<p>maybe its hardest to get into if you're at the top of their applicant pool!</p>
<p>(just a good natured dig at princeton admissions. i love princeton. ;))</p>
<p>Okay, so from what I gathered from this thread is that Stanford and MIT are Harvard's biggest competitors whereas Yale lost its place as the top competitor and Princeton never was in the running.</p>
<p>Generally, MIT does the best vs. Harvard vs a vis common admit rate.</p>
<p>Generally (although not last year) Stanford and Harvard have the largest common admit pool. (Last year, it was Harvard and Yale)</p>
<p>Generally (although not last year) Harvard takes the largest share of the common admit from Yale; last year it was Princeton. </p>
<p>Last year, Harvard took the largest share of common admits from Princeton, which deviated from the long-standing Hargadon practice of opting for the "Princeton type" and avoiding academic superstars. For the first time Princeton decided to go head to head with Harvard for top admits. As a result, their share of common admits declined.</p>
<p>zephyr151:</p>
<p>You know, my opinions are in no way based on published rankings created by editors who know little of the schools involved beyond their reputations. </p>
<p>Rather, they are my own personal impressions of the courses taught at each university. </p>
<p>Certainly, my views could be completely misguided and inaccurate. On the other hand, they're still more reliable than some ludicrous rankings by a second-hand source with no clearly published criteria.</p>
<p>Well how are we to judge the "greatness" of a science program other than rankings largely based on reputation? It is reputation that attracts top faculty and top students. </p>
<p>It is my personal opinion that the Stanford sciences are, overall, on a level that only MIT and Harvard can reach (the latter barely at that).</p>
<p>USNEWS, while flawed, does publish its graduate school ranking methodology. It's quite easy to find on the site.</p>
<p>Stanford, MIT, and Caltech have the best sciences and engineering. To say that Stanford doesnt match up with Harvard or Princeton is just absurd. Stanford blows those schools out of the water in all things techy. Harvard and Princeton engineering programs are like child daycare centers compared to Stanford, MIT, and Caltech's. Overall, SMC are the triumvirate of all things dealing with science and technology. In the pure sciences, Stanford more than hold its own against all other schools. The only ones that are equals to Stanford are MIT and Caltech. I'm sure somebody can quote the fact that Harvard or Princeton surpass Stanford or MIT in some field of science. However, you can also probably quote the fact that MIT beats Harvard in certain humanities fields as well. Are you prepared to say that MIT is thus better than Harvard in the humanities? Off the bat I can already tell you that MIT is better than Harvard in UG business because Harvard's program is not only of lesser quality....but is non-existent! And business is a huge field.</p>
<p>Recently, California passed a stem cell funding proposition at a state-wide level that far surpasses any amount of funding at the federal level. California seems poised to take the stem cell field by storm while the rest of the nation just stands idle. In the field of stem cells, Stanford and Caltech will rock the world. Harvard and the rest of the ivies stand the risk of becoming marginalized schools in the field of science if that happens.</p>
<p>"Rather, they are my own personal impressions of the courses taught at each university" (and follow-up comments to this claim)...</p>
<p>1) Unless somebody has personally attended "courses" at each university, this is a meaningless claim.</p>
<p>2) The reputations of universites are based primarily on research, not on the quality of courses. As an aside, based on the pure quality of coursework, neither Harvard nor Stanford would be ranked terribly high. I <em>do</em> have degrees from both (and think both are wonderful universities), and can make the statement about coursework with some degree of certainty.</p>
<p>3) Regarding the issue of quality in the sciences, collegeperson12 and zephyr151 are correct. Stanford is arguably already the top science and engineering school in the world. I don't think it makes a bit of difference whether a place is considered "#1" or "#3" ... but in any case, neither Princeton nor Caltech have the size or breadth of quality to come anywhere close to Stanford, MIT, or Harvard (or Berekeley for that matter) in science.</p>
<p>just because stanford wins a greater percentage of overall harvard cross-admits than any other competing school does not mean its the biggest competitor. i think more people apply to harvard and either yale/princeton than harvard and stanford (with harvard winning most of the yale/princeton admits). stanford has a huge advantage over yale/princeton in this battle because of its completely different atmosphere/location.</p>
<p>"Recently, California passed a stem cell funding proposition at a state-wide level that far surpasses any amount of funding at the federal level. California seems poised to take the stem cell field by storm while the rest of the nation just stands idle. In the field of stem cells, Stanford and Caltech will rock the world. Harvard and the rest of the ivies stand the risk of becoming marginalized schools in the field of science if that happens."</p>
<p>You didn't choose a very good example of the rest of the world "standing idle":</p>
<p>When I say that Stanford is generally Harvard's "biggest competitor" I mean that it has generally had a larger common admit pool with Harvard than Harvard has had with Yale, Princeton or MIT. (In fact, Harvard's common admit pool with Yale was larger for the Class of 2008, however).</p>
<p>I do not mean to imply that Stanford takes a larger share of common admits from Harvard than do the others, although only MIT has consistently done better.</p>
<p>Until Harvard can construct a facility like the Bio-X/Clark Center, they will lag behind in the biosciences, especially in regards to stem cell research.</p>
<p>How's that Alston campus coming along?</p>
<p>I think it depends on what area you are looking at. For example if you were comparing their sciences I think MIT and Stanford could easily whip Harvard.</p>
<p>The top 5 in MATH:</p>
<ol>
<li> Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5.0</li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) 4.9
Princeton University (NJ) 4.9
Stanford University (CA) 4.9
University of CaliforniaBerkeley 4.9</li>
</ol>
<p>The top 5 in PHYSICS:</p>
<ol>
<li> California Institute of Technology 5.0
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5.0</li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) 4.9
Princeton University (NJ) 4.9
Stanford University (CA) 4.9
University of CaliforniaBerkeley 4.9</li>
</ol>
<p>The top 5 in CHEMISTRY:</p>
<ol>
<li> University of CaliforniaBerkeley 5.0</li>
<li> California Institute of Technology 4.9
Harvard University (MA) 4.9
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.9</li>
<li> Stanford University (CA) 4.8</li>
</ol>
<p>The top 5 in BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES</p>
<ol>
<li> Stanford University (CA) 4.9</li>
<li> Harvard University (MA) 4.8
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 4.8
University of CaliforniaBerkeley 4.8</li>
<li> California Institute of Technology 4.7
Johns Hopkins University (MD) 4.7</li>
</ol>
<p>Your data, Byerly, doesn't really show anything. </p>
<p>USNews proves little other than grouping MIT, Harvard, Stanford, UCB and Caltech are more or less equal in the hard, "abstract" sciences. And in the one that matters the most--biology, Stanford is tops. </p>
<p>In terms of facilities and funding, MIT and Stanford are unmatched.</p>
<p>Byerly,</p>
<p>Are you posting undergrad rankings? I have never seen any USNews undergrad rankings in specific subjects, only business and engineering rankings and sub-rankings for subjects within those schools.</p>
<p>Zephyr,</p>
<p>In terms of facilities and funding? Harvard still has the largest endowment by far. I agree that CA may have an advantage because of the funding by the state but I do not see that as a long term issue.</p>
<p>The USNews rankings are departmental rankings. Universities do not have separate "undergrad" and "grad" math departments, for example, but just the Department of Mathematics. The faculties, likewise, are not separate.</p>
<p>Harvard's stem cell program will probably lag far behind Stanford's. Stanford has already gathered most of the foremost experts in stem cells. Because of California's stem cell initiatives and obvious state-wide encouragement of stem cell research, most of the top scientists are flocking to the state that seems most nurturing to stem cell research. </p>
<p>Harvard might have a huge endowment but I bet you that they aren't pouring in billions of dollars for stem cells. They might have opened up a stem cell institute, but research requires more than just university backing. It requires government backing as well. And Stanford has that. Harvard doesn't.</p>
<p>Also, might I add that Harvard's approach to stem cells is fundamentally wrong. This is what they say on their website:</p>
<p>"Yet, we must accomplish these goals amidst a background of intense ethical and political debate. Much of the current debate revolves around embryonic stem cell research and public fears about human reproductive cloning (which is strictly prohibited under Harvard policies), but stem cell research - with its potential to transform many aspects of medicine - raises many other societal issues, including legal, political and economic questions. Addressing these will require an interdisciplinary approach, and HSCI draws in faculty not only from the biomedical sciences but also from Harvards professional schools, including Harvard Law School, the Kennedy School of Government, the Harvard School of Public Health, the Harvard Business School and the Harvard Divinity School."</p>
<p>Why should Harvard Divinity School need to be involved in scientific research? I'm not saying that religion is a bad thing but it has no place in scientific inquiry because religion and science are just two completely different and sometimes diametrically opposed ways of making sense of the world. Science is centered on logic and religion is centered on faith. Why should Harvard mix religion with pioneering stem cell research. That's not only a waste of money....but it's doomed to failure. Harvard has its mission goals all wrong so we need to depend on Stanford and overseas universities in places like Korea, Germany, France, and China to get stem cell research off the ground. Harvard is still suck in its puritanical roots.</p>
<p>I don't think the point is necessarily to debate the merits of "stem cells," or who has the best stem cell research program. This is only one example of a major emerging technology, and there are many others: nanotechnology, biotechnology, molecular electronics, etc.</p>
<p>It's unclear who will become the "top" player in science and technology overall ... I seriously doubt that anybody other than Harvard or Stanford has the infrastructure to become the dominant center.</p>