<p>
[quote]
^You can't compare Google and Harvard. Google entered common language and didn't replace anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Again, let's not confuse things here. The reason for bringing up the term "Google" (as in "to Google" something as accepted and understood lexicon in today's society for to search via Google for something) is to illustrate how quickly something (a story, an idea, a concept, a product, etc.) is disseminated and established in the information age. The argument that Harvard has taken centuries to establish itself into accepted lexicon as "the best" university isn't something that I disagree with. I accept and understand that this is the case. The COMBINATION of the fact that in a tech-centric world things change, proliferate and become accepted much faster than in the past (certainly much faster than 300 years) COMBINED with the fact that Stanford is best positioned to capitalize on these changes is my argument as to how and why Stanford may (and I would argue will) be able to overcome this historical and traditional edge.</p>
<p>
[quote]
MO Harvard represents "the old economy" in many ways. Going forward, things like legacies and the old boy network will still exist at Harvard -- something that has served it well for the last three centuries -- but will become an Achilles heel going forward. Stanford is in a unique position in that it isn't as bound by those "traditions". Its rise in academic prominence is largely on the back of excellence and is far more meritocratic than a place like Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hmm, our local h.s. had 6 Stanford admits last year, and 5 of them were legacies. Stanford also places a much higher premium on athletic admits than the Ivies, even paying money for them. What do you mean by "far more meritocratic?" Higher grades and test scores? I think Harvard wins there too.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Hmm, our local h.s. had 6 Stanford admits last year, and 5 of them were legacies. Stanford also places a much higher premium on athletic admits than the Ivies, even paying money for them. What do you mean by "far more meritocratic?" Higher grades and test scores? I think Harvard wins there too.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Every school will have its share of legacies. But let's be clear. No other school in America has a deeper tradition of legacies than Harvard (save perhaps Yale). That's a fact. And frankly, when you have a 100 to 200 year head start over 99.99% of schools out there, you can't really blame them.</p>
<p>Are you saying that since Stanford has had its legacy tradition for "only' 125 years versus Harvard's 325 years, then Stanford must be less entrenched in its legacy tradition and ergo will eliminate it sooner? I think you are being presumptuous here. Also, a legacy tradition is not necessarily a bad thing for a university.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I believe that Stanford is best positioned to challenge and overtake Harvard going forward.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you give me an example where a proper noun took on a very specific meaning--filling a "void" in the lexicon of a language--and later on, another proper noun took its place? I can't think of any.</p>
<p>You cite "Google" in your example of technology; however, there was no past word (to my knowledge) that was a proper noun and that had the same flavor as "Google."</p>
Are you saying that since Stanford has had its legacy tradition for "only' 125 years versus Harvard's 325 years, then Stanford must be less entrenched in its legacy tradition and ergo will eliminate it sooner? I think you are being presumptuous here. Also, a legacy tradition is not necessarily a bad thing for a university.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bay, its not a cut and dried situation - in fact its a fairly complicated subject IMO. I agree that a legacy tradition is not in and of itself a bad thing. Universities aren't dumb. Legacies ensure that successful alumni continue to connect to their respective schools (read: donate), etc.</p>
<p>But I feel like I'm getting side tracked here. Legacies are no where near the crux of what I am arguing here. But if we have to argue this angle and only this angle, I'd argue that the next generation of influential business leaders will have a strong technology leaning, so again, I believe that even then Stanford is well positioned to benefit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You cite "Google" in your example of technology; however, there was no past word (to my knowledge) that was a proper noun and that had the same flavor as "Google."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>See my earlier post:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, let's not confuse things here. The reason for bringing up the term "Google" (as in "to Google" something as accepted and understood lexicon in today's society for to search via Google for something) is to illustrate how quickly something (a story, an idea, a concept, a product, etc.) is disseminated and established in the information age. The argument that Harvard has taken centuries to establish itself into accepted lexicon as "the best" university isn't something that I disagree with. I accept and understand that this is the case. The COMBINATION of the fact that in a tech-centric world things change, proliferate and become accepted much faster than in the past (certainly much faster than 300 years) COMBINED with the fact that Stanford is best positioned to capitalize on these changes is my argument as to how and why Stanford may (and I would argue will) be able to overcome this historical and traditional edge.
<p>"Silicon Valley or more simply the increasing importance of technology. We are just entering the information age"</p>
<p>We're also entering the era of unimaginable advances in the medical and bio medical research arena. Harvard has been at the forefront of the aforementioned for a century and will continue to be.</p>
<p>
[quote]
We're also entering the era of unimaginable advances in the medical and bio medical research arena. Harvard has been at the forefront of the aforementioned for a century and will continue to be.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Nobody is arguing that Harvard is going to disappear from the face of the earth. I certainly am not. Harvard is and will continue to be absolutely one of the elite universities of this world -- this I have no doubt. Will it remain THE preeminent university of THE world? Sure, they still make a strong case, but so does Stanford IMO. Looking forward (and this is the key), from undergrad strength to the "Big Three" professional grad schools (Law, Business, Medicine) to post-graduate research across a broad range of disciplines no other school can go toe-to-toe with Harvard and potentially knock them from their no. 1 position IMO.</p>
<p>Cornell is huge in Asia. If you asked an Asian to name the top American schools I am pretty confident Cornell would be mentioned along with Harvard, Stanford etc. Cornell is not that big in Europe I do not think (about the same or less than in the US), but in Asia it has a great reputation (bigger than its reputation here).</p>
<p>With all due respect to Cornell -- certainly a top university -- its never going to be confused for THE best university in the world. Its undergrad program has never ranked in the top 5 by USNWR in any year, its law, medical and business schools -- while respectable -- aren't considered top 5 in any category either. It does have admirable breadth and depth in other grad school departments, but again, the TOTAL PACKAGE falls short of the Tier 1 schools (e.g. Harvard, Stanford.)</p>
<p>THE most reknowned universities in the world:</p>
<p>1) Harvard
2) Stanford
3) Berkeley
4) MIT</p>
<p>HSBM each has 200+ faculty members selected into the national academies of sciences (NAS + NAE + IOM), more than twice of any other American universities. The follow-ups are Caltech and Princeton. These 2 schools are almost as good, but a bit too small. The next tiers should be Yale, Columbia, Cornell, and Chicago.</p>
<p>^^^ unfortunately Cal's undergrad is ranked in the 20s. It's hard to argue that Cal is the best university in the world when its undergrad program ranks below 20 odd universities in its own country.</p>
<p>Berkeley may not fare well in US-News college ranking. But its graduate programs are on par with Harvard and Stanford. If I wanted to study hard science or engineering at college, I would sill pick Berkeley over schools such as Yale, Penn, and etc, because Berkeley has more top notched professors.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If I wanted to study hard science or engineering at college, I would sill pick Berkeley over schools such as Yale, Penn, and etc, because Berkeley has more top notched professors
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The question is not really how many top-notched professors a school has, but rather how well a school teaches its undergrads. The fact of the matter is, many famous profs are not skilled at teaching undergrads.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Then perhaps you can confidently name countries where Berkeley is not such a HUGE name as it is in the UK, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia and India where I have lived.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You are changing the goalposts to your needs:</p>
<p>1) I never claimed that Cal doesn't enjoy positive name recognition abroad. I challenge you to cite a single post where I have written as such.</p>
<p>2) This thread is a discussion about THE most prestigious university in the WORLD. I have also lived and worked in the UK and in Asia and there isn't a single country that I'd say where Cal ranks higher than, say, Harvard / Stanford / MIT.</p>
<p>3) Nothing you have written changes the fact that Cal's weak undergrad program takes them out of the discussion as world's best university. Harvard and Stanford alone trumps Cal in pretty much every category that is meaningful from undergrad straight through to the major grad schools (specifically in Law, Med and Business) and frankly, that is where the discussion about Cal being the absolute best begins and ends. It's like going to a boxing match with one hand tied behind your back -- its just not a fair fight.</p>
<p>
[quote]
To be honest with you, International Students (IS) applying to US schools for undergrad don't really see it that way either. For all you know, Cal did not lower its admission standard for International Students. You can verify it through Cal that it is as selective as Stanford for applicants not coming from the US. For instance, Cal admitted only 6 or 7% of its international applicants, a figure quire similar to Stanford's or any of the HYPSM's. Therefore, the perception that Cal is not a top school (for undergrad) exists mostly in America, that is if it truly is a universal belief in America.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>With all due respect, so what?</p>
<p>Cal could accept ZERO international students a year, it could accept 10,000 international students -- this doesn't change the fact that there are consistently about 20 universities ranked ahead of its undergrad program. Your argument does not address the fact that Cal's undergrad IS its weak link -- a weak link that the likes of Harvard / Stanford / MIT do not have.</p>
<p>The_prestige, unless you believe that a university's quality can be measured statistically, a ranking that has Cal out of the top 10 is quite frankly unreliable. At the graduate level, Cal is one of the top 3 or 4. At the undergraduate level, Cal is among the top 10. Saying that it is not one of the top 20 undergraduate institution is irresponsible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The_prestige, unless you believe that a university's quality can be measured statistically, a ranking that has Cal out of the top 10 is quite frankly unreliable. At the graduate level, Cal is one of the top 3 or 4. At the undergraduate level, Cal is among the top 10. Saying that it is not one of the top 20 undergraduate institution is irresponsible.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Hold on one second before you accuse me of anything.</p>
<p>It's irresponsible to quote the USNWR rankings? I'm not making these rankings up. Here are Cal's rankings since 1995:</p>
<p>So, please, don't shoot the messenger - I ain't making those numbers up. Cal's current USNWR ranking places it outside the Top 20 -- so me saying so makes me "irresponsible"? Read it and weep. That's written in print. I didn't make that up. </p>
<p>It's irresponsible to call people irresponsible without backing up that statement.</p>