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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No cite -- I personally am an academic who has seen how this works and am particularly knowledgeable about H. If you are affiliated with HC, as you say, you have access to all this information from one of your tutors.

Then you know your undifferentiated by major gpa argument is gobbledygook.

I don't think I made any such argument, and I'm not sure you know what you are saying. Of course majors (and everything else is considered.) But I don't think you have thought through grading patterns by major at H (which do not vary as much as you think). Actually I have no idea whether you are clear about what you think. Talk to your pre-law tutor soon. They can help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Having to attend law school is rather mediocre. Like becoming a tax accountant or dentist.

What in the world are you saying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having to attend law school is rather mediocre. Like becoming a tax accountant or dentist.

This is true. There are two types of students at these elite schools: those preparing for graduate school, and those who don’t need to. It should be obvious which is the higher caliber student.

As for law school, it is a delicious irony that social science and humanities majors, who are universally looked down upon as inferior students, are now looked at as the “crème de law crème” of Harvard College students. These are the overwhelming majority of HLS students…

Not to mention the fact that if your goal is law school, and you have the test scores already, you don’t even need to go to an elite college to get into a (by definition, less elite) law school…

I'm constantly hearing about "needing" to attend grad school. Have any of you ever fathomed that it's simply possible to WANT to go to graduate school? To WANT to become an academic researcher, or a doctor, or a lawyer? I would consider a microbiology researcher who discovers the cure to a disease or a civil rights lawyer at the ACLU to be far more successful than the 10,000th investment banker that these schools pumped out, not only because the former two are significantly harder to achieve than the latter but because they also reflect a much higher level of sheer dedication. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wanting to be an investment banker—I'm currently recruiting for IB myself, and my parents' work in the field is the only reason why I'm not drowning in student loans—but maxxing out earnings isn't the only possible goal a college student can have.

Nice all caps! You kids can do what you want. But to say that the portion of you that “chooses” to go to law school is better than the portion that does not — or even, ahem, that law school drives Harvard’s prestige — is downright silly talk. Two suggestions: look in the mirror, and learn how to write.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No cite -- I personally am an academic who has seen how this works and am particularly knowledgeable about H. If you are affiliated with HC, as you say, you have access to all this information from one of your tutors.

Then you know your undifferentiated by major gpa argument is gobbledygook.

I don't think I made any such argument, and I'm not sure you know what you are saying. Of course majors (and everything else is considered.) But I don't think you have thought through grading patterns by major at H (which do not vary as much as you think). Actually I have no idea whether you are clear about what you think. Talk to your pre-law tutor soon. They can help.

Academics, particularly un-tenured ones, should not be so patronizing of “students.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a question particularly for those knowledgeable about university history. Of the T10 US universities, which are all exceptional, Harvard particularly stands out as a brand--one that surprisingly blows away every other university. This is true even compared to other old universities (like Yale) and especially true from the the vantage point of those outside the US. But in a way, this is surprising because it was not historically inevitable; other universities could have overtaken Harvard, but never did and the brand just seems to be getting stronger. Wealth is not a complete explanation, since there are other wealthy universities (perhaps even wealthier on a per capita basis). It can't be because of extraordinary management, as Harvard is often regarded as somewhat poorly managed and steeped in inertia. So I'm curious what particular historical events transpired to bring Harvard forth as the brand synonymous with university excellence.

Harvard is at best equal to Stanford as I write. Given Stanford’s trajectory, in another 10 years comparing Stanford to Harvard will be much like current comparisons between Harvard and Yale.

I don’t see it happening in 10 years. Stanford may have more tech bros but it doesn’t produce influential people in government, law, finance, or medicine as Harvard does. If you want to be the president of the United States or a Supreme Court justice, Harvard is a better bet. It attracts much broader and diverse walks of life.

Stanford has put a lot of work into this. Stanford law has risen substantially as the second best law school, it has some of the best humanities programs in the country, its gotten its name all around the Olympics right now and is insane at athletic pipelines, graduates the second highest number of members of Congress, and pretty much every month gets a tech/finance alum in the news for some startup/VC/etc.

Many for being accused, charged or convicted for fraud.

[Anonymous]

Of fraud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having to attend law school is rather mediocre. Like becoming a tax accountant or dentist.

This is true. There are two types of students at these elite schools: those preparing for graduate school, and those who don’t need to. It should be obvious which is the higher caliber student.

As for law school, it is a delicious irony that social science and humanities majors, who are universally looked down upon as inferior students, are now looked at as the “crème de law crème” of Harvard College students. These are the overwhelming majority of HLS students…

Not to mention the fact that if your goal is law school, and you have the test scores already, you don’t even need to go to an elite college to get into a (by definition, less elite) law school…

I'm constantly hearing about "needing" to attend grad school. Have any of you ever fathomed that it's simply possible to WANT to go to graduate school? To WANT to become an academic researcher, or a doctor, or a lawyer? I would consider a microbiology researcher who discovers the cure to a disease or a civil rights lawyer at the ACLU to be far more successful than the 10,000th investment banker that these schools pumped out, not only because the former two are significantly harder to achieve than the latter but because they also reflect a much higher level of sheer dedication. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wanting to be an investment banker—I'm currently recruiting for IB myself, and my parents' work in the field is the only reason why I'm not drowning in student loans—but maxxing out earnings isn't the only possible goal a college student can have.

Nice all caps! You kids can do what you want. But to say that the portion of you that “chooses” to go to law school is better than the portion that does not — or even, ahem, that law school drives Harvard’s prestige — is downright silly talk. Two suggestions: look in the mirror, and learn how to write.

I was not aware that using all caps for emphasis was inappropriate for an online forum, but I will respect your preferences and exclusively write in a more formal register. Is that good enough, or do my opinions still not matter because I disagree with you?

Anyways, you are completely misrepresenting the intent of my post. Multiple comments in this thread have suggested that students who attend law school—or any graduate school in general—choose to do so because they "have to" in order to have a successful career. Said comments additionally imply that these students "have to" attend graduate school due to their lesser competence. See this comment:

There are two types of students at these elite schools: those preparing for graduate school, and those who don’t need to. It should be obvious which is the higher caliber student.

My comment merely suggested that some students have legitimate personal interests that make them more likely to attend graduate school, such as wanting to become a doctor or academic. I furthermore noted that certain outcomes which require graduate school certainly can be considered just as successful as the "best" non-graduate school outcomes (e.g. private equity, big tech), including developing the cure to a disease or being a civil rights lawyer for the ACLU, both of which have the ability to be fairly lucrative and personally satisfying.

I never once implied that students who attend graduate school are better than those who do not — it would be some sick irony given my own path in life — nor did I say that law schools drive a university's prestige. Feel free to reread my earlier post and find evidence of my saying so; I know, however, that it is a strawman.