How did Harvard become the most powerful US university brand in the world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the first or best-first US college, so it’s got historical roots and a long time to collect archives and wealth. Second, it’s near a big city that became a center for commerce and industrialization. Industrialization required science/education. Third, Harvard quickly pivoted from a religious focus to a secular institution and expanded its areas of study to support business, science, and industry. Fourth, in turn wealthy industrialists supported Harvard.

Some have mentioned the rise of Stanford. See any similarities between its location to Silicon Valley, its educational programs, and the source of its wealth.

A good contrast to Harvard is William and Mary. WM is also old and educated many historical figures. But, it was repeatedly decimated by war, both the AR and the Civil War. It was significantly supported by the crown and the Anglican Church, which made it difficult to pivot to a secular university. Finally, Williamsburg was once the capital of Virginia, but it was eventually moved to Richmond. So, WM was not at the center of commerce and new thought. Ironically, Jefferson created UVA as a pivot from WM to emulate the secular universities of the NE. The Rotunda, the focal point of the campus was a library, not a church.

Interesting and accurate take regarding William and Mary. UVA has had the elite draw for generations going back to Jefferson, something no other public college can claim.

UVA has a long history of racism and had to be forced to desegregate the school after
Brown v Board of Education. Even then it took well into the 1970s before they had more than a token few. Does UVA really want to brag about the “elite” draw it had back in the day?

Jefferson was progressive in some senses, but fundamentally he wanted the higher education of people like him (white, male, privileged) to be subsidized and he wanted to control it in Virginia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the first or best-first US college, so it’s got historical roots and a long time to collect archives and wealth. Second, it’s near a big city that became a center for commerce and industrialization. Industrialization required science/education. Third, Harvard quickly pivoted from a religious focus to a secular institution and expanded its areas of study to support business, science, and industry. Fourth, in turn wealthy industrialists supported Harvard.

Some have mentioned the rise of Stanford. See any similarities between its location to Silicon Valley, its educational programs, and the source of its wealth.

A good contrast to Harvard is William and Mary. WM is also old and educated many historical figures. But, it was repeatedly decimated by war, both the AR and the Civil War. It was significantly supported by the crown and the Anglican Church, which made it difficult to pivot to a secular university. Finally, Williamsburg was once the capital of Virginia, but it was eventually moved to Richmond. So, WM was not at the center of commerce and new thought. Ironically, Jefferson created UVA as a pivot from WM to emulate the secular universities of the NE. The Rotunda, the focal point of the campus was a library, not a church.

Interesting and accurate take regarding William and Mary. UVA has had the elite draw for generations going back to Jefferson, something no other public college can claim.

UVA has a long history of racism and had to be forced to desegregate the school after
Brown v Board of Education. Even then it took well into the 1970s before they had more than a token few. Does UVA really want to brag about the “elite” draw it had back in the day?

Jefferson was progressive in some senses, but fundamentally he wanted the higher education of people like him (white, male, privileged) to be subsidized and he wanted to control it in Virginia.

UVA was built in 1817. The entire country was only interested in educating people who were white, male and privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS is nearly three times the size as YLS.

But it still has more cumulative Rhodes Scholars. Some of that is due to the fact that Harvard University (from whence HLS pulls a lot of its students) has many more Rhodes than YAle. Harvard has 362. Yale has only 245, then Princeton at 210.

You mean Harvard College. You still don’t get it (international?). Harvard College drives everything.

As for Harvard College grads going to HLS (which is an easier admit than Harvard College, as are all grad programs), they are not the cream of the Harvard College crop — which does not need to get a law degree to have a lucrative career.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the first or best-first US college, so it’s got historical roots and a long time to collect archives and wealth. Second, it’s near a big city that became a center for commerce and industrialization. Industrialization required science/education. Third, Harvard quickly pivoted from a religious focus to a secular institution and expanded its areas of study to support business, science, and industry. Fourth, in turn wealthy industrialists supported Harvard.

Some have mentioned the rise of Stanford. See any similarities between its location to Silicon Valley, its educational programs, and the source of its wealth.

A good contrast to Harvard is William and Mary. WM is also old and educated many historical figures. But, it was repeatedly decimated by war, both the AR and the Civil War. It was significantly supported by the crown and the Anglican Church, which made it difficult to pivot to a secular university. Finally, Williamsburg was once the capital of Virginia, but it was eventually moved to Richmond. So, WM was not at the center of commerce and new thought. Ironically, Jefferson created UVA as a pivot from WM to emulate the secular universities of the NE. The Rotunda, the focal point of the campus was a library, not a church.

Interesting and accurate take regarding William and Mary. UVA has had the elite draw for generations going back to Jefferson, something no other public college can claim.

UVA has a long history of racism and had to be forced to desegregate the school after
Brown v Board of Education. Even then it took well into the 1970s before they had more than a token few. Does UVA really want to brag about the “elite” draw it had back in the day?

Jefferson was progressive in some senses, but fundamentally he wanted the higher education of people like him (white, male, privileged) to be subsidized and he wanted to control it in Virginia.

UVA was built in 1817. The entire country was only interested in educating people who were white, male and privileged.

It is the subsidize part that is key to the prior statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS is nearly three times the size as YLS.

But it still has more cumulative Rhodes Scholars. Some of that is due to the fact that Harvard University (from whence HLS pulls a lot of its students) has many more Rhodes than YAle. Harvard has 362. Yale has only 245, then Princeton at 210.

You mean Harvard College. You still don’t get it (international?). Harvard College drives everything.

As for Harvard College grads going to HLS (which is an easier admit than Harvard College, as are all grad programs), they are not the cream of the Harvard College crop — which does not need to get a law degree to have a lucrative career.

But a number of the top academic College students do go to the Law School, and this is where the Harvard College students who go to HLS come from (almost exclusively from the top 10-20% or so). From an intellectual point of view, unlike most of H's grad schools, the typical HLS student would be at the top of the College student body. I have worked with a lot of H students or known them in other capacities, and I don't think you can compare the applicant pools of the College and Law School, statistically or otherwise, as they have varying levels of academic and other qualities, varying numbers of total applications submitted (diluting or increasing the admission rates), etc.

Also, you didn't address this, but a number of the College students are completely disastrous (i.e., it isn't clear how or why they got in). I don't have a good explanation for this, so I will allow others to speculate, but I suspect this is due to the fact that as a general rule, it is much easier to select students at the age of 23-24 or so then when they are 17.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS is nearly three times the size as YLS.

But it still has more cumulative Rhodes Scholars. Some of that is due to the fact that Harvard University (from whence HLS pulls a lot of its students) has many more Rhodes than YAle. Harvard has 362. Yale has only 245, then Princeton at 210.

You mean Harvard College. You still don’t get it (international?). Harvard College drives everything.

As for Harvard College grads going to HLS (which is an easier admit than Harvard College, as are all grad programs), they are not the cream of the Harvard College crop — which does not need to get a law degree to have a lucrative career.

But a number of the top academic College students do go to the Law School, and this is where the Harvard College students who go to HLS come from (almost exclusively from the top 10-20% or so). From an intellectual point of view, unlike most of H's grad schools, the typical HLS student would be at the top of the College student body. I have worked with a lot of H students or known them in other capacities, and I don't think you can compare the applicant pools of the College and Law School, statistically or otherwise, as they have varying levels of academic and other qualities, varying numbers of total applications submitted (diluting or increasing the admission rates), etc.

Also, you didn't address this, but a number of the College students are completely disastrous (i.e., it isn't clear how or why they got in). I don't have a good explanation for this, so I will allow others to speculate, but I suspect this is due to the fact that as a general rule, it is much easier to select students at the age of 23-24 or so then when they are 17.

By the way, just to preempt what I'm sure some will suggest, these are not recruited athletes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s the first or best-first US college, so it’s got historical roots and a long time to collect archives and wealth. Second, it’s near a big city that became a center for commerce and industrialization. Industrialization required science/education. Third, Harvard quickly pivoted from a religious focus to a secular institution and expanded its areas of study to support business, science, and industry. Fourth, in turn wealthy industrialists supported Harvard.

Some have mentioned the rise of Stanford. See any similarities between its location to Silicon Valley, its educational programs, and the source of its wealth.

A good contrast to Harvard is William and Mary. WM is also old and educated many historical figures. But, it was repeatedly decimated by war, both the AR and the Civil War. It was significantly supported by the crown and the Anglican Church, which made it difficult to pivot to a secular university. Finally, Williamsburg was once the capital of Virginia, but it was eventually moved to Richmond. So, WM was not at the center of commerce and new thought. Ironically, Jefferson created UVA as a pivot from WM to emulate the secular universities of the NE. The Rotunda, the focal point of the campus was a library, not a church.

Interesting and accurate take regarding William and Mary. UVA has had the elite draw for generations going back to Jefferson, something no other public college can claim.

UVA has a long history of racism and had to be forced to desegregate the school after
Brown v Board of Education. Even then it took well into the 1970s before they had more than a token few. Does UVA really want to brag about the “elite” draw it had back in the day?

Jefferson was progressive in some senses, but fundamentally he wanted the higher education of people like him (white, male, privileged) to be subsidized and he wanted to control it in Virginia.

UVA was built in 1817. The entire country was only interested in educating people who were white, male and privileged.

The difference was UVA trying to hold on to their all White student body at any cost. It’s still a school mainly for the locals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS is nearly three times the size as YLS.

But it still has more cumulative Rhodes Scholars. Some of that is due to the fact that Harvard University (from whence HLS pulls a lot of its students) has many more Rhodes than YAle. Harvard has 362. Yale has only 245, then Princeton at 210.

You mean Harvard College. You still don’t get it (international?). Harvard College drives everything.

As for Harvard College grads going to HLS (which is an easier admit than Harvard College, as are all grad programs), they are not the cream of the Harvard College crop — which does not need to get a law degree to have a lucrative career.

But a number of the top academic College students do go to the Law School, and this is where the Harvard College students who go to HLS come from (almost exclusively from the top 10-20% or so). From an intellectual point of view, unlike most of H's grad schools, the typical HLS student would be at the top of the College student body. I have worked with a lot of H students or known them in other capacities, and I don't think you can compare the applicant pools of the College and Law School, statistically or otherwise, as they have varying levels of academic and other qualities, varying numbers of total applications submitted (diluting or increasing the admission rates), etc.

Also, you didn't address this, but a number of the College students are completely disastrous (i.e., it isn't clear how or why they got in). I don't have a good explanation for this, so I will allow others to speculate, but I suspect this is due to the fact that as a general rule, it is much easier to select students at the age of 23-24 or so then when they are 17.

Simply not true. You are apparently unfamiliar with Harvard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS is nearly three times the size as YLS.

But it still has more cumulative Rhodes Scholars. Some of that is due to the fact that Harvard University (from whence HLS pulls a lot of its students) has many more Rhodes than YAle. Harvard has 362. Yale has only 245, then Princeton at 210.

You mean Harvard College. You still don’t get it (international?). Harvard College drives everything.

As for Harvard College grads going to HLS (which is an easier admit than Harvard College, as are all grad programs), they are not the cream of the Harvard College crop — which does not need to get a law degree to have a lucrative career.

But a number of the top academic College students do go to the Law School, and this is where the Harvard College students who go to HLS come from (almost exclusively from the top 10-20% or so). From an intellectual point of view, unlike most of H's grad schools, the typical HLS student would be at the top of the College student body. I have worked with a lot of H students or known them in other capacities, and I don't think you can compare the applicant pools of the College and Law School, statistically or otherwise, as they have varying levels of academic and other qualities, varying numbers of total applications submitted (diluting or increasing the admission rates), etc.

Also, you didn't address this, but a number of the College students are completely disastrous (i.e., it isn't clear how or why they got in). I don't have a good explanation for this, so I will allow others to speculate, but I suspect this is due to the fact that as a general rule, it is much easier to select students at the age of 23-24 or so then when they are 17.

Simply not true. You are apparently unfamiliar with Harvard.

This is not really a controversial point. Prior to 2020, when grade inflation truly took off, the Harvard College students who were getting into HLS had GPAs that put them at the high end of the student body as a whole. This particularly true for students who were not URM or connected in some significant way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS is nearly three times the size as YLS.

But it still has more cumulative Rhodes Scholars. Some of that is due to the fact that Harvard University (from whence HLS pulls a lot of its students) has many more Rhodes than YAle. Harvard has 362. Yale has only 245, then Princeton at 210.

You mean Harvard College. You still don’t get it (international?). Harvard College drives everything.

As for Harvard College grads going to HLS (which is an easier admit than Harvard College, as are all grad programs), they are not the cream of the Harvard College crop — which does not need to get a law degree to have a lucrative career.

Oh, the horror of being smart and wanting to go into law. I didn't know intelligence or competence determined one's academic interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The oldest by far, with a solid 350 years of history before all the later-20th c. changes in higher education that diversified the landscape of prestige. In a colony-then-state with a commitment from the beginning to education and the urban/professional culture to support and value university education (vs. Virginia, for example). All that time to be the best-known producer of national leaders in the economy of prestige up through the 20th century.

??? - I believe William and Mary is the second oldest college here - founded in 1635.

Correction - 1693!

I heard one WM Grad say WM is older than Harvard. It's what you count as "founded"? A hut with a dude preaching? or a brick building? or an official founding?

The original plans were spoken of in 1618 - about 11 years after Jamestown founding.

W&M could make an argument to be the oldest university but didn't and now too late. The original presidents could've made it official but didn't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are we debating law schools?
Yale is perceived as the #1 law school.
Whether it deserves that status or not is questionable

To be fair, why does Yale always perform the same or worse than Harvard in peer surveys if it is axiomatic that it is perceived that way?

Yale is second tier along with Stanford.

Harvard's peers and others may rate Harvard's law school the same or higher as Yale and others for all the reasons they may do so, and in fact Yale in particular has seen their peer reputation among academics slip quite a bit for a few years, but that is NOT why US News has ranked them #1. They are ranked #1, and they will always be ranked #1 because of their expenditure per student. Barring some pretty major changes in US News' formula, which is admittedly possible given that it's entirely arbitrary, and given that Harvard's endowment is subject to the same market forces as everyone else's endowment and is not likely to start over-performing, this just can't change. It doesn't really matter how amazing their faculty and its scholarship is, or the library, or the academic prowess of the students, or the gym, cafeteria, or whatever else people start fixating on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS is nearly three times the size as YLS.

But it still has more cumulative Rhodes Scholars. Some of that is due to the fact that Harvard University (from whence HLS pulls a lot of its students) has many more Rhodes than YAle. Harvard has 362. Yale has only 245, then Princeton at 210.

You mean Harvard College. You still don’t get it (international?). Harvard College drives everything.

As for Harvard College grads going to HLS (which is an easier admit than Harvard College, as are all grad programs), they are not the cream of the Harvard College crop — which does not need to get a law degree to have a lucrative career.

Oh, the horror of being smart and wanting to go into law. I didn't know intelligence or competence determined one's academic interests.

I'm pretty sure that intelligent people are more likely to be interested in law (or other academic pursuits) than less intelligent people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For its first 200 years, Harvard was the place where East Coast wealth sent its young men. They weren't there to learn anything practical. That would be for people in the trades. The US was a much more stratified society back then. And Harvard functioned as a kind of finishing school for the male offspring of the elite. And over time, its impact on society compounded with more and more generations of Harvard men becoming presidents, senators, heirs to fortunes, etc. And that has a momentum all on its own. A Harvard degree for a man was essentially their calling card for entry into the elite.

Obviously times are different. But the fascination with Harvard is an echo of that time. It's antiquated, but it persists.

That isn't true. Students tended to not travel very far because travel was to difficult.

And Princeton was created that way to be the mid-point between: Harvard and W&M. Original location was: Philadelphia before a land grant at its current location Princeton.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:HLS is nearly three times the size as YLS.

But it still has more cumulative Rhodes Scholars. Some of that is due to the fact that Harvard University (from whence HLS pulls a lot of its students) has many more Rhodes than YAle. Harvard has 362. Yale has only 245, then Princeton at 210.

You mean Harvard College. You still don’t get it (international?). Harvard College drives everything.

As for Harvard College grads going to HLS (which is an easier admit than Harvard College, as are all grad programs), they are not the cream of the Harvard College crop — which does not need to get a law degree to have a lucrative career.

But a number of the top academic College students do go to the Law School, and this is where the Harvard College students who go to HLS come from (almost exclusively from the top 10-20% or so). From an intellectual point of view, unlike most of H's grad schools, the typical HLS student would be at the top of the College student body. I have worked with a lot of H students or known them in other capacities, and I don't think you can compare the applicant pools of the College and Law School, statistically or otherwise, as they have varying levels of academic and other qualities, varying numbers of total applications submitted (diluting or increasing the admission rates), etc.

Also, you didn't address this, but a number of the College students are completely disastrous (i.e., it isn't clear how or why they got in). I don't have a good explanation for this, so I will allow others to speculate, but I suspect this is due to the fact that as a general rule, it is much easier to select students at the age of 23-24 or so then when they are 17.

Simply not true. You are apparently unfamiliar with Harvard.

This is not really a controversial point. Prior to 2020, when grade inflation truly took off, the Harvard College students who were getting into HLS had GPAs that put them at the high end of the student body as a whole. This particularly true for students who were not URM or connected in some significant way.

Cite? To the extent this was true, you would have to compare “soft major” GPAs to other majors. Suffice to say, GPA at Harvard is not the proxy you think it is.