<p>MacArthur fellows begat other fellows. It’s an open door. And Mercedes do get better services. Park lot attendents jump to park your car. You pull in with a humble little dodge valiant (good reliable engine inside) and they pretend to not notice you or at least make you wait. Also notice all the prime spots are taken by black,shiny Mercedes?</p>
<p>The Above is a direct response to …</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>
<p>Well I think I already mentioned that there’s nothing wrong with a Lexus, and it’s still a really sweet car, even if it doesn’t have a Mercedes logo on it.</p>
<p>the car analogies are silly. the fact of the matter, xanatos, is that in order to improve you need to be reflectively self-critical. dartmouth is definitely fine as it is, but if it does not change at all, the future will look less rosey.</p>
<p>also, high-profile professors do not just bring prestige. they bring serious and tangible resources. how many dartmouth students have been rhodes scholars in the last ten years in comparison to other ivies? the truth: not many. why? is it because they’re less smart or capable? no. it’s because dartmouth students do not have the same opportunities harvard students do to do things that people like rhodes scholarship committee members like to see. ultimately, it is the faculty that provide these. they are the back-bone of any institution.</p>
<p>Nope. The lack of rhodes scholars at Dartmouth isn’t because of no student capability or even student resources… it’s because of the D-Plan. Because students are required to spend sophomore summer on campus and are therefore leaving at all different terms (winter, spring, whenever) it’s tough to establish some type of continuity. Rhodes candidates- whatever they do, usually have some project they’ve been spending a lot of time on for a certain chunk of time. Molecular research, for example, with a professor for three years straight. Or four years spent establishing a community service foundation. </p>
<p>Whether or not the D-Plan is good is controversial… you’ll find students who argue both ways. That’s a whole different issue though. You’ll find plenty of Fulbright scholars and Marshall winners… a Dartmouth students just won one, actually. Doesn’t have to do with lack of resources or opportunities on campus.</p>
<p>i completely disagree. </p>
<p>the lack of rhodes scholars has nothing to do with the D-plan–dartmouth students leave campus no more than any other students, they just leave at different times. moreover, no college student is expected to spend so much time continually involved in the same project–in fact, doing so is usually frowned upon. i personally know three rhodes scholars who did nothing of the kind. the one who is going to be studying biology at oxford spent two years working on a project, which is standard for most science majors that want to produce substantial research.</p>
<p>moreover, dartmouth doesn’t actually do so hot in the marshals and fulbrights compared to other ivies. every year the fulbright program ranks college by the amount of application sent and the amount of scholarships granted. while most ivies have over 20 scholars, dartmouth usually has less than 10. while most ivies consistently have more than one marshal recipient a year, dartmouth has many years without any.</p>
<p>how do you explain this? i don’t think it is because the students are less capable, smart, or deserving in any way. i think it might have to do with the fact that there is not an infrastructure currently in place to produce academic contributions on the scale of other school’s in dartmouth’s peer group.</p>
<p>Actually, maybe I’m coming around to the views of Yourworld and dcircle. Being around celebrities may make me better too. Cornel West: Princeton, yes, but his role in the Matrix and Rap rocks (although, the others are only academic celebs).
The same works with music and art and fashion. Why Wilco or Lucinda Williams when you could massage your ears with Linkin Park or Shania Twain. Why home-made when you could have Abercrombie and Fitch or J Crew. Why seek close friends when you could hope some of the fairydust of a Nobel celeb could fall on you. </p>
<p>And as to choosing where you will seek to be given an education, why choose what is good for you in your heart when you could choose a label you could wear on your bumper sticker or sleeve and rub shoulders with your betters.</p>
<p>dcircle and yourworld - <a href=“http://www.boozallen.com/bahng/SilverDemo?PID=Home.html&contType=TABLE&dispType=HTML&Region=&Geography=&language=English&Taxonomy1=&Taxonomy2=&Taxonomy3=&SortBy=dateline+DESC&GroupBy=dateline+by+month&FORM_ACTION=BROWSE&style=item&sCacheID=&sNumHits=0&sNumJobHits=0&sNumVideoHits=0&ITID=451148[/url]”>http://www.boozallen.com/bahng/SilverDemo?PID=Home.html&contType=TABLE&dispType=HTML&Region=&Geography=&language=English&Taxonomy1=&Taxonomy2=&Taxonomy3=&SortBy=dateline+DESC&GroupBy=dateline+by+month&FORM_ACTION=BROWSE&style=item&sCacheID=&sNumHits=0&sNumJobHits=0&sNumVideoHits=0&ITID=451148</a></p>
<p>Happy?</p>
<p><a href=“http://extfile.bah.com/livelink/livelink/143411/?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=143411[/url]”>http://extfile.bah.com/livelink/livelink/143411/?func=doc.Fetch&nodeid=143411</a></p>
<p>I’m kinda confused. Whats the point of a liberal arts education? What is Dartmouth’s mission? Whats Harvard’s mission? Are they the same?</p>
<p>What I’m trying to get at here is a matter of definition and choice. Harvard is probably the ‘best’ university in the world, and thus serves as a good comparison. </p>
<p>There is no question that harvard’s faculty list is unparalleled, and yet people choose not to go there. </p>
<p>If by some reorganization of life as we know it, an undergrad education/experience became (unilaterally) null, and the only road to success was to paint yourself with the name of your alma mater then I’d probably want to go to Harvard too.</p>
<p>But the point is that the two schools are different for many reasons, not the least of which is Dartmouth’s choice to maintain a smaller feel while still providing the best education that it can. I don’t think anyone can logically dispute that more quality research brings more name recognition, and that in order to have more quality research you need to be bigger and draw more well-known professors — and Dartmouth could have all that, but that would bring us closer to kind of school that I tried to avoid by not applying to Harvard.</p>
<p>I will also agree that with more well-known professors, it is likely that the quality of education would rise. Or at least a student’s perception of the education would. But again what is at stake here is what we, the students at dartmouth, chose. Like you said, dcircle, the students at dartmouth are unlikely less qualified, or less able than students at more prestigious institutions.</p>
<p>There is little point in chosing a university, and then during your freshman fall (after very little time has elapsed since you’ve arrived) suggest that your school should change. That is what bothers me. If it doesn’t fit your liking then, with all due respect, go somewhere else.</p>
<p>Like any industry different companys fill different niches, Dartmouth is exactly the way I like it.</p>
<p>very well said Dartmyth!</p>
<p>I think some of you guys are really missing the point entirely, and that’s unfortunate because you’re needlessly closing your mind.</p>
<p>It is not about making Dartmouth into Harvard–obviously they are different schools, with different distinguishing characteristics, and I’m very aware that people regularly chose Dartmouth over Harvard for that very reason (my younger brother, in fact is one of those people)</p>
<p>It is also not just about prestige.</p>
<p>It’s about growth. Dartmouth will grow either way, as it has steadily for over 200 years. The idea is to make sure Dartmouth grows intelligently, guided by a cognizance of its surroundings and a directed and focused effort towards becoming the type of institution that it would like to be. President Wright is in a position to know this better than anyone, and if you look at the details of the “Campaign for the Dartmouth Experience” this is precisely what he is trying to do–increase faculty resources (thereby increasing research), increasing course selection (hiring faculty with a wider breadth of research specialty), growing the grad school and academic buildings (increasing the capacity for the faculty to conduct research), etc.</p>
<p>Dartmouth does have a small feel. But you guys are really kidding yourself if you think Dartmouth is completely unique in this regard and that growing (if done right) will take away from this. Dartmouth, at the end of the day, is a University not a LAC. It has three professional grad schools (adding up to bigger grad programs than both Princeton and Brown). Columbia College and Princeton (undergrad) are considerably smaller in terms of both students and student:faculty ratio, both have tight-knit communities, both also benefit considerably from being part of a university that produces outstanding, high level research.</p>
<p>The precedent for retaining the qualities of Dartmouth that everyone loves, while also making large and significant contributions to the academy has already been set by other institutions. It’s time for Dartmouth to follow in suit while perhaps setting some precedents of its own.</p>
<p>As you said, i think its current campaign is aiming for what you are suggesting Dartmouth should take in suit. But the good thing is, the Dartmouth president has been always lingering on the issue of being a “college vs. university,” but his recent speech declared his new goal of making dartmouth the best undergrad school in the world. i think i read this in a dartmouth article. But all in all, I’d agree with you dcircle.</p>
<p>While dcircle I truly do want to agree with you, you make it difficult when you use false examples. I agree, Dartmouth will grow either way. Its only natural over the next 200 years it will have too. </p>
<p>Where I disagree is that I don’t beleive “making a contribution to the academy” is all that necessary. Dartmouth exists to do what it wants, and to bring back a word from my earlier post, chooses to: educate. I see little need, from the undergraduate level, for it to produce high level research. I can see that growing the graduate programs wouldn’t necessarily detract from the undergraduate educational experience, but I don’t see how it would add to it. Also to suggest that columbia has the same close-knit, intimate experience as dartmouth is quite ludacris. The very fact that columbia has more than a 2-1 grad-undergrad student ratio is enough to dismiss that claim. I could easily cite the exact number, or you could go visit yourself, but there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 16000 grad students. (just a few more quick corrections: princeton has more undergrad students than dartmouth by approximately 500. also, princeton has approximately 400 more grad students than dartmouth. while I’m not picky enough to say whether brown has more grad students than dartmouth, they are roughly the same). </p>
<p>I suppose where we should go next with this discussion is the definition of “surviving.” If you believe that to “survive” means to stay high on the rankings that are produced, then sure the answer to that problem is to grow the grad schools, because that is ultimately what brings fame to a school. But if to ‘survive’ means to continue providing the experience that it does, then I would suggest it continue to grow naturally (as you suggested, and which I agree is inevitable) but maintain the level of commitment to both undergrad and grad or at least maintain the ratio of undergrad to grad students (which in the end would really mean the amount of funding directed at each division).</p>
<p>I came back from holidays full of good cheers and found small-minded,stubborn people not open to any new ideas, small or big. Is it cabin fever in the remote outpost of Hanover that produces such close-mindedness, or people that choose (I could have been counted as one) Dartmouth were self-selected to have such mentality, say nothing of embracing new ideas, invention of new knoweledge. Tellme it aint so.</p>
<p>“Is it cabin fever in the remote outpost of Hanover that produces such close-mindedness, or people that choose (I could have been counted as one) Dartmouth were self-selected to have such mentality, say nothing of embracing new ideas, invention of new knoweledge.”</p>
<p>Yourworld, why the need to be rude? Most of the people on here have been pretty polite in their discussion. And just because we don’t agree with you does not make us close-minded, it just means we don’t agree with you. Quite a few people have presented very rational reasoning why they don’t. Your tone is unecessary.</p>
<p>hey dartmyth,</p>
<p>first off, i think it’s awesome how much obvious school pride you have. there’s no question that dartmouth has an intimate feel and that the undergrad focus is one of the school’s strengths. there are two points i would like to respond to though:</p>
<p>1) the first is a factual error on your part</p>
<p>columbia has a large graduate program–more graduates than undergrads. however, it does not automatically follow that their undergrads have a less intimate or close-knit experience. it turns out that columbia also has a much much larger faculty roster as well, many of whom exclusively teach grad students that are segregated out into the schools of law, teaching, etc. it may surprise you to know that not only does columbia college enroll less overall undergrads in a smaller space, but they have more course offerings with a smaller average undergrad class size than dartmouth. this does not make dartmouth less good as a school–it just illustrates the point that a large graduate program does not mean a diluted undergrad experience.</p>
<p>2) you don’t see how improved research capacity would add to the undergrad experience. you also don’t see why dartmouth has an obligation to contribute to the academy. i’d like to respond to both at once.</p>
<p>anyone who’s spent some time in college knows that often the most meaningful parts of your college education do not happen in the classroom. not only does increased research capacity increase the breadth and uniqueness of undergrad course offerings, but it obviously increases the ability of undergrads to play a role in this process. the culmination of an educational experience for a science major is often a laboratory experience. for a humanities major or social sciences major, the chance to produce scholarly work in a senior thesis is equally important. for others the resources to put together a meaningful community service project may matter a lot.</p>
<p>ultimately you are being educated so that you can use and share your knowledge. when you put a bunch of smart people together in one place there is a moral obligation for you to use your pooled education for the common good–that’s the whole point of an academic institution like dartmouth. you are not paying for a service when you attend a school like dartmouth. you are investing of yourself so that you can learn how to serve. and there is no reason why you should have to wait until you graduate to start contributing. the best part of your undergrad education could be learning how to use your knowledge–writing a thesis, doing a major project, helping faculty indulge in research.</p>
<p>that’s my opinion, anyway.</p>
<p>I don’t agree entirely with your reasoning, dcircle, but I am coming around to the idea that Dartmouth could grow its grad programs without hurting the undergraduate focus. Princeton I think is the best example of an undergrad-focused school with strong grad programs. I don’t agree about Columbia, though, just based on what I’ve heard from friends who go there. I also agree that some of the most meaningul parts of your college education do not happen in the classroom, which is one of the reasons Dartmouth was so attractive to me. It has the highest percentage of students who study abroad out of any school in the Ivy League. (and the study abroad percentages of the other Ivies don’t even come close. I mean, REALLY not close. That’s not an opinion, it’s a fact.) And the d-plan allows for awesome internship (including science research internship) opportunities, which I think I may have mentioned in a previous post, I don’t remember.
“the best part of your undergrad education could be learning how to use your knowledge–writing a thesis, doing a major project, helping faculty indulge in research.” Those can definitely contribute to the college experience, and there are great opportunites to do all of that here. (Yes, even on-campus science research with faculty in state-of-the-art laboratories. 
General info here: <a href=“Home | Faculty of Arts and Sciences”>Home | Faculty of Arts and Sciences, info specifically on chemistry research here: <a href=“Home | Department of Chemistry”>Home | Department of Chemistry, <a href=“Home | Department of Chemistry”>Home | Department of Chemistry, bio here: <a href=“Home | Department of Biological Sciences”>Home | Department of Biological Sciences) </p>
<p>I agree that more/larger grad programs might provide even more opportunities, and as long as Dartmouth is careful and thoughtful about doing it, think it could be a good thing. However, I also understand Dartmyth’s “where’s the fire?” mentality. I don’t see the rush to change what’s already a good thing, and don’t think Dartmouth has a pressing need to grow its grad programs.
Oh, and as a huge Rand fan, I didn’t really agree with your “you are investing of yourself so that you can learn how to serve” comment. 
But that’s definitely a matter of opinion.</p>
<p>dcircle </p>
<p>I was stunned to read in your post that Columbia (college) has a smaller enrollment than Dartmouth College. So I checked Columbia’s web-site:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/facts.html?student#admissions[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/facts.html?student#admissions</a></p>
<p>It’s true!</p>
<p>But, alas, irrelevant to this discussion since all the colleges of Columbia University undergrad (College, General Studies, Engineering, Barnard) use the same facilities at the same time with the same profs and classrooms.</p>
<p>Certainly it distorts the issue at hand to imply that Columbia undergrad is somehow smaller than Dartmouth undergrad. It makes me question the motives and integrity of all your arguments as they pertain to the viability of Dartmouth. </p>
<p>You seem to have a dull axe you long to grind in the Granite-State.</p>
<p>“Methinks the ______ doth protest to much”</p>
<p>Anyhow,
See Columbia’s stats below:</p>
<p>Student Enrollment (Fall 2003)
Undergraduate 7,114
Graduate 5,964
Professional 6,324
Medical Center 2,403
Special Programs & Non-degree Students 1,845
University Total 23,650 </p>
<p>Degrees Awarded (2003-2004)
Undergraduate 1,796
Graduate 2,943
Professional 2,603
Medical Center 781
University Total 8,123 </p>
<p>This does not make Columbia a bad choice; Columbia is a great choice, just a different choice. That’s why Columbia and Dartmouth are not one school but two different schools, that’s the nature of a choice----that there would be a difference that makes a difference.
Looking at these two awesome choices, for me, the choice was easy and I applied early to Dartmouth and will be attending next Fall.</p>
<p>Good luck in all your future social-engineering-endeavors. I suppose the world needs more of you . . . and I have a feeling they’re gonna get it.</p>
<p>social engineering? wow. that’s hardly necessary.</p>
<p>this isn’t supposed to be a columbia vs. dartmouth debate. there is a point that either you are missing or i am explaining poorly. </p>
<p>i think dartmouth could benefit from increasing its research capacity without compromising its undergraduate strengths. i hold this opinion not because i have an axe to grind, but because i want dartmouth to sustain its excellence as a center of higher learning. </p>
<p>some of you disagree with me because you either think research/contributing to academia is not something dartmouth needs to engage in, or because you are concerned dartmouth will lose some of its intimacy–an important hallmark of a dartmouth education.</p>
<p>the columbia example is meant to illustrate that it is not about absolute numbers–total grad enrollment vs. undergrad enrollment etc. that you have to look beyond these figures–columbia has more undergrads distributed among three programs but these programs have distinct resources that are administratively separate. columbia college, the program i was referring to above as an example, has an impressively large course offering and impressively small average class size. yet it is still part of a large university. </p>
<p>dartmouth by no means needs to mimic columbia. each school has its own institutional culture and its own unique way of doing things. columbia merely demonstrates that you don’t have to compromise your undergraduate program to have good research. if you don’t like columbia, use another school as an example–princeton, yale, rice, whatever.</p>