<p>They chose Stanford. That’s obvious. They clearly wanted to go to Stanford more than every other school they have been admitted to while the H-S cross admits, even if they didn’t go to Harvard, may have gone somewhere else. That’s why you cannot “guess” that the Stanford students rejected at H would have gone the same way (or even similarly) as the actual cross admits.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Maybe he did when he was Dean of Admissions at Yale lol, but not anymore. Stanford ties with Yale. Perhaps when you went to college that was true.
The liberal arts are continually reinvented but their roots go back thousands of years. Linguistics departments did not exist until the 1930s but the scientific study of language typically is dated to the work of Sir William Jones in the late 1700s and the later work of the Grimm brothers. Similarly, one can trace the field of engineering back to the 7 “mechanical arts” recognized by late medieval and early Renaissance philosophers. Or even much farther:
[quote]
Differences in origins actually predate those stemming from the idea of the trivium and quadrivium that crystallized them. For instance, one could say that the task of engineering—the creation of functional artifacts—predates science, art and the humanities, since it is carried out, albeit instinctively, also by other, older species (suffice it to think of beehives or birds’ nests). <a href=“%5Burl=Error”>/quote</a></p>
<p>So it is a tricky business to date the origins of any of these fields of study in formal education. Nevertheless, the separation of liberal arts from mechanical arts (or philosophy from the trades) is a very old theme, one that reflects ancient class distinctions but also one that is revived from time to time, or rejected from time to time, to suit one purpose or another. The pendulum swings to and fro.</p>
<p>modestmelody, another poster commented that Cornell differed from the other Ivys in that it was founded after the CW, not in colonial times. I took this to imply that perhaps Harvard didn’t emphasize engineering since it was founded at a time when engineering was not yet an established discipline, whereas this was much less the case when Cornell was founded. The point of my comment was that Harvard’s relatively lesser focus on engineering has little to do with the fact that it was a colonial college and has more to do with its founding vision. Certainly, the founding vision is influenced by “when” it was founded, but that vision transcends 1636 and continues to be re-interpreted and to evolve as the institution evolves. Just because engineering didn’t exist in 1636 is not of much relevance for Harvard’s lesser emphasis on engineering. At many points in time, Harvard could have gone in the same direction with respect to engineering as did Cornell. </p>
<p>One aspect of that founding vision that continues is that Harvard’s purpose is to educate an elite. Who is included in that elite has changed over the years (initially, clergy and leaders for the Mass Bay colony, later the notion of leadership expanded–now national and international, now including Jews and racial minorities, now an intellectual elite as well as well as a social and political elite.) In any case, engineering is not perceived to have the same “elite” qualities that law and medicine have, for example. Other colonial colleges no doubt had a somewhat different vision and more easily fit engineering into their vision, e.g., Penn. The distinction I made might be subtle, but not inherently contradictory.</p>
<p>tk21769, I quite agree with your points about the roots of the various liberal arts disciplines and the mechanical arts. Their subjects were studied long before they developed into formal disciplines. I was merely replying to the comment that engineering was not around as a formal discipline for a long time by pointing out that some liberal arts subjects also were not established as formal disciplines in universities very much longer than some fields of engineering.</p>
However, the fact that Cornell is a powerhouse in engineering is directly related to its guiding philosophy which is very much related to the fact that Cornell was founded to fuel the industrial revolution, essentially, and in part because previous schools were not founded with that goal.</p>
<p>I don’t think we actually disagree other than the fact that I think you’re making a false distinction. You’re separating the idea of being “colonial” or “industrial” from the founding visions, and I’m stating that those visions are very much a product of their times, and therefore, the mission itself is inherently “colonial” or “industrial”, and while these missions are revisited and reinterpreted frequently, I think that there are some strands from the “framers’ intent” that remain quite strong at all institutions.</p>
<p>I think that Cornell is particularly different due to the differences in the “who” and “why” of Cornell’s founding versus the other Ivies, however, it’s quite clear that a big part of the difference is also “when”, since schools founded in that time also differed in some ways that are quite similar to Cornell.</p>
<p>Since so many people have so much free time on their hands as evidenced by the inane arguments here - perhaps we should argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?</p>
<p>I don’t find continuing to argue about cross admits etc without well documented data or why some ivy league schools don’t emphasize engineering when the reasons have been as clearly stated as possible, or why a school should be an elite or not if engineering isn’t great particularly intellectually stimulating, do you??</p>
<p>modest melody, I don’t think we actually disagree, either. I see what you’re saying. I still see a subtle distinction where you see a false distinction, however. </p>
<p>I’ll let it go at this: Certainly, a university’s vision is a product of the time it was founded. While its actions continue to be informed by that vision, it can choose to act in ways that seemingly contradict that vision. For example, though Harvard could have placed much more emphasis on engineering, and it even courted MIT for many years, it was ambivalent about the status and role of engineering in the larger institution. Apparently, this “identity conflict” was resolved when it absorbed the Lawrence Scientific School into the Faculty of Arts & Sciences and a court precluded merging MIT into the Lawrence School. In other words, it returned to its original vision. I don’t know if this makes it any clearer for you. You see a false distinction; I see a subtle distinction. (I’d rather concede the point rather than try to explain it any more for fear I shall unwittingly end up in a dialectical stance with my every contradiction containing the seeds of its own destruction.LOL )</p>
<p>Sure, a universitiy can reinterpret in a way that some generations may view to be antithetical to founding principals, however, I guess I’m arguing that in the US there are few examples of this occurring. I can’t think of a single prominent case in the US where a school has chosen to do the opposite of what it has done in the past.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s because American higher education isn’t old enough yet, but so far, I think that looking at the founding of most American universities is extremely revealing when trying to uncover why it acts differently than other institutions.</p>
<p>Some of that, yes. Isn’t that precisely what I said.</p>
<p>Now that we’re talking history it’s even more interesting to me than before. Aruging with rjk long ago was not interesting. The cross-admit argument was just made up of one set of people misunderstanding the data and denying its results.</p>
Actually that may be true for things like computer engineering. But I was a chemE and the stuff we learned were not all that different from what were offered 3 decades ago. Any theory and principle of applied science is gonna last when it’s based on laws of nature and mathematics.<br>
</p>
<p>FYI, some schools have shifted their curriculum to a more design-based one:
<p>modest melody, perhaps there are few instances of universities reinterpreting their visions in ways far out of line with their founding visions (at least on a generational level). Nonetheless, there seem to be quite a few instances in which universities have had “identity crises”. For example, Chicago was founded on the model of a German research university, yet in its early years it also shared many characteristics of the other Big 10 universities in its undergraduate culture. Some 25 years or so after its founding, Hutchins finally settled the matter. While this made it unique in American higher education as perhaps the only truly “intellectual” university, some would argue that this had some negative impacts as well, including locking it into a certain niche. I’m sure there are other examples as well.</p>
<p>coureur, I define bashing a school to making claims that are either false or intended to deceive about said school. Like bringing up Duke Lacrosse and telling an URM they’d be better off somewhere else because of that would be bashing Duke. We all agree on the core facts, we are just interpreting them differently. rjk and I have never said that these schools aren’t elite we are just questioning if they deserve their tippy-top elite status. And presumably H and Y realize that having a relatively weak engineering program may be a problem down the line that will threaten this status, and that’s why they are pouring in money to improve their programs. It’s obviously a great start, but as we know all too well, programs won’t change over night.</p>
<p>^in addition, Yale actually has a decent number (6) of engineering departments and gives students the option to puruse ABET-accredited B. S. degrees.</p>
<p>Sam Lee, so you’re saying that the perception of engineering is out of line with the reality of engineering at schools like Northwestern? If so, to what extent have they moved closer to what some of the Ivys apparently have emphasized in their engineering programs—applied sciences principles and design? Or, has Northwestern engineering evolved in that direction in concert with its rise in the ranks, shedding more “vocational” aspects along the way?</p>
<p>Never said that? Gimme a break. That’s exactly what has been both said and implied by both of you on this thread over and over again.</p>
<p>Try post #79 for example:
“You are correct in the above statement sakky. Harvard and Yale don’t have to offer top notch engineering programs. They don’t. Yet they still get credited for being “elite” institutions.”</p>
<p>Or post #45:
“Stanford, Berkeley, and Michigan to name a few, have NO weak departments. Why are some other elites given a pass at USNWR and on CC? If I’m going to Harvard or Yale for engineering, for example, I really am not going to an elite school for my intended area of study.”</p>
<p>Or post #47:
“Face it, some of these so called elites are living off their reputations and rely far too heavily on the quality of their student bodies. They indeed are given a pass by so many here on CC because of their names.”</p>
<p>Or post #58:
“So while your point is noted, I don’t think it counters the argument that either some of these top colleges should boost their engineering program to still be considered elite.”</p>
<p>The core courses for the majors are still there. But they have integrated some of the basic math, physics, and intro engineering courses into an “engineering analysis” series. So students don’t learn math or physics…etc in isolation. They are immersed into all of them simulltaneously in an integrated manner and they apply the knowledge to cases, which may or may not be “engineering” (one case study I saw was in economics). In addition, the freshmen take two quarters of design in which students work on projects given by their clients; that’s before they even declare their majors. [Information</a> for EDC Clients](<a href=“http://www.segal.northwestern.edu/clients/edc/]Information”>DESIGN INNOVATION - Segal Design Institute, Northwestern University)</p>
<p>Maybe I am wrong but as far as Yale’s curriculum goes, I don’t see any more emphasis on applied sciences principles and design. The difference between their B.A. and the ABET-accredited B.S. programs (they offer both) is the number of engineering core courses required. In B.A., the required courses are less so you have more room for liberal arts courses.</p>
<p>At Brown, the first year is all engineers together taking a physics sequence which is really about major team design projects while taking courses in the math, applied math, CS, and chemistry departments. You don’t declare a particular field until after sophomore year, along with other concentrations, and it’s all about building fundamental analysis skills just like Northwestern appears to be trying to do now.</p>
<p>So yes, zapfino, it seems to me they’re moving toward the Ivy model.</p>