<p>I removed myself from the Cornell waitlist today, but I couldn't help but wonder. Everyone I've asked has said that Cornell's prestige beats Duke's by a mile (obviously not in terms of basketball). Why is this so? I'd hate to cite US News, but they seem to brainwash the prospective high school students these days and even though Duke is 5 ranks higher and has a lower acceptance rate, it is still beaten in prestige "by a mile"!?!?</p>
<p>Just to be clear, I didn't mean to target Cornell, but it was the closest example I could think of and also impacted me. Sorry if I've come off as arrogant, rude, prestige-whorish, etc. To be honest, prestige was quite a big factor for me during the app process, but now it doesn't matter so much. It just bothers me a little that Duke is seen as a generic school.</p>
<p>It’s a question of history, for the most part. The university didn’t exist in its present form until the 1930s, and for quite a long time after that — until the 70s and even into the 1980s, really — it was seen as a (socially and intellectually) fairly conservative regional private school, with the added disadvantage that its region was the South. It only began to assert itself as a really serious research university beginning in the 1970s (the Business School is founded in 1968; Pratt changes gears around then, too; the Med School really gets going as a research unit soon after that; the Humanities build up like crazy in the 1980s, etc). The latest round of really serious capital and personnel expansion took place quite recently. Duke today is in many ways a very different institution from what it was in the 1960s. That period probably seems like ancient history to you, but academic reputations have a lot of lag or inertia associated with them. It takes a long time for a school to build up (or lose) its reputation.</p>
<p>1) Location - Cornell is in the Northeast. Due to a prejudice that never fails to irritate me, many people assume that southern schools are simply not as good.</p>
<p>2) Athletics - Duke excels in a number of sports. Since schools like Harvard and Chicago have weak athletics, many people assume the reverse to be true; schools like Duke with strong sports teams cannot be strong academically.</p>
<p>3) Ivy League - Cornell is in it; Duke is not. This matters to some people.</p>
<p>The fourth reason, Duke’s relatively new elite status, was covered by padastra.</p>
<p>It has a lot to due with Duke’s youth. But to be honest, I like how Duke is younger - it tries things other schools who are too old are too scared to try.</p>
<p>I would concur with what’s been said, but I would also say that Duke has definitely at least where I am surpassed those prejudices. Most don’t really care about Cornell unless you’re old and stuffy… they may even look at you with a tilt of the head. No, it doesn’t have Stanford appeal, but Duke has made quite a name for itself and is essentially considered an “Ivy” for people who don’t know what Ivies really are.</p>
<p>Aside from basketball, the sports that Duke is good at (mainly lacrosse) are followed heavily at Ivy League schools as well (ie Princeton). I don’t think this is really a factor. </p>
<p>Most people that I talk to (from the South, granted) consider Duke to be more prestigious than Cornell. I guess it really depends what region you are coming from. People always tend to hype up their “local” schools.</p>
<p>padastra’s spot on. I also agree with Cuse0507 about the regional thing–I grew up in NC and I’ve always considered Duke to be more prestigious than Cornell.</p>
<p>So what percentage of Duke’s freshman class each year is comprised of basketball players? Probably not a whole lot. And doesn’t Duke require that its athletes in lesser-known sports (lacrosse, soccer, water polo) have excellent resumes as well? Or do those sports have lower admissions requirements for athletes as well?</p>
<p>Duke’s basketball program, in my opinion, greatly contributes to the prestige of the school. Look at Duke’s quasi-clone in Atlanta: Emory. Great school, but more people know about Duke because of its basketball team. Thus, when smart kids (particularly from outside the SE) look at schools to apply to, Duke may immediately come to mind while Emory may not.</p>
<p>I guess it might be true that, because it’s an Ivy, Dartmouth has a lot of prestige. But I wouldn’t say it’s more prestigious “in terms of academics” — Dartmouth is not a research university. It’s departments typically do not have graduate programs, and thus will not attract the best active-research faculty. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a great school to study at and I know a lot of really smart people who teach there. But it’s more like an Ivy Swarthmore or Carleton.</p>
<p>Because people don’t know anything. High school students have know idea what a college’s prestige level is. On wall street and in med schools, law schools, and grad schools Duke far overshadows Cornell. Duke has better research, more distinguished faculty, and better facilities. </p>
<p>Maybe the lay person doesn’t know Duke’s academic reputation. But the academic and corporate worlds certainly do. Personally, I don’t care if the average person recognizes my institution as more than a basketball school. I’m much happier knowing that the people who will effect my career path moving forward are aware of my institution.</p>
<p>It’s probably worth noting the NRC rankings are based on data collected the year that the members of next year’s Freshman class were born. See above re: inertia/lag in reputation. </p>
<p>Cornell is obviously a very good school, and I wouldn’t say Duke “far overshadows” it. But it’s true that Duke is really a very different university these days from the one it used to be, and that is going to be more accurately reflected in the reputational assessments made by people in particular groups (professions, academic departments, etc) with a strong interest in the current quality of university units, rather than the school’s long-run reputation amongst the general public.</p>
<p>Monydad, are you seriously going to cite a survey from 1993 as evidence? Duke is nothing like it was in 1993. I was 5 years old in 1993 and I will be graduating next month. Duke’s engineering school alone has doubled in size the last 5 years. I can’t imagine what changes have occurred since 1993. </p>
<p>As for the peer assessment score, why not cite the overall rankings where Duke beats Cornell by 5 points? </p>
<p>In reading your other posts, you obviously have some connection to Cornell. I think that is great that you love your school. But I think you would be hard pressed for anyone to say “Cornell’s prestige beats Duke by a mile.”</p>
<p>“…more distinguished faculty…” “better research”
I have cited the only data I know about that people use to assess these particular items.</p>
<p>If you have better data, regarding these particular assertions of yours and nothing else, please cite it.</p>
<p>It was you that made the assertions, now back them up with data, surveys, peer assessments, etc. Because I’ve posted the only ones I know about and they do not back you up.</p>
<p>On these exact points, not anything not on these exact points.</p>
<p>You made the assertions, prove them.</p>
<p>Show your source peer assessments. show your surveys. Show your faculty rankings, across all disciplines.</p>
<p>I’m going to agree with monydad on this one. I love Duke as much as the next person, but saying it has “more distinguished faculty” or “better research” than Cornell is just downright silly. The two are peers, and it can be left at that.</p>
<p>You’re greatly oversimplifying academic growth at Duke. While it’s true that subjects like engineering and environmental science have grown by leaps and bounds, it’s also true that departments like classics and English completely imploded in the late 90s/early 2000s (the latter when Stanley Fish left) and have had to be rebuilt slowly.</p>
<p>I figured we should use a productivity index scale (per capita) since Cornell is twice the size of Duke. Here are the FSPI rankings of 2007</p>
<p>The highest-ranking large research universities, according to the FSP Index, are:</p>
<p>1) Harvard University
2) California Institute of Technology
2) University of California - San Francisco
3) Massachusetts Institute of Technology
4) Yale University
5) Carnegie Mellon University
6) Washington University St. Louis
7) Vanderbilt University
8) Johns Hopkins University
9) Duke University
10) University of Pennsylvania</p>
<p>I think Cornell is a peer institution, but I think we can all agree that Cornell does not blow Duke out of the water. I think it will be very interesting when the 1993 rankings are finally updated. I have a feeling they will reflect the common trend above. </p>
<p>btw, I have no images of greatness for Duke. I have serious problems with their choice of financial spending and their lack of initiatives for improving financial aid, financial diversity, and overhauling Duke Engage (which I think is a very big waste of money as of now).</p>
<p>If this was directed at me, just take a look at what I actually wrote. I didn’t claim that Duke’s growth since the late 60s has been unproblematic, and nowhere did I say that there haven’t been any hiccups, crashes, or reversals. What I argued was that (1) Duke has changed a great deal since the 70s, and that change has been strongly in the direction of it becoming a leading national research university, and away from its prior role as a good if somewhat staid Southern private school; (2) That change has taken time to be reflected in some assessments of its reputation, because reputation in academia is quite sticky; and (3) In general the further away a constituency is from the site of the changes, the longer it takes reputation to move in response to change — so there are groups out there who have a somewhat outdated impression of Duke. None of this is to say that the university hasn’t had its problems or wrong turns, as OSUforME also remarked on. </p>
<p>As for Cornell, as I said above, it’s a great school.</p>