<p>well if you are an undergraduate, those are not open to you anyway.</p>
<p>"However it cannot compete in breadth with Harvard, seeing as it has no Medical School, no Law School, no Business School-indeed no professional schools at all."</p>
<p>technically, princeton has three professional schools: architecture, engineering and applied sciences, and the woodrow wilson school of public and international affairs.</p>
<p>The available evidence tends to show that the graduates of certain elite colleges are more likely that the graduates of loower-ranked colleges to gain admission to the top graduate programs:</p>
<p>Byerly, all that shows is that Harvard Yale and Princeton all feed very well to professional schools. Princeton is doing pretty well, seeing as it has no professional schools of its own and thus cannot give its undergraduates an advantage, as Harvard can an does.</p>
<p>There are more Harvard College grads at Harvard Law than grads of any other school; likewise there are more Yale College grads at Yale law.</p>
<p>Another thing that helps Harvard in this ranking is the size of its graduate schools, which allows Harvard grad schools to accept even more Harvard College graduates, giving them even more of a home turf advantage and thus a boost in these rankings.</p>
<p>Harvard is a great school but there is a perception that it is the school that makes the student not the student that makes the school. While many of the best and brightest congregate at HYPSM what of those who do well enough to get in but choose not to go? </p>
<p>Krueger and Dale did a study 10 years ago and found that based upon current salary information those that were accepted to Ivy League schools but chose to go to lower ranked schools did as well as those that graduated from Ivy League schools.</p>
<p>It really comes down to the student and their motivation. HBS will take a student at the top of their class at the University of Virginia before someone who graduated in the bottom 50% of their class at Harvard.</p>
<p>I guess my point is, once you are in to any school you need to work hard to distinguish yourself otherwise you will lose the benefit of what any school has to offer you, Harvard or otherwise.</p>
<p>The actual Krueger & Dale study is available for download for a fee. Here is a link to an article on the Krueger & Dale study from the Dartmouth Review:</p>
<p>Prepster, the real flaw in those rankings is not including either Stanford Business or Stanford Law, both of which are consensus top-three. Stanford would probably do a lot better than fourth.</p>
<p>As for your statement:</p>
<p>"Yes, Harvard is in a league of its own by virtue of the breadth and quality that it is able to offer.
...
No school in the world comes close to Harvard's quality for its size."</p>
<p>That's simply wrong. Harvard may/may not be the best, but Stanford, for example, can offer better engineering, better physics, better mathematics. And the humanities and social sciences remain as good as if not better than Harvard's. Stanford is about the same size as Harvard and more or less equals H's "quality" as you state it. Your generalizations, unfortunately, are vast and hollow. What can Harvard offer that Princeton, Yale and Stanford cannot? </p>
<p>"However it cannot compete in breadth with Harvard, seeing as it has no Medical School, no Law School, no Business School-indeed no professional schools at all."
Stanford has all of those. It can therefore "compete in breadth with Harvard," right?</p>
<p>its tough to say that stanford math is better than harvard math. mathematics is one of harvards strongest departments.</p>
<p>
[quote]
. First of all, where Harvard totally does not shine in its undergraduate program is the fact that everyone there is lumped into the college and not an individualized school, whereas Penn, Berkeley, or MIT all have business schools, chemistry, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's an extremely weak argument. Take the case of MIT. Sure, MIT has 6 separate 'schools', but for the purposes of undergraduate education, so what? Course 15 (Management Science) may be technically run by the Sloan School, but if you're an MIT undergrad majoring in course 15, you have barely any interaction with any actual Sloan bureaucrats. The Sloan School administration makes itself felt in the Sloan MBA program, but not in the undergraduate program. It's not clear to me that the simple fact that MIT has multiple 'schools' makes the undergraduate experience at MIT any different. That is, of course, unless you are trying to make the argument that you need to have an undergraduate business program in order to be an elite university, but if that's true, then that's something that none of HYPS have. </p>
<p>The same could be said for the various colleges and schools at Berkeley. Berkeley has the College of Chemistry. So what? I don't see how that fact by itself makes for a better undergraduate experience for the Berkeley undergraduates who are in that college. </p>
<p>Basically, I have to question the assertion as to why having individualized schools is necessarily always better than lumping everybody into one program. Sometimes it's better, sometimes it isn't. But I don't see why it is ALWAYS better. </p>
<p>
[quote]
A Harvard grad certainly does not have a leg up when applying to a business school when that grad is up against someone who went to Sloan, Haas, or Wharton for undergrad and actually performed well there, not to mention gained much business knowledge that the Harvard grad would not have had.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know about that, for the simple reason that I'm not sure how much true business knowledge you can gain just from an undergraduate business program. The simple fact of the matter is, business is a hard thing to teach to undergraduates who have never held a real full-time job before in their lives. </p>
<p>And besides, I would say that the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. While I don't know this for sure, I am willing to bet that Harvard College graduates are at least as successful in getting into HBS or even the Haas MBA program as are Haas BS graduates. I don't have the data, but I would predict that the data would support me. Or, put another way, if we were to poll current Haas BS students and ask them if they'd like to transfer to Harvard, and then poll current Harvard students and ask them if they'd like to transfer to the Haas BS program, I think we would find more of the former than the latter. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It is totally false to believe that a Harvard grad suddenly has the E Ticket to life because they went to Harvard, regardless of their performance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't think anybody said that. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, people who ***** and moan about "not getting into Harvard" are just disappointed because they wont have snobby bragging rights. I think there are few people out there who go to Harvard purely because of the education. Many people who get in generally get into other fabulous schools----why did they choose Harvard over those schools? Because they want the "Harvard" name. I do believe that those people will be very disappointed because going to a school purely for that reason is a joke.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I don't know if it is a joke. That's a perfectly valid reason for going to college. Let's face it. Whether you like it or not, the fact is, one of the most important factors involved in choosing a college is how marketable the degree is, and that is a direct function of the school's brand name. All other things being equal, you want to get a degree with an extremely strong brand name - and, like it or not, Harvard has the strongest brand name of any school in the nation. </p>
<p>Now should brand-name be the only factor in your decision process? Of course not. But on the other hand, you shouldn't be so foolish as to think that it is not a factor at all. Let's face it. In this world, brand-name matters. Marketing and publicity matter. Whether it's right or wrong, the fact is, having 'Harvard' behind your name will attract attention and publicity. </p>
<p>Just think of it this way. Lots of people go work for big companies for a few years even if they don't really want to, just so that they can the name of that big company on their resume. You go work for a Microsoft or an Intel or a General Electric or a Goldman Sachs just so that you can have that big-name experience on your resume. There's nothing wrong with that at all - in fact, that's a perfectly legitimate and sound careerbuilding maneuver. So what's the difference between doing that and going to Harvard just for the name? I think it is perfectly legitimate and logical to go to the college that will help your future career the most, and if you determine that the Harvard name will help your future career the most, then that's the choice you should make. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Must be why Harvard students are rated to be the least happiest college students........
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but notice the extremely high graduation rates. I guess they couldn't be THAT unhappy - otherwise, a lot more of them would be dropping out or transferring out. They may say they're unhappy, but the fact that they stick around and graduate means they're voting with their feet. Contrast that with a school like Berkeley where a significant fraction of undergrads never make it to graduation.</p>
<p>In the first place, isn't the idea (for many people) that going to college will give you a leg-up when looking for a career?</p>
<p>So why not try to go to what is percieved as the best university in the world?</p>
<p>Not that I necessarily support choosing Harvard solely for that reason; but that really is the invididual's prerogative, no? No need to judge them for it.</p>
<p>Of course, some people who are accepted to multiple universities, even multiple Ivies, choose Harvard because of "the name."</p>
<p>. . . just as some design students choose Parsons for "the name," and some aspiring engineers choose MIT for "the name," and some aspiring film students choose USC for "the name," and some young cellists choose Juilliard for "the name."</p>
<p>Who's to say that people who want to study math or science don't choose UC Berkeley for "the name"? And why is that such a bad thing?</p>
<p>Really, this phenomena isn't endemic to Harvard University. The H-Bomb isn't the only name that causes damage; and many people--the people who matter--know that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
First of all, where Harvard totally does not shine in its undergraduate program is the fact that everyone there is lumped into the college and not an individualized school, whereas Penn, Berkeley, or MIT all have business schools, chemistry, etc.
[/quote]
I would argue that it is BETTER not to have individualized schools. Individualized schools are restrictive and don't allow students to explore all of their intellectual interests. This freedom encourages learning, rather than discouraging education in fields far removed from your major. Who knows, you might discover something far removed from your intended major coming in, and major in that instead.</p>
<p>I agree. Individualized schools subtract from the overall undergraduate experience. At the best schools, the undergraduate experience should be an excercise in honing mental faculties and gaining greater social perspective. In short, you learn how to think and you learn to interact with intelligent, well educated adults. Undergraduate programs that stress pre-professional training-usually those with many undergraduate divisions-are putting the cart before the horse and are ultimately less helpful and effective.</p>
<p>Most of the very best schools dont subdivide their undergraduates.</p>
<p>Okay, there are a lot of misconceptions in this thread</p>
<p>1) Harvard students are not the least happiest students as someone tried to claim. I believe he was referring to a survey that was done a while ago. The survey ranked Harvard students behind some of the other Ivies, but NOT LAST. Also, I believe the difference in "happiness" was very small between Harvard and the other schools.</p>
<p>2) Harvard engineering is a joke while Princeton's isn't. False. Both schools' engineering department, I believe, are ranked in the 30s by PR and only a few rankings apart from each other. Also, most Harvard engineering students take at least a few of their courses at MIT, whereas Princeton students do not have the opportunity to. I would find it hard to prove that the quality of Princeton engineering is categorically and absolutely better than Harvard enginnering (w/cross-registering at MIT).</p>
<p>3) All students who matriculate at Harvard did so solely on the basis of Harvard's prestige/name. This is such a ridiculous assumption. Maybe some students choose Harvard for the name, but ALL STUDENTS??? 'Nuff said.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe some students choose Harvard for the name, but ALL STUDENTS??? 'Nuff said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have to agree. I know at least 2 students who chose to go to Harvard at least partly because Harvard offered them the best financial aid package. They were guys from modest backgrounds, and Harvard offered them full rides, whereas other schools offered them packages of part-grants, part-loans. One guy was even joking to me that he wanted to go to Berkeley but he couldn't afford it, so he had 'no choice' but to go to Harvard. He had a particularly dry and cynical sense of humor.</p>
<p>Yeah - although my Harvard financial aid was about the same as the rest of my offers (couple of hundred lower, in fact), they allowed me to split my loan/job amount - which basically meant less overall debt. Plus, all my other colleges were offering international students loans with high interest administered by banks, which only deferred interest for study. Harvard's International Student loan is administered by the financial office, with a good interest rate and no interest for your study period.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2) Harvard engineering is a joke while Princeton's isn't. False. Both schools' engineering department, I believe, are ranked in the 30s by PR and only a few rankings apart from each other. Also, most Harvard engineering students take at least a few of their courses at MIT, whereas Princeton students do not have the opportunity to. I would find it hard to prove that the quality of Princeton engineering is categorically and absolutely better than Harvard enginnering (w/cross-registering at MIT).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>USNWR has Princeton at #11 for engineering, Harvard is like #33. In fact, I'm typing this from the Engineering Quadrangle in Princeton, and Princeton's engineering department is nowhere near a joke. Harvard does not have a facility this large for engineering.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I know at least 2 students who chose to go to Harvard at least partly because Harvard offered them the best financial aid package.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If I had not applied to another Ivy (Yale), I would undoubtedly have gone to Harvard simply because they offered a much better financial aid package than Northwestern or Chicago; Northwestern would have cost $5000 more than Harvard, and Chicago would have cost $6000 more.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Krueger and Dale did a study 10 years ago and found that based upon current salary information those that were accepted to Ivy League schools but chose to go to lower ranked schools did as well as those that graduated from Ivy League schools...</p>
<p>The actual Krueger & Dale study is available for download for a fee. Here is a link to an article on the Krueger & Dale study from the Dartmouth Review:</p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've been thinking about this for awhile and the problem that I have is that the study presumes that those people who get into Ivies but choose not to go to lower-ranked schools not randomly selected from the entire population of people who got into Ivy schools. That is what the study implicitly assumes, but this it is not true. Rather, those people who choose lower-ranked schools over Ivies are a strongly self-selected group of people. In other words, there are REASONS for why those people went to lesser schools. Hence, any comparison of the two groups is inherently flawed. </p>
<p>Let me give you an example. One very popular reason to turn down an Ivy for a lesser school is to get into a BS/MD program of that lesser school. If I wanted to be a doctor, I'd be very sorely tempted to turn down Harvard for a BS/MD program at a lesser school because guaranteed admission to med-school is not something to be turned down lightly. It's therefore not surprising to me that these particular people will end up making more money than the average Ivy graduate, because these people are obviously gunning to be doctors. </p>
<p>There are also plenty of personal reasons why one might turn down an Ivy for a lesser school. A guy I know has a cousin who got into Princeton and turned it down for his no-name state school. Why? Basically, complicated personal circumstances. His father was about to bequeth to him the family business, and so he knew he only had maybe 1-2 years after high school before he would be expected to take over. So he wanted to finish his degree in that time. The local state school was highly generous in granting him extensive AP credits and community college transfer units, but Princeton was not. The upshot is that by going to his local state school and working very hard, he managed to graduate in 1.5 years, something that he could have never done at Princeton. Now he runs the family business. If he went to Princeton, he knew he would have to drop out sans degree. </p>
<p>The point is that by looking at people who got into Ivies but chose to go to lesser schools, you are really looking at a strong selectivity bias. These people are certainly not typical of the average Ivy student. People don't just choose to go to lesser schools lightly. They do it for very specific reasons. It's only people who have those reasons who will turn down Ivies for lesser schools. It's hence not surprising to me at all that people who have those specific reasons might be as successful (if not more successful) than the average Ivy graduate. After all, I'm sure those former BS/MD students are doing quite well for themselves. That guy who runs the family business I'm sure is doing very well for himself.</p>
<p>Have you read THIS?</p>
<p>You post it often enough; If people haven't read it by now it is because they don't care.</p>
<p>Can we safely assume then ICargirl, that you are in the uncaring group? </p>
<p>Studies interpreting trends in admissions are not your cup of tea ... we know that very well. </p>
<p>You've already expressed your scorn for cross admit data, and your rejection of the conclusions reached by the Revealed Preference survey.</p>