<p>Spielberg effect… people who apply to prestigious schools are generally successful regardless of where they attend school. (Spielberg applied to USC film school and was rejected.)</p>
<p>David Cohen, the co-developer of Simpsons (i.e., Groening’s partner) went to Harvard.
<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_X._Cohen[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_X._Cohen</a></p>
<p>If you get rid of affirmative action, legacy, athletic and wealth advantages in admission, there would be more room for the talented, and it would be fairer for all. Come on, all you admission committee members, do the right thing!</p>
<p>Haha, funny, we saw Kerry at Pre-frosh weekend signing books. David Remnick went to Princeton, not too shabby either.</p>
<p>Varmus gave the commencement address at Harvard a number of years ago. I read an article (?Crimson) about him at the time which mentioned he was accepted to Harvard undergrad but attended Amherst instead. He went to Harvard for a master’s degree in Medieval Literature and then decided to apply to medical school. He was rejected by Harvard Medical School and attended Columbia P and S for his M.D. </p>
<p>It has been said that Harvard’s applicant pool is so deep that it can take the next top 2000 applicants for admission, and the quality of the class would be indistinguishable from the accepted class. Most of those students probably will attend other Ivies or top LACs, or prestigious state university programs.</p>
<p>I feel that the mere existence of an article like this simply reasserts our biased view that harvard is king. Honestly, if someone posted a comment that went along the lines of the article but with grammatical mistakes and uneloquent language, he would be shunned and accused of being angered by having been rejected by harvard. I really wonder why we even have to create articles upon articles as to why harvard is not worth it. However scholarly the person responsible for writing these articles, the more that exist, the more people will probably want to go to harvard. It should have been obvious from common sense that people outside of harvard can succeed and that not everyone from harvard succeeds.</p>
<p>Articles like this are posted because, nothwithstanding that many CC’ers know better, there are inevitably posters whose statements (or screen names) suggest that if one doesn’t get into Harvard (not talking Yale, Princeton, ivies, top 15, etc.) that one’s chances for economic success will be hindered. For example, a recent transfer student who was accepted at Harvard writes that he/she is very happy at a top school but can’t turn down a chance to finish up undergraduate at Harvard. Why? Because it is Harvard.</p>
<p>So it is no surprise that people try to debunk the notion that without Harvard, one will have to try harder to succeed in life.</p>
<p>I guess I am in good company. Ha.ha.ha.</p>
<p>To post #23. So, you’re implying that you can’t be in one of the categories you listed and be “talented”. This is pretty shortsighted and 1950s thinking.</p>
<p>odyssey, who was this?</p>
<p>Agree with amworld and odyssey. There seems to be an overemphasis on prestige as the primary criterion for choosing a college among many posters and/or their parents (CC even has a separate discussion section for Ivies!). They are making their decisions (or placing their hopes) on perception rather reality. While Harvard may offer an outstanding education and opportunity, the curriculum and undergraduate experience is far from perfect as acknowledged by a recent Harvard Task Force report. I also think that there are many other fine institutions out there where one can obtain a top education and have similar economic success later (if that is to be used as a yardstick for educational quality, which is certainly debatable). For some, another Ivy, a LAC, a more rural school, a school closer to home, a state honors program may be a better fit for the student. Some students have enough self-awareness to make such distinctions during their college search; however, many do not, and decide on Harvard primarily or exclusively based on its prestige. Harvard benefits from this perception among applicants and has a > 80% yield rate without ED. </p>
<p>I would argue that one goes to college to get an education. It is an opportunity to prepare for life and hopefully develop skills, talents, and habits for lifelong learning. I personally think students should choose to attend the college where they can get the best education FOR THEM, and not just the best credential. Although I am not an alumnus of Harvard, I was on faculty there for a number of years. One other factor that I think is important for prospective students to consider is whether a given student functions best in an environment where he/she is a small fish in a big pond or a big fish in a small pond. The student needs to be honest with himself/herself as a 17 or 18 year old, and ask: where would I learn best? I think one can challenge oneself maximally at a less competitive or lower-ranked institution provided there are interested and outstanding faculty there (which often is the case). At the same time, one may study in a more supportive community of fellow students and faculty. I also believe one should go to a place where one can enjoy life and not put undue stress on oneself. Mental health issues are a problem at all colleges as witnessed by the recent tragedy at VTech. Attending Harvard may place additional types of stresses on some students. Harvard College is a community of super-achievers-some students may find that incredibly stimulating, others may feel overwhelmed. Most Harvard freshmen go through a humbling experience that they are “average” academically for the first time in their lives, and adapt to it and are glad to be surrounded by such talented peers. However, some students have their self-confidence shaken. I remember reading in a a recent campus newspaper article that a large percentage of students have used counseling services at Harvard. The stress and anxiety is mostly self-imposed rather than external, as unfortunately some students don’t realize that by any objective measure they are extremely capable, even if they are among the bottom 90% of their class. </p>
<p>I have not read the article in 02138 yet. However, it should give comfort to applicants to know there are many pathways to success. Harvard may be one of them but there are many others. Moreover, Harvard may not be the best path for a given student. I also would like to remind applicants and parents that a college education is much more than a credential. Moreover, there are people who are ignorant or uneducated despite obtaining an Ivy League education, as we have seen in some high places in our government. Last, success may not be just economic. I would suggest that college should prepare a student for success in life. I think economic success is too narrow a criterion. The experience of attending college, at its very best, can help one learn how to learn at a critical stage of life so that one can pursue a livelihood of choice, build a meaningful family and personal life, and contribute to the benefit of our society, I am reminded about a book by Loren Pope who talks about some lesser-known colleges that change lives as they promote both intellectual growth and personal character. I would like to think students somehow come out as better as well as more learned people upon graduation.</p>
<p>Yes, there are many other pathways to success and a “big name” like Harvard or Duke is far from a guarantee. Consider the following excerpt of an article by Gary Glen Price, a famous professor at U-Wisconsin (and not a Yale or Harvard alumnus):</p>
<p>“Any placement of colleges on a scale or in a ranked list begins first with selection and relative weighting of criteria. If one selects different criteria or changes the weighting among criteria, another ordering of schools results. Trying to place Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams in a definitive order is like trying to place Beethoven, Einstein, and Monet in a definitive order. Schools do have distinctive strengths and institutional cultures. Overnight stays give some glimpse of this…”</p>
<p>windcloud. i’d have to try to find the posting.</p>
<p>I used to work at Sun, McNealy definately went to Harvard. He often joked that he majored in beer and golf. </p>
<p>I also saw him at a session on the Internet and Society at Harvard where he was speaking prior to Bill Gates. He pointed out that he graduated from Harvard unlike others on the agenda. Though he also pointed out that he has been trying to make up for the financial headstart that Gates got by leaving early. ;-)</p>
<p>I don’t really understand the point. “Look HE didn’t get into Harvard, and he’s still successful.” Ok, but he went to Yale though. Seems somewhat ridiculous to present this as some affirmation that you don’t need Harvard to be a success, when the rejected went to places like Yale, Columbia, and Penn instead. Seems somewhat pointless.</p>
<p>Well, in case anyone still hasn’t gotten the ‘point,’ the magazine 02138 is a piece of narcissistic crap.</p>
<p>The fact that most of those other people went to top schools made me laugh. That sorta kills the whole point of the article, doesn’t it? Shows that successful people usually go to the best colleges…</p>
<p>-The Top Coot66</p>
<p>I propose an article on which colleges rejected students accepted by Harvard. Then we could call Harvard students MIT-, Yale-, Columbia-, Swarthmore-, Berkeley-, Stanford-, “rejects.” :)</p>
<p>The point being that most people understand you can be successful without going to Harvard. Far fewer get that even within the top tier, different universities look for different things, and that getting into Harvard doesn’t mean you would have looked like the “best” candidate to every college. Therefore, getting into or not getting into Harvard is not the single test of success. It didn’t used to be. </p>
<p>pmyen – excellent post.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting link to the controversy over college rankings: <a href=“http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversy.htm[/url]”>http://www.library.uiuc.edu/edx/rankoversy.htm</a></p>
<p>An exerpt from a 1997 speech by the Pres. of Stanford U. You can find the whole speech at <a href=“http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/970418rankings.html[/url]”>http://www.stanford.edu/dept/pres-provost/president/speeches/970418rankings.html</a></p>
<p>"I also urge U.S. News to reform its annual college survey practices. Several changes are needed. </p>
<p>U.S. News should eliminate its attempt to rank colleges and universities like automobiles or toasters. The fact that the rankings of many institutions change dramatically from year to year says more about inconsistent scoring methods than actual changes in quality. Such movement is entirely misleading.
U.S. News should stop drawing inappropriate conclusions from the data. For example, last year the magazine introduced a “value-added” score based on “predicted” vs. actual graduation rates. As a result, some of the most rigorous programs in the country were penalized precisely because they do not make college so easy that everyone graduates.
U.S. News should stop making “statistical estimates” to substitute for data not provided by a college or university or otherwise available in exactly the defined form. It is surely a violation of the standards of journalism to invent “facts.”
The strength of the American system of higher education lies in the diversity of institutions available to students, from small colleges to large research universities, publics to privates, liberal arts colleges to church-affiliated schools. Each has something to offer, and no standardized lists of “best colleges” can begin to do justice to what is best for a given student. With full, accurate and complete information, students and families can make the choice of the institutions best for them. Stanford will continue to provide such information on its own and in cooperation with independent college guides. We urge U.S. News to attempt to become a more reliable and credible participant in this effort. "</p>