<p>Whenever I hear Yale compared to another school, such as Harvard, I hear about Yale's superior "Undergraduate Focus." Could anyone elaborate on where this comes from - and whether it is grounded more in fact or myth?</p>
<p>For example, in comparing Yale to Harvard: [ul]
[<em>]They're both midsized research institutions,
[</em>]At both, professors teach all classes (officially)
[<em>]....though, at both, TAs/TFs lead sections often
[</em>]Both schools have "seminars" to reduce class sizes[/ul]</p>
<p>etc..
**
I'm trying to understand.. what makes Yale's "focus" so different?**</p>
<p>Yale has a much smaller graduate population when compared to Harvard. Therefore, people typically assume that you will get much more attention at Yale (that may be the case). Harvard is seen as the giant research institute where all the professors go and do research (and not care about the students), where Yale is seen as a place where the professors teach students as well and do research. Truthfully, I don't the difference is huge. Harvard,Yale,Princeton, wtvr.. they are all amazing institutions and if you wanted to get the attention you need, you could get it at any of these fine institutions. Its like comparing Lamborghini to Ferrari to Porsches... all up to personal preference.</p>
<p>Raven, I sent you a longer response by email (at least I think it worked...).</p>
<p>Two quick points:
Numbers make a big difference. Check out the wikipedia--Yale's got 5,350 undergrads and 6,000 graduate students. Harvard's got 6,650 undergads and 13,000 grads. Graduate students tend to be able to contribute much more readily to a professor's work (having thought more deeply about the topic), so the fact that every Harvard undergrad is competing with two grad students for professor attention is significant. The institutions also think of themselves very differently. Although both think of their missions as a combination of producing knowledge and producing people useful to society, Yale's anchors itself in the latter and Harvard the former.</p>
<p>I was wrestling with the same thing when choosing between Harvard and Yale.</p>
<p>When deciding between the two schools, I could never get past the fact that Harvard, according to many first hand and second hand accounts, is not a place where attention to undergraduates is prioritized. At Yale, undergraduates receive more attention from faculty members, classes are generally smaller and seminar classes are more available. That is a fact. Again, I know people at both schools. Yale will not give you the same level of undergraduate focus of a small liberal arts college, but Yale will give you more support and likelihood of interaction with faculty than Harvard and many other research institutions. I consider Yale to be the best of both worlds. Yales a great research institution, but it does not allow undergraduates to get lost in the shuffle. The fact that youre put in residential colleges from the first year makes a difference in that regard, too. That's part of the reason why the advising system at Yale is superior to Harvards as well; you're working with the same people all four years.</p>
<p>I liked a lot of things about Harvard, but I just couldn't get over the lack of faculty attention and the large class sizes. I also liked the greater sense of community and school spirit Yale seems to have. Overall, I think that Yales a better place to go to college than Harvard, while Harvard is better for grad school.</p>
<p>They're both great schools, but at this point, you need to pick based on what's more important to you. Go with your gut. It will feel so good when youre done with this!</p>
<p>Chicken's post reminds me of the oft-quoted saying that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Harvard's law school is three times larger than Yale's. Harvard's business school and med school are larger than Yale's. Impact on undergrads? None.</p>
<p>Harvard and Yale are both incredible places to attend as an undergrad. You can get plenty of faculty attention and interaction at either place. Yale's "superior undergraduate focus" is a marketing ploy that Yale made up to try to compete with the fact that Harvard has marginally more prestige and is in a better location. But the two schools are basically very similar - far more similarities than differences.</p>
<p>If you've spent some time at both and are really completely divided between the two, I'd suggest that you flip a coin. If visits haven't left you feeling more comfortable at one or the other, a coin flip is as good a way to decide as any. Really, you can't go wrong with either choice.</p>
<p>In fact, Harvard and Yale have a virtually <em>identical</em> ratio of graduate to undergraduate students served by the faculty of arts and sciences. Don't believe this? Check it out.</p>
<p>No one (I hope) pretends that FAS professors are off teaching students at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School or Harvard Business School - or at Yale Law School, Yale Medical School or the School of Business at Yale.</p>
<p>The <em>professional</em> schools all have separate faculties - which are not shared with undergrads.</p>
<p>Actually, at Yale members of the professional school faculties do teach undergrads. I can think of two off the top of my head--Akil Amar teaches the (very popular) undergraduate ConLaw class and Jules Coleman teaches an undergradate Philosphy of Law class. And a good friend of mine had a thesis advisor in the business school. So, I guess having much smaller professional schools (Yale Law, Medical, and Business Schools being, what, 1/3 the size of Harvard's?) does make a difference in how much time their faculties spend with undergrads.</p>
<p>Faculty members at the Yale School of Architecture teach undergrads - it creates a much stronger program.</p>
<p>Really, the idea of Yale's superior undergraduate focus isn't one that can be demonstrated with statistics. I think it's more a part of the oft-discussed "feel" of the institution - it's present in the attitudes of students and faculty and in the official position of the College. I do think Yale has more of an undergraduate focus (although I am admittedly biased), but I can't show statistics to "prove" it. I think, considered alongside Harvard and Princeton, Yale is the perfect balance - it isn't quite as "tiny" as Princeton or as much of a large-scale university as Harvard. Really, it's the best of both worlds, since having a healthy graduate population can be very beneficial at times.</p>
<p>cosar, I just noticed your post. Harvard has a reputation (which having attended Yale I can't comment on the accuracy of) for being balkanized, with the schools acting like little fiefdoms and not interacting. That's partly cause it's so big, but also just the institutional culture (trying to change it is one of the things Summers has gotten in trouble for). Yale's a lot smaller, and it's not like that. For example, I knew a bunch of people doing research for professors at the med school. And the professional school faculty tend to reach out more to give masters teas and lectures.</p>
<p>Actually, at Harvard members of the professional school faculties do teach undergrads also. (Yet another similarity.) Roberto Unger (law school) and Graham Allison (KSG) come to mind this year. And qualified undergrads can take courses at the professional schools.</p>
<p>I'll admit to my bias too - I went to Harvard for undergrad and Yale for grad school - but I really have to roll my eyes whenever I hear the "superior undergrad focus" claim for Yale. It's a myth, pure and simple.</p>
<p>Glad to see the Harvard undergrads at least get tossed some scraps... So everyone knows, Akhil Amar is one of if not the leading constitutional law scholar of his generation. Google him and you get over 15,000 hits. He's one of the marquee members of the Yale Law faculty, and yet they give his time to undergrads. Roberto Unger is a someone I've never heard of, and apparently I'm not alone (he gets 937 Google hits).</p>
<p>I would say that Yale's undergraduate focus is stronger than Harvard's and Columbia's...not so much Princeton or Dartmouth. Especially the latter two, which supremely win in this arena.</p>
<p>Chicken, more statistics? Google hits? Please.</p>
<p>Roberto Unger is one of the most brilliant theorists on the face of the planet. I like Akhil (I was one of his TA's when I was a grad student at Yale), but he is no Unger - and he'd be the first to acknowledge that.</p>
<p>Just to clarify my last post - Akhil was a student in the section for which I was a TA.</p>
<p>And out of curiosity, I did Yahoo searches on the two and Unger has twice as many hits. Not that I find that meaningful, but your google results made no sense.</p>
<p>cosar, since you taught at Yale College before Akhil Amar graduated in 1980, I think it's fair to say that even if your information was correct at the time that given the twenty-five intervening years it is now out-of-date. I graduated in 2003, my experience is a lot more relevant and I think there is an incredibly strong, self-conscious focus on undergraduates. </p>
<p>I admit that Google searches aren't the best evidence, but I do think they are telling and it's at least something objective and verifiable one can point to rather than the typical "I say it is/well I say it's not" that readers are getting on this thread.</p>
<p>So to sum up my view:
One telling anecdote is that Yale undergrads benefit from one of if not the leading constitutional law scholars of his generation (notwithstanding his performance in whatever class cosar TA'd two and a half decades ago) being at the law school.</p>
<p>Moreover, the anecdote is evidence of a broader pattern:
-massive professional school=self-contained, little interest in undergrads (at least according to Byerly and cosar)
-smaller professional school+institutional commitment to undergrads=students in the college benefit</p>
<p>Chicken, I was trying to be polite. You put your massive ignorance on display in referring to Roberto Unger as "scraps". I know them both. You don't. I'll leave you to your google arguments. </p>
<p>And vivaldi, we must have different Yahoo services because I'm still getting the same results I got before. But Pamela Anderson and Britney Spears far outpace them both. ;)</p>
<p>My point is that Akhil Amar's classes at the law school are going to be oversubscribed and yet his time is given to undergrads. Regardless of the quality of Unger's thinking and scholarship (I don't doubt that it's top notch), if he's less well-known, it's less of a sacrfice to give his time to undergrads and less of a benefit to them (Amar's conlaw class draws quite a crowd).</p>