<p>Walmart beats the cross-shoppers handily. Does it mean it is a better store?</p>
<p>By some logic if it, then Walmat # 1, Harvard # 1. So Harvard = Walmart of education.</p>
<p>Humor is not your forte, simba. Even Pton2000 has you beat in this regard.</p>
<p>Well, Byerly, you are one tough guy to convince. Ill make this my last comment about Brown. (It seems odd to have gotten off on this tangent since this is a thread about Princeton.) </p>
<p>I dont understand why youre not clear about this. In the fall of 2000, Brown switched from a version of Single Choice Early Action to a more open version of early action in which it would not prohibit its early applicants from applying to other schools (as long as they werent early decision). Note the comments from the Dean of Admission at that time:</p>
<p>One reason for the [62%] increase [in early applications] was a change in Brown's early action policy, which now [i.e. fall of 2000] allows prospective students to apply to other universities as well as to Brown, as long as the universities don't require a binding decision. In previous years, Brown's early action policy allowed prospective students to apply solely to Brown [i.e. it was a single choice early action program], said Michael Goldberger, director of admission. </p>
<p>Going from SCEA to a modified open EA, (in other words, loosening the restrictiveness of the program) caused a surge in the number of early applications. </p>
<p>Two years later, in the fall of 2002, Brown switched to early decision.</p>
<p>You may simply have forgotten about Browns earlier switch from SCEA to EA in the fall of 2000. That is the change to which Im referring and I was using it simply to make the point that loosening restrictions on early application rules always causes an increase in the number of applications.</p>
<p>Now Byerly, as for friendly discourse, twas not I who used characterizations such as pathetic. </p>
<p>It would be quite nice if we could go back to discussing issues directly relating to Princeton.</p>
<p>Byerly: </p>
<p>RE Brown, you wrote: "While this may not be the only factor, I note that Brown's USNews standing has not benefitted to date. Whereas 10 years ago Brown was a top-10 school and outranked Columbia, Penn and Cornell, it is now the lowest-ranked Ivy with the lowest peer assessment score."</p>
<p>What do you think are the reasons for Brown's decline in the US News Rankings? </p>
<p>(Sorry to highjack the Princeton thread, but I'm curious.)</p>
<p>Okay, I'm going to try one last time. I challenge Byerly to have a discussion about the undergraduate educational quality at Harvard and Princeton, rather than going off on the tangents (that he apparently can't get enough of) about ED/EA, Fred Hargadon, "winner takes all" and Stan Katz quotes. Princeton has smaller classes, more professors teaching undergraduate classes, happier undergraduates, better faculty/administration relations and a great president. I think that Princeton is the equal of any other school in the country. Tell us why, on the basis of undergraduate educational opportunities, you believe that Harvard is as good or better.</p>
<p>To Ivyleaf:</p>
<p>Well this is a topic of great interest to me, as I have family connections to Brown, and I have had long exchanges (at "the other place") with the poster Pinderhughes, a well-connected Brown alum who also posts here occasionally. We don't differ widely on the diagnosis or the prescription.</p>
<p>Without going into it a great length (as this is not the place) I ascribe Brown's difficulties primarily to a lack of financial resources for which there are historic explanations. In addition, there was the "time of troubles" when the leftist demonstrators forced President Hoenig from office over the "no grade/no major" policy. This gave Brown a reputation that cut two ways. During the late 80's and early 90's the then president gave Brown a certain cache (again cutting two ways) with the "Eurotrash" initiative, JFK Jr., etc.</p>
<p>Finances never rose sufficiently however, and it was no longer possible to do it with mirrors. New President Gee got one look at the books and decamped for Vanderbilt where he is now Chancellor.</p>
<p>The current President, Ruth Simmons, is able, much loved, and trying to steer things in the right direction, but the future is still uncertain despite the fortuitous $100 million + gift for financial aid from the "Grey Goose Guy." (He died, but they put his daughter on the Bd of Trustees and may yet reap further $$$ from his estate.)</p>
<p>Brown has never been able to develop a culture of giving by its alumni, a la HYP. They have brought in people to shape up the fundraising, but the culture can't be changed overnight.</p>
<p>Well, Byerly, I'm going to assume this means that you can't think of any reasons why Harvard is as good or better than Princeton on the basis of undergraduate educational opportunities. </p>
<p>Maybe you should return to the Harvard board where you might get some ideas, or, if not, post to your heart's content about cross-admit preferences and "winner takes all" and stop bothering us here.</p>
<p>Your kind of "debating", cheerleading and countercheerleading is of no interest to me. I have never urged an applicant to apply to this school or that (including Harvard) by dissing "the competition", and I don't plan to start now. </p>
<p>The biases of alums or current parents are predictable and one-sided on matters of this sort and of little value to potential applicants. </p>
<p>Better they should visit the schools they are considering and - unless non-academic issues outweigh other issues - go to the best school they can get into if the setting seems acceptable based on this cursory exposure.</p>
<p>I have always thought the concept of "fit" was fraudulent; most college students will be perfectly "happy" wherever they end up matriculating.</p>
<p>Well, I actually agree with a portion of your post--that applicants should visit the schools they are interested in. However, I also think that applicants should closely think about the sort of campus, atmosphere, location, social life and classes that that would best fit them and attend that school, since it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint whether one school is objectively "better" than another school (obviously, I disagree with other portions of your potion--I find you far from an unobjective source and I feel that you frequently "diss" the competition and then try and pretend that you don't). </p>
<p>As to the concept of "fit", while I agree that many applicants would probably be happy at any one of a number of schools, I think that the decision of where to go to college is fairly major and should be given careful thought. Having perused many of the posts of kids on CC, there are any number of cases where they are unhappy with their college choices, sometimes because they were trying to be too objective and didn't go to the place where they felt the most comfortable.</p>
<p>I happen to agree that the importance of fit is often overemphasized. I think most students would be happy at most schools. However, the concept is not fraudulent, either. Given schools with very similar student bodies and academic reputations, there is no reason that students shouldn't choose based on more subjectives, personal preferences.</p>
<p>I think it is extremely unlikely that the difference in student body quality between Princeton and Harvard, or between HYPMS and many other elite schools, for that matter, is more than marginal. Therefore, I think a student is reasonable in choosing based on other factors, some of which are much more substantial than which campus is prettiest or whether the male/female ratio is 52/48 or 48/52. The kinds of factors that midatlmom is discussing -namely the quality of the undergraduate experience - are far from frivolous.</p>
<p>I disagree with your analysis on most points. </p>
<p>Applicants err far more often by relying on some half-baked notion of "fit" - often based on a brief visit or oil poured in their ear by a biased or ill-informed advisor. </p>
<p>Have you ever heard the story of the blind men and the elephant? Too many such "feely" approaches are misleading - based on a small, untypical sample.</p>
<p>Far better advice, IMHO, as a simple rule of thumb, is to just go to the best school you can get into SAT-wise. Many schools, for obvious reasons, try to steer kids away from this approach. They hope to get you all juiced about their new climbing wall outside the new "student center." Too often this shallow salesmanship succeeds. 25 years later, the kid may look back and wonder whether that climbing wall should have loomed so large in his decision-making process. If you need other guidance, the Revealed Preferance study will show how your predecessors in prior years have resolved the choices open to them.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ffp9901.pdf</a>
<a href="http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/revealedprefranking.pdf</a></p>
<p>You know very well that we aren't talking about climbing walls. Student selectivity is not the only measure of a school's excellence, particularly when the differences are so small.</p>
<p>In the past two years, I believe Tufts' SAT range has gone up by about 100 points. According to US News, the former Ivy back up school is now more selective than Cornell. This is impressive, and suggests that Tufts is getting a better quality of student than they used to. However, I don't believe that the quality of instruction has improved substantially in the past two years; most of the professors, and classes, and opportunities have not changed. This is why Cornell students aren't kicking themselves for not choosing Tufts.</p>
<p>I would not advocate choosing UMass-Amherst over Harvard simply because you like the ice cream in the cafeteria, or even because you think you fit in better with their student body, or like the head of their chemistry department. But when we're talking Harvard vs. Princeton? I think any differences are small enough that students can afford to think beyond a minute disparity in student body quality.</p>
<p>All the propaganda about the "quality of the undergraduate experience" is basically horse manure IMHO - I hope you will excuse me ICargirl.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All the propaganda about the "quality of the undergraduate experience" is basically horse manure IMHO - I hope you will excuse me ICargirl.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Thank you for the cogent argument, Byerly! You've just completely persuaded me that undergraduate institutions should definitely not be judged according to how well they fulfill their primary purpose of, well, educating undergraduates.</p>
<p>and that horse manure is in short supply in cambridge.</p>
<p>Its just that the opinions of biased alum salespersons are unreliable ways to make the calculation. </p>
<p>All efforts to develop a "scientific" method for measuring output have thus far failed ... and for good reason. Everybody has their own idea of what "educating" undergraduates should require.</p>
<p>The USNews "value added" category is OK as far as it goes, but Morse has rightly concluded that the Carnegie stuff is not ready for prime time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Its just that the opinions of biased alum salespersons are unreliable ways to make the calculation.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think applicants to schools of this caliber are capable enough of separating propaganda from truth.</p>
<p>
[quote]
All efforts to develop a "scientific" method for measuring output have thus far failed ... and for good reason. Everybody has their own idea of what "educating" undergraduates should require.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes, that's right. And it's up to each individual student to determine what he wants to get out of his college education and then see what school best fits his personal criteria. Applicants are like any other consumers--they have individual tastes and personalities that shape their buying preferences. You cannot say that the "quality of the undergraduate experience" is irrelevant precisely because, while the term is intrinsically fluid (it varies based on the individual), it accurately encapsulates an important factor in college choice. An applicant is perfectly valid in saying that, for them, Princeton is superior to Harvard because it offers an undergraduate environment and experience more suited to their preferences.</p>
<p>Princeton and Harvard are qualitatively different institutions with different practices that offer different opportunities and "products". Harvard is not simply Princeton with a higher quality student body.</p>
<p>Well you haven't convinced me with all the big words; I still think this whole exercise consists of people with an agenda manufacturing "truths" to suit their biases. </p>
<p>That isn't to say there is no such concept as the "princeton Man" for example, or that applicants don't respond to cliche images in a way that "differences" can become self-fulfilling over time. </p>
<p>But, to repeat, most of this shallow stuff is absolute rubbish IMHO. Go to the school with the smartest kids, provided you get in, and provided the financial aid passes muster.</p>
<p>Thank you for your enlightening analysis, Byerly. I'm delighted to see such cogent reasoning and careful consideration.</p>
<p>Alas, it seems that novel theories like organizational culture and nonprice (or, in this case, to speak in your terms, nonassociative) competition continue to elude you. Did you fail to take advantage of Harvard's phenomenal economics department when you attended?</p>
<p>Oooo,,, now we're getting testy! Why not stick to the topic rather than slipping into the ad hominem stuff?</p>