<p>ilovebagels, by 1920, the Midwest had many highly developped univerisites within very close proximity. Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern, UIUC and Wisconsin were already considered among the elite in US higher education. But I agree that until the 1970s, universities attracted a regional student body, although Michigan has had a connection with NYC for over a century.</p>
<h1>36: “…was wracked with financial difficulties for the first half of its existence…”</h1>
<p>Perhaps, it is overstating it to say that Stanford was generously funded, at least in comparison to the amount that Rockefeller gave to Chicago (founded around the same time). I was aware that Stanford did run into some early financial difficulties (probate of the Stanford’s estate?), but I was not aware that it extended through the first half of it’s existence. </p>
<p>As for it’s early rise to prominence, I don’t think that’s an exaggeration. Founding membership in the AAU is a pretty good indicator that it was prominent enough to be in the company of what were considered the top universities of that time. And this is different than saying that only it became a scientific powerhouse starting after WW II. At the same time, as I tried to point out, there was this whole other perception of Stanford that persisted up to the early '60s as that “undergraduate country club.” It’s not that unusual for there to be conflicting images of a university, even at the same point in time.</p>
<p>Or look at it another way…</p>
<p>Yield:
Stanford 71.0%
MIT 66.0%
Penn 62.6%
Columbia 59.8%
Brown 54.8%
Cornell 45.9%
Duke 40.4%</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford, Chicago, Duke, Cornell, and Hopkins were all founded (not coincidentally) at the height of the second industrial revolution. Before the second half of the 19th century, higher education followed the model of the colonial colleges, established to educate the sons of prosperous families for the law and the ministry. Some schools made forays into the practical arts (such as medicine) but it was not until after the Civil War that new institutions, led by Johns Hopkins, were established on the model of the German research university. Existing schools, such as Harvard, gradually adapted to this model.</p>
<p>Duke was founded on tobacco money, Chicago on oil money, Stanford on railroad money. Johns Hopkins was a wealthy entrepreneur, son of a Quaker abolitionist family, who also made much of his fortune on railroads. Ezra Cornell, another Quaker son, made his fortune on telegraph lines.</p>
<p>Each of these schools may have been a little different in how its founders perceived the relation between knowledge production and industrial production, but in every case the establishment and growth of the school benefited from that connection.</p>
<h1>41: “…by 1920, the Midwest had many highly developped univerisites within very close proximity. Chicago, Michigan, Northwestern, UIUC and Wisconsin were already considered among the elite in US higher education. But I agree that until the 1970s, universities attracted a regional student body, although Michigan has had a connection with NYC for over a century.”</h1>
<p>I don’t know that I would number UIUC among the prominent universities as early as 1920. We’re probably dealing in part with perceptions of its undergrad vs. graduate/research prominence. Certainly, UIUC was an AAU member by 1908, but it still it still had an image as a land-grant farm school, at least at the undergrad level. Wisconsin, also a land-grant school, was perceived not only as a prominent research university but also had some degree of social prominence at the undergrad level. It fell into the category of “public ivy” as that term is traditionally understood. That would be understood as a school that would appeal to students from the northeast (always from the perspective of that region) as an acceptable alternative to the prominent private universities of their region. So these schools historically included North Carolina, Virginia, Vermont, William & Mary, Miami of Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, not all of which have research prestige, but they traditionally had some social prestige. (This is different from from the manner in which a lot of people define a “public ivy” currently, i.e. a public university where you supposedly can get as good an education as highly selective universities, but at an affordable cost. So, you now end up with school like Texas or Florida being described as “public ivies”.) </p>
<p>Some of the earlier posts mentioned “location”. If we extend the notion of “location” to also include the architectural style of a particular campus, I think its a huge contributing factor to the later prominence of some schools. Those that have a campus core of nice, older buildings in a traditional style have a big advantage over equally good schools that lack that style. Just an impression, but I think it’s true.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For much of the 20th century, elite college admissions has been affected by varieties of affirmative action, first directed against Jews, later adapted to benefit underrepresented minorities. Early in the century, Harvard and a few other schools began experimenting with merit admissions based on standardized testing. The unintended consequence was a surge in the admission of first generation children of immigrant families, especially Jews. Standardized testing was dropped; various indicators of “character” began to be emphasized instead. Accomplishments in athletics and other extracurriculars were increasingly emphasized in Ivy and tippy top LAC admissions, basically as a way to justify the exclusion of Jews. The EC concept has lasted, perhaps because it is sincerely believed to complement the educational mission, or perhaps because it has disproportionately benefited the children of affluent alumni and donor families.</p>
<p>For various reasons, Chicago never quite bought into the idea of “category admissions” or the emphasis on ECs. In its early years, Chicago was a Big Ten football powerhouse. Then Chicago President Robert Maynard Hutchins banned football in the 1940s. This played into the perception that Chicago is a place for pale, bookish students incapable of shouldering the heavy burdens of the future Masters of the Universe who attend Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. Perhaps not coincidentally, as late as the 1970s, a very large percentage of students were Jewish (maybe as high as 40%; the number is much smaller today.) Chicago’s admit rates have run high (>40% in some years), although average SATs also have been among the highest in the country for years. An oft-heard explanation is that Chicago’s applicants are “self-selecting”. The school has a reputation for being academically demanding (many required courses; small discussion classes where the professors are not above badgering their students). The theory is that only students drawn to that environment would even bother to apply. Could be true, could be a little self-serving, maybe a mix of both.</p>
<p>
Duke isn’t receiving any hate. You just seem to be unable to grasp the concept that although a great school, Duke is not as prestigious or strong as HYPSM.</p>
<p>I’ll state the obvious-prestige changes as you move around the USA. HYPSM probably do the best job at covering the entire country, but Duke would very possibly be the next in line. And in certain regions, Duke would most certainly out-prestige even Stanford and MIT. </p>
<p>I’m not sure why any of this matters. All are great colleges and can get undergrads to wherever they want to go.</p>
<p>Here is the Times Higher Education-QS World University Rankings for 2009</p>
<p>2009 rankings
01 Harvard University United States
02 University of Cambridge United Kingdom
03 Yale University United States
04 University College London United Kingdom
05 Imperial College London United Kingdom
05 University of Oxford United Kingdom
07 University of Chicago United States
08 Princeton University United States
09 Massachusetts Institute of Technology United States
10 California Institute of Technology United States
11 Columbia University United States
12 University of Pennsylvania United States
13 Johns Hopkins University United States
14 Duke University United States
15 Cornell University United States
16 Stanford University United States
17 Australian National University Australia
18 McGill University Canada
19 University of Michigan United States
20 University of Edinburgh United Kingdom </p>
<p>The three schools in question are all world-renowned. In many professional fields, there is no hierarchy according to your undergraduate college’s USNWR ranking. My colleagues attended state universities, Ivies/peers, and very small LACs. We all ended up in the same place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I definitely agree location plays a huge role in Stanford’s rise. To sakky, I’m sure you can imagine its (perhaps not earliest signs of) rise in undergraduate prestige had something to do with the location and the computer science. This and the fact it’s a private university, whence it could be relatively freely selective in admissions.</p>
<p>Two questions then - what about MIT? And second, how did great researchers start gravitating towards Stanford? If “money” is the answer, I’d like more clarification, because it doesn’t all just begin by magic…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jersey, didn’t we go over something like this earlier? I thought we’re agreeing to distinguish undergraduate strength and academic/faculty strength. I don’t see how the strength of undergraduate program at Duke is clearly lesser, just because the other schools are more sought after. You used the word “strong”. I think many of those schools [HYPSM] have much stronger faculty, and are sites of more world-class research…but if that were your basis of judging, I would think it dubious not to include other names. I don’t think John ever denied this either. What is unique to me about many of HYPSM is their tier 1 academic/faculty strength <em>combined with</em> undergraduate prestige.</p>
<p>Also, tk21769, that was a very interesting post - I should learn more about the historical bases of selectivity at all the schools.</p>
<p>So John117 your evidence consists of:</p>
<p>Jocks
Wikipedia</p>
<p>some of the most compelling stuff ive seen to date</p>
<p>The routine is that every thread finally turns to Duke v.s. XYZ. Am I right? Nobody, except Dukies, regards Duke as high as HYPSM. Keeping arguing such topics will always make ppl dislike Duke.</p>
<p>When we think about Stanford and MIT, we ONLY associate them with HYP, not Duke. Because we are talking about the jewllery of world’s education, and Duke is just not good enough to enter this group. It is ironic that, while Dukies keep trying to tie with HYPSM, I never ever meet ppl from HYPSM treat Duke as their peers. Actually, they never mentioned Duke.</p>
<p>Nobody says Duke is not a great university. However, it’s definitely NOT belong to the HYPSM group. Its true peers should be JHU, Cornell, UChicago, etc.</p>
<p>Finally, IMO, as an international student, football, baseball & boxing >>> basketball in US. The only universities mentioned everyday on TV are USC, UT, Alabama, Michigan and Florida.</p>
<p>1) top 10 according to USNEWS
2) best college basketball program
3) nationally competitive in lacrosse, tennis, golf, soccer, etc.
4) gorgeous weather
5) strong Greek life
6) loyal alumni
7) top feeder school to to law schools and med schools after HYPSM (better than MIT and UChicago)
8) top feeder school to Wall Street after Harvard and Wharton
9) social student body
10) gorgeous campus</p>
<p>A lot of good schools provide some or most aspects of the complete college experience but no university simply provides it ALL like Duke does. Michigan and Stanford come close but Michigan is not selective/prestigious enough and Stanford isn’t a powerhouse in a high-profile sport like basketball, football, baseball, etc. nor is it as fun.</p>
<p>Duke is the perfect undergraduate institution. 95% of students would give up a kidney to go to such an amazing school but they can’t get in. Unfortunately, most of the remaining 5% that can get in to Duke are total tools who choose HYPSM for the marginal edge in prestige those schools enjoy over Duke and don’t care at all about the total college experience. It’s their loss because once they graduate, these HYPSM grads realize that they wasted and didn’t enjoy what are supposed to be the 4 best years of their life and now are working alongside kids from schools like Duke, Michigan and Vanderbilt who will climb the corporate ladder much faster than they will because of their better social skills.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Seta, we are glad you can read CC day and night and pick up on the HYPSM thing. It’s also clear you are either a ■■■■■ or ignorant, because people don’t REALLY associate MIT with HYP outside of CC. Welcome to the real world. Most people think “MIT” and think of a much more technically inclined place with many very different kinds of students. </p>
<p>More in the same direction - who told you JHU goes with Duke goes with UChicago. This is even poor ■■■■■■■■. There are so many things wrong with associating those schools with each other. People attend those schools for such different reasons.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And as a counter to a perfectly ridiculous post, we have another one generalizing how fun an entire school is.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t care so much, but this is actually an informative thread and I hope those sidetracking it realize what they’re doing.</p>
<p>HAHA. the OP did not say that Duke is as prestigious as MIT or Stanford, just that it became prestigious so early. If you don’t think Duke is a prestigious school, get out into the real world. Damn.</p>
<p>Everyone on this forum has a stick up their hole and always jumps on the prospect of someone mentioning another school in the same sentence as HYPSM.</p>
<p>Oh and lastly, Dickie V said it best: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because a ton of posters fail at reading, are ■■■■■■, or don’t know anything about education outside of CC mumbo jumbo, eatsalot. He even says EXCEPT HYP. It’s the people going to other Ivies like Columbia, Brown, etc who should be quibbling here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>. . .</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Duke haters need to stop hating Duke. Also, Duke students need to stop thinking Duke is hated because people are jealous of it.</p>
<p>lesdia are you kidding again?</p>
<p>Stanford has been known as a powerhouse in Baseball for decades. It certainly is much better than Duke in football and once in a while will come up with a basketball team that is equally as good as Duke…</p>
<p>regarding the overall sports program?</p>
<p>It is not even close, Stanford has dominated Duke in this area for decades, having won the Directors’ Cup every year for the last decade and a half or so.</p>
<p>here are the latest rankings:</p>
<p>Directors Cup Standings for 2009-10 school year as of April 30, 2010
- Stanford - 962 points…
.
.
.
.
.
. - Duke - 569 points</p>
<p><a href=“http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/D1april29releasestands.pdf[/url]”>http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/nacda/sports/directorscup/auto_pdf/D1april29releasestands.pdf</a></p>
<p>you go girl</p>
<p>
</p>