Who is Harvard's biggest competitor?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Harvard University
161

<p>Consider HYPSMC+Berkeley only.
<a href="http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir?sid=1011&view=basic&pg=srch%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nasonline.org/site/Dir?sid=1011&view=basic&pg=srch&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>NAS=national academy of science. NAS membership is one of the best, if not the best, measure of faculty reputation of a university in academia.</p>

<h2>MATH (pure)</h2>

<p>Princeton (14 members)
Harvard (10)</p>

<p>Berkeley (7)
MIT (7)
Stanford (6)
Yale (4)
Caltech (2)</p>

<h2>Applied MATH</h2>

<p>Stanford (9 members)
Berkeley (7)</p>

<p>Harvard(2)
Yale (2)
MIT (2)
Caltech (2)
Princeton (1)</p>

<h2>Physics</h2>

<p>Berkeley (18)
MIT (14)
Stanford (12)
Princeton (12)</p>

<p>Harvard (9)
Caltech (7)
Yale (3)</p>

<h2>Chemistry</h2>

<p>Berkeley (18)
Stanford (13)
Caltech (13)
Harvard (12)</p>

<p>MIT (7)
Yale (5)
Princeton (3)</p>

<p>By looking at the numbers, I conclude that B/S/H/M are strongest in these areas. Yale is the weakest. Princeton is strong in Math and physics only (#1 in pure math). Caltech is strong in physics and chemsitry. </p>

<p>In US NEWS and NRC ranking, Stanford and Harvard are #1 and #2 in biology.</p>

<p>In NRC and US NEWS ranking, Stanford, only Stanford, has been #1 in Computer science for decades. No other university in the world can really match against Stanford in CS faculty reputation. When counting Turing Award winners, Stanford has 18 ties to Turing awards, while MIT has about 10 only.</p>

162

<p>consider HYPSMC+Berkeley only:</p>

<p>H (33 winners)
S (30)
B (24)
C (22)
M (20)
P (15)
Y (8 winners)</p>

<p>See
<a href="http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/awards/nms/recipients.cfm%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/awards/nms/recipients.cfm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

163

<h2>Genetics</h2>

<p>Stanford (12 members)
MIT (9)</p>

<p>Berkeley (3)
Caltech (3)
Harvard (2)
Yale (1)
Princeton (1)</p>

<h2>Biochemistry</h2>

<p>Harvard (13)</p>

<p>Berkeley (8)
Yale (8)
MIT (6)
Stanford (5)
Caltech (3)</p>

<p>Princeton (0)</p>

164

<p>


</p>

<p>I don't blame you. Most people who post in these forums as so-called "experts" are indeed fakers. Although I'm personally not, it's a great attitude to have whenever reading anything online, as there is virtually no identity verification.</p>

<p>Byerly: Your post explaining the rankings proves them to be flawed. They gave surveys to deans and professors at the schools they were trying to rate. Obviously, these people will not give objective answers nor will all of them respond. </p>

<p>Statistically then, all these lists and links people point to are irrelevant. </p>

<p>And as for graduate schools, the prestige and name of a university is completely meaningless. It's about individual professors and subjects, so Minnesota University could very well be superior to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, etc. for a certain individual.</p>

<p>datalook: I hope you realize that Berkeley is about eight times larger than any other university you mentioned, so of course they'll have the most NASA memberships. </p>

<p>Although, for that matter, NASA memberships are a poor indicator of faculty strength, and faculty strength is in turn a poor reflection of undergraduate education.</p>

165

<p>Zephyr151, I said it before, I'll say it again, when the Gallup polls find that Penn State is the 5th best school in the nation, tied with Yale, you know there's something sketchy going on. USNews may not be completely reliable, but I think we can all agree that finding that Penn State to be equal to Yale is really egregious. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/inte...t16/gallup.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/inte...t16/gallup.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

166

<p>
[quote]
Although, for that matter, NASA memberships are a poor indicator of faculty strength, and faculty strength is in turn a poor reflection of undergraduate education.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I have to agree with Harvardalum98 here. Look, if it's undergraduate education that you really care about, and you don't care about pop-culture prestige, then you should be looking at the LAC's. None of the LAC's have any NAS members or "highly ranked" departments, for the simple reason that those designations are predicated on research and the LAC's treat research as secondary.</p>

167

<p>In the Ivy League, Princeton, and Dartmouth espeically, are very LAC-ish.</p>

168

<p>Do these stats honestly matter at the undergraduate level? Yale might be rated the worst (comparatively) in by the NAS, but at the undergraduate level, it doesn't matter. You will get an amazing education if you attend any of these universities, and you don't need to worry about the concentration of Nobel Laureates, because <em>surprise</em> - you won't meet any!!! Only in graduate school will you need to consider the faculty, etc.</p>

169

<p>Sakky your link is faulty, and moreover, I couldn't find the survey you mentioned on the Gallup site.</p>

<p>Secondly, the Gallup polls are about as indicative as USNews--they're both popularity contests, but with different markets.</p>

<p>East coast bias, indeed.</p>

170

<br>


<br>

<p>This is completely false. Every professor in the arts and sciences at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton is required to teach undergraduates every year. Every professor teaching undergraduates holds office hours every week. If you don't meet the Nobel laureates, then it's because you don't decide to sign up for their courses, you don't bother to go to class, or you don't take the time to go to office hours.</p>

171

<p>He meant you won't meet any at the LAC's. You completely misunderstood.</p>

172

<p>
[QUOTE]
Do these stats honestly matter at the undergraduate level? Yale might be rated the worst (comparatively) in by the NAS, but at the undergraduate level, it doesn't matter. You will get an amazing education if you attend any of these universities, and you don't need to worry about the concentration of Nobel Laureates, because <em>surprise</em> - you won't meet any!!! Only in graduate school will you need to consider the faculty, etc.

[/QUOTE]
</p>

<p>The conclusion (college choice doesn't matter as much as some people think) is absolutely perfect, but the reasoning is a little flawed. (As "Hanna" noted) </p>

<p>The truth is, there isn't a single college in the entire world which gives one an "amazing education". Obtaining such is solely the responsibility of a student and can be gained at practically any university. Furthermore, it is entirely independent of one's grades. </p>

<p>However, there are schools that grant students of a certain major more opportunities and chances than other schools do. While most students never take advantage of any of these opportunities anyway, the availability of them forms the basis for all these dreary college lists.</p>

<p>And yes, many undergraduates not only meet, but actually work under Nobel Prize winners.</p>

173

<p>
[quote]
Sakky your link is faulty, and moreover, I couldn't find the survey you mentioned on the Gallup site.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So here it is again. The link seems to work for me. If the link still doesn't work for you, I'm happy to email it to you directly. </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>Perhaps the reason you can't find it in Gallup is because it is a 1999 Gallup poll.</p>

<p>Here's a statement about the 2003 Gallup poll. Texas A&M and Ohio State tied for #11? I think we can all agree that's pretty sketchy. </p>

<p><a href="http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/03/082903-4.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.tamu.edu/univrel/aggiedaily/news/stories/03/082903-4.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>
[quote]
Secondly, the Gallup polls are about as indicative as USNews--they're both popularity contests, but with different markets.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I cannot agree with the term 'about as indicative'. Gallup is a true popularity contest - they actually went out and polled regular people, and then found out that, in 2003, Texas A&M and Ohio State were tied as the 11th best school according to regular people, and in 1999, Penn State was tied for 5th. USNews isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't rely on interviewing regular people. Hence, USNews may be a popularity contest, but not as much as Gallup is.</p>

174

<p>"Tieing for 11th" in a poll of 1,000 people is fairly meaningless, since the percentages for schools outside the top 4 or 5 were infinitessimal.</p>

<p>Its Harvard, then considerably behind it is Stanford and Yale, then the numbers really tail off. Few bragging rights associated with being 2% rather than 1%.</p>

175

<p>And yet again, the actual Gallup polls that I cited DO NOT in any way support your Penn State citation. Look at the data! </p>

<p>Secondly, I'd like to note, Byerly, that Stanford is barely behind Harvard among the highly educated--those who really know the quality of the education offered. At that point, the name appeal is far lessened than among the populace.</p>

<p>As for 1000 people, if you bothered to take statistics, you would realize that's a large enough sample to generate accurate results. </p>

<p>"USNews isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't rely on interviewing regular people." USNews instead uses bizarre data indicators to ensure continuous East Cost dominance.</p>

176

<p>Do you all realize how idiotic this discussion sounds?
And y'all supposedly graduated from or are going to the most elite institutions? Step back a minute and realize how dumb this sounds...</p>

177

<p>Actually, what sounds even dumber is that you think the people going to the "most elite institutions" are somehow larger than life and must act like omniscient gods all the time. No dude, even the people going to Stanford or MIT or Yale are still regular human beings who enjoy comparing stuff like prestige. </p>

<p>Everyone has a right to act normal or even "dumb" once in a while. The elite institutions don't just graduate infallible robots.</p>

178

<p>Being elite also means we're competitive.</p>

179

<p>This thread is the biggest example of:
"Intelligence DOES NOT equal wisdom."</p>

<p>Sure, a little friendly boosterism for you're school is fine...
but give me a break... 9 pages later? Give it a rest already.</p>

180

<p>
[quote]
And yet again, the actual Gallup polls that I cited DO NOT in any way support your Penn State citation. Look at the data!

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Because the ones that you cited were from different years than the ones that I cited. But that doesn't matter. It illustrates the general point that in some years, Gallup will sometimes produce anomalous results, like ranking Penn State 5th in a certain year. So if Gallup does that in certain years, and we agree it's anomalous, then who's to say that ranking Stanford #2 isn't also an anomalous result? </p>

<p>
[quote]
As for 1000 people, if you bothered to take statistics, you would realize that's a large enough sample to generate accurate results.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh believe me, I understand statistics. Yet here we have situations where, in one year, 1000 people once discovered Penn State to be 5th, and in another year, Ohio State to be 11th. Yet you said it yourself - 1000 people ought to be able to get an accurate result. So perhaps you'd care to explain what's going on? </p>

<p>
[quote]
"USNews isn't perfect, but at least it doesn't rely on interviewing regular people." USNews instead uses bizarre data indicators to ensure continuous East Cost dominance.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? Continuous East Coast dominance? If that's really truem then why is it that in 1999, USNews actually ranked Caltech as #1 - higher than Harvard or Yale or Princeton any of the other East Coast schools? Last time I checked, Caltech wasn't on the East Coast. It would seem to me that if USNews was REALLY interested in ensuring East Coast dominance, why would it ever allow a non-East Coast school (one in California, no less) to top the ranking? </p>

<p>Or I'll put it to you this way. Take the USNews business school rankings. The Stanford Graduate School of Business once had a run of something like 5 or 6 years straight of being ranked #1 according to USNews (a streak that was broken only last year). In fact, of all the USNews B-school rankings, I believe that Stanford has been ranked #1 more times than all other B-schools combined. Why would USNews give that #1 ranking to Stanford that many times if they were really out to ensure East Coast dominance? Wouldn't they instead never give Stanford the #1 ranking? In fact, of all the major business school rankings (i.e. BW, FT, etc.), USNews consistently ranks Stanford the highest. Why is that, if USNews is always out to ensure East Coast dominance?</p>