are becoming more and more obsolete in modern society I have to dispute. It is true that the speed in which the hardcore sciences make new discoveries have been rapidly increasing in recent years, and probably will continue to do so. However, in order to make the new solutions of technology accessible to the masses, a lot of work has to be done. And this is where the humanities come into the picture. The humanities hold the keys to human thought, and are needed in order to process and translate a scientific discovery into a usable commercial product. Communication is becoming increasingly important in the modern world, and is probably evolving faster than even the technological evolution. </p>
<p>Granted, research in the humanities might not give as many clear, and direct answers as the scientific research. But the communicative tools that you learn through studying languages, literature and what not, are probably relevant today than ever before. </p>
<p>Just my 2 cents </p>
<p>Excellent post.</p>
<p>One of the unquestioned assumptions of this thread is that certain fields, particularly those in the physical sciences and computer science, are more relevant in today's world and other fields.</p>
<p>This assumption may have some truth at the present moment. But it would be a major error to assume that will be true in 10 years time let alone 20 or 30 years time. A college education should matter for the long run not just the short run. This is true both for the education of the individual at the college and for the curriculum of the college as a whole.</p>
<p>Let me provide just one possible example. If computer technology continues to expand the way it has been going, computers may take over many areas of the technological work now requiring highly specialized (and highly paid) humans We are already seeing that in terms of the kinds of work that can be easily outsourced versus the kind that cannot be.</p>
<p>Part of the idea of a broad education (which by definition includes strength in the humanities) is developing capacities of reasoning (conceptualizing as well as articulating, analyzing as well as synthesizing). These capacities should be broad and will be an asset in the face of unexpected changes. Nothing is more critical than the ability to think critically and to be prepared for new ideas and ways of thinking and living.</p>
<p>Any institution that can manage to do an excellent job preparing people for the unexpected, for thinking deeply and broadly at the same time, can certainly be said to be relevant.</p>
<p>By contrast, if a university depends upon its reputation on its ability to do well on a "current" list of the most trendy fields. These fields may be irrelevant in 10 or 20 years or at least not nearly as important. </p>
<p>I think that the rush right now to develop the scientific strengths of universities at the expense of their other areas of strength may be seen someday as a mistake -- much like the enormous investment in the stockmarket technological stocks in the late 1990s.</p>
<p>I think I understand what fracquaro has in mind. A few decades ago, Yale was indeed preeminent in many fields, not just in English, History, and Law, and being out of the top three in any area would simply not have been good enough. Now, as one supporter on this forum wrote, Yale is still at the top in Economics because, well, it was ranked number 6 by the NRC. Expectations have indeed fallen for Yale. As for the sciences an intellectual endeavor not one bit less valid than the humanities in a truly liberal arts education -- when was the last time Yale won the Putnam competition? Yale effectively ceded large chunks of the science part of a liberal arts education to the Harvards, Stanfords, and Princetons of the world. It has become a smaller university.</p>
<p>Yet for the vast majority of students pursuing a standard major, a top 50 department CAN give as good an education as a top 3 department, even in the sciences. Unless you are one of the truly rare intellectual wizards in the near genius range, having a future Nobel prizewinner in your graduating class of over a thousand is about as relevant to you as having a future president. Other factors come into play: the undergraduate focus, the thoughtfulness that went into the design of the university rules and regulations, the quality and variety in residential life, the user-friendliness, aesthetics, and stimulation of the setting (New Haven is nowhere as bad as people think), the size of the endowment and how smartly it is spent, etc. When all this is put together, for most students, Yale still provides an undergraduate education that is second to none, along with a dozen or so colleges that range from research universities to small liberal arts colleges. Can Yale still compete with Harvard and Stanford in academic strength across the board? Not any more. Can Yale still attract applicants of extremely high caliber and make them happy they went there by giving them an undergraduate education exceeding their every expectation? Most certainly.</p>
<p>I think one good example of why science people come to Yale is my friend who recently changed her major from molecular biochemistry and biophysics to sociology with a focus on biology. She's now considering a career in science journalism. I think the science students at Yale realize that you don't have to go to a "tech school" in order to be a successful scientist. If you're interested in biochemistry and protein strucutre, you can waltz up York St. and go to the med school campus and find yourself a lab to work in.</p>
<p>The well-rounded educational experience offered by Yale is what drew me to the school in the first place. I was originally going to major in biomedical engineering and applied mostly to schools known for their BME departments. But before May rolled around, I decided to go to Yale in order to give myself more educational options. After coming to Yale and taking a wonderful course on social problems (SOCY130), I realized that I was more interested in pursuing a future in medicine and public health/health policy. <em>This</em> is why "tech majors with credentials" come to Yale. While we're passionate about science, we're also interested in the other offerings of this university.</p>