Who is Harvard's biggest competitor?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
181

<p>Last time I checked, at that point in time, Caltech was so measurably superior over the Ivy League (that class with all 800 math and so on) that it would have been impossible to not give them top billing. But they were only able to maintain that for one year. </p>

<p>You must concede, however, that USNews has a subscriber base and print advertisers to please. Putting together rankings that people like to see, would want to read about, is a prime objective considering the need to sell copies. And to a certain extent, the masses want to see HYP dominance at the top. I suggest you read Tom Wolfe's opinion of USNews, which occurs somewhere in I am Charlotte Simmons. </p>

<p>I'm talking about undergraduate, not graduate. At that level, there's no argument that Stanford is not top-3 in law and business, and #1 in psychology, biology and other fields. </p>

<p>I meant that 1000 people should be able to accurately represent the views of the American population. </p>

<p>And for that matter, The Economist also seems to like Stanford. <a href="http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://mba.eiu.com/index.asp?layout=2002rankings&lt;/a>
Also, the International Education Commission seems to like Stanford GSB: <a href="http://www.best-education.org/Top10_US_2000.htm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.best-education.org/Top10_US_2000.htm&lt;/a>
So USNews must clearly not be going out on a limb here.</p>

182

<p>Here is the thing.
Harvard and Yale are two in the same institution. Same setup, same goals, similar location. Harvard just does it better. Same with princeton, though less so with their undergrad focus.</p>

<p>Harvard and Stanford, howeverm vary considerably in location, style of teacher, history, type or student, atmosphere. </p>

<p>Thus who is the biggest rival in terms of doing hte same thing? Yale</p>

<p>Who has the best chance of ever truly overtaking Harvard? Stanford</p>

183

<p>I agree 100 percent with that. Great analysis. </p>

<p>Harvard = traditional/entrenched
Yale = traditional/entrenched
Princeton = traditional/snobby
Stanford = post-modern/innovative</p>

184

<p>Harvard's endowment is about the same as Stanford & Yale's COMBINED... Believe that Harvard is not going to slip quietly into the night... more than any other university, it has the resources to reposition itself to rectify any apparent weaknesses... </p>

<p>Harvard's only institutional weakness is engineering... which it is rapidly trying to improve... but that is a multi-decade problem, not easy to fix... but Harvard does have the resources to do it over the long haul.</p>

<p>Uuug... all that to say that I don't think Stanford is inferior... it's not at all inferior... with the rise of Stanford in the past few decades, I think we've entered a long period where both institutions will co-equally dominate... it helps that they are on opposite coasts...</p>

185

<p>
[quote]
Last time I checked, at that point in time, Caltech was so measurably superior over the Ivy League (that class with all 800 math and so on) that it would have been impossible to not give them top billing. But they were only able to maintain that for one year.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The point is that if Caltech was able to break through the supposed East-Coast bias of USNews, even if just for 1 year, then why couldn't Stanford do that? What does USNews gain by picking on Stanford, but not Caltech? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You must concede, however, that USNews has a subscriber base and print advertisers to please. Putting together rankings that people like to see, would want to read about, is a prime objective considering the need to sell copies. And to a certain extent, the masses want to see HYP dominance at the top.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The marketability of the ranking system is something inherent to all commercial rankings. And sure, the masses wnat to see HYP dominance at the top, because of those schools' long history of greatness. However, let's give the masses a little bit of credit here. Stanford has come on very strong in the last 50-60 years and the masses have noticed that. It was only in the last few decades during which Stanford became elite. If the USNews rankings existed back in those days, Stanford would be ranked far lower than it is today, because back then the masses didn't think that Stanford was an elite school ( because it wasn't). Hence, Stanford is also benefitting from the masses wanting to see Stanford on top. </p>

<p>The point is that ALL of HYPSMC are aided by perceptions of the masses. You might say that HYP are helped by the perceptions of the masses, but it's not like Stanford doesn't derive any benefit from mass perceptions. They all do. </p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm talking about undergraduate, not graduate. At that level, there's no argument that Stanford is not top-3 in law and business, and #1 in psychology, biology and other fields.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And that's my point exactly. If USNews really wanted to be biased in favor of East Coast schools, then shouldn't they ALWAYS be biased in favor of them all the time? Why should they be biased only some of the time, but not others? You know and I know that USNews could easily manipulate its rankings to push down all of Stanford's rankings in all categories. So if it really was just a Stanford-hater, why doesn't it do that? Or, more importantly, why did it choose to pick on the Stanford undergraduate program specifically? Why not pick on some other Stanford program? </p>

<p>Oh, and believe me, there is a TREMENDOUS argument about whether Stanford is a top 3 business-school. Don't get me wrong, I actually think that GSB is in the top 3. But the point is, it is not a consensus by any means. Hence, you cannot say that there is "no argument" that GSB is in the top 3. Believe me, there is a LOT of argument about it. I wish there wasn't any argument about it, but the fact is, there is. And the fact is, USNews gives GSB a higher ranking than the majority of other B-school rankings do. </p>

<p>Hence, you could say that in the case of B-schools, USNews is actually bolstering Stanford, not undermining it. After all, one of GSB's greatest marketing slogans for many years has been that they were ranked #1 according to USNews. Of course, they weren't going to cite their rankings in Businessweek or FT or WSJ or any of the other publications, because those rankings had GSB ranked low (too low, in my opinion). Hence, USNews has been one of GSB's greatest allies. At the same time, you are complaining that USNews is serving to conspiratorially undermine Stanford at the undergraduate level. Why would USNews want to bolster one part of Stanford and undermine another? What would USNews gain by doing that? </p>

<p>
[quote]
I meant that 1000 people should be able to accurately represent the views of the American population.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet in 1999, 1000 people apparently found Penn State to be the 5th best school in the country. In 2003, 1000 people found Texas A&M and Ohio State to be tied as the 11th best school in the country. You said it yourself, 100 people ought to be able to accurate represent the views of the American population. So according to that logic, in 1999, the American population thought that Penn State was just as good as Yale. Don't blame me - it's your logic, not mine.</p>

186

<p>You misinterpret the Gallup poll results. Harvard was clearly at the top both years, with much smaller numbers favoring Stanford or (in 2003) Yale. Below that, the national totals were so small as to be statistically insignificant in a poll of 1,000 people.</p>

187

<p>Byerly's exactly right about the numbers. Tied for 11th with 2 percent is quite meaningless. </p>

<p>You'll also notice that Caltech beat the system by being measurably superior, but for some reason they dropped consistently year-on-year despite nothing catastrophic happening to the school. Why is that, then? I don't think USNews would be happy with Caltech being #1 for years and years. </p>

<p>Why, then, does USNews keep on changing their weighting system until they get a result they like? Is the accuracy really getting better or simply more contrived?</p>

<p>I don't really see your point about Stanford GSB because it's irrelevant. As I've cited in my previous post, other studies, notably the prestigious newsmagazine The Economist, also put Stanford as a top-three program. B-school rankings are all over the place--Dartmouth's Tuck and Northwestern's Kellogg range all over the place from #1 to #8, so it seems highly inconsistent. Frankly, any ranking that doesn't have Wharton in the top 2 seems to lose a little credibility in my mind. </p>

<p>The focus of USNews is the undergraduate rankings. Why? Because many other publications (FT, WSJ, The Economist, etc.) already rank graduate schools, and maybe even do a better job of it. USNews is the only well-known undergraduate ranking, and it is that version that sells by far the most copies and generates the most publicity. I remember I was on my college trip with my father last year, sitting in a hotel, and the news program we were watching reported the new 2005 rankings (surprising us with Penn at #4). I've never seen a news report about the new #1 medical school or #1 law school because that's simply a smaller concern for the masses.</p>

<p>"You might say that HYP are helped by the perceptions of the masses"
So are you conceding my point?</p>

<p>All I', saying is that USNews has to sell copies, please advertisers and seem credible to the people to maintain legitimacy. To do that, they have, almost without fail, ensured HYP dominance at the top and will continue to do that for years to come. Sure, various other schools have broken through, but those reigns at the top have been short-lived, and because USNews has tried to be legitimate and credible, they can't tweak the rankings right away. </p>

<p>Stanford deserves a spot higher than Penn and Duke, sakky. You must be able to concede that. How is it any worse than HYP, other than it's not benefitting from the East Coast bias?</p>

188

<p>zeph, what dorm are you going to be living in? FroSoCo?</p>

189

<p>I'm going to be Cardenal (Florence Moore East)--I'm doing SLE.</p>

<p>What about you?</p>

190

<p>
[quote]
Byerly's exactly right about the numbers. Tied for 11th with 2 percent is quite meaningless

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yet if 2% is meaningless, why is Stanford being ranked #2 meaningful? After all, #2 is only 4% according to the Galllup poll. If 2% is not meaningful, then why is 4% highly meaningful? I think a more accurate description is that both 2% and 4% are meaningless. Shades of meaninglessness are still meaninglessness. And that gets down to my point exactly - the Gallup poll is not a particularly meaningful poll. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_1999/Sept16/gallup.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_1999/Sept16/gallup.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
I don't really see your point about Stanford GSB because it's irrelevant. As I've cited in my previous post, other studies, notably the prestigious newsmagazine The Economist, also put Stanford as a top-three program. B-school rankings are all over the place--Dartmouth's Tuck and Northwestern's Kellogg range all over the place from #1 to #8, so it seems highly inconsistent. Frankly, any ranking that doesn't have Wharton in the top 2 seems to lose a little credibility in my mind. </p>

<p>The focus of USNews is the undergraduate rankings. Why? Because many other publications (FT, WSJ, The Economist, etc.) already rank graduate schools, and maybe even do a better job of it. USNews is the only well-known undergraduate ranking, and it is that version that sells by far the most copies and generates the most publicity. I remember I was on my college trip with my father last year, sitting in a hotel, and the news program we were watching reported the new 2005 rankings (surprising us with Penn at #4). I've never seen a news report about the new #1 medical school or #1 law school because that's simply a smaller concern for the masses.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>It is absolutely and completely relevant because you are making a grave accusation at USNews, namely that it is deliberately biased against West Coast schools and against Stanford specifically. The way you assess bias is that you look for a pattern in behavior. If USNews were to consistently give Stanford low marks in every possible category, then I would agree that you might have a case. But when USNews is actually going around BOOSTING Stanford, at least when it comes to B-schools, your case holds far less water. </p>

<p>It's like you accuse somebody of being racist but then you notice that same person actually helping some people of that race. If a person is truly racist, that person should be discriminating against ALL people of that particular race all the time. Accusations of bias have to demonstrate that the bias is consistent across the board for them to be convincing. </p>

<p>
[quote]
"You might say that HYP are helped by the perceptions of the masses"
So are you conceding my point?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have always agreed that mass perceptions affect the rankings. However, let's be clear - Stanford also benefits from mass perceptions. Hence, mass perceptions, by themselves, are not a reason to differentiate between HYP and S. </p>

<p>
[quote]

All I', saying is that USNews has to sell copies, please advertisers and seem credible to the people to maintain legitimacy. To do that, they have, almost without fail, ensured HYP dominance at the top and will continue to do that for years to come. Sure, various other schools have broken through, but those reigns at the top have been short-lived, and because USNews has tried to be legitimate and credible, they can't tweak the rankings right away.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And at the same time, you must agree that Stanford is considered to be an elite school by the masses. So if USNews were to come out with a ranking that says that Stanford was ranked in the 20's, you know and I know that that would cause quite a serious row. Both of us would object, as would many other people, and rightfully so. Just as HYP have established strong reputations, so has Stanford. The point is, Stanford is playing the same 'reputation game' that HYP are playing. I don't see why you should castigate HYP for living off perceptions of the masses when Stanford does the same thing. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Stanford deserves a spot higher than Penn and Duke, sakky. You must be able to concede that. How is it any worse than HYP, other than it's not benefitting from the East Coast bias?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you had just said that Stanford is better than Penn and Duke, and then stopped, I would have been completely on board. The placements of Penn and Duke are a matter of debate to say the least.</p>

<p>But you went far beyond that as to say that USNews is biased in favor of East Coast schools. That's a very serious accusation to make, and I don't think you have the horses to win that race. I would argue that Washington U is probably overranked, and yet they're nowhere near the East Coast. I would argue that Virginia, North Carolina, and W&M are actually underranked, and yet they're all near the East Coast. The point is, I don't see any strong patterns of USNews being deliberately biased in favor of East Coast schools.</p>

191

<p>I'll be living in FroSoCo as a sophomore. My best friend took SLE last year. </p>

<p>One good thing about Flo Mo is that there are a whole bunch of loquat, orange, and lemon trees in the courtyard. If you ever see some kids raiding those trees in the evening, in all likelihood it'll be my friends and me. :)</p>

192

<p>Not if I get there first!</p>

<p>Sakky, your dogged, if slightly ridiculous, dependence on that one Gallup survey is ridiculous. </p>

<p>Again, the MORE RECENT DATA has Stanford at ELEVEN PERCENT, a hardly insignificant number. </p>

<p>What's interesting about your mention of William & Mary, UNC and UVa is that they're all Southern schools. Duke is the only Southern school to achieve a top-flight ranking.</p>

<p>By East Coast bias, I meant the Northeast. </p>

<p>You again fail to answer how Stanford should be ranked BELOW HYP. Is there any reason, really, why it shouldn't be contending with HYP for the top spot? What, exactly, do those schools have that Stanford doesn't? </p>

<p>"I have always agreed that mass perceptions affect the rankings. However, let's be clear - Stanford also benefits from mass perceptions. Hence, mass perceptions, by themselves, are not a reason to differentiate between HYP and S."
Mass perceptions benefit HYP far more than they do Stanford. </p>

<p>"It is absolutely and completely relevant because you are making a grave accusation at USNews, namely that it is deliberately biased against West Coast schools and against Stanford specifically."
At the far more important and money-making undergraduate level, USNews certainly is.</p>

<p>Here's a citation for East Coast bias. True, it mostly concerns sports, but the USNews ranking and their arbitrary nature are quite like the college football poll system. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_bias%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_bias&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

193

<p>
[quote]
Sakky, your dogged, if slightly ridiculous, dependence on that one Gallup survey is ridiculous

[/quote]
</p>

<p>One just one? I believe I quoted two Gallup surveys. You are the one that is constantly pointing to only one Gallup survey. If anything, I have the bulk of the data on my side (2 surveys vs. 1). </p>

<p>
[quote]
What's interesting about your mention of William & Mary, UNC and UVa is that they're all Southern schools. Duke is the only Southern school to achieve a top-flight ranking. </p>

<p>By East Coast bias, I meant the Northeast.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You think it just extends to the Northeast only? Like I said, I think that Washington U is probably overranked. I suspect that Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, and Wake Forest are probably overranked. Is that attrituble to NorthEast bias? </p>

<p>
[quote]
You again fail to answer how Stanford should be ranked BELOW HYP. Is there any reason, really, why it shouldn't be contending with HYP for the top spot? What, exactly, do those schools have that Stanford doesn't?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hey, it's not my job to show why Stanford shouldn't be contending with HYP. It's your job to show evidence of true USNews Northeast bias, as you put it. You're the one making the contentions, after all. Like I said, if USNews was truly biased in favor of the NorthEast, then shouldn't that bias show in all of USNews's rankings? So why has USNews given the top B-school spot to Stanford GSB more often than to any other B-school? Wharton has NEVER been ranked #1 in the USNews MBA program rankings. Is that evidence of "West Coast bias"? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Mass perceptions benefit HYP far more than they do Stanford.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How so? If your Gallup poll ranking is actually correct, then that means that Stanford should be ranked #2, and that means that USNews is actually swimming AGAINST mass perceptions by putting HYP on top, right? So which is it? Is Gallup the one that is showing true mass perceptions, or is it USNews? Make up your mind. You can't have it both ways.</p>

<p>
[quote]
At the far more important and money-making undergraduate level, USNews certainly is.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So then why did USNews ever grant a #1 ranking to Caltech in one year? Honestly, do you believe that Caltech deserves a #1 ranking? My brother graduated from Caltch, and even he doesn't really believe that Caltech is truly the #1 school in the country. So was that evidence of "West Coast bias" in that one year? </p>

<p>
[quote]
Here's a citation for East Coast bias. True, it mostly concerns sports, but the USNews ranking and their arbitrary nature are quite like the college football poll system. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_bias%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Coast_bias&lt;/a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You're going to cite a sports ranking to bolster your case? Huh? </p>

<p>Put it to you this way. I open the AP top 25 Division 1A college football rankings, and I see a grand total of 1 school (BC) from the NorthEast. I see a number of schools from California, Texas, Florida, the Midwest, and many other places, but almost never from the NorthEast. Is that evidence of anti-Northeast bias?</p>

194

<p>I would compare HYP's favorable USNews position to the media's extremely favorable coverage of Notre Dame, year after year. It was ridiculous after the UM game this year, and I hope USC crushes them. </p>

<p>"One just one? I believe I quoted two Gallup surveys. You are the one that is constantly pointing to only one Gallup survey. If anything, I have the bulk of the data on my side (2 surveys vs. 1)."
Refer back to my previous posts for my actual citations from Gallup.com compared to whatever secondary source you used. I used two surveys.</p>

<p>But that is just a college football tangent. In regards to my citation of East Coast Bias, let's compare Big 10 and SEC coverage to the Pac-10 in major newspapers. As a rule, sports sections like the NYT, Washington Post, etc. all will give much more coverage to OSU, UM, Florida compared to USC, Stanford, etc. </p>

<p>"You think it just extends to the Northeast only? Like I said, I think that Washington U is probably overranked. I suspect that Emory, Vanderbilt, Notre Dame, and Wake Forest are probably overranked. Is that attrituble to NorthEast bias?"
Much as Stanford is underranked. To truly support your assertions, you would have to find West Coast schools that are overranked. And really, you can't find any. Stanford and Caltech probably deserve higher, Pomona and HM are excellent schools, UCLA and Cal seems to do poorly year after year, and so on. </p>

<p>Again, I'm referring to an East Coast bias at the undergraduate-ranking level, which is the bread and butter of the USNews system, and the issue that sells far more copies. Better graduate rankings exist, and USNews is the only real undergrad ranking system. Citing irrelevant Stanford GSB data only detracts from the point you're making. </p>

<p>"So then why did USNews ever grant a #1 ranking to Caltech in one year? Honestly, do you believe that Caltech deserves a #1 ranking? My brother graduated from Caltch, and even he doesn't really believe that Caltech is truly the #1 school in the country."
For that one year, they were. And quickly, they dropped in the ranking. Why, exactly, does USNews tweak their system year after year, and why was it tweaked after Caltech became #1? </p>

<p>Caltech was #1 for one year, but they quickly dropped after that. That doesn't support your case at all. Caltech reached top billing because they were statistically superior, and that hasn't changed since then. Why, then, have they dropped?</p>

195

<p>
[quote]
I would compare HYP's favorable USNews position to the media's extremely favorable coverage of Notre Dame, year after year. It was ridiculous after the UM game this year, and I hope USC crushes them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What's ridiculous about it? Michigan was ranked #3 and Notre Dame beat them to go 2-0. Hence, Notre Dame was perfectly deserving of a high ranking after that victory. So you're saying that a school that goes 2-0, and beats the #3 ranked school in the country, should not get a good ranking? </p>

<p>
[quote]
But that is just a college football tangent. In regards to my citation of East Coast Bias, let's compare Big 10 and SEC coverage to the Pac-10 in major newspapers. As a rule, sports sections like the NYT, Washington Post, etc. all will give much more coverage to OSU, UM, Florida compared to USC, Stanford, etc

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh, and what school has just broken the record for ranking #1 for a record number of AP polls in a row? My point exactly. I guess the bias ain't THAT bad. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Much as Stanford is underranked. To truly support your assertions, you would have to find West Coast schools that are overranked. And really, you can't find any. Stanford and Caltech probably deserve higher, Pomona and HM are excellent schools, UCLA and Cal seems to do poorly year after year, and so on.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So now you're completely changing your story around. You said, and I will pull out your own quote, that the bias exists specifically for East Coast schools, which you defined to be NorthEast schools. So now you're saying that the bias is only against West Coast schools specifically. So which is it? Make up your mind. </p>

<p>
[quote]
Again, I'm referring to an East Coast bias at the undergraduate-ranking level, which is the bread and butter of the USNews system, and the issue that sells far more copies. Better graduate rankings exist, and USNews is the only real undergrad ranking system. Citing irrelevant Stanford GSB data only detracts from the point you're making.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So now I see that you've completely failed to address my point as to why USNews continues to rank schools like Washington U and Emory so highly, despite now existing in the NorthEast. </p>

<p>
[quote]
altech was #1 for one year, but they quickly dropped after that. That doesn't support your case at all. Caltech reached top billing because they were statistically superior, and that hasn't changed since then. Why, then, have they dropped?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because if USNews was REALLY biased, then they would never have granted Caltech a #1 ranking ever. </p>

<p>And look at it this way. Why did Caltech get the #1 ranking, and not Stanford? Answer the question.</p>

196

<p>Wasn't Stanford ranked first one year?</p>

197

<p>Nope, never.</p>

198

<p>Sakky,</p>

<p>You are incorrect. Stanford was indeed ranked #1 by US NWR in the late 1980's.
I remember because I was applying to colleges in 1988, and I recall
seeing Stanford #1... this was before they used any statistics at all... it was based strictly on surveys of deans, admissions officers, etc.</p>

199

<p>That is incorrect. Stanford was #1 a couple of times in the 80's, before the rankings became more elaborate. In the "modern era" when "America's Best Colleges" became institutionalized, Stanford ranked #2 behind Harvard in both 1990 and 1991. Since then, it has bumped around in a narrow band between 4th and 6th.</p>

<p>Nevertheless, Stanford must generally be acknowledged as Harvard's chief "competitor" - since it has usually had the largest common admit group with Harvard in recent years, and, along with MIT, the three have the greatest appeal for prospective science majors among top elites.</p>

200

<p>I would be impressed if people would grow out of pure statstics. For me- Harvard is my 4th choice- behind Princeton, MIT, and deep springs. For me, the rankings don't mean very much although in my mind I expected to see Harvard, Yale and Princeton among the top 3. Princeton is my no. 1 because of their very strong maths program, their absolutely lovely campus and of course their very nice Fin-Aid packages.</p>

<p>Now when you ask who is Harvard's biggest compeditor you should ask yourself why wouldn't someone choose Harvard. Obviously you wouldn't go to Harvard for engineering. </p>

<p>If the statistics were available, a better comparison of competitor would be to break down statistics by major preferences and I'm sure you would see a much different picture being painted. I wouldn't be surprised the best engineering students would choose MIT and Stanford, the bio students choosing Stanford and the best physics students choosing MIT.</p>