<p>column in today’s WSJ, “A Flood of Crimson Ink”</p>
<p>“harvard is diminishing in importance as a factory of ideas and a breeding ground for future leaders…”</p>
<p>H has educated 7 presidents, more than any other school, but only 2 in last 45 years (current incumbent went to H-B School); meanwhile Yale…</p>
<p>% of large company CEOs with H pedigree declined to 23% from 29% since '98</p>
<p>Study shows that small companies lagged market with H CEO at the helm, in comparison to other Ivies and “near Ivies (as Stanford, MIT, Berkeley)”</p>
<p>UoC much more influential in public policy and economic debates; of 55 econ Nobels awarded (since it became an award), UoC had association with 10, H = 4</p>
<p>Concl: why does H get so much press?</p>
<p>“H graduates disproportionately represented in upper echelons of American journalism…[and they] do an excellent job of keeping their alma mater in the news.”</p>
<p>I don’t intend to flame the school, just thought it of interest.</p>
<p>Maybe the author has a point. And just yesterday, the Crimson carried this opinion piece about Mather Lather, which this year resulted in a lot of skin irritation among participants.</p>
<p>Bursting Harvard’s Bubble
Scratching the surface of Harvard’s media allure</p>
<p>By NEESHA M. RAO</p>
<p>It is a week after Mather Lather and my skin has been soothed by the power of extra-intense lotion. My epidermis has willingly moved past the wrath of defective lather and is awaiting the summer sun.</p>
<p>Then my phone rings. My friend, visiting Atlanta for the weekend, is excitedly laughing: Theyre talking about Mather Lather on Atlanta radio!</p>
<p>My skin crawls.</p>
<p>Apparently the fact that lather has caused Harvard students to develop rashes is of interest to more people than simply those within our Harvard bubble. In fact, the lives of Harvardians, for some reason, seem to perennially capture the national imagination. Harvard students learn by day and lather by night, and this is fascinating.>></p>
<p>When Harvard or any other elite schools graduate people with no family legacy in (politics, business, finance) or no family name…and those people go on to become great leaders, I’ll be impressed. </p>
<p>Are these schools really taking regular joes and turning them into great world leaders OR are they being fed the nation’s basion of wealthy, elite legacies and spitting out someone who was already destined for something great - just 4 years older?</p>
<p>aparent5 - the link you posted requires one to be a member of the WSJ online. Clicking on it leads me to the Login page. Would you mind posting the full text of the article?</p>
<p>There is a certain fishbowl effect at Harvard (one of the main reasons I wouldn’t want to go there for undergrad)… I think Harvard, being the first American university, had set the tone in U.S academia for a good chunk of America’s history. This reputation, IMHO grossly overinflated at the moment, still sticks today, which probably explains the press’ fascination with it.</p>
<p>By MICHAEL STEINBERGER
April 29, 2005; Page W13</p>
<p>Another academic year is drawing to a close, another year in which Harvard has generated vastly more headlines than any other American university. …</p>
<p>Of course, a fervid interest in Harvard is nothing out of the ordinary: It is the country’s most famous university, with a long claim on distinguished scholarship, political influence and high SAT scores. Most important, the media have long fawned over Harvard, treating its “brand” as pure gold. But while the school may have merited obsessive coverage in the past, it no longer does: Harvard is diminishing in importance as a factory for ideas and a breeding ground for future leaders. In all sorts of ways it is not nearly as pivotal to the life of the nation as it once was. You just wouldn’t know that by reading the papers or browsing the bookstands…</p>
<p>So why does Harvard continue to get so much more press than Chicago or any other American university? One possible explanation: Harvard graduates are disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of American journalism…</p>
<p>You know what I think of this article? It’s another attempt to get readers’ attention. Like college applicants, he needs a hook. And his hook is Harvard. There is absolutely nothing new in this article, Richard Bradley, old news. Greg Douthat, old news, the CEOS who went to state unis (or Bill Gates who dropped out of Harvard out of boredom)–old news. </p>
<p>Harvard still sells apparently. If it could get royalties every time someone mentions its name, it would add very considerably to its endowment.</p>
<p>I agree with marite. I never realized “how” special Harvard is to some people until I read all of these articles bashing it…LOL. Man, Harvard is sure on the minds of a lot of people - daily! ;)</p>
<p>Fishbowl effect, for sure. </p>
<p>People buy into it, too. As I said in another thread, my son attended an event where lots of kids were being celebrated for their college choices. They all had to go to the mic and say where they were going. At the end, my mom leans over and says “you could tell who was going to Harvard before they even said where they were going - there was just something about them”. WHAT??? I had to give her the “Mom, are you serious?” look that all parents know so well. They sounded just like the rest…poised, confident, excited and proud! </p>
<p>There is essentially no meaning to be derived from this article. It is, as marite suggests, of no more value than celebrity gossip. Actually, I would rather read about Julia Roberts…not to mention Robert Redford!</p>
<p>“Moreover, for Democratic office-seekers at least, a Harvard education, with its suggestion of Eastern privilege and liberal elitism, is probably more a liability than an asset nowadays.”</p>
<p>And all of those people who would normally vote for Democrats are so disgusted by Harvard’s suggestion of Eastern privilege and liberal elitism that they’re clamoring to elect Yale graduates instead, I suppose? </p>
<p>I find it difficult to image that there are more than a handful of voters nationally who voted for George H.W. Bush over Mike Dukakis, for example, because Bush had a degree from Yale, and Dukakis had a degree from Harvard. </p>
<p>Of course, Harvard graduate Al Gores received more actual votes in the 2000 presidential race than George W. (Oh look, a Harvard vs. Harvard race!)</p>
<p>The Wall Street journal article looks back 45 years, to 1960. Of course, if Harvard graduate JFK hadn’t been assassinated, he might have been re-elected in 1964. And if Havard graduate Robert Kennedy hadn’t been assassinated in 1968, the outcome might have been different that year.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t draw any earth-shattering conclusions based on 12 elections about the influence, particularly when the outcome of a particular election may have been changed by a bullet, or a single vote in the Supreme Court.</p>