"From excellence to eminence [...]"

Colleges & Universities University of Pennsylvania
1

<p>For about a decade, it has been an explicit goal of the administration to lift Penn’s academic and collegiate reputation from, in their own words, “excellence to eminence.” In lay terms, this means making the leap from schools like Dartmouth, Columbia, UChicago, etc. to HYPMS. In an interview, Judith Rodin herself stated that “We think the cohort that includes Harvard, Yale, Princeton, MIT, Caltech, and Stanford ought to include Penn.”</p>

<p>Impressive strides have been made, and Penn is now unquestioned as a lower elite, but can prestige’s glass ceiling truly be broken? Academic prestige is intimately and ultimately linked with educational output: we need to produce the best minds. Thus, prestige is largely contingent upon admissions - we need to be matriculating the best students and posting the lowest acceptance rates.</p>

<p>My question or impetus for discussion is: what do people see as the time frame on this? Do they see success? Feel free to weigh in about the process thus far, and what you see in the immediate future. I love bagels,</p>

2

<p>It will take decades, at the very least, before Penn could ever get the epic prestige it so craves (but certainly deserves)–if it ever did happen.</p>

<p>If I had to put money on which school could crack into the holy grail (if any could), I’d bet on Columbia. It has several advantages over Penn, such as:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Being in NYC, while it makes for a crap undergrad experience, still looks better to high schoolers that don’t know better than 4 years in (west!) Philadelphia, the perpetual Rodney Dangerfield city (even though I’d much rather be there than NYC for college). Being in NYC also makes it easier for Columbia to recruit and retain the very best faculty–just ask NYU.</p></li>
<li><p>Better name (the brand equity is not fractured between a very big and popular state school, or a preeminent business school. Penn suffers from both afflictions, while any prestige accrued by Columbia Business School goes directly into the Columbia account)</p></li>
<li><p>More money (as now now, Columbia’s endowment is $300 million larger than Penn’s, and divided </p></li>
<li><p>Unlike Penn, Columbia actually WAS at the HYP level once upon a time. It’s always easier to go back than to get there in the first place, at least in the wacky world of institutional prestige.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>Of course, I’d love to be proven wrong. Penn could pull it off, and Columbia could certainly screw up (after all, they’ve done it once before). However I would prefer it happen by means other than Columbia or half of NYC getting nuked by a terrorist with WMD.</p>

3

<p>Interesting response. The death-match will ultimately be decided by endowment - if Penn can catch up to HYPSM in terms of purchasing power, the race will be won. Following the end of the current capital campaign, Penn should have about $6.5 billion - this would put us within striking distance of MIT, and enough to be a contender.</p>

<p>I honestly believe that Furda’s efforts and our competitive financial aid should be enough to beat the other middle Ivies on the selectivity and cross-admissions front. Couple that with the fact that we have a beautiful campus (not choked by NYC, yet still in a large city) and higher consistent rankings… and I’d say we have the firepower to make a proper go of it.</p>

<p>Point of fact: if your family makes $90k or less, you go to Penn for free. Columbia’s ceiling for that treatment is $60k, and Dartmouth just brought back loans. That alone, especially this year, should bolster our yield and prospects among the top students.</p>

4

<p>Also, while Columbia’s academics were once considered on par with HYS, its professional schools are now lag considerably (excluding law) where Penn’s are largely parable (certainly across medicine and business, with law lagging just slightly). Furthermore, its undergrad was never seen in the same light as the traditional elites. In the book The Rise of American Research Universities. Elites and Challengers in the Postwar Era, Graham points out that the most sought after schools were always HYP, with a local favorite: Penn for Philadelphia, Columbia for New York, Brown for Providence, and so on. Later, when the university was associated with creating social status and Penn/Columbia opened their doors to Jews, HYP instituted quotas that cost them the top scholars of the day (thus Chomsky went to Penn, Trilling to Columbia) but ultimately affirmed their elite status that decades later served to win them the top students from the more egalitarian schools, which were seen as more pedestrian.</p>

<p>In other words, in 15 years either Penn or Columbia will be added to HYPSM, and it’s anybody’s guess, but based on institutional momentum and potential, I would definitely bet on Penn.</p>

5

<p>Intriguing points…but it’s also interesting to compare Columbia to Yale. Yale School of Medicine and Columbia P&S are very comparable schools and are both usually round out the top 10 in USNWR (although I think their medical school rankings are even more specious than their college rankings), and Yale’s business school doesn’t even break the top 10. So, really, the only professional school for which Yale is seen as truly the top is law. And yet because of the popular associations with the Yale name/brand, many laypeople may well automatically assume that Yale competes with Harvard across the board–and, on the other hand, in the absence of further information, that it probably trumps Columbia.</p>

6

<p>Hm, I just stumbled onto this discussion so I might not quite ‘get’ what Penn’s goal is, but it seems to me that the goal isn’t to break the ‘glass ceiling of prestige’–just to get on the other side of it.</p>

7

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t know how Caltech got on this list but I think it is too bad that instead of wanting to be itself Penn wants to be one of these other schools. If their goal is to be HYPSM they’ll never be better than them, they’ll only succeed as an imitation.</p>

<p>Do you think someone from the Harvard administration would be caught saying they want to be included in a sentence with YPSM? Not a chance. They are Harvard and they watch what the other schools are doing but they don’t strive to be like them.</p>

8

<p>One might argue that all of those schools (well, probably with the exception of MIT/Caltech) want to be Harvard, and that each of them is just an imitation.</p>

<p>But, being less cynical, I don’t think Penn’s desire to join the perceived ranks of those schools is necessarily the same as wanting to be one of them per se. What I think this means is that Penn perceives itself (and rightfully so) as being a unique institution of higher learning, replete with a world-class faculty, lush urban campus, and resources galore, but that is often unjustly overlooked by talented applicants in favor of schools with more famous names. So, Penn’s desire to raise its profile is not merely to satisfy the egos of its alumni (although, from where I sit, that wouldn’t be an objectionable side effect :-P), but rather to continue to build on an already “excellent” foundation by being able to compete for the most creative and/or sharp young minds that may otherwise be attracted to the aforementioned heavy hitters. (And also, to a lesser extent I imagine considering Penn’s already excellent reputation, to attract faculty whose ideas will further illustrate Penn as a nidus of innovation.) Then, those same minds can flourish within the context of Penn’s already distinct academic environment and philosophy, and perhaps then translate their Penn experience into practice in changing the world (or whatever other grandiose dream to which college graduates are supposed to aspire), theoretically in a way they may not have envisioned had they had a different educational experience. It’s not that none of the other schools mentioned (or many, many others) already wouldn’t provide such an environment, but Penn (and every other school) feels that its intellectual milieu will not only influence, but be influenced by, the minds of its students–and the greater the quality of those minds, the greater and better the influence.</p>

9

<p>I’m going off of the quote from Judith Rodin. I think your interpretation of what she meant is giving her more credit than she deserves. She is too concerned about being thought of as being in the same league as HYPSM. An attitude like that can come at the expense of Penn being Penn.</p>

<p>I’ve seen this before. After the Beatles many bands aspired to be like them, none succeeded. It was only the bands who played their own music who were successful.</p>

10

<p>Being percieved as an HYPSM school entails a certain unique and individualistic quality. A quality that sets that league of schools apart from others in terms of connections, resources and prestige. In order to have that quality, Penn needs to be just as unique and special as those schools, and I think that’s what Judith Rodin was trying to get at. It’s kind of paradoxical, I know.</p>

<p>Penn doesn’t want to be Harvard, it wants to be perceived as a Harvard quality school. It wants to be considered the best of the best and there is nothing wrong with striving for that kind of excellence.</p>

11

<p>I don’t have a problem with trying to be the best but in this case it is linked with Harvard in a way it shouldn’t be.</p>

12

<p>Pea:</p>

<p>Penn does not aspire to be Harvard. Penn simply aspires to be seen as a paradigm of higher education; Harvard is, more often than any other institution, associated with that ideal. It makes sense to invoke their name.</p>

<p>“Penn being Penn” does not preclude being considered part of the absolute highest echelon of academia.</p>

13

<p>This is an interesting discussion. I think it deserves mention, however, that the very top schools (Harvard, Yale, etc.) are fiercely, fiercely competitive. I don’t think they’d just calmly watch as a once-lower competitor rises up and becomes a true peer. For more analysis on just how hard Harvard et al. compete, as I often do, it’s worth reading Jerome Karabel’s “The Chosen.” </p>

<p>Stanford rose to prominence (or eminence) primarily through the good luck of being on the west coast, and far removed from the east. You can bet that Harvard etc.wouldn’t take kindly to Penn - a school right on HYP’s turf, so to speak, rising in the same manner. These schools would certainly step up their fundraising and recruitment efforts to stay ahead of the pack. Harvard’s endowment is still what, 4 times the size of Penn’s? Penn would not only have to catch up, it’d have to hope that Harvard would stand idly by as this occurred. Such a development is very unlikely.</p>

14

<p>It’s unclear to me why Harvard, et al. would be “worried” about another school rising to their universal caliber of scholarship. Not enough brains to go around? That’s not really the case, as we know; if there is money enough to lavishly fund 10 English departments, then they will all be home to their share of luminaries (just look at Berkeley, Harvard, Penn, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, etc.).</p>

<p>In the most lucrative (and accordingly, the most expensive) fields, Penn already contends with the top universities: medicine, business, bio-medical engineering. Presumably in more “boutique”-type fields such as philosophy, Penn can quickly make great strides (it would only take 2 or 3 strategic hires to accomplish this). This is even true of larger departments, where Penn is already strong but could use a little extra star power; physics (currently ranked 13th), math, bio and chem.</p>

<p>As for the endowment argument: it’s less relevant than you imagine. As of the financial year’s first quarter, Penn is up 13% to $5.8 billion, slightly more than Columbia and 5th biggest in the country. Following the capital campaign, $1.75 billion of which enters the endowment, it should equal MIT, effectively entering the HYPMS zone. At that point, Penn’s faculty will be on sufficiently equivalent financial footing - it will come down to a question of undergraduate selectivity.</p>

15

<p>Muerte - Harvard et al. would be worried because, at least according to Karabel, in the world of higher education, “prestige is the coin of the realm” and there’s only so much to go around. It’s a zero-sum game, and the better Penn gets, the more that could detract from Harvard’s standing. Why do you think Harvard’s kept track of which schools take more than TEN of its accepts since the 1950s? Why did Princeton hack into Yale applicant’s accounts in the early 2000s? These schools compete with one another - at times, fiercely - and if Penn does indeed make up ground on the financial front, you can bet Harvard will start a financial campaign the likes of which have never been seen in human history.</p>

<p>Also, I’m not sure about your analysis regarding Penn’s financial standing. Say after Penn completes its financial campaign, it ends up with around an $8 Billion endowment. It’s true, MIT has an $8 Billion endowment, but MIT only has 10,000 students total. Penn has 20,000. For Penn to be able to offer the same per capita resources MIT offers, it’s endowment would have to be probably in the $14 - 16 Billion range. Moreover, I’m sure MIT’s endowment strategists are growing the MIT endowment - why would it just stay stagnant for the next couple years? </p>

<p>Finally, a liberal arts school is about a lot more than its academics. Yes, Penn has great medical and business schools, and a good law school, but for liberal arts colleges, reputation and standing add to a school’s appeal. Connections to power, networks, etc. matter (as Karabel argues), and Penn does not have anywhere the same network as Harvard etc., and it is not perceived as preparing its students for power in the same way as Harvard. To do this would take a generation or more, and that’s assuming that Harvard etc. aren’t also hard at work making sure the most doors remain open for their graduates. </p>

<p>Again, what you wish for Penn, I very much wish for my alma mater, Chicago. Chicago has great academics - perhaps already equivalent to a place like Yale - and with a $5.2 Billion dollar endowment for about 14K students, it’s wealthier than Penn on a per student basis. Just like President Rodin, Chicago’s President Zimmer has stated that his goal is to make Chicago “the best american university” - which at least applies competing on equal ground with Harvard etc. As much as I want to believe this, and despite all the good signs - a 42% increase in applications, an acceptance rate that has dropped 45% in 10 years, an endowment that’s in the top 8 or so in the US on a per capita basis, I just don’t see this happening. My personal goal is for Chicago to compete equally against Columbia within 10 years, but with Columbia’s location in NYC, I don’t know if any non-HYPS school can do this. So, overall, I guess I’m just more conservative in my analysis of how this will all play out.</p>

16

<p>The endowment’s efficacy is NOT measured on a per student basis. Which is why Chicago’s $5.2 billion does not hinder its research or faculty capabilities. Penn does not necessarily need to reach a per student level of supremacy - it simply needs to prove its overall spending power.</p>

<p>As for connections: Penn actually has one of the most powerful alumni networks of any school - not as strong as Harvard, but definitely up there. There was a recent article in Forbes that discussed this, although I don’t have the link on me. I’ll look for it.</p>

<p>I truly believe that the environment of higher education is more malleable than you think, and that Penn will rise into the pantheon. Penn is in the perfect circumstance to achieve this (as is Chicago, actually - and by this I mean an under-appreciated, high caliber private research university).</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree, I don’t think Harvard worries about it. Harvard is a trailblazer, most recently the financial aid initiative for the middle class. They are at the forefront of making a Harvard education available to anyone regardless of ability to pay. Likewise, Penn is great in the areas where it is unique. Wharton is second to none.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Harvard’s institutional research department keep track of a lot of things, you don’t know what they do with the information.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I hope they caught hell for this. This is totally unacceptable.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

18

<p>Every school wants to be the best institution around. While Penn may be improving, like others hvae said, every other school is as well. I doubt that any school will reach “HYP” prestige for many more generations to come. No bias - I feel the same about my beloved Duke. <3</p>

19

<p>Muerte - I still don’t know if I agree with your analysis on the endowment issue. My traditional view is that, the smaller school with the larger endowment will generally be better off than the larger school with a similarly sized (but slightly smaller) endowment. Say within a couple years, Penn has a $8 Billion endowment, and MIT has a $8.5 billion endowment. Both schools siphon a bit of the endowment to help balance the budget, and quite simply, Penn’s endowment and whatever percentage it chooses to use toward the budget will be spread more thinly than MIT’s. Penn has a much larger array of schools (education school, communications school, nursing etc.), and MIT has a much more focused mission.</p>

<p>Going on with this issue, I think trying to use MIT as the comparison point is a bit problematic too. In terms of institutional structure and mission, Penn is most similar to Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. It’s better to compare the endowments and wealth of those schools, since their missions and structure are much more similar to Penn’s. MIT is so focused as a tech/science school, that it doesn’t make for the best comparison - and it’s also just considerably smaller than Yale, Stanford, etc. </p>

<p>Accordingly, in direct comparison to Stanford or Yale or Harvard, Penn just has a long, long way to go. Stanford is the “poorest” of these schools, yet it still has about a $13 Billion endowment. Yale has a $16 B endowment. Also, despite your argument that size of student population doesn’t matter, it’s worth noting that Y and S are considerably smaller than Penn at around 14K students each. </p>

<p>Finally, yes, Penn has a great alumni network, but I just don’t know if it can rival Harvard’s or Princeton’s within the next 20 years or so. </p>

<p>Maybe I am too rigid in my views of higher education, but the fact of the matter is, in the past 150 years, the only school that has truly risen to challenge HYP has been Stanford, and Stanford benefits from being in a drastically different area. MIT or Cal Tech are niche schools. There are no other schools that have really challenged this class of schools, so I don’t really know why any school would rival HYPS in the next 20 years. Keep in mind, along with Penn, Columbia, Chicago, and Duke are also looking to improve significantly in the decade ahead, and I don’t think any of these schools will get to HYPS level any time soon. </p>

<p>I’m not saying it’s a done deal, I’m just saying what you’re arguing is highly, highly unlikely.</p>

20

<p>Well if the number of self-conscious alumni ambitious for its school is a factor, then Penn seems to have a formidable lead :)</p>