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

[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.

lol

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s got a name that is easy to say, is nice & balanced, & sounds classy. If it had been named after Harry Weinblatt, Dick Weenie, or Rolpf Zerczievovicz it would be just another old school.

And it’s in Boston. Love it or hate it, Boston’s beautiful, easily accessible from Europe and has Old New England Money.

[Anonymous]

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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

And now things are beginning to change. Southern colleges have gotten substantially more popular over time, bu outside of Duke, Vandy, and Rice, the region lacks strong private colleges and historically relies on public institutions for practical education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

lol

Doesn't change it from being the second most well known university in America.

[Anonymous]

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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

I've always been curious how Duke did so well given that it is so young. It opened in just the 1930s and by the 1960s in magazines they were calling it the "Yale of the South." The first year of the USNews rankings in the 1980s it was already an absolutely top university. This is amazing given that the location, at least in that time period didn't have much going for it. And the area would have been relatively poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s got a name that is easy to say, is nice & balanced, & sounds classy. If it had been named after Harry Weinblatt, Dick Weenie, or Rolpf Zerczievovicz it would be just another old school.

Yeah, well, not a lot of names like that around in the 1600s.

[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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

I've always been curious how Duke did so well given that it is so young. It opened in just the 1930s and by the 1960s in magazines they were calling it the "Yale of the South." The first year of the USNews rankings in the 1980s it was already an absolutely top university. This is amazing given that the location, at least in that time period didn't have much going for it. And the area would have been relatively poor.

It's pretty much the same history as other non-NE top colleges. The college actually started in the early 19th century, but the Duke family invested a massive amount to the college that equaled top colleges at the time. The school then paid for top faculty and then created a sports empire. Basically the same story as Stanford, just Dukes got the money from Tobacco and Stanford from the Gold Rush.

[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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

I've always been curious how Duke did so well given that it is so young. It opened in just the 1930s and by the 1960s in magazines they were calling it the "Yale of the South." The first year of the USNews rankings in the 1980s it was already an absolutely top university. This is amazing given that the location, at least in that time period didn't have much going for it. And the area would have been relatively poor.

What's more, by the 1980s the old money new england types and the NYC financier types had already begun sending their children to Duke in droves. I think it has something to do with the fact that the Duke family was really an old money European/NY family that happened to have some business connection to the South.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard is falling and is no longer and if they don't change course I think people will be impressed at all with the name in 10 years. They used to have truly exceptional and unique students and a nice handful of super wealthy alum to be the happy bottom of the class (not always the case, but sometimes). When I think of the grads I have known over the years they have been truly impressive people who contribute to the world in a positive way.

Not impressed at all with Harvard anymore. Part of the downfall has been the encampments and budding domestic terrorists on campus, but I am also just not impressed with who I see getting in. It makes no sense and I have no dog in this fight because we are not aiming for Harvard for our kids.

Lol. I'm sure you are not. Aiming for George Mason, no doubt.

[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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

I've always been curious how Duke did so well given that it is so young. It opened in just the 1930s and by the 1960s in magazines they were calling it the "Yale of the South." The first year of the USNews rankings in the 1980s it was already an absolutely top university. This is amazing given that the location, at least in that time period didn't have much going for it. And the area would have been relatively poor.

Duke got a lot of money from the Duke family, who made their money in tobacco and energy. Duke has a lot to owe a leader in the. 1970s/ early 19080s who explicitly made his vision to raise Duke to national prominence. Interestingly, part of Vanderbilt’s vision is to become a Top 10 university.

Schools with big resources, in urban centers, and leveraging where life and education are going will seize the brass ring.

[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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

And now things are beginning to change. Southern colleges have gotten substantially more popular over time, bu outside of Duke, Vandy, and Rice, the region lacks strong private colleges and historically relies on public institutions for practical education.

Because of the increasing percentage of high school grads going to college. It's a function of demand.

And you forgot Tulane.

[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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

And now things are beginning to change. Southern colleges have gotten substantially more popular over time, bu outside of Duke, Vandy, and Rice, the region lacks strong private colleges and historically relies on public institutions for practical education.

Because of the increasing percentage of high school grads going to college. It's a function of demand.

And you forgot Tulane.

Tulane being a good school is a New England thing, and I don't know why. In the South, it's just another party school.

[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.

Also, the South’s economic base was agro, and same for Virginia. The mass production of NE industrialization made a lot more money after the Civil War. Regional economics.

And now things are beginning to change. Southern colleges have gotten substantially more popular over time, bu outside of Duke, Vandy, and Rice, the region lacks strong private colleges and historically relies on public institutions for practical education.

Because of the increasing percentage of high school grads going to college. It's a function of demand.

And you forgot Tulane.

Tulane being a good school is a New England thing, and I don't know why. In the South, it's just another party school.

No, it's not solely a "New England thing" at all. Definitely not "just another party school" in the south. I lived in New Orleans for years. The reason they called Duke "The Yale of the South" is because Tulane was already "The Harvard of the South." It has an incredibly rich tradition and was founded in 1834.