Who is Harvard's biggest competitor?

<p>
[quote]
All that Im saying is that most people who have to choose between H and Por Y follow the opinion of the "ignorant mob" EVEN THOUGH the "mob" knows nothing about colleges. The high cross admit rate in favor of Harvard can be explained by this IRRELEVANT factor. Despite it being a non valid argument it still bears an important influence. Most people have this inner need for recognition and want people to think that they've been to the "best"school (Im not saying thatt H is better than P or Y, just that most ppl think it is because Harvard is the oldest university in the USA)
If Princeton and Yale had the same "glimmer" for the "mob" then Im sure
the rates would be much closer to 50/50

[/quote]
</p>

<p>
[quote]
Yes, people unfortunately too rarely do the work necessary to look beyond the facades.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I don't know if I would call it an irrelevant factor. I think what is happening is entirely rational. I think we can all agree that, like it or not, Harvard has better name-recognition and braiding than probably any other school. That name recognition tends to draw top quality students. Top employers know that Harvard has top quality students, so they go recruit at Harvard. The fact that top employers are recruiting at Harvard boosts the brand-name image and so tends to draw more top quality students, which then draws more top employers, etc. etc. A positive feedback "virtuous cycle' is then formed - the more that Harvard's image gets boosted, the more the top students and employers want to be there, which boosts the image even more, etc. </p>

<p>So let's take a guy who doesn't care about Harvard's prestige at all, he just wants to increase his chances of getting a good job after graduation. He knows that lots of top employers recruit at Harvard. It doesn't matter to him why those employers are there, all that matters is that they are there. Hence, he may want to go to Harvard.</p>

<p>Look at it from the employers point of view. All the employer cares about is getting recruiting access to top talent. And there is a lot of top talent at Harvard. The employer doesn't care why they are at Harvard, all that matters is that they are at Harvard. So the employer chooses to recruit at Harvard.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that marketing matters. The perception of power is power. Anybody who's studied economics will know what I'm talking about - if people think that you are powerful, then for all practical purposes, you are powerful. That's the influence of expectations. That's the power of reputation. That's the power of marketing and branding. </p>

<p>Put another way. Why is it that I am willing to pay 75 cents for a copy of the Wall Street Journal that I haven't even read yet? If I haven't read it, how do I know it's really worth 75 cents to me? The answer is because the WSJ has proven useful to me in the past, and so I will happily buy a new copy, sight unseen. In other words, the WSJ has developed a reputation and brand-image of high reporting quality. Similarly, students and employers are relying on the brand-image of Harvard. The reason they do it is because that brand-image has proven to be reliable in the past. Employers have hired Harvard graduates, found them to be good, and that validates the reputation of Harvard as being a place to find good employees. Students have gone to Harvard and found good jobs, and so that validates the reputation of Harvard as being a place to find good jobs. If all of a sudden, Harvard starts graduating a lot of low-quality students, or if Harvard students can only find mediocre jobs, then the reputation of Harvard will be eroded, just like if the WSJ starts engaging in shoddy journalism, eventually, I will stop buying it. </p>

<p>Note, I'm not saying that every Harvard student is good, or that every Harvard student finds a good job. Obivously it is not perfect. However, it is reliable enough that the reputation of Harvard is maintained. Toyota makes the most reliable cars in the world, but that doesn't mean that they are perfectly reliable. But they are reliable enough that Toyota has developed a (well-earned) reputation for quality. </p>

<p>Now don't get me wrong. When I say that Harvard has top students and top employers, that doesn't mean that the other schools don't. Far from it. In fact, competing schools like Yale, MIT, Princeton, Stanford, and every other reputable one also enjoy the same 'virtuous cycle' of branding and reputation as does Harvard. Let's face it. A lot of people go to Yale just because they know that lots of top employers recruit there. And a lot of top employers recruit at Yale just because they know that lots of top students are there. So it's the same thing. It's just a difference in degree. Harvard is better at it because Harvard has a stronger brand-recognition. But that's not to say that the other schools don't do it too. So other schools can't really castigate Harvard for doing the same thing they they are doing.</p>

<p>greatlakes,</p>

<p>
[quote]
Sitting in a huge field in one of the richest, upper incomes cities in the country doesn't help them confront reality or conflicting ideas very well, either.....Stanford in character is NOT the Harvard of the West, it's the Princeton of the West (same upper-class insulation on a vast tract of land in the midst of an upper-income homogenous town). The schools in the East have major competitors every 90 or 100 miles (Columbia, Princeton, Yale, Penn, Harvard, Swarthmore, Amherst, etc.) so this kind of unchecked self-love and ignorant arrogance is challenged by the calibre of the neighboring schools and by confronting things like urban poverty and even brutal winter weather.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>LOL! Does that mean schools in the poorest areas would produce the greatest number of people devoted to social cause? Does that mean students at Columbia are more prepared for the real world than HYP?? Maybe you should have gone to some school in the poorest area in the south. You would be a better person now. Ooops..the south doesn't have the winter. Maybe you should have gone to some school in Detroit?</p>

<p><a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/february4/peacecorps-24.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2004/february4/peacecorps-24.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>That number is not necessarily the best indicator. But it sure is better than your hollow statement.</p>

<p>maybe more stanford kids are going into the peace corps because stanford is more insular, thus driving students to get abroad more after college??? I don't know, but your example could be skewed that way.</p>

<p>That's why I said that isn't necessarily the best indicator. But according to greatlakes, Stanford students "are forever in narcissistic-ville, admiring their own mirages" after graduation. They wouldn't go abroad. :)</p>

<p>But Stanford is one of the schools listed in a book called "the most green colleges" (or something like that). "Green colleges" means schools that have large number of students participating volunteerism. I remember Harvard is on the list. I am not sure if Yale is there though.</p>

<p>If greatlakes is right, maybe Stanford should award credits to students for making weekend trips to San Francisco which has the worst homeless problem in the nation.</p>

<p>I'll see if I can weigh in on this.</p>

<p>Is Stanford cloistered? Yes, but no more so than most of the elite LAC's. At least next to Stanford lies a town, East Palo Alto, that is arguably the most enduring section of poverty and despair in all of Silicon Valley. So if Stanford students want to see poverty, it's not that far away, although I do agree that many Stanford students will never go there. However, contrast that with an elite NorthEast rural LAC where they truly isn't any poverty anywhere in the vicinity. </p>

<p>I would point out that if you are looking for a truly 'ghetto' experience, you shouldn't go to Harvard. Yes, parts of Cambridge are somewhat ghetto, especially Central Square. But it's not like New Haven (Yale). Or Morningside Heights (Columbia). Or the Hyde Park area near the University of Chicago. I would also say that UPenn is probably located in a more dangerous area than is Harvard.</p>

<p>sakky- very interesting post.
you say "there is a lot of top talent at harvard". there is just as much "top talent" at Yale and Princeton and other institutions. And employers know that. I don't consider qualified individuals such as job recruiters (who most often have studied at a top school themselves) to be part of the "mob".
so whether you study at h y or p wont really affect your job opportunities, only the perception that the mob has of you. And for some people, general recognition is important.</p>

<p>sakky,</p>

<p>Speaking of East Palo Alto, which was dubbed the "murder capital" in the early 90s, the city wouldn't have a graduating public high school class of its own in 2005 without Stanford. </p>

<p><a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/epagrad-061505.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/june15/epagrad-061505.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/march30/ravenswood-033005.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2005/march30/ravenswood-033005.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"Is Stanford cloistered? Yes, but no more so than most of the elite LAC's." Princeton & Dartmouth are no better.</p>

<p>i marvel at this new bizarro world in which a safe, upscale setting is "cloistered" and thus negative while a dangerous, downscale one is "real" and thus positive.</p>

<p>i agree with scottie
some people have already had their share of the "uncloistered" experience. so they're happy to go to a sheltered place like stanford or princeton</p>

<p>And some of merely like schools where the quality of life is high. While both Stanford and Princeton are situated in very upper-class areas, it's hard to argue that they're more "cloistered" simply because of that. It would have to do much more with the campus culture than the surrounding area.</p>

<p>Yeah, what's so bad about being cloistered? Let's see - I've had my car broken into twice. I've been mugged once. Personally, I think I've had enough of "reality". Believe me, 'keeping it real' ain't that great. I wouldn't mind being in a cloistered, sheltered environment. For those who say they like 'keeping it real' , go become a victim of crime and then you can tell me how much they still like it.</p>

<p>
[quote]
sakky- very interesting post.
you say "there is a lot of top talent at harvard". there is just as much "top talent" at Yale and Princeton and other institutions. And employers know that. I don't consider qualified individuals such as job recruiters (who most often have studied at a top school themselves) to be part of the "mob".
so whether you study at h y or p wont really affect your job opportunities, only the perception that the mob has of you. And for some people, general recognition is important.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I always agreed that the same thing happens at Yale and Princeton. My point was to illustrate the difference between Harvard (and, in parallel, Yale and Princeton) vs. a community college. In theory, you might be just as good coming out of community college as a guy coming out of Harvard. The problem is, what employer is going to believe that you are just as good? Like it or not, certain schools have well-known brand names and others do not, and we live in a world where branding has value.</p>

<p>Put in more formal "econ-speak", the underlying problem of labor markets is that the employer and employee have assymetric information - only the employee knows how good he really is, and every employee is always going to want to present himself as a strong employee even if he is not. The employer has no easy way to distinguish between good and bad employees, and hence a market failure may result where no transaction or a suboptimal transaction will occur. A strong college brand-name is a way to reduce this assymetry and avoid a market failure because that brand-name sends a strong signal to the market that you are in fact one of the stronger employees, because, at the very least, the brand-name indicates that you were good enough to get admitted. It's not a perfect signal, but it's better than no signal at all.</p>

<p>As my father so sagely observed (when seeing some politician who had been in the Peace Corps), people who grow up in misery and poverty don't need to volunteer to spend two years 'experiencing' it. The Peace Corps is a good measure of upper-middle class suburbanism more than anything. </p>

<p>Palo Alto is one of the highest income areas in the nation, which also therefore means the world. It's an utterly sheltered environment, and the school moreover is in the middle of a huge, empty field, furthering the dislocation from America's social problems. There is a difference between 'safe' and 'sheltered'. Add Beverly Hills and Marin County to the mix, and you get my jist.</p>

<p>I also read on a Stanford site that 2 years ago 34% of the class came from California.</p>

<p>At least rich New Yorkers (as Toni Morrison said) interact daily with people of all races and social classes due primarily to the subway.</p>

<p>I think there have been several studies indicating that for people of similar IQ, going to Penn State or Montana State or Princeton makes virtually no difference in their life success and income level. So this whole premium for an Ivy League pedigree is suspect. I don't have the study around off hand but I'm sure someone can find it. The contrary also happens, when you're applying for a 'normal' job, lots of employers WON'T hire you 'cause of an Ivy-League degree (over-qualified, brilliant, too threatening, what's WRONG with her applying here?); it cuts both ways.</p>

<p>Also found this online:</p>

<p>Published Sunday, May 15, 2005
Matriculation rate hits record high
Officials credit new financial aid policy</p>

<p>BY YASSMIN SADEGHI</p>

<p>A record percentage of students has accepted Yale's offer of admission to the Class of 2009 this spring, with the University's yield rate hitting an unprecedented high of 72 percent.</p>

<p>This year, 1,340 students decided to matriculate at Yale from a pool of 1,880 admitted applicants, Yale Dean of Admissions Richard Shaw said, noting that the number of students matriculating may decrease over the summer as some students are taken off wait-lists at other schools.</p>

<p>The University's yield rate this year is a jump up from last year's. Of the 1,950 students admitted last year, 68.1 percent chose Yale, Shaw said.....</p>

<p>Okay, I'm confused. I see so many posters referring to the cross-admit statistics but I thought all of that information was 1) confidential information not reported by the colleges and 2) dependent entirely upon voluntary responses from admitted students including BOTH those who chose to attend and those who chose NOT to attend. </p>

<p>I've seen the link to the Stanford pie chart (posted by Zephyr?) but even it (of course) isn't really a study of cross-admits. For example the 13% (I think it was) who chose MIT over Stanford simply answers the question "of those who chose not to attend Stanford, what percentage chose MIT instead?". In other words, it might be that EVERY student admitted to both MIT and Stanford chose MIT. It does NOT mean that of all those admitted to both schools, 13% chose MIT and 87% chose Stanford. To have accurate cross-admit figures, you would have to have a series of head-to-head statistics that included all students who were admitted (rather or not they matriculated). Then you would be able to state that of the X number of students admitted to both schools, Y chose to attend school number 1 and Z chose to attend school number 2.</p>

<p>Help. Can anyone (Byerly?) provide a link to these kinds of cross-admit statistics?</p>

<p>Greatlakes,</p>

<p>The study you are looking for is the Krueger and Dale study. It costs something like $15 for a PDF of the full study. However, here is an article that basically lays out what they had to say.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.dartreview.com/issues/2.7.00/ivies.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.dartreview.com/issues/2.7.00/ivies.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>I think your comment about students that go in to the Peace Corp is a bit suspect. Certain schools are a bit more "service" oriented in their approach to the world and education in general. For example, many of the catholic schools have classes that have a service component or have a high placement in the Peace Corp or Jesuit Volunteer Corp (catholic peace corp). However, to fully invalidate your perception I would need to do a bit more research to find appropriate links.</p>

<p>to get back to the point: in terms of international prestige, harvard has no competitors<br>
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=57178%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=57178&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p><a href="http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=3739%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.yaleherald.com/article.php?Article=3739&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>And regarding Catholic private colleges, they ARE service oriented, but most do not have financial aid which matches, for instance, Ivy League colleges. Hence, their student body is largely upper middle class (my previous point). Milton Friedman did an analysis in which he found more poor students at Dartmouth than at UCLA (state-subsidized).</p>

<p>that's just a ridiculous unfounded conspiracy theory</p>

<p>What's funny about that thread you cited, axfr, is that it is TOTALLY THE OPINION OF RANDOM HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.</p>

<p>Unless you can back up your statement that "in terms of international prestige, harvard has no competitors" with some level of data or at least research, such a strong assertion is totally unfounded.</p>