<p>What? When you start losing an argument you want the mods to come save you? </p>
<p>If you don't like a thread just quit posting on it. It will go away soon enough.</p>
<p>
[quote]
When you start losing an argument you want the mods to come save you
[/quote]
:-)</p>
<p>a. it was never an argument (check all my posts, esp post #6, and you will realize it)
b. if people perceived it that way, i dont think that i stand to lose this 1 (again, read the thread and you will realize it)
c. it is just a cultural difference. In the culture that I come from, we just dont get into nasty discussions with elderly people. If there are people from the class of 1962 who have different views, all power to them. But from where i come from, i cant and wont call them names because they think differently (i am all up for getting nasty if it was some1 my age).
d. princeton forum has better things to do than get lured by those few people</p>
<p>i am up for continuing this discussion on Harvard forum, if you'd like - because IMO it is more about Harvard vs. rest of the world, rather than Harvard and Princeton</p>
<p>Is it time for another bumpdown? A bumpdown is where we all start threads so that this one falls "below the fold" as they say in web design:P</p>
<p>Which is more ethically justified? A 'bump down thread" or a "bump up post?"</p>
<p>I'd say neither is morally superior.</p>
<p>We'll have to ask the Doyenne for her opinion.</p>
<p>Do you suppose she will address this issue?</p>
<p>Doubtful since she wants to push this thread down. :P</p>
<p>I'd still like to hear it from the horse's mouth.</p>
<p>No insult to Alumother intended, of course.</p>
<p>She must be out there ... somewhere!</p>
<p>I think 1 post would have sufficed, Byerly.....</p>
<p>Really? Then why did you find it imperative to add THIS one?</p>
<p>Actually, I was looking for Alumother because, knowing of her professional background, I thought she's be interested in learning that the USA Today story cited in the original post has been syndicated and is running in other papers here and abroad.</p>
<p>See, for example:</p>
<p>"There isn't any doubt that brand matters and that Harvard is the prestige brand," said Stanley Katz, director of Princeton University's Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies. "It's the Gucci of higher education, the most selective place."</p>
<p>Let's reiterate. Stanley N. Katz has three degrees from Harvard. He is not the ideal Princeton representative.</p>
<p>Who is the "ideal representative"? Somebody who would fudge the truth?</p>
<p>This fellow has been a leading faculty member at Princeton for a generation.</p>
<p>Harvard's last President was a Princeton man, and nobody ever accused him of being a secret spy for "the enemy"!!</p>
<p>Don'r be silly.</p>
<p>Of course, the main point of the Katz article is this: "A study by Spencer Stuart, the executive search firm, shows that as of 2004, Harvard no longer owns the No. 1 ranking as the university attended by the most CEOs of Standard & Poor's 500 companies (just under 4 percent). The school that caught up to it: the University of Wisconsin.
'The Ivies and other A-league schools have a lot of prestige because they're supposed to open doors and lead to successful careers. But people who believe that are fighting the last war,' said Loren Pope, author of "Colleges that Change Lives," a book that extols the virtues of small liberal arts colleges. 'Parents who expect the Ivies to ensure their kids' success are going to be disappointed. The old-boy network isn't much good in an economy like this; it's competence that counts.'" </p>
<p>In using the language of marketing ("the prestige brand" and "Gucci") to compare universities, Katz is only highlighting the absurdity of choosing a school based on its supposed prestige. Evidently, Byerly, his irony was lost on you.</p>
<p>That wasn't the "main point" of the story at all.</p>
<p>Look it THIS version, which has subsequently been syndicated around the world.
And don't call it the "Katz" story. That's a silly thing to do. Its the "Farrell" story.</p>
<p>"Thursday, June 9, 2005</p>
<p>Harvard 'brand' is still No. 1 in academic world</p>
<p>Gulf separating the storied institution from the rest in terms of reputation remains enormous, experts contend."</p>
<p>Calling your opponent's view "absurd" is a putdown. Cut it out.</p>
<p>And I quote: "Never mind the price tag (upwards of $40,000 a year for tuition room and board) or the fact that guides such as the U.S. News & World Report ranking of colleges and universities say the differences between Harvard and other top-ranked schools are microscopically small. The gulf that separates Harvard from the rest in terms of reputation remains enormous. </p>
<p>"It used to be the case that of students who were admitted to Harvard and Princeton or Harvard and Yale, seven of 10 would choose to go to Harvard," Katz said. "It may be more now. There is a tendency for the academically best to skew even more to Harvard. We just get our socks beat off in those cases." </p>
<p>Why does Harvard continue to dominate its rivals, at least in terms of reputation? It's not as though its degrees guarantee great jobs. According to research from the University of Pennsylvania, the percentage of top executives at Fortune 100 companies who were Ivy league undergrads dropped from 14 percent to 10 percent from 1980 to 2001. </p>
<p>A study by Spencer Stuart, the executive search firm, shows that as of 2004, Harvard no longer owns the No. 1 ranking as the university attended by the most CEOs of Standard & Poor's 500 companies (just under 4 percent). The school that caught up to it: the University of Wisconsin. </p>
<p>"The Ivies and other A-league schools have a lot of prestige because they're supposed to open doors and lead to successful careers. But people who believe that are fighting the last war," said Loren Pope, author of "Colleges that Change Lives," a book that extols the virtues of small liberal arts colleges. "Parents who expect the Ivies to ensure their kids' success are going to be disappointed. The old-boy network isn't much good in an economy like this; it's competence that counts." </p>
<p>Got it? That is the point of the article. Katz language is highlighting the article's point, that it's all about prestige rather than content. Do you see those words "microscopically small"?</p>
<p>It is dishonest to quote only that part of a story that supports your partisan thesis and to intentionally omit the rest. Got it?</p>
<p>Says Mr. B, the non-partisan par excellence.</p>
<p>Indeed. Thank you for your grudging acknowledgement, Alumother.</p>
<p>
[quote]
"It used to be the case that of students who were admitted to Harvard and Princeton or Harvard and Yale, seven of 10 would choose to go to Harvard," Katz says. "It may be more now. There is a tendency for the academically best to skew even more to Harvard. We just get our socks beat off in those cases." (Stanley Katz)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It is common ground that Harvard (college) is preferred by cross admits by a large proportion (whatever the reason - urban location as well as "brand superiority" certainly factor in here to some unknown extent). Something similar probably holds true for professors (exceptions do confirm the rule). </p>
<p>Also the fact that a good deal of the superior "brand name" is owed to graduate activity (publications etc.) should not divert attention from the fact that this also reinforces the "college brand (value)". </p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>do you happen to know the ABSOLUTE number of crossadmits, turning down YPSM over H (i.e. for each school). For Princeton, is it more like 100 or more like 200?</p>
<p>When exactly did Harvard start to develop into that sort of mega brand (we can probably agree that in the 19th century, Oxbridge was a far more "valuable brand" in higher education than Harvard)?</p>
<p>PS: As an aside, someone here cited Spencer Stuart and The University of Wisconsin catching up in the ranking of alma maters contributing to the CEO group of the Fortune 500. As far as I remember, that study looked at Business School origin(counting HBS graduates like Immelt or Wagoner), not college enrollment. Therefore I believe that study is irrelevant for the discussion here. If anything, it shows that the mega brand "Harvard" is reinforced from various sides, not the least from the professional schools like business, law or medicine.</p>