Harvard Extension School

University Microfilms International, a division of Bell & Howell Learning & Information, which owns Dissertation Abstracts International and Books on Demand, has their website here: www.umi.com .

 

The part about Harvard wanting to get into the doctorate business and so doctoring Dr. Mather is straight from Bears' Guide, Chapter 3. Been there since at least the 9th edition (1985). May have been there earlier, too, but I've never seen editions 1 through 8. As to why it took 179 years between the two suspects for the "first PhD in America" I'm kind of stumped. Maybe the six-page 1861 Classics dissertation was the first PhD in the independent country of the USA while Dr. Mather, his faculty, and their students were the considered PhDs from the old British Empire's American colonies. Not saying for sure. Just a theory. Of course, if that were the case, when did the colonies get out of the doctorate business and why? Just rambling.

 

Oh, I agree, Bill. I was just having some fun.

 

Between BillDayson, Jack Tracy above, and little fauss, I think the question of the use, treament, and possible decline of the doctorate can be answered by consulting a history of Harvard.

 

Harvard prestige

I think what we should not forget is that Harvard earned its prestige WAY BEFORE these US N&W Report Rankings came about. It had established itself as a formidable institution WAY BEFORE these so-called "objective" criteria used to determine rankings were drafted. We should also not forget that these institutional rankings are NOT about specific undergraduate degree programs or colleges within the universities; they're general INSTITUTIONAL rankings.

So to belittle the prestige of a REAL Harvard degree earned through studies at the Extension School is an act no different from the bigotry reflected in the snooty and snobby attitude exhibited by the staff of the Harvard Crimson, which does NOT correlate to the prestige established by the institution way before these current rankings came about, or even to the actual INSTITUTIONAL rankings given by the so-called "authorities" in this field.

 

Newly-released college rankings NOT by US N&W Report

By the way, for those who love going over college rankings, a new one, based on a different set of criteria, just came out (just in case no one else has posted it yet).

Publication: Washington Monthly, September 2005

Criteria used: (1) university as engine of social mobility, (2) advancement of knowledge, and (3) ethics.

Results -- top national universities:
#1 MIT
#2 UCLA
#3 UC Berkeley
#4 Cornell
#5 Stanford
#6 Penn State
#7 Texas A&M
#8 UC San Diego
#9 U Penn
#10 U Michigan

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2005/0509.collegeguide.html

 

Re: Newly-released college rankings NOT by US N&W Report

Not ethics but an "ethic of service."

That should scare the crap out of you, mein freund.

 

Why?

 

Re: Harvard prestige

"Harvard earned its prestige" long ago?
Yes (between WWII, when objective admissions selectivity arose, and the rise of ranking consciousness) - and no (before then).

Like Oxbrige before WWII, Harvard was a much a center of learning as a gentleman's finishing society.

The argument that needs refuting is that accomplishment assisted by formal education used to be easier when there was less edification available to the many.

Thus, one can say that older Ivy league laurels were in some sense unearned; they are historical artifacts of being first founded and funded. They attracted the talented because there were few alternatives compared with today and recently.

--Orson

 

Because the colleges should be for the student (the individual) and not "the country", "society", "the collective", et al.

 

Re: Re: Harvard prestige

WW2, more half a century ago, IS a long time ago (at least by contemporary education standards) and definitely way before all these so-called authoritative rankings came out.

But you're right, there were fewer options for people back then, at least as far as "top national universities" went, so the Ivy Leagues, "historical artifacts" that they really are, were always considered "the place to go." Whether they DESERVE the prestige is a different matter altogether, but the fact remains that, whether we like it or not, people put these schools, specifically Harvard, on a pedestal.

 

Re: Re: Re: Harvard prestige

True.

But the competitive point is formulated by economists as capital - ie, "prestige" is an accrued resource. They call it reputational capital. This translates into higher recognition and thus enhanced employability.

Clearly, colleges and universities with high reputations and prestige can charge higher tuition than those without it. Reputational advantage is a big reason why the young clamor for Yale and not ITT Tech or Phoenix University. Time in the market is one variable enhancing prestige. But sometimes even market leaders are slow to exploit their advantages.

For instance, another thread complains about Excelsior College's MLA tuition increases pushing $1200 per course, while Harvard charges a premium only marginally higher at $1500.

Given a choice, which would you prefer?

-Orson

 

Given Harvard's name, this would obviously be a non-issue for most people: why pick Excelsior when you can earn a Harvard degree even for a slightly higher cost? Regardless of how the educational process really is in each of these institutions, if there were only slight differences in tuition (or if hypothetically they all offered DL), everyone would flock to the "branded" schools. It's the same principle used in buying clothing. If a "nice" shirt were being sold at $10 at a regular store, and all of a sudden, a signature label decided to sell theirs for $12, even with the $2 difference, people would consider it a wiser buy to go to the store with the "name" and get their shirt, regardless of whether their items are actually made of low-quality fabric. That's reality...

 

Re: Harvard prestige

The best-known rankings are those published in the US News & World Report "America's Best Colleges" guide. These rankings reflect the standard undergraduate degree programs of those institutions. As stated by USNWR: "Rankings are helpful to applicants because they rate the strength of the academic program at each undergraduate institution." (emphasis added)

USNWR publishes separate rankings for graduate and professional programs, in their "America's Best Graduate Schools" guide. Thus, there is one ranking for Harvard College (in "America's Best Colleges"), and separate rankings for Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Graduate School in English, Harvard Graduate School in Biological Sciences, etc. (in "America's Best Graduate Schools"). USNWR does not have a single, general institutional ranking.

 

Re: Re: Harvard prestige

While I think that Cal has stated the general facts of the matter, it is also clear that these rankings are based on a constellation of measured factors which may, or may not actually reflect academic excellence. Before anyone wholeheartedly endorses the USNews rankings they should have a good understanding of the way these rankings were reached. This is all laid out in the issue (although most people don't pay attention.)
Jack

 

Re: Re: Re: Harvard prestige

I, for one, am not wholeheartedly endorsing the USNWR rankings. My only point was that the well-known USNWR "America's Best Colleges" rankings are intended to rank undergraduate programs alone, as opposed to the entire institution. Thus, the "Best Colleges" rankings include such factors as undergraduate acceptance rates and SAT scores. The "Best Colleges" rankings are not affected (at least in theory) by the reputation of the graduate and professional programs at a given institution; USNWR addresses these in separate rankings.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Harvard prestige

Cal's point is a good one. Institutional rankings should not be equated with the Departmental rankings of graduate programs. These can vary widely. One interesting example is found at the Philosophical Gourmet, a website that (amongst other things) ranks the graduate departments in Philosophy in the English-speaking world. It's interesting to pay attention to the specific factors that are attended to in this ranking. You might gather that this ranking is also contested by some but then, you can't please everyone.
http://www.philosophicalgourmet.com
Jack

 

Adding to Jack's point, all these rankings and status consciousness arose in the vacuum of the abasence of other, better and more authoritative measures.

The National Research Council's reports in 1993 and this one in 1995, for instance:
"Research-Doctorate Programs in the United States: Continuity and Change"

http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/researchdoc/index.html

The data collected therein is even older than the publication dates; it is far out of date. Thus, into the gap come other measures and measurers! Who can blame ignorant youth?

-Orson

 

Re: Re: Harvard prestige

My reason for saying "institutional" was in the context that when News & World Report ranks Harvard as the #1 national doctoral university, it is NOT ranking the English undergrad degree, the sociology undergrad degree, the psychology undergrad degree, etc. in particular. It is ranking the entire institution in its (in this case, undergraduate) offerings. I mentioned that because of the way those from specific undergrad degree programs in the university discriminate against the undergraduate program from the Extension School, treating the Extension School's program as "non-Harvard" or as "fourth tier," using US News' criteria as a weapon against the Extension School, when in reality, US News does NOT really rank their specific degree program (e.g., sociology, psychology, English, etc.) above the Extension School's program, since as far as US News is concerned, the ranking is for Harvard's OVERALL institutional undergraduate calibre (which would include the Extension School's undergraduate program), and since as far as Harvard itself is concerned, the Extension School undergrad program is as REAL and as HARVARD as any of its other undergraduate programs.

My point was that an undergrad English major, for example, shouldn't be so snooty as to treat his ALB EXtension School counterpart like dirt, claiming that Harvard's #1 ranking is his alone, because it is the institution that US News ranked and not his specific undegraduate English program.

 

Thanks Arch. You've made a good point. Of course, I'm one of the beneficiaries of this point and so my opinion is less than objective. I would only add (please pardon my injection of psychology) that anyone who might feel the need to treat another person "like dirt" is doing so for reasons that are less than rational.
Jack