<p>Byerly's points are responded to, and then he reverts back to a previous point not even mentioned in his last post and says "you missed the point". He has a non-linear, wandering mind that is difficult for the logical to follow.</p>
<p>Good show.</p>
<p>You are confused, newbie.</p>
<p>byerly, I thought you said you never put down yale. I guess you were wrong. and if you think yale's architecture is oppressive, well, I guess you haven't been to harvard in a while.</p>
<p><<Lets see if I understand this, ctnjpamom... </p>
<hr>
<p>So you see going to Yale as the functional equivalent of hitting yourself over the head with a hammer?>></p>
<p>No. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I see the sharing of repeated regurgitations of arguably meaningless statistics when the application process is complete except for the waiting as the functional equivalent of hitting oneself over the head with a hammer. </p>
<p>Maybe this says it better - I think these statistics are like a hope-eating cancer that should be avoided. </p>
<p>Yet here I am.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You are confused, newbie.
[/quote]
A well-reasoned reply! Thank you for sharing your vast intellect with the world.</p>
<p>Is this really your 8th post, or are you an old regular posting under a new alias?</p>
<p>I originally posted on CC long before they switched to this new format.</p>
<p>.. but I simply find pseudo-gothic pretentious, gray and gloomy - whether we are talking about Yale, Duke or the Michigan Law School.</p>
<p>Maybe its what you're familiar with, but I find Harvard's neo-Georgian red brick more pleasing to the eye. (No insult to your alma mater as an educational institution intended!)</p>
<p>On the other hand, some of the ecclectic "architect designed" and allegedly "prize-winning stuff at Harvard does little for me - in particular, that ugly monstrosity that recently rose on the Boston side of the river.</p>
<p>To each his own... but Harvard's architecture is pseudo-Georgian and Yale's is neo-Gothic. You got the prefixes mixed up.</p>
<p>In my humble opinion, you are pseudo-correct that Yale does "look" more prestigious (and perhaps more pretentious) than Harvard. Duke and Michigan Law School are probably so hard to get into in part because of the Yale-inspired architecture. Other Georgian architecture schools such as the University of Alabama haven't gotten very far with the Harvard-inspired buildings.</p>
<p>Ahh so. You are an old bulldog in new sheep's clothing! That helps me to understand (and partially excuse) your crusty, hard-bitten and ever-so-slightly hostile demeanor!</p>
<p>And you need to know that some of Harvard's Georgian is not "neo" at all, but the real stuff!</p>
<p>When I call Yale's ersatz structures "pseudo", I have in mind particularly the cheesy practice of painting the rocks with acid to make them look "old."</p>
<p>I am feeling a bit like a crustacean this afternoon.... now ZOIDBERG is the popular one! Thank you for your kind remarks... and in my book, there's nothing wrong with bathing in acid. </p>
<p>Duke does look fantastic though with the squeeky clean, non-acidic, neo-Gothic stylings.</p>
<p>And you left Princeton off the neo-Gothic list (founded by a Yale graduate, so it makes sense).</p>
<p>Interestingly, Yale and Duke have more in common than pseudo-gothic rockpiles and a coaching staff with similar roots. (Duke just hired Yale's defensive coordinator as president, when the guy finally decided the head man wasn't going to retire gracefully.) There is also the matter of New Haven and Durham - sisters under the skin, indeed.</p>
<p>And I wouldn't try to get snooty with this "founded by" stuff: 13 of the 14 founders of Yale were Harvard graduates, even if the namesake was a shady, undereducated robber-baron.</p>
<p>Broadhead wasn't close to being heir to the throne at Yale, but his experiences running Duke may make him a better candidate when the time comes.</p>
<p>Excuse me for angering you, but Princeton was founded and funded by a Yale man. Yale was funded by well, Mr. Yale. Depends on who you want to consider a founder, but there were Harvard people present at Yale's founding and Princeton was established by a Yale graduate (no Harvard grads in sight by that time, must have had better things to do).</p>
<p>Byerly:</p>
<p>"On the other hand, some of the ecclectic "architect designed" and allegedly "prize-winning stuff at Harvard does little for me - in particular, that ugly monstrosity that recently rose on the Boston side of the river."</p>
<p>I really hope you aren't bashing the work of the greatest living architect, Robert A.M. Stern, who is the Dean of the greatest architecture school, the YALE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE. Stern's work, though you may call it "ecclectic" [sic], is contextual, and therefore, fitting. I suppose you enjoy the pathetic Corbusier pile known as the Carpenter Center and the banal Gropius-designed Graduate Center...(two horrible architects who did very little for architecture other than showing future architects what not to do)</p>
<p>Yale's architecture can hardly be characterized as "oppressive" or "pseudo;" clearly, you didn't study architecture in college. Neo-Gothic - in particular Collegiate Gothic - is a much more welcoming stylistic gesture to the student body. Georgian Revival, on the other hand, seems stiff and Puritan (I wonder why...). Now, I enjoy both styles, but in a collegiate context, Neo-Gothic (which recalls the traditions set forth in Cambridge and Oxford) is much more appropriate. In my opinion, it stimulates the mind more and is much more suited to study and contemplation. And though you may consider the washing of Harkness Tower with acid to create the illusion of age "cheesy," you are forgetting that tradition is perhaps THE key to successful architecture.</p>
<p>I will admit, however, that Widener Memorial Library is gorgeous (although it doesn't hold a stylistic candle to Sterling Memorial Library) - Horace Trumbauer, who designed the building (he also planned much of Duke's Neo-Gothic campus), was an amazing architect. I'm not vehemently opposed to Harvard's architecture; both Georgian Revival and Neo-Gothic are appropriate, but I think Neo-Gothic strikes a better balance between being closed in and opened up.</p>
<p>There is no accounting for tastes, I guess. I happen to prefer red brick, while you get turned on by acid-washed rocks.</p>
<p>(Incidentally, I had no idea we could blame that ugly, stalinist monstosity across the river on... YALE! Thanks for tipping me off!)</p>
<p>By the way, have you seen this?</p>
<p>Or THIS list?</p>
<p>Red brick = boring
harvard undergrads = ignored
byerly = useless</p>
<p>Well, how about this?</p>
<p>(This is the site I've been looking at for a while...2003's method was much more clearly spelled out than 2005's.)</p>
<p>Or this?</p>
<p>(The new article about the new dean of the Harvard GSD, who isn't (and has never been) a practicing architect. And who has no architecture degrees to his name.)</p>
<p>The Harvard Graduate School of Design, headed by Walter Gropius in the 1940s, was the dominant force in creating some of the most disgustingly banal architecture (i.e., the Bauhaus comes to America) the world has ever seen. Of the few good architects Harvard has produced, Philip Johnson (who came to value tradition) and I.M. Pei (who took a while to become decent, in my opinion) come to mind, and their success can be attributed only to the fact that they turned 180 degrees stylistically from the direction Harvard pointed them in. The only other notable architect that comes to my mind is Michael Graves, whose work borders on cartoonish yet is still better than the work his Harvard education trained him for (see some of his immediately post-Harvard houses - they're hideous). On the other hand, the Yale School of Architecture has produced such architects as Eero Saarinen, Charles Gwathmey, David Schwarz, Sir Norman Foster, David Childs, Allan Greenberg, Maya Lin, and Robert A. M. Stern, just to mention a few. Yale's impact on the modern architectural scene simply outstrips Harvard's. (All this, without mentioning that Yale gets the lion's share of the best professors and guest fellows...)</p>
<p>Do you all realize how concited you sound!???...You are fighting over the architecture at Yale and Harvard. It sounds like you used every impressive word that you could to sound smart- gain some security and confidence in yourselves. </p>
<p>For example: </p>
<p>"I am feeling a bit like a crustacean this afternoon.... " (Yale.edu)</p>
<p>"That helps me to understand (and partially excuse) your crusty, hard-bitten and ever-so-slightly hostile demeanor!</p>
<p>And you need to know that some of Harvard's Georgian is not "neo" at all, but the real stuff!</p>
<p>When I call Yale's ersatz structures "pseudo", I have in mind particularly the cheesy practice of painting the rocks with acid to make them look "old."" (Byerly)</p>
<p>Sorry to be harsh, but if this is the level that conversations will be carried out at Yale, then I am glad that I was deferred.</p>
<p>Thankfully, Byerly won't be anywhere near New Haven. All of us - that is, the Neo-Gothic lovers - can argue with him online next year while we're surrounded by true splendor. :)</p>
<p>Alschuler is to Harvard as Schilling is to the Red Sox: ace of the staff.</p>
<p>(And not to spook you, vivaldi87, but I am in New Haven quite frequently!)</p>