<p>Why do you deny public perception exists? Colleges are 2 or 4 yrs. Some don’t even hand out masters. Undergrad focus, small enough to form a tie-knit community. Those are all good points. Replacing college with university as an official title isn’t going to change that, but it will help those not in the know, outside academia understand what Dartmouth is, IMO.</p>
<p>I’m not at all certain that Dartmouth is misunderstood in academia . . . quite the opposite in fact, grad schools eat up Dartmouth grads. </p>
<p>Although, if your right, you’re now in on one of the best kept secrets in academia—that makes you special . . . now don’t run around telling it to everyone or will stop sharing our deepest darkest secrets with you!</p>
<p>Why do we need to help those “not in the know” be impressed with Dartmouth?</p>
<p>Before I applied to Dartmouth, I thought very seriously about applying to Yale early. As much as I tried to rationalize, I was very aware that deep down inside, one of the reasons I hesitated was because Yale is better known. I felt like I had to prove to the world, somehow, that I had worked hard and done well in high school, and thus deserved some recognition (like an acceptance to Yale). But then I thought: how ridiculous is it that I’d apply to a more prestigious school early just so Mrs. Joe Shmoe down the block will be impressed? Mrs. Joe Shmoe’s opinion won’t help me do well in college, or get me into grad school… in fact, I don’t even care about her!</p>
<p>The point is: we’re good. We know we’re good. We don’t need the public’s adoration to prove it.</p>
<p>I take great offense to your post, yourworld…who do you think you are that you can march in here, proclaim that you know what’s wrong with Dartmouth? Are you a current student? Somebody who has spent the last 50 years of their life working for Dartmouth? What right do you have to overturn 235 years of precedent because Dartmouth isn’t “prestigious” enough for your tastes? Saying there is something wrong with Dartmouth because it’s a college and not a university is like saying there is something wrong with a Lexus because it doesn’t have the Mercedes logo on it. Sheesh.</p>
<p>All with exception of Xanatos have been polite in their replies even tho we disagree. Xan seems easily offended or readily explode. There was nothing intellectually engaging in his remarks. Is that a sign of youth? And Xan (gender neutral) have a bad habbit of putting words that I never have used. Where was it that I said Dartmouth was not prestigious? Didn’t I used words like powerhouse to describe Dartmouth?</p>
<p>I’m interested in this topic because my brother is a freshman at Dartmouth and because my school (Brown) is in a similar situation to Dartmouth in many ways.</p>
<p>It seems silly to think that changing the name will have much impact on public perception–if anything calling the school “Dartmouth College” is one of the quirky things that makes it unique (nobody makes fun of columbia’s med school for being called “the College of Physicians and Surgeons” instead of “Columbia Medical School”–if anything, it makes the school stand out). </p>
<p>However, the underlying point is an important one–that in order to survive, Dartmouth needs to grow its grad programs. This does not mean it has to give up its undergrad strengths. Princeton, which is about the same size, provides incredible resources and attention to undergrads but retains a very strong grad school at the same time. The truth is the two facilliate each other and don’t have to be antagonistic.</p>
<p>Dartmouth grad schools are strong…Tuck is one of the top three business schools in the nation.</p>
<p>Of course improving Dartmouth’s graduate programs and name recognition is desirable…but coming in and saying stuff like, “College sounds like a two year school” is just asking for a flame.</p>
<p>tuck doesn’t count because it’s a pre-professional school with limited research contribution to the academy</p>
<p>the reason dartmouth needs to grow the grad programs is to stay afloat among what it considers its academic peers (namely, the rest of the ivy league)</p>
<p>what does staying afloat mean? in order to contribute to academic discourse in a substantial way you need to have strong programs. to have the best programs you need to have the best faculty. in order to attract the best faculty you have to support research and grad students. </p>
<p>it’s not just about name recognition in terms of publicity. it’s about being a center of higher learning instead of a loose body, doing its own thing.</p>
<p>DCircle, I disagree. If Dartmouth grew its grad programs and became research oriented, the “best” professors that you say the school needs to attract would spend their time on the research, and not with the students. What’s the point of having the top expert in a field on the payroll if she never teaches the classes? Right now, 100% of Dartmouth undergrad classes are taught by professors–no TAs. And the professors are incredible. I really don’t think hiring better professors is something Dartmouth needs to work on. Dartmouth has one of the best undergraduate programs in the country, and in the Ivy League. It sounds like your idea of “staying afloat” means parrotting the way other Ivy League schools are conducted, but I think Dartmouth is perfectly fine being it’s own unique body, and “doing its own thing.”
Edit: Just because Dartmouth is “doing its own thing” doesn’t mean it isn’t a center for higher learning.</p>
<p>dcircle,</p>
<p>by your logic, Swarthmore, Williams, Amherst and every other LAC would also be ‘loose bodies doing their own thing and not centers of higher learning.’ At least to some degree a college (university) must be about education and not just research. There seems to be something rather pretenscious about the whole "we can’t waste our time being educated; afterall, we are researchers fresh out of high-school gdamit.</p>
<p>Is it me or do others not getting the deep meanings FountainSiren seems to be imparting? You seem to say running strong research programs and great undergrad education are mutually exclusive. How can we achieves some balance if we don’t even try. And why is balance good ? That brought us back full circle to more teaching talents, grants, opportunities (both grad and undergrad’s) and dare I say, recognition.</p>
<p>Is the “mutually exclusive” part the way you want to read it or the way my post reads?
I said:
“At least to some degree a college (university) must be about education and not just research.”</p>
<p>Moreover, who says that research is lacking at Dartmouth, or Brown for that matter. Where is the crisis?</p>
<p>There seems to be alot of Chicken-Little mentallity driven by a need to be recognized as prestegious.</p>
<p>Research is more of a graduate level issue, that is an issue for people who have already recieved a substantial education and are now prepared for pure research. Not to say research is not part of an undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is why the Wallstreet Journal survey shows Williams college as the 5th best school in the country at elite grad school placement and Dartmouth at 7th, Amherst at 9th and Swarthmore at 10th.</p>
<p>at MIT, all the university professors have to teach undergrads–nobel laureates, alan guth, and all the fancy other people as well. most of the professors at MIT embrace this and love the opportunity to teach undergrads, but are at MIT in the first place because of the resources they are given to do what they do.</p>
<p>brown and princeton require this is well.</p>
<p>people like toni morrison, paul krugman, and cornel west simply won’t come to your school unless they are given the resources to do what they do, AND teach undergrads. </p>
<p>LAC’s are a different ball game. they are fundamentally set up differently from universities and therefore other LAC’s are their cohorts. swarthmore would rarely be expected to accomplish something that harvard has. but dartmouth might.</p>
<p>dartmouth chose to be a university, no matter what the title of the school is. so it needs to be as good as the others. even though part of the appeal is the LAC-like “feel”, the expectation for contributions to the academy are much higher</p>
<p>Are you implying that the professors at Dartmouth aren’t as good as the professors at MIT, Brown, or Princeton? Because if you are, then you’re an idiot, plain and simple.</p>
<p>Hey Rasberry–your post on the 15th was exactly the process I went through. Not quite as clean cut but pretty close. In the end however, I knew I would be happy at Dartmouth. And I couldn’t say that about Yale with the same confidence. I admit it’s depressing when I proudly tell people I’m going to Dartmouth–and they have never heard of the place. But I’ve never heard Dartmouth alumni complain, and Yale and Harvard alumni tell me to look outside the Ivy League. lol.</p>
<p>no xanatos, that’s not what i’m saying. relax.
what i AM saying is that even at a place where a lot of research is conducted, professors can still highly value teaching undergrads. you don’t need to sacrifice anything that makes dartmouth great by growing the grad school. at the same time, there is a lot to gain.</p>
<p>it is also true that while most professors at dartmouth are probably equally intelligent and equally good teachers as professors at say, harvard, they are not given the same resources to produce scholarly work. as a result, stand-out professors have less incentive to be at dartmouth and hence there are less of them than at other similar schools. i’m fairly certain that dartmouth is the only ivy without a nobel laureate on its faculty. it would be nice to see dartmouth add a few nobel laureates, pulitzer prize winners, national academy of science members, macarthur awardees, etc. to its ranks.</p>
<p>I agree with dcircle and yourworld. I love Dartmouth- I wouldn’t trade it for another school- I applied early, afterall. I do, however, think it would be nice if we could follow suit with other school like Princeton who give wonderful educations to the undergrads WHILE allowing their name to be used for research. I don’t think it’s an absurd idea really. I think with a few exceptions, these posters are hitting the nail on the head. I don’t think any of us were very happy with the London rankings a few weeks ago. I’ll admit it…I picked Dartmouth over Georgetown EA because of the rank. I happened to love both…so I went with #9 rather than #25. And I tell you- I’d hate to drop out of the top 10.</p>
<p>It’s not going to drop out of the top ten, because US News and World Report is in touch with American higher education, unlike the London Times people and whoever made the Chinese rankings.</p>
<p>dcircle - well duh, it’s better to have more nobel laureates, pulitzer prize winners, etc. etc. What am I supposed to say, no, I don’t want standout professors on the faculty? The reason I’m getting mad is that you’re implying that without them, Dartmouth is an inferior institution, and that it is not.</p>
<p>Yeah. I mean, it’s nice to have flashy, “MacArthur fellow” this and “Nobel Laureate” that, but not essential for a good education and accomplishment of your goals (even ambitious ones that require Ivy League grad schools). Ultimately, prestige is like a Mercedes: nice to look at, but won’t get you anywhere better than a Dodge.</p>