Talk:Harvard University/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Harvard University. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

harvard fin aid is just as important as admissions, maybe more so, and should be included with the admissions or next to that information. the harvard website says:

The Harvard Financial Aid Office works with each family to ensure access to the Harvard education students have worked so hard to secure. Applying for financial aid does not jeopardize a student's chance for admission. Indeed, the Admissions Committee may respond favorably to evidence that a candidate has overcome significant obstacles, financial or otherwise. All of Harvard's financial aid is awarded on the basis of demonstrated financial need - there are no academic, athletic or merit-based awards. Harvard meets the full need of every student, including international students, for all four years.

Reinforcing its commitment to opportunity and excellence across the economic spectrum, Harvard today (March 30) announced a significant expansion of its 2004 financial aid initiative for low-and middle-income families. Beginning with the class admitted this week, parents in families with incomes of less than $60,000 will no longer be expected to contribute to the cost of their children attending Harvard. In addition, Harvard will reduce the contributions of families with incomes between $60,000 and $80,000. Visit http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/03/30-finaid.html for the full text of this announcement.

http://fao.fas.harvard.edu/

Is it actually part of Harvard? How do the ALB and ALM degrees offered by the Harvard Extension School compare to the more traditional AB and AM degrees? Are they Harvard degrees?

--

As a Harvard College graduate and someone who has taken courses at the Extension School, I can only say that the Harvard Extension School is as much a part of Harvard University as any other school of Harvard, eg., the Graduate School of Education, Law School, etc.

Whether you go to the College and get your AB, or go to the Extension School and get it, you still have an AB. People who are aware they are 2 different schools might say one degree is worth more than the other. Others might only see the Harvard.

They only offer a Masters degree, not any PhDs (so as not to compete with their own schools). I know people who have gotten their ALM in Celtic Studies at the Extension School and then got their PhD in Celtic Studies at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and others who went through the GSAS from the beginning, got their PhD, and had the Masters in Passing.

Classes are taught by both Harvard professors (the same who teach in the day) and other professors.

Their website is: http://www.dce.harvard.edu/extension/

Hope that helps a little. --Kit 23:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but a recent article on the Extension School in the New York Times suggested that students therein are excluded from certain facilities such as the main libraries. Comment?

I attend the Extension school, and what you say about library access is correct. I was disappointed when I first realized this, but take it as a trade off.

14:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC) not true. Students admitted to degree programs have access to all library facilities as any FAS student would. If you are "just taking a class", you don't unless the course instructor has arranged as such.

Many courses are taught be the same professors that teach the daytime graduate school classes, or, at the least, are professionals in their subjects, course-work is held to the same standards, and the degree still says Harvard at the end of it.

For tuition, I'm paying about $1,700 or so per class, with 10-11 required for my degree. Contrast this with the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, where, even back in 1997, tution for one year was over $20,000 dollars^[1].

I wouldn't pay an extra $15,000 for a library membership, and I wouldn't suggest you do either. -- Kendrick7 19:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Which libraries do you have access to?

I'm certainly not going to question your choice, but I think this is astonishingly sucky on Harvard's part.

????? But, http://www.extension.harvard.edu/2006-07/resources/libraries.jsp says:

"Extension School degree, certificate, and diploma program candidates with Harvard University photo IDs have borrowing privileges at Widener, Lamont, Countway, and Baker libraries."

The New York Times article says "What extension students do not get is the experience of living in college dorms, socializing routinely with others their age and having access to all libraries..."

Let me ask this the other way around: to which libraries do extension students not have access?

Dpbsmith (talk) 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Gee. I didn't know that. Here's a full list of the libraries at Harvard: http://lib.harvard.edu/libraries/listings_alpha.html#alpha -- Kendrick7 17:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but although I haven't been their recently, my experience some years ago was that most of the little departmental libraries were friendly places where anyone could cruise in off the street, saunter into the stacks, and browse and read to their hearts' content. You only needed a card if you wanted to check material out. (This was of course different from the Widener, where jackbooted thugs stood guard to give you a CAT scan on the way in and a rectal probe on the way out, and heaven help you if you didn't have your ID. Perhaps I exaggerate...) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I'd think Widener, Lamont, Countway and Baker could serve most students' needs reasonably well. :-) Dpbsmith (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I earned an ALM at the extension school and had access to every library and facility I ever tried to enter. I once had difficulty getting into the Divinity School library for my thesis but their librarian simply added me to a list and I never had difficulty there again. I used Widener (the main library)most of the time but also used Lamont, Pusey, the Andover-Harvard Theological Library, and a huge library out by Pforzheimer House that for the life of me I can't remember its name. The Extension School also has a little reference library called Grossman that has free printing (a huge boon for a student) books requested by faculty (I.E. books that supplement their areas of study) and reserve materials specifically issued for their particular Extension School classes. However, on this issue of access there is one important thing to know. The Extension School has two levels of study. Anyone can sign up and take a class or two or as many as they want, and these students do not have access to libraries and are limited in what they can do at the university. These students are different from those actually in a degree program at the Extension School. Degree candidates have taken a number of foundation courses and fulfilled prerequisites as part of a nominal application process. Degree candidates receive a greater amount of inclusion at the university because they are part of the academic research going on there. While I was an ALM candidate I served as a research assistant for a professor and was involved in his work. And the Extension School is very aware of the difference between open enrolled students and degree candidate students. I think there are something like 13,000 open enrollment students and only about 400 degree candidates across the Extension School programs. The New York Times is right when they say "What extension students do not get is the experience of living in college dorms, socializing routinely with others their age and having access to all libraries..." This is true for open enrollers. And is true to a certain extant for Extension School ALB and ALM degree students. These students don’t get to live in the yard et cetera but most of them are too old to really want that. Although I am sure many would if they could. I would have. I didn't live in the yard but I did end up sharing a place with a PhD student through the Harvard Community Real Estate listings as a Harvard Affiliate. The Extension School basically serves three types of students. One is the non-traditional student, slightly older and probably married, who is going to school to take classes or get a degree for their career or work. The second is someone who is looking to turn things around, a late bloomer. The third is the lifelong learner, they might be even older, already have a degree, or be an amatuer intellectual. I was in the second category and went to the Extension to get what I missed the first time around in College. I earned my ALB and then the ALM and then used those degrees to get a PhD. So it did change my life. I did have access to many things while I was there, guest lectures, art exhibits, luncheons through the College and University, and the Extension School did offer their own events as well. It is not Harvard College though. And I think the Extension School makes that clear, that what they are trying to offer is a Harvard level education (with the same classes and professors) but not the Harvard life or experience. Although for the degree candidates I think they do try to foster as much academic support as Harvard can muster.

Please watch for vandalism here Hechung 22:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Harvard Extension School is basically a work your way up system. If you can handle the rigorous material and maintain a 2.5-3.0 gpa (the bare minimum is not guaranteed acceptance), you can be admitted into their degree plan. Now once you reach that level you notice the difference between the degree candidate and the person just taking classes. When I was just taking classes, the school was helpful but not nearly as helpful to me until I was accepted into one of the degree programs. Now at this level, it’s better to move up to special student status where you can take Harvard College classes and integrate more with the College as well as the Extension School. To make it to this stage you have to maintain a 3.33 gpa. A whole world of opportunities open up for you if you reach special student status and maintain a high gpa. I won’t reveal them all but lets just say they are well worth the price. Maintain a good standing with the school and you will be rewarded. They like students that will make the school look good. Overall, I really think that the Extension School gets a bad rap because of the misconception that it’s totally open admissions. This is false. There is a formal admissions procedure that EVERY student must go through if they want to be admitted into a degree program. It’s not a cakewalk, classes are not easy A’s, and it’s not cheap. If I had to rate the Extension School I would say it’s comparable to a bottom top tier private school. What I like most is that the degree candidates are seen as an integral part of Harvard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.248.172.10 (talk) 21:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Clear bias against Harvard: The Boston Globe reported that Harvard student satisfaction with their undergraduate experience trails most other COFHE (Consortium on Financing Higher Education) schools. [10] In the survey, 25% of Harvard undergraduates described themselves as "very satisfied" with their education, compared to an average of 37% at other COFHE schools, and 21% of Harvard students described themselves as "ambivalent" or "dissatisfied", compared to to an average of 14% at other COFHE schools. Harvard students who participated in the COFHE survey rated Harvard below the average of other COFHE schools on faculty availability, quality of instruction, social life on campus, and sense of community. An internal Harvard memorandum obtained by the Globe noted that "Harvard student satisfaction compares even less favorably to satisfaction at our closest peer institutions" relative to the COFHE averages. The Globe also quoted Lawrence Buell, former Harvard Dean of Undergraduate Education, as saying: "I think we have to concede that we are letting our students down."

First, this is a newspaper article claiming to have obtained confidential information, and this has not been independently verified or publicly acknowledged by Harvard officials. It can not be considered reliable information until confirmed by Harvard officials. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it should not present speculations as fact. Second, there is no information on the sample size, response rate, and margin of error and it is impossible to determine how significant the alleged differences were in reality. For all that matters, if the standard deviation between the several dozen COFHE schools is 10%, then the error bars for most schools would overlap and the difference between 25% and 37% will be buried within the statistical margin of error. In other words, statistically meaningless. The same thing for the dissatisfaction rates of 7% and 5%. Also true for the claim that Harvard students rated their school below the average of others. What is that actual difference? 0.01 on a scale of 10? You should not make sweeping generalizations and assertions like this without adequate data to back them up. The original author claimed that Harvard students were more dissatisfied than students at other schools, when the actual percentages were 7% and 5%, almost certainly an insignificant difference. This clear discrepancy makes one wonder if the author knows how to interpret statistics correctly. "Ambivalence" or "neutrality" is not the same thing as dissatisfaction. By combining these two categories, you do your best to push your agenda and to insinuate that Harvard students are not as happy as students at other schools. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of Harvard students (79%) are satisfied with their experience, 14% are neutral or ambivalent, and 9% are dissatisfied. I still don't know if any of these numbers are real, but I suppose it could be believable. If you can find similar kinds of consumer reviews for any commercial product, you would call it an awesome review. As far as Lawrence Buell's alleged comments, again, it is impossible to verify the truth of this information, but his response seems to be out of line with the actual data, when the alleged differences are rather minor. To the person who keeps on expanding this piece, please do not try to manipulate the numbers to suite your agenda. As far as the Crimson article is concerned, it is a student newspaper that by its nature runs articles critical of the school. It also publishes many, many articles that you wouldn't hesitate to label "Harvard boosterism" and would never quote. By making some quotes here and there out of context, you are distorting the reality and doing a disservice to the readers. I'm sorry that you seem to harbor a personal resentment toward Harvard but remember that Wikipedia editors should be neutral.

Three independent sources, none biased against Harvard, have provided cited and documented evidence that there is a major problem with undergraduate student satisfaction, and this is certainly as appropriate to the "Views of Harvard" section as the #1 university rankings that begin the section. It is interesting that you can find all of these supposed statistical flaws in the COFHE data, but you have no problem with the data or methodology behind the #1 university rankings and other pro-Harvard boasts throughout the article - who really has the bias problem here? Regardless, it seems evident to me that your opinion of the data is less important than the multiple Harvard administration sources that are quoted in the Globe article, all of whom considered the COFHE data meaningful and a significant cause for concern. Are you calling Lawrence Buell and the other Harvard sources biased as well? And are the many Harvard students who authored the Crimson magazine article and who are quoted within it biased against their own school? This was not a minor criticism in passing. This was a sustained, two-part multi-faceted criticism of the Harvard undergraduate experience, written by Harvard students and backed up by quotes from other Harvard sources and other data. And what about the National Institute of Health data that shows a large percentage of Harvard students feeling overwhelmed and hopeless? Is the NIH biased against Harvard as well? Three independent sources, none biased against Harvard, and at least one of which should have a pro-Harvard bias, all painting the same picture of a serious problem with the Harvard undergraduate experience. This is certainly a valid entry in the Views of Harvard section, although I agree it can be shortened over time once pro-Harvard biased editors like you stop trying to propagandize and sanitize the clear story that emerges from the data. I'm sorry you don't like what the sources are saying, but three independent sources certainly have more validity that your personal opinion. By the way, it is also quite a stretch to argue that a published Boston Globe article is not a valid source of information because it can't be independently verified - by that logic, we should delete many of the claims in the Harvard article because many of them have not been independently verified by multiple sources. The Boston Globe is a major U.S. newspaper with a long record of journalistic integrity, and it has not retracted or amended the article, so to claim that they made the whole thing up is preposterous.

Please read my writing carefully and repeatedly if necessary as you clearly have difficulty understanding relatively straightforward concepts. I sincerely hope your job doesn't demand too much abstract reasoning skills. 1) my writing does not say that any of these sources are biased against Harvard; you are the one who's assembling pieces of information out of context and misrepresenting them. 2) I do not say that the Globe made up the whole thing; I say that its claims have not been verified to lend enough credence to the story. The Globe is a decent paper, but it does make mistakes on a regular basis (ever see the corrections columns?). I also seem to recall that several prominent journalists from the Globe and the New York Times have in fact been caught plagiarizing and making up phony stories in the past. Newspaper writers are always looking for stories and are prone to exaggerating, particularly when it comes to Harvard. This particular story was based on information that was apparently obtained through illegitimate means, if it really existed. The information itself is very sketchy and incomplete, as I detailed previously. The data taken at face value simply does not support the contention that Harvard students are more dissatisfied than others. At best, it might show that the number of satisfied students is slightly less (although it's not at all clear if this is a statistically significant difference), but of course this isn't too exciting so the writer exaggerated. It is this misinterpretation that makes me question the whole story. Even if you accept the information as is, what most people would notice first is that the overwhelming majority of Harvard students are satisfied. What you are doing is trying your best to suppress this absolutely crucial piece of information and put the study in the worst light possible. This reinforces my conclusion that you are biased (please see point #1 above in case it's already slipped your mind). 3) I did not refer to any ranking issues or "pro-Harvard" boasting issues in my comments above and it's irrelevant to the present discussion. Your reasoning seems to be that, since there's a lot of stuff here that makes Harvard look good, I must throw in some really negative stuff about Harvard, even if it's total garbage. Your comments betray your bias (please see point #1 above in case you've forgotten). 4) Who are all the "Harvard administration sources" that you mention? Why is Buell the only one who's quoted when he is not even the current Dean, only a former Dean? Where are the comments by other people present? Where are the comments by the Dean of Harvard College, the current Dean of Undergraduate Education, the Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the President of the University? If this is such a serious issue as portrayed, why was this supposed revelation totally ignored by everyone? Can you be sure that the writer did not pick the absolute worst-sounding comment from the selection to maximize the shock value? You can't, since you don't have access to the original and complete data. That's what I mean when I say that the information is not reliable because it has not been verified (please see point #2 above in case you've forgotten). 5) Please do not throw around phrases like "the NIH study showed that..." hoping to impress people. Most NIH researchers are a couple of notches below the level of Harvard professors, except for a handful. There are plenty of bullshit NIH studies, and NIH studies should be subjected to the same critical analysis as any study coming from anywhere on the planet. Having said that, can you give me the citation for the supposed NIH study? In which journal was it published and who were the authors and what was their study protocol? What was the sample size and standard error? The data itself is also not very meaningful if students at MIT and Princeton and Stanford are just as stressed and overwhelmed. This citation serves no purpose and provides no useful information, other than to advance your agenda, ie. to make Harvard look bad (please see point #1 above in case you've forgotten). 6) The "separately researched article" from the Crimson's throwaway magazine entitled "The Cult of Yale" that you present as an authoritative commentary on the university is a farce. It's written for enterainment purposes and is not some scholarly study you try to make it. For a balanced treatment, I offer you another scholarly article from the Crimson, but it actually contains more facts than you would like to see. http://thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=255288. I hope you got my points this time. If you are still in doubt, please go and watch TV or something instead of trying to edit this article. As I said before, you do a disservice to the readers.

I suspect I am arguing with "Andrew", the infamous Harvard undergraduate who turned the Harvard article into a massively arrogant propaganda piece two months ago, and received an NPOV flag for his efforts. This section is called "Views of Harvard", and we have presented a legitimate view of Harvard based on at least four distinct sources - 1) the COFHE study, 2) Harvard administrators represented by Lawrence Buell and a 21-page internal memo reflecting the views of "staff researchers at Harvard to academic deans", 3) a well-researched article written by five Harvard undergraduates quoting many other Harvard undergraduates, and 4) the National Institute of Health. And sorry, but these independent sources are not contradicted by your personal opinion of Harvard, nor are they contradicted by your personal opinion of the sources. I may be going out on a limb here, but I would suggest that in aggregate, COFHE, the Boston Globe, former Dean of Undergraduate Education Lawrence Buell, the 21-page internal memo from Harvard's administration, multiple quoted Harvard undergraduates, and the NIH have a bit more credibility than an aggrieved Harvard booster who needs to prove to the world how his school towers above all others. And did I mention Matt Glazer, former president of the Harvard student government, who is quoted in the Globe piece criticising the administration's commitment to fixing the problem? In aggregate, the Wikipedia article on Harvard is very positive. There are two paragraphs in the Views of Harvard section that provide a serious, documented, cited, alternate view of the undergraduate program. Everything is documented from multiple sources. It may not qualify as a standalone summary of Harvard University, but it certainly is a legitimate "view of Harvard", which is what this section is all about. So I will keep reverting your outright attempts at censorship.

And by the way, the "contradicting" article you provided is an arrogant football rivalry puff editorial written by one undergraduate, Zachary S. Podolsky, who argues from the same misinformed perspective that Andrew does, by citing large endowments and National Merit Scholars. The issue here is student satisfaction and the major academic, residential and social problems with the Harvard undergraduate experience, not how "big, rich and famous" Harvard is. Harvard may have lots of resources and a very talented student body, but that does not mean that there aren't major problems with the undergraduate education provided by Harvard.

And if it is the same "Andrew" the Harvard undergraduate who is protesting so loudly to censor the COFHE section, I can't help but find some humor in his sudden change of heart since his discussion page comments two months ago, after he was hit with an NPOV flag for his Harvard boosterism.

In Andrew's own words: "I'm a current student at Harvard and authored most of the two paragraphs in question. A common misperception is that schools such as Yale, Princeton, and Stanford are pretty much interchangeable with Harvard, a notion that these other schools try very hard to propagate. So I think it's important for the uninformed reader to have access to the truth. The reason why the article is 'out of balance' is because there are so few factual data showing that these other schools are better than Harvard in just about anything. If you can find other reliable and relevant information that can 'balance' the picture, by all means, add it to the article."

Please don't change the subject. Needless to say, it does not matter how many articles you cite if none of them are credible. As always, you keep exaggerating and spinning - the number of "independent sources" increased from two to three to four now - when the other two are in fact only briefly mentioned in the first two. Hmmm, what does this say about your regard for the truth? The first, the Globe article, is highly questionable as I detailed above, but you are not willing to, or rather unable to, directly counter any of my very legitimate points. Rather, you keep increasing the number of sources in response. The second, the Crimson article, is an amateurish piece by undergrads written for a throwaway weekend magazine of the student newspaper. Since when do a couple of quotations here and there turn a student newspaper article into an authoritative source based on "extensive research"? My whole point above was that you are being biased in selecting these dubious sources to satisfy your not-too-subtle need to introduce something negative about Harvard into the article. Quite contrary to your claims, I am receptive to the inclusion of information critical of Harvard, provided that the sources are sufficiently credible. Your sources do not currently meet that criteria. Since you keep avoiding the real issue, I am compelled to revert back to the previous version until you provide answers to the following: 1) Why are you selectively deleting the fact that the COFHE study showed that nearly 80% of the student population is satisfied with their experience, an obvious and important piece of information? Why are you combining the "dissatisfied" and "neutral" groups to make the number look larger? 2) What is the exact citation for the supposed NIH study since you base much of your legitimacy on it and what is your basis for insinuating that the result for Harvard is any different from those of other leading schools? If there is no basis, the information is misleading and should be omitted. 3) What specifically are the "serious, documented" academic, residential, and social problems you keep harping on? I strongly suspect that when they are identified, they will not appear as sinister and troublesome as you would like. If you can provide satisfactory explanations and legitimate sources for all of these questions, I will not object any longer.

I have edited the COFHE section to address each of your stated concerns:

1) You believe that it is significant that 79% of Harvard students in the COFHE survey reported satisfaction. I believe that it is more significant that only 25% of Harvard students are "very satisfied" compared to the COFHE average of 37%, and that 21% are not satisfied (e.g. ambivalent or dissatisfied), versus the 14% COFHE average. We cannot resolve this dispute, so I have stated that the actual survey results are open to interpretation, and given the citation so that the reader can make up their own mind. I have also added a direct editorial quote from the Harvard Crimson stating that they believe the COFHE results are significant.

We should leave the numbers out of the paragraph, because it is clear they can be spinned in different ways. If you insist on building your case that "79% of Harvard students are satisfied, so there is no issue here", I will re-insert numbers showing the other perspective, and also add in numbers against the specific criticisms (quality of teaching, social life on campus, etc.) This will make the whole section unwieldy, so I suggest we both stand down, and leave interpretation of the results to the Harvard sources that are cited.

In addition, you keep focusing on the overall satisfaction number, while ignoring the subcategory results, all of which show Harvard lagging COFHE averages. You also ignore the statement by the internal memorandum that Harvard lags even further behind its closest peers (e.g. Yale, Stanford, Princeton) than the COFHE averages would suggest.

I believe the multiple quotes by Harvard sources - Lawrence Buell, Benedict Gross, Harvey Mansfield, the Crimson editorial board - establishes the validity of the numbers and the conclusions drawn from them beyond reasonable question.

2) NIH numbers have been removed while I look for the original sourcing. However, given that the NIH numbers come from a Harvard source, it is unlikely they are incorrect.

3) The specific problems reported by both the Globe/COFHE and by the Crimson articles (faculty availability, quality of instruction, quality of advising, social life on campus, sense of community) have been listed. Both the Globe article and the Crimson articles make convincing cases backed up by multiple Harvard and COFHE sources against each of these points. Also, I have added two new citations directly from the Harvard Crimson that should put to rest any question about the validity or bias of the sources themselves.

It is time to close the debate about whether this is a real issue. You are free to personally disagree, but you don't just disagree with me, you disagree with Harvard administrators (e.g. Lawrence Buell, Benedict Gross), Harvard faculty (e.g. Harvey Mansfield, Philip Kuhn), Harvard students (many quoted across the four citations, including the president of the student government), and the Harvard Crimson editorial board, all of whom believe this is a real issue that reflects both academic and social problems with the Harvard undergraduate experience.

On the contrary, it may not be at all significant that the Harvard numbers are lower than the average COFHE numbers. The respondents were asked to rate their schools only, not relative to other schools. Surveys like this suffer from the obvious problem that standards can differ from campus to campus. If Podunk University students rated their school library as absolutely amazing, and if Harvard students rated their library as OK but could be much better (better lighting, better hours, easier access, more computers, free coffee, I'm sure there are plenty that can be improved), it does not follow that Podunk has a better library than Harvard. Harvard has the world's best academic library by any objective criteria, and if you asked Harvard students to COMPARE their library to others, the outcome would've been quite different. Similarly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Harvard students would have rated the campus life at Yale or Princeton or MIT over their own school's (In fact, I would predict the exact opposite in each case). Harvard students are a very critical bunch of people and it's naturally reflected in student newspaper articles. If you scanned the Harvard Crimson articles over the past 50 years, I would bet that you would find overwhelmingly more articles that are critical of their own school than laudatory. Yet most Harvard students are quite happy with their school in the end, and most Harvard graduates are very happy with their choice years out of school. The admissions office brochure when I applied cited a figure of over 90% of graduates who would choose Harvard if they had to do it over again. You seem to be a very avid reader of Crimson articles and other books related to Harvard, and it seems to give you a false sense of having some important insight into what it is like to be a student at Harvard without ever having been one. You seem to feel powerful selectively quoting from various individuals out of context and claiming that these provide some kind of absolute proof of your claims. Hardly, and you can't "prove" something that's not even true no matter how many quotes you can collect. Who are you anyway, so eager to portray Harvard in the worst light possible, spending so much of your time editing this particular article? Do you hold a daytime job? Perhaps in the admissions office of one of the lesser schools that get crushed by Harvard every year? Since you've devoted two paragraphs doing your best to portray the absolutely false impression that Harvard students are unhappy with their school, it is not unreasonable to add two sentences just pointing out that, by the way, most Harvard students happen to be satisfied. This is just an issue of intellectual honesty, and I find it disturbing that you have so little regard for it.

• Jumping in... I don't know how to interpret the results, and indeed I don't really know how to compare colleges since most of us only get to attend one of them. The COFHE material has some degree of interest, relevance, and, at the time, newsworthiness. But it's way, way too long. Isn't it possible to boil it down... while still making short summaries of the competing points of view? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Let me jump in as well. I like the original wording in these paragraphs that says that "the actual number are open to interpretation" and then links to the study so that the reader can make up his or her own mind. The problem with the arguments of the anonymous poster above is that they are selectively presenting the statistics. By lumping in "very satisfied" and "somewhat satisfied", the anonymous poster is hiding the fact that a much lower percentage of Harvard students in the survey describe themselves as "very satisfied" versus the COFHE averages. By ignoring the "ambivalent" category, the anonymous poster suggests that student dissatisfaction is very low. But the question remains - if only 79% of students are "very satisfied" or "somewhat satisfied", doesn't that by definition mean that 21% are dissatisfied to some degree? That seems hardly insignificant, especially when compared to the averages across other schools. And to Dpb's comments, I disagree that the paragraphs should be shortened. This whole debate (by all of us laymen) over how to interpret the statistics suggests the importance of the quotes, which show how Harvard administrators, professors and students who are in a better position to know the truth interpret the statistics. In a way, the plethora of Harvard sources all saying the same thing precludes the debate over how the statistics should be interpreted. I think what I am saying to the anonymous poster is what I understand to be established wikipedia policy - for the purposes of this article, your analysis of the statistics does not matter - if you disagree with what is presented, then you have to argue your case with credible cited sources.Taravel 04:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus is to keep the longer version, I think we need to think hard about creating a new article (Views of Harvard, Criticism of Harvard, or something similar) so we can summarize the main points and link to the longer article. This article is getting a bit long and we need to be mindful of its continued growth. I also think that there is more than enough material here to warrant a new article and I'm sure that much more could be added to such an article. I'd like to hear others views on this but I may go ahead and be bold and create the article. Just not this minute - my cereal's getting mushy. :) --ElKevbo 04:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else here agree with me that the institution section is basically a summary of the whole article and should be incorporated into the rest of the article? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. Surely it is incorporated already? Or do you mean that it should be deleted altogether and its contents redistributed among the other sections? If so, are you referring to the whole "institution" section or just the top bit which doesn't fall under a subheading? If the latter, don't you think it's useful to have an intro before jumping right into things? (Not that the article is especially well-organized now; far from it. A major reorganization is surely needed. Oy.) Doops | talk 23:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the section under "Institution" and before and third-level headings. True, it's useful to have an intro, but not to cover the whole story and simply repeat items (and have links to the sections, which I've removed now). The lead section should do that. See Xiangqi as a way of how articles should be formatted - it's bad style to summarize the entire article after the lead - it should be removed and merged into the content. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my reply below under "rearrangement reversion". Thanks. Doops | talk 04:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

...do not belong in university lead sections. All top universities have Nobel laureates "associated" with them; it's not anything that particularly characterizes Harvard, it's just one more indication that Harvard is one-of-the-best-if-not-the-best universities, a point which does not need to be hammered home more than ten or fifteen times.

Counts of Nobel laureates "associated" with universities seem silly anyway, since what I at least would like to know about an institution is how many Nobel prizes have been awarded for work facilitated by that institution. But even that wouldn't be lead-section material.

If Harvard had, say, double the number of Nobel laureates of any other university, OK, that would be something specially Harvard-specific, but Nobel Prize laureates by university affiliation seems to show that's not the case.

I moved the Nobel-count sentence to the "people," section but I'm not at all that it needs to be in the article at all.

By the way... why was the magic year "1974" taken as the starting point for the count? What's specially appropriate about 1974? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. 1974 was the year chosen because the Harvard Guide on Harvard's website uses 1974 as a dividing point. I originally added the Nobel and Pulitzer counts to the lead many many months ago as a replacement for previous content which claimed such things as as "Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the world." Adding these facts gave me solid ground to delete that sort of empty opinion. I fear that without them the boosterism problem will get worse, as people read the lead and feel that something is "missing"; but maybe it can't get any worse than it already is. Cheers, Doops | talk 18:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Well, we'll see. I've just tried to plug the gaping hole left by moving the Nobel headcount with a factoid which IMHO reflects rather positively on Harvard and also happens to be of some historic importance to the nation... probably won't work but at least I tried... Dpbsmith (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I like the move to the section. Also, regarding the sentence: "Harvard is one of the most prestigious universities in the world." - couldn't this be incorporated into the lead section by saying "Considered as one of the most prestigious universities in the world, Harvard..." Thoughts on that? THanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No that doesn't really solve the problem. "Is considered" still sounds rather authoritative, i.e. it's not weaselly enough. (And a properly weaselly version like "many people consider it one of the best, although others disagree" would of course be ridiculous.) [Also, as far as I'm concerned, "prestigious" is an icky word which should be avoided under practically any circumstances.] I've kept your sentence but changed "prestigious" to the more value-neutral "famous" and, in order to highlight the fact-based (rather than opinion-based) nature of the claim, changed "is considered" to "is." But I suspect that even that will be too much for dpbsmith. :) Doops | talk 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Since there's been no objections to incorporating the hideously long section below "Institution", which reads like a summary of the whole article, into the rest of the page, I'm going to be bold and do so. In addition, I'll also be bold and move some sections around for better flow. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's too long; but I think the best thing to do is just to trim anything that needs trimming. See my "rearrangement reversion" § below for more. Doops | talk 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

"The best-selling fiction book, The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown, has its main character, Robert Landgon, as a professor of religious symbology at Harvard"

Two points. I really think this comment should be followed by the note that Harvard does not recognize "symbology" as an academic discipline. I'm 99% sure of this, but of course it's hard to prove a negative, can anyone help? Can anyone find a Harvard-sourced statement that there ain't no such study as "symbology?"

CERN has a very helpful (and amusing) page describing what is true and false about CERN in Angels and Demons, but Harvard does not seem to be as helpful.

Second point. Although I see that our article on The Da Vinci Code also uses the phrase "religious symbology," IIRC Dan Brown simply uses the unqualified word "symbology." I threw my paperback of the Da Vinci Code away, I think I still have Angels and Demons kicking around somewhere, I'll check, but if anyone happens to know... Dpbsmith (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

A quick search of Harvard Divinity School (HDS) turned up nothing, and a Google search [1] of HDS's website for "symbology" also produced no results. It appears that most professors are professors of divinity. Anyways, on an unrelated tangent, I'm going to go ahead and be bold and remove the section under "Institution" and before any triple-level and merge it into the rest of the article soon if I don't hear any objections (see two sections above). Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thought I'd deleted my query... I found a Crimson article quoting a professor as saying there's no academic discipline called "symbology" and that the closest thing, semiology, is not represented at Harvard, and edited the article accordingly. Re my second point, in Angels and Demons Brown variously refers to "symbology," "religious symbology," and "iconology" so I was wrong in thinking he only calls it "symbology." Dpbsmith (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Harvard also has no professors of phrenology. Doops | talk 20:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

But since there are no recent bestsellers featuring "Harvard professors of phrenology" there's no reason to mention that. However, I'll shorten the note to "According to Karen L. King, Harvard professor of Ecclesiastical History, there is no such academic field as symbology." This should calm any fears that someone will add a sentence to "Views of Harvard" complaining of Harvard's lack of professors in symbology, phrenology, dianetics, chiromancy, ovonics, and pataphysics.  :-) Joke. Smiley. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

SYMBOLOGY IS NOT A WORD!!! look in a dictionary people. there is no such word. brown made it up. the word he meant to say was symbolism. but there is no department of "symbolism" at harvard or anywhere.

the term "symbology" is also mentioned in The Boondock Saints, where it is immediately shot down and corrected as "symbolism." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sup3rmark (talk • contribs) 06:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I nominated Harvard of the Midwest for deletion, and believe it well deserves it. During that discussion, someone called my attention to MIT in popular culture#"The MIT of..." which at that time was about two screensful of tabulated detail. I agreed that something needed to be done, but on mulling it over I felt that MIT does have an archetypic status, deserved or not, that should be mentioned. So I boiled that section down to what I thought was something reasonable.

It then occurred to me that something similar ought to be said about Harvard, so I've said it. I'll probably be sorry. Maybe this would be better in College admissions and ranking shorthands in the United States (home of HYP). Dpbsmith (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Something ought to be said about the "Harvard accent," either in this article or in a separate one. I'm going to collect a few random thoughts and things here as they occur to me and as I find them. Not putting anything into the article yet; hoping someone else picks up this ball and runs with it.

What I haven't been able to find is a good, straight, serious, non-jocular explanation of its history, how it arose, whether it's the same as a Yale accent, whether all of 'em are really prep school accents, when they started, why they started, how they declined, etc. I believe that like many stereotypes the phrase "Harvard accent" has persisted long after the reality. I don't think it has existed for decades, but haven't been able to find anything yet that says so. (My guess is that the reason the article says nothing about it currently is that most of the editors of the article have never heard it!)

(It would be easy to compile a properly-sourced List of famous people reported as having had Harvard accents but let's not go there. And, yes, I think it is most frequently used pejoratively... with an implied "phony British" or "lah dee dah" or "hoighty-toighty...")

• Not the same thing as a Boston accent. John F. Kennedy's accent was not a Harvard accent. "this accent of Kennedy's is described as a Harvard accent. It isn't at all; it's an Irish, middle-class, Boston accent." --Kurt Vonnegut, 'Conversations With Kurt Vonnegut University Press of Mississippi, 1988, ISBN 0878053581

I don't believe there is such a thing; rather this is a stereotype or shorthand for a certain East Coast partrician accent embodied by the likes of FDR and William F. Buckley (actually a Yalie); some of this milieu being based for many years now actually in Southern California. Prior to WW2, and particularly in the 19th Century, elite Ivy League schools were much more heavily associated with this social milieu and class privilege which had unassailable hegemony at these places. In short they were rich gentlemen's clubs for the elite of Newport and Beacon Hill and their hangers on (the "ruling class"). Thus the phenomenon of "gentleman Cs" and maid service in the dorms and the concomitant presence of frivolous persons based on their social connections. I know this from the history of my own family in previous generations. With the decline of that rigid class society since the days of the New Deal, the enactment of the GI Bill and the emergence of standardized testing (SAT), Harvard and similar schools have gone, in the words of Ken Galbraith, gone from being a ridiculous aristocracy to a genuine meritocracy. An interesting article in this regard is a recent piece in the New Yorker on Pete Seeger who reflects on his time at Harvard as a social outsider in the 30s. Moreover, Thomas Wolfe in "Of Time and the River" reflects on his days at Harvard and one incident involving the snobby rejection of a rube from the provinces.

• 1906 reference: "He, rough in dress and manners and regarding "dudishness" as unfailing proof of weak-mindedness, had set down the fashionable Arthur, with his Harvard accent and his ignorance of affairs, as an unmitigated ass." http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11614/11614.txt. David Graham Philips, The Second Generation, 1906

• Earliest hit found in an online search of The New York Times: John Kieran, Sports of the Times, Mar 12, 1927, p. 11: "The Detroit Tigers have lost... Tiny Owens, who... said he preferred the society of his mules to that of the superior youths who are now engaged in the baseball business. The eccentric mule driver objected to golf knickers, white flannels, tennis shoes and ukeleles around a baseball camp. He accused one Detroit rookie of having a Harvard accent..."

• Dunlap, Orbin E, Jr. The New York Times, September 6th, 1936, p. X10: "A Study in Voices: Presidential Nominees Use Plain Words; Their Radio Personalities Differ." Long article on the voices of "Mr. Roosevelt" vs. "Governor Landon," including pen-recorder charts of their pattern of voice volume variation in radio broadcasts. "Landon's radio voice is described as 'plain;' Roosevelt's 'plain but lively, colored by a Harvard accent.'"

• Obituary of E. L. Thayer, author of Casey at the Bat: The New York Times, August 22, 1940, p. 19: Thayer was a Lampoon editor... Comedian Wolf Hopper, famous for reciting it, is quoted: "Thayer indubitably wrote 'Casey,' but he could not recite it.... I have heard many other give 'Casey.' Fond mamas have brought their sons to me to hear their childish voices lisp the poem, but Thayer's was the worst of all. In a sweet, dulcet Harvard whisper he implored 'Casey' to murder the umpire, and gave this cry of mass animal rage all the emphasis of a caterpillar wearing rubbers crawling on a velvet carpet. He was rotten." Hey, this is going into Ernest Thayer...

• Edmund Morris (1979), The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt, Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc., New York. p. 153 in Modern Library, ISBN 0375756787 "[Theodore] Roosevelt's behavior on the floor, to say nothing of his high voice and Harvard accent, exasperated the more dignified members of his party.

• http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/hayward.html "During Hayward’s time, the faculty at Meadville consisted of Sydney Snow, James Luther Adams, and Charles Lyttle. Hayward likened Snow to Ralph Waldo Emerson—“with a perfect Harvard accent and a New Englander to the tips of his fingers.”

• ???? Sometimes called a Harvard/Groton accent? Really a prep school accent? Relationship to "received pronunciation" taught in British prep schools????

Dpbsmith (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there was a consciously cultivated Harvard accent. From a review of a book on 19th century Harvard:

Ronald Story shows how the privatization of Harvard turned it into an elite institution in which the socializing function became as important as teaching and research. And the goal of socialization was the cultivation of gentility in the style of Oxford and Cambridge in England. Under the leadership of Edward Channing, professor of rhetoric after 1819, the so-called Harvard accent was modeled on "the purity and simplicity of the English style."

This brings to mind the experience of an aunt of mine at Wellesley in the 1940s where she was forced to attend a speech class where she was made to practice speaking without her refined Virginia accent. Needless to say, she views this as just another gratuitous example of Yankee snobbery, one of many indignities that she and her folks would not have had to endure had events taken a different turn in the 1860s (not that the righteousness of the basic outcome is questioned).

From a review by E. Digby Baltzell of Ronald Story, The Forging of an Aristocracy: Harvard and the Boston Upper Class, 1800-1870 (1980), in The American Historical Review, Vol. 86, No. 2 (Apr. 1981), p. 462. (The Edward Channing link has the wrong target, but the one with the article is presumably a grandson or something.) up◦land 16:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Grandson seems to be wrong, as EB 1911 has somebody else in the role of grandfater of the younger Edward, but I guess there may be some relationship. up◦land 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

If it was traceable to a single person... were there similar traditions at Yale and Princeton, or is the "Harvard accent" actually a sorta-unique distinguishing feature of Harvard? Of course, Googling on "Groton accent" (in Books as well as the Web) turns up quite a bit... so it can't have been completely unique.... Dpbsmith (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've got my interlibrary loan requests in for the Ronald Story book and a relevant book by E. Digby Baltzell. I do hope there are some details. Just how did the young Harvard gentlemen become transformed? Did Channing literally correct their pronunciation? Were there actually classes and exercises in verbal speech, much as there are in written composition? Did this continue into the mid-1900s or was it just promulgated less formally, by imitation... or by instruction at prep schools that knew what Harvard had expected in the past? Dpbsmith (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I found that reference through JSTOR, which also finds an article describing Leonard Bernstein as having a Harvard accent. JSTOR gives no hits for either "Yale accent" or "Princeton accent". Judging from Baltzell's review, there is a lot of other stuff in there on the history of Harvard in the period. It would be nice with a proper history section in this article. Actually, I'm sure a separate History of Harvard University could be written. (I still can't figure out why all the Harvard students hanging about here are so preoccupied with rankingcruft and so uninterested in contributing anything substantial.) BTW, shouldn't the history section be moved to the beginning of the article, just after the lead? up◦land 19:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at that 1906 reference again. A "Harvard accent" to me means that you talk like you have the regalia of any high-priced education without the required substance (i.e. an education). It's like a way of shortening the description that follows in that same quote of the person: expounding on a topic, while disregarding your complete ignorance of it -- which makes you sound like a pompous "unmitigated ass" in the process.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/11614/11614.txt. David Graham Philips, The Second Generation, 1906User:Fine Arts 19:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Flcelloguy. I'm sorry I didn't notice your Jan 6th reply to my Jan 4th reply. I reverted your rearrangement for two reasons: firstly, the history section is still exceptionally poor, being overly full on certain sections of Harvard's history and a mere stub on others. It's embarrassing to lead with something so weak. Secondly, and more importantly, I think that even once that's fixed, the "history" section still shouldn't lead off the article. The most basic facts should come first, and those are Harvard's size, location, faculties, budget, etc. The present-day status, in short, should come before the past or the future.

To your more general point about the top of the "institution" § (i.e. the stuff not under any third-level headers) -- I agree that it's bad form to have a redundant pre-summary. But looking at the content, it seems to me that much of it is stated there and only there -- i.e. it's not redundant. It's just the "general" stuff which doesn't fall under a sub-header. So why not just fix any individual problems by choosing the best home for each redundancy and trimming other occurrances accordingly? Doops | talk 04:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I was actually planning on doing that yesterday, but I got distracted. True, the section that we're discussing isn't so much a repeat summary as a summary. When I first read the article, it had links (i.e. "Please see [[[#THIS SECTION]] for more information." or something like that...) to other sections within the article, and those sections were only one or two paragraphs long with some links. The information should be moved to a more appropriate place, such as third level headings under other second level headings, and that's what I meant. (Sorry if I was unclear.) We shouldn't give a summary of the whole article in the very beginning, aside from the lead. Thoughts on that? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Every Harvard man and his dog is adding their own group to the lists under "Student groups and organizations". Could we limit this to only groups with significant claims of notability (eg. oldest of the kind; have a Wikipedia article) and scrap the rest? There was a similar problem on the Harvard Law School page (see here). Thanks. Harro5 08:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• On a related note to cutting the article's size, I've deleted all entries in th external links section which are found through the parent http://www.harvard.edu website. Harro5 08:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of these groups are active and among the biggest at Harvard. It really isn't that big of a problem. I looked up other college wikipedia articles, and the do have lists like these. The more comparable universities, like Yale, also have such a list. I don't see the big deal?

Yeah, good point. I also looked at other college articles, and Yale's list does stand out as extremely long. Our is nothing by comparison, and our only lists official sites.Mancala 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links. Please do not assume that just because a university is a rival, everything in its article should be taken as a challenge and outdone. As it says in WP:NOT, "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."

The guideline on external links makes it clear that external links should be relevant to the general topic of the article. They should contain material that enriches the article. IMHO a single link to the Harvard Student Activities list would be highly appropriate. Essentially copying that page link by link into our article is not. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep external links to a minimum - discuss first Hechung 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC) ---

The section at the end about WHRB is incorrect. It says, "WHRB uses the radio "Orgy" format, where the entire catalog of a certain band, record, or artist is played in sequence." WHRB only has "Orgy season" twice a year -- January and May. The regular structure of air is a block format, eg. Jazz weekdays from 5 am to 1 pm. --Kit 00:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like comments on the definition of Harvard alumni. Please visit Category talk:Harvard alumni for a discussion. I'm mention this here, since probably seen by more people, who probably know more about it, than those in the bio article in question. --Rob 19:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a terrific article, probably the only really balanced article on wikipedia about an academic institution that manages to avoid ridiculous self-aggrandizing hyperbole (perhaps partly because the facts speak for themselves). It should definitely be a model for other academic wiki articles. Congrats to all involved. Badgerpatrol 01:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else find the link for Fuck Truck on this page a little bit offensive? I don't want that article to be removed, but I just wonder if it should be a link on Harvard's page. Rellman 00:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Rellman

• See Wikipedia is not censored and Wikipedia:Profanity for why this link is needed. If something is encyclopedic, and this article is, then it needs to be mentioned no matter whether it is offensive. Harro5 03:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

bitanica would not have an entry for "fuck truck." i would ownder how harvard "itself" feels.would feel about this though.

The end of the Recent developments section reads: "The Undergraduate Council advocated for the students to stay or be allowed inter-year transfer rights, whereas the Crimson posted occasional op-ed pieces about the necessity of the students leaving to maintain integrity of contracts." Does anybody know what is meant by "maintain integrity of contracts"? This seems to be alluding to some "contract" that these displaced students had with Harvard. What were the conditions of this contract? Was the contract written, verbal, implied, ...? I think this requires some explanation.

I think "contacts" was meant, instead of "contracts", i.e. students who had adapted to harvard, and gotten to know other students, etc. wouldn't want to lose those contacts. I'm not exactly sure though --jacobolus (t) 09:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow; this article's references need some fixing. We've got incorrect numbering, quite a few unref external links, and back links that don't work. Would anyone object to me fixing everything and switching the entire article to the Cite.php method? Barring any objections, I'll go ahead and do so soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

r

I've done the first step, converting the article from {{ref}} and {{note}} to cite.php using the ref converter. I'll work on standardizing the references next and changing all the other external links left into refs. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the following paragraph, as it seems rather tangential to the article.

In popular culture, "Harvard" can be an archetype for "best college," as "Cadillac" can be an archetype for luxury, or "Einstein" for intelligence. These archetypes exist, regardless of the literal truth of what they symbolize. Evidence of Harvard's archetypic status is that regionally, any venerable school is likely to be called "the Harvard of" that region; see Southern Ivies for specific examples of "Harvards of the South." (A college guide notes, "Ask a Duke student to compare his beloved school to the Ivy league and you'll hear 'Harvard, the Duke of the North'" ^[2]).

Of course, I realize that "the Harvard of" phrases exist, but given the history of this Wikipedia article and the strong opinions about academic boosterism and what not, it seems that it would be necessary to justify this phrase with a long-winded paragraph that most likely veers from what this article should be about (see above).

--128.103.29.10 00:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently snipped the startling datum that "half of the grades Harvard issued in the year 2000 were A's or A-minuses)" with the edit comment "Harvard's anti-grade inflation tactics have come a long way since six years ago, and it is unfair to cite that statistic."

My response is that if it is outdated that should be put into context. I hadn't been following the grade inflation story; I'd vaguely heard about it but had no idea it was that... striking.

But.

On closer examination, I see that the supposed reference for the original sentence is actually a 2004 story about a Princeton's plan to ration A's which says nothing about Harvard's grades in the year 2000.

I think we need a two-or-three sentence summary, with good references, that 1) confirms the sentence "half of the grades Harvard issued in the year 2000 were A's or A-minuses" (I hope that refers to undergraduate grades, as graduate-course grades are expected to be high); 2) says briefly what "anti-grade inflation tactics" Harvard adopted in response; 3) says briefly what the results were, i.e. how the grade distribution in (say) 2005 compares with 2000.

There is certainly no reason to remove the topic altogether or remove specific facts illustrating if (if they are accurate). The presentation should be neutral. It should be mentioned that the problem was not specific to Harvard, but I don't think there's reason to go into that at great length. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll take a look at this soon and see if I can't come up with something. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If "the problem [is] not specific to Harvard" then why would we want it in the Harvard article? Keep it out, please. It's an interesting and important topic but it doesn't belong here. At the very most, it might be mentioned in passing with a link to a more detailed article about grade inflation. --ElKevbo 21:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact, we have an article on grade inflation. I don't see a reason to say that grade inflation exists at Harvard and at other universities, unless there is some Harvard-specific information that can be included. However, I do think that this is relevant to the "Views of Harvard" section, as grade inflation is a pretty common criticism about Harvard. btm _talk 21:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

As long as someone can provide a quality citation (indicating this problem is particularly pernicious at Harvard) then I certainly can't argue with it. It should be a good source, however, and not merely one sniping at Harvard for having a problem which is widespread among many colleges and universities. I'm reading Bok's latest book ("Our Underachieving Colleges") right now and I'll see what, if anything, he has to say about grade inflation and if he has special words about Harvard (he's President Emeritus of Harvard). --ElKevbo 22:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that the Boston Globe had an item about this just last month. The article does not support the idea that grade inflation is a thing of the past, and it does appear that Harvard itself regards it as a problem. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

AT HARVARD, MORE CONCERN FOR TOP GRADES

Boston Globe, The (MA)

February 12, 2006

Marcella Bombardieri and Sarah Schweitzer, Globe Staff

Four years after Harvard professors agreed among themselves to try to crack down on grade inflation, they seem to have made no progress. An annual report has found that grades are again at all-time high, although the upward creep has been small. In 2004-05, 23.7 percent of all grades were A grades, compared with 23.1 percent the previous year. (That doesn't count A-minuses, which were 25 percent in 2004-05, slightly below the 25.2 percent the previous year.) The dean of the college, Benedict Gross, sent out a letter to professors on the topic, saying that "grade compression continues to be a concern." The problem is that individual professors have no incentive to give lower grades and that some believe that Harvard students are so much stronger today that they deserve more A grades than did previous generations. The administration did sharply reduce the percentage of students who can graduate with Latin honors, but it has done little else. Gross said the college had made a strategic decision to put off grade inflation until after a review of the undergraduate curriculum. Perhaps as soon as next fall, Gross said, he would put together a faculty committee to consider what to do about grade inflation. He said he has been impressed by Princeton's new policy, which asks departments to limit the number of A grades they offer.

P. S. I was wrong about "half of the grades Harvard issued in the year 2000 were A's or A-minuses" not being referenced. It appears that someone removed the references from the body of the article. I hate it when people do that. Fortunately they left the citations themselves in place. this one turns out to be an interesting article, by the way. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

P. P. S. I don't want to give the topic much space in the article, so I'll dump some stuff here. Healy, Patrick, 2002, "Harvard to award more B's, Raise Honors Standards," The Boston Globe, May 22, 2002, p. A1. "The school's faculty yesterday committed itself to awarding more B's to students and voted to sharply raise academic requirements for honors, which went to a record 91 percent of graduating seniors last June. No more than 60 percent of seniors will be eligible, and cut-off scores will be raised to make honors harder to achieve.... [A] Globe study found that last year, the honors rate was 51 percent at Yale, 44 percent at Princeton, and 40 percent at Dartmouth, among other schools.... The honors change was made in tandem with a conversion of Harvard's 15-point grading scale into a 4.0 scale, which is far more common. Dubbed "archaic" by several Harvard professors, the old grading system included a numerical oddity between an A-minus (14 points) and a B-plus (12 points) that led some professors to prefer giving A-minuses when a B-plus was more deserved."

It would appear that Harvard did have a particular Harvard-specific problem with Latin honors, which may have been solved (I wish the 2006 story had mentioned the current percentage), but that apparently grades themselves have not changed much. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, Latin honors have gone down. They are capping the honors, which by definition means it's a fixed percentage and it will be 50% next year (http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=502775 there are also many more recent articles by seniors last year who didn't get honors complaining about the new rules).

The GPAs at Harvard are comparable to those at other Ivy League schools (and honestly Harvard's average GPA is lower than many of their GPAs), so it does not make sense to cite these statistics in a Harvard-specific context. The Globe article also included Grad students grades, which are of course higher and thus inflates the averages.

I'd like to boil it down. I'd like to avoid overprecise numbers and say that in 2000, about half of the grades were A's and A-minus and that in 2004-5 the situation was about the same, or had not changed. But if the number was 51% in 2000 and 48.7% in 2004-5 I don't want to hide the possibility that there was a tiny change.

The Crimson story says, "the fervor[sic] over honors and grade inflation that began in 2000-2001, after a series of stories in The Boston Globe focused nationwide attention on the alleged problem." (I assume they meant "furor.") But it seems to me that there was a Harvard-specific furor and that nationwide attention was drawn to an alleged Harvard problem, and that to me suggests that, whether deserved or not, it was Harvard that got the attention and therefore a mention in the Harvard article is perfectly appropriate.

I think the specific numbers belong, because, not having personally followed this fervor or furor or fervid furor, I had no idea it was that bad. Half A's and A-'s is, frankly, staggering to me. That would have been wildly inappropriate even in a graduate course just a few decades ago. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is idle chat and I do not want anything about this in the article until it's clear that it's been adequately discussed here and that consensus has been reached.

In looking through my public library's newspaper database (Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and, um, um, what are the two others? Worcester Telegram and Springfield Republican?) for articles on grade inflation, it was very noticeable that the Globe had a couple of dozen articles or so on this, and related issues, whereas the Herald had none or practically none. (I don't want to go back and search again just to be certain about the counts...) And I see that the Globe is also the source for the COFHE report claiming student dissatisfaction.

I personally regard the Globe as practicing reasonably legitimate and reliable journalism. Nevertheless, I almost get the impression that the Globe has it in for Harvard.

Do others share my impression, does it rise to the level of something for which good, neutral, verifiable sources can be found, and if so would it be appropriate to mention in the article? Just wondering. It of course is odd in the light of a later paragraph citing a Wall Street Journal article claiming that journalists in general are overly interested in, and deferential toward Harvard. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't read the Globe often or thoroughly enough to have an answer, but... maybe the difference between Globe and Herald coverage reflects their different focus. If the Herald don't think their readers are interested in goings-on at Harvard, they won't cover it as much as the Globe. Also, some opinion columnists at the Globe (Alex Beam for one) get snarky about Harvard, so that might affect your search results. FreplySpang (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

 

The Globe's coverage of Harvard tends (in my reading) to have a knock-them-off-their-pedestal tone to it, conspicuous in contrast with the corresponding stories in the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. People also seem to go to them when they have material they hope will make a dent in that pedestal -- witness the COFHE story and the infamous Hopkins leak.

The later paragraph (in its present form, anyway) seems to have it right, though -- Harvard has a lot of graduates in well-known newsrooms, and this may get it more attention. It doesn't mean favorable attention, as anyone can predict who reads what those Harvard journalists say about Harvard when they're young, in the pages of the Crimson.

I'm not aware of any published commentary or the like on this subject, though, so I have nothing for the article.

Greg Price 15:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Globe definitely has a bias against Harvard. They always run negative stories on the school. Last year they even tried to make it seem like Harvard was a haven for underage drinking. It would not take too much work to find substantial evidence for this bias claim.

I was one of some editors tinkering with the wording of Penn's claims to venerability (and, more recently, with Columbia... Columbia claims on its website to be the "fifth" oldest without bothering to explain that it was chartered fifth, but founded sixth). And I like the the table in Colonial colleges that shows all the various relevant dates.

Colleges care deeply about their date of founding. It is apparently a significant point of pride because among other things it governs the order in which they march in academic processions. And it appears to me that they all, including Harvard, have a strong tendency to use rather strained arguments to support the earliest conceivable date of founding for which there is the shred of a glimmer of a scintilla of a trace of a vaguely plausible argument. And a whole bunch of 'em... well, three, anyway... were founded or chartered or began all at the same time, around 1750.

But, in Harvard's case, it doesn't matter what date you use. Even if you use 1650, the date of chartering, rather than the (in my humble and not very expert opinion) somewhat dodgy 1636, Harvard still has William and Mary beat by decades, and William and Mary implicitly acknowledges this by its claim to be "America's second-oldest college."[3].

If there were any doubt whatsoever about Harvard's claim to being the "oldest" you can be sure that the rival university would make this perfectly clear on its website.

So, I don't see why we can't just say Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. With, if necessary, an explanatory footnote (the University of Henrico and all that...) Dpbsmith (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur; the only reason that I changed it to "is regarded as" is because another user had revised it to "claims to be", which seems to imply that the claim is false. Instead of reverting, I changed it to that wording, but I agree that it should be "is". It is generally regarded as the oldest, and there is no notable challenge to this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the use of the word "claim" implies a challenge to that claim and shouldn't be used unless the the challenger is identified and the grounds for the challenge given. I truly hate phrases like "generally regarded" because there's almost no way to support them without an utterly unreasonable amount of original-research-like work. What I guess someone still needs to do is find specific, verifiable sources that say in so many words that Harvard "is" the oldest, using the word "is," and cite them. I don't think that should be hard. Dpbsmith (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I nailed it, particularly with the Frederick Rudolph reference. (No, I have no idea why I thought it was worth bothering about). Dpbsmith (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

...is one of numerous college newspapers founded at about the same time, following the Civil War. Its nuanced claim to be the "the nation's oldest continuously published daily college newspaper" rests on a number of interpretations and is certainly not in the same category as Harvard being the oldest college. The Yale Daily News claims to be the "oldest college daily" which is not necessarily a contradiction to the Crimson's claim. One source, Brubacher, John S.; Willis Rudy (1997). Higher Education in Transition, Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1560009179., p. 137, says: "After the Civil War... on almost every campus a publication was established which modeled its form, content, and purpose on regular daily newspapers. The Yale Daily News, first to be founded, is still in operation. The Harvard Crimson began in 1873 as a more newsy rival of The Advocate. Ten years later, it merged with a competitor to become a daily."

To say that the Harvard Crimson is the "oldest continuously published daily college newspaper" assumes that the Crimson has institutional continuity with the Magenta and the non-daily, not-so-newsy Crimson that preceded it, and assumes that it was still the Crimson during the World War II period when it was called the "Harvard Service News" and had very different content.

So, I think a slight qualification of the wording is in order, from is the oldest continously etc. to "describes itself as" the oldest etc. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe The Miami Student at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio claims that it is the oldest university newspaper dating back to the early 19th century. I know Princeton and Miami try to make claims on this. Miami's paper is not published daily however so can Harvard make their assertion because it's the oldest "daily" college newspaper?

Please reconcile the Unversity of California article's statement:

"At 32 million items, the University of California library system contains the third largest collection in the world, after the Library of Congress and the British Library."

with the statement here:

"The Harvard University Library System, centered in Widener Library in Harvard Yard and comprising over 90 individual libraries and over 15.3 million volumes, is the largest university library system in the world and, after the Library of Congress, the second-largest library system in the United States."

Changes/clarifications could be made to either page, but as it stands the two articles are somewhat contradictory on this question. I'm posting this to that page as well.

Thank you.

I would tend to think this has something to do with the fact that the U of C library system has libraries on dozens of different campuses spread all over the huge state of CA, and it might be a stretch to call it a single "library system" in the general sense of the phrase, as the U of C system is hardly one big university. Harvard's books are more or less all in Cambridge or its environs, and they all "belong" to one university - Harvard.

Cool! I love it... yet another academic rivalry. For what it's worth... the American Library Association's Library Fact Sheet 22, The Nation's Largest Libraries: A Listing By Volumes Held puts Harvard second in the U. S. because it does not choose to lump the University of California's holdings. The University of California system has six libraries that make the ALA "Top 100" list, and I don't feel like doing the math but it does appear that Berkeley + UCLA > Harvard. I think this probably does deserve a pair of footnotes on the respective pages. It all starts to get a little weird, though, because from U. C. Davis to UCLA would seem to be about four hundred miles. No doubt there are expedited interlibrary loans between University of California branches, but, gee, if interlibrary loans count then the Islington, Massachusetts public library is bigger than Widener. But, wait, you can probably get interlibrary loans at Widener...

Isn't it amazing how hard it is to count "volumes" in a "library," or "years" since a "university" was "founded," or "feet" in a "skyscraper..." once people start making it a competitive sport? Which library was it that was counting digital volumes... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a footnote solution to the problem of fairly presenting the degree of superlativity of the Harvard libraries. I think the current wording spins things too much in the "no big deal" direction. I do not like lumping all of the California campuses together and comparing them against Harvard, since it's a four-hundred-mile drive from one end of "the" University of California to the other. The ALA's list of libraries, which represents a judgement by librarians and is presumably relatively uncontaminated by academic boosterism, makes Harvard the second biggest library in the U. S. and the largest university library by a fat margin. How much any of this means in practice to the average user is hard to say, since I'm sure once you look at the individual subject areas you happen to be interested in, the picture probably changes enormously. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding the number of volumes in each UC school is misleading too because it's reasonable to assume that there is a huge overlap of the books available at each university. If each school has one copy of book X, then book X is counted ten times when figuring the size of the UC 'library system'.

I am dubious as to most of these claims, for and against. The ALA list puts the Queens Borough Public Library system ahead of the New York Public Library, which seems a little rediculous. The method os self-reporting, I suspect, vary widely. The NYPL website, however, puts its collection at the "tens of millions" (http://www.nypl.org/pr/history.cfm). In addition, the article cited about the Harvard library director (http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/02.26/SpeakingVolumes.html) notes "nearly 100 libraries that make up the acclaimed Harvard University Library system", which would seem to indicate that this is comparable to the UCLA system. Further, the ALA fact sheet notes in big bold letters "Users should be aware that public library and academic library collections are dissimilar." (http://www.ala.org/ala/alalibrary/libraryfactsheet/alalibraryfactsheet22.cfm). I think this whole part of the article should go with this kind of ambiguity.Shoreranger 13:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Is already mentioned under notable student organisations, with a link to its own article. I think that's plenty. (A note to explain my recent rollback). --woggly 17:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone explain how Harvard got its name, given that the name sounds to be of Swedish/Scandinavian origin but the University was founded by English Puritans? hiirpinkh20 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the article already explains that it is named for Rev. John Harvard, who was British. - Nunh-huh 23:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was founded by Quakers who meant to call it "Haverford" but spelled it phonetically, "Haverford" of course being pronounced "Harvard," much as "Chelmondley" is pronounced "Chumley" and "Worcester" is pronounced "Vanlandingham." It was originally located in Harvard, Massachusetts but was moved to its present location in Oxford, Massachusetts in 1789, at which time the narrow library was replaced with a widener one, purchased and moved from a university in Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, when they widened the library the architect forgot to allow for the weight of the books, and... User:If you think I'm going to sign this, you're nuts 12:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC) P. S. Because of the extensive use of white marble in its architecture, Harvard is one of a group of venerable schools known as the Ivory League.

I'll have what you're having. - Corporal Tunnel 16:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

its named after john harvard. he gave them some books and some land. thats it.

look cyotics...are you insane man. haverford? what the?

The new stub article Cornell-Harvard Hockey Rivalry could use some help. —mercuryboard^talk 20:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have suggested that Primal Scream (Harvard) be merged into the Harvard University article because a) it's a stub and there isn't much that could be added with it anyway, b) it's not notable enough for a stand alone article, c) I don't want 100+ stubs of college pre/post exam celebration practices, d) other colleges also use the term "Primal Scream". If it is to be a stand alone article, it should be an article about pre/post exam practices at colleges, encompassing all of the inumerable campuses, to avoid the aforesaid problems. 66.229.160.94 05:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

the sream isnt as big as people want to believe. the only interest in adding it here is that it seems to conteract the image of harvard. things like this happen on every campus but you dont see entries like this for the University of Delaware, University of Texas, or Berkley.

Is the library number 3 or 4 in the world? The article contradicts itself. 131.111.8.103 17:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Residential Houses" subsection of this article, including a list of the Houses and who they're named after, a description of House-internal organization, and a detailed history of the House system, is duplicated in the Harvard College article. It's more at home there than in this article, where it's getting undue attention in the middle of a supposed "general overview" of the campus—the inner workings of the House system is not the most important or interesting thing about the Harvard University campus. I propose deleting most of this subsection and leaving just a brief sketch of the Houses as part of campus and a link to the more detailed discussion of them at Harvard College. AJD 21:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I'm going to do that. AJD 18:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph directly under heading Recent developments is immaterial to the University as a whole and belongs in the Harvard Summer School article. I'll refrain from moving it immediately in case anyone has differing opinions. 71.240.88.200 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Go for it, sez I. AJD 07:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I changed the founding date from Sept. 8 to Oct. 28. This is in accordance with "Cambridge Birthday," TIME Magazine, Sept. 28, 1936, and some other internet references to an action of the Massachusettts Bay Colony "Great and General Court" on Oct. 28, 1636. I could find no references on the Web, other than those that may have been derived from Wikipedia, to the alleged Sept. 8, 1636, founding date. For the original edit naming Sept. 8 as the founding date, see the revision of Sept. 17, 2003, by maveric149.

Cullinane 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to add additional confusion: would that be New Style or Old Style? That wouldn't account for the difference between Sept. 8 and Oct. 28, but as long as you're looking at this anyway... Dpbsmith (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the Time article says:

Birthday— Harvard claims birth on the day the Massachusetts Great and General Court convened to authorize its founding. This was Sept. 8, 1636 under the Julian calendar. Allowing for the ten-day advance of the Gregorian calendar, Tercentenary officials arrived at Sept. 18 as the date for the third and last big Day of the celebration.

Although the Time article does say "Six members of the Massachusetts Great and General Court which on Oct. 28, 1636 set aside £400 for that "schoale or colledge" it seems clear to me that Harvard officially celebrated the three hundredth anniversary of its founding on Sep 18, 1936, implying that in 1936 it officially considered itself to have been founded on September 8, 1636 (O.S.), September 18, 1636 (N.S.).

I think the article should say "September 8, 1636 (O.S.)" and then summarize the details in a footnote. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Dpbsmith, your argument that Harvard considers the Sept. 8 date to be significant is supported by Web pages that give the date of the college's bicentennial celebration as Sept. 8, 1836. But why this date (or the 18th, new style) is considered significant is not clear. It is probably more convenient to celebrate an anniversary at the beginning of the academic year rather than in late October. Convenience, however, is the enemy of veritas, which demands that Wikipedia state the date of Harvard's actual founding, rather than the date on which some officials, whether in 1836 or in 1936, considered the college to have been founded. Perhaps some other Wikipedians with convenient access to printed works by Samuel Eliot Morison, historian of the tercentenary celebration, can clarify the apparent confusion. I am still content with the October 28 date-- which, by the way, is substantiated by Harvard itself in its 1997 re-accreditation report.

Cullinane 15:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's look at what four different authors/historians say on the matter:

In A history of Harvard university, from its foundation, in the year 1636, to the period of the American revolutio, published in 1833, Benjamin Peirce states only that "historians fix [1636] as the date of the foundation of the College."

Contrary to the next two authors, in The history of Harvard university, published in 1840, Josiah Quincy tells us that the legislative act founding Harvard College was passed on September 8, 1636.

In 'Harvard: four centuries and freedoms, published in 1899, Charles A. Wagner states: "The decision to found it was taken by the General Court on October 28, 1636, and history is agreed that, with the actual allotment of money for the purpose, the deed was done."

Agreeing with Wagner, in The founding of Harvard College, published in 1963, Samuel Eliot Morison says in a subsection entitled "The Act of Foundation" that the Court met on September 8, 1636 but was adjourned to October 25. On October 28 the Court passed "the legislative act that founded Harvard College."

So I hope it's clear from this information why both September 8 and October 28 are considered significant dates. It appears that October 28 is the "real" date of the univerity's founding as cited in the 1997 reaccreditation report mentioned above. It's also clear that this is not quite black-and-white as the exact definition of "founding" doesn't appear to be completely fixed. --ElKevbo 16:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I see that Daniel P. B. Smith has changed the article in accordance with his earlier suggestion. This is at least an improvement. Enemies of Harvard's political correctness may be amused by the fact that in the summary box, the college motto Veritas (Truth) is followed immediately by a Harvard lie.

Cullinane 22:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the date change. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that October 28 is the correct date, including a very noteable document from Harvard itself. I think it's worth noting that there is disagreement about the date and that Harvard's stance has not been consistent but to rely on a magazine article from 1936 instead the above-cited sources strikes me as incorrect. Comments? --ElKevbo 00:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The principles I think should be followed is this: if we have to pick one date to mention in the information box and the opening paragraph, that should be whatever date Harvard self-reports as its date of founding... whatever Harvard considers to be the founding event. If on the other hand we think this is egregiously non-neutral, then just say "1636".

The details should go in a footnote, and the footnote should state just the facts, ma'am: what sources say what event occurred on what day. If a source characterizes that event as "founding," fine, cite that. We should not judge what constitutes "founding." Let the reader judge that for themselves.

The 1936 Time article is reasonable evidence that Harvard decided in 1936 that September 8th, 1636 (OS) was the appropriate date.

The reason I think we should use the self-reported date is this: Founding dates of colleges and universities tend to be pretty dicey because there is broad scope for opinion on what should count as the "founding" event, as witness Penn's decision circa 1895 to restate its founding year from 1749 to 1740. I've been told that the custom in arranging the order of march in academic processions is for the hosting institution to accept the guest institutions' self-reported founding dates and not to second-guess them. So I think similarly we should accept Harvard's self-reported date. Or be deliberately vague and just use the year.

One reason I can't get all hot and bothered about Harvard "lying" is that I don't see what would be in it for Harvard. Harvard is some five decades older than William and Mary, and Harvard has nothing to gain by fiddling with the founding date by a few weeks one way or the other. It's not as if they could beat Oxford or Bologne if they could just stretch the truth a wee bit farther. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

!!!!! Lookee here relevant fact lookit lookit lookit!

History of Harvard University, by Josiah Quincy:

["At a Court holden September 8th, 1636 and continued by adjournment to the 28th of the 8th month (October, 1636)]

"The Court agreed to give £400 towards a School or College, whereof £200 to be paid next year...."

It all becomes crystal clear. Maybe. I betcha what's going on is this. The founding event is considered to be the £400 grant, but since the meeting was "continued by adjournment," the date of record of the meeting was September 8th, but the date on which the actual vote occurred was October 28th.

Some casual clicks on Harvard's website seem to show that for public consumption Harvard prefers just to say 1636 without naming a day... perhaps because they figure trying to explain the adjourned meeting and the O.S./N.S. business is more trouble than it's worth. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that reporting just the year or "Fall 1636" with a footnote summarizing the differing opinions and sources would be the best course of action. I don't think it advisable for us to choose one of the two dates self-reported by Harvard as that is clearly POV or OR.

I also agree that accusing Harvard of intentionally lying or even stretching the truth is, in the absence of any supporting evidence, quite silly (at best). --ElKevbo 02:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Silly, perhaps, but a tradition. See Wikipedia on "the statue of three lies" in the article on Harvard Yard.

-- Cullinane 07:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Is that Old Style October 28th or New Style October 28th? Because, after all this shortdicking, we might have to end up putting November 7th. The more I think about this, my head hurts. I agree with Dpbsmith it's more trouble than it's worth...after all, we are just talking about that community college in cambridge. —ExplorerCDT 02:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Always subject to correction, of course, I'm pretty sure that Sept. 8th and Oct. 28th are both O.S. because they are mentioned together in the Josiah Quincy history mentioned above. So they are both on the same system, and the Time article makes it clear that Sep 8th was O.S. so Oct. 28th surely is, too.

In other words, I believe we are talking about a founding event consisting of a £400 appropriation, voted at a meeting that convened on September 8th, 1636 (O.S.) or September 18th (N.S.), and was adjourned to October 28th, 1636 (O.S.) or November 7th, 1636 (N.S.), with the actual vote occurring on the latter date. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice hack. Must be the Class of 2010 making an early appearance. --Rednblu 23:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the perpetrator has an MIT IP address. See http://web.mit.edu/is/topics/network/ip.html. --agr 23:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (an alum)

Exactly! Good eye! --Rednblu 23:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice hack? If that qualifies as a "nice hack," then taking candy from a baby qualifies as a "nice hack." A "nice hack" would be first hacking the Harvard website so that it lists William Barton Rogers as a Harvard president, then editing the Wikipedia article and citing the Harvard website as the source. Cardinal Gray 01:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done! (Applause) Nice moves! What a velvet robe! --Rednblu 01:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually his first edit did raise a valid point, "about 6,650 undergraduate and 13,000 graduate students." should raise stylistic eyebrows at either school. 6,500 might be better.--agr 11:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the flat statement that

it is the largest university library system in the world.

It's unreferenced, and by no means obviously true. I've replaced it with the statement that

Harvard describes its library as the "largest academic library in the world."

which is true and supported by this web reference.

In the footnote citing that reference, I believe it's appropriate to note, without interpretation or editorializing, that the University of California says

"With collections totaling more than 34 million volumes, the more than 100 libraries throughout UC are surpassed in size on the American continent only by the Library of Congress collection."[4]

I personally think it's absurd to consider the libraries on University of California's mumble campuses separated by mumble hundreds of miles as a single library, for reasons discussed above, but nevertheless it is true that UC does chooses to total their size and concoct some kind of comparison by which they are second only to the Library of Congress.

I mean, Harvard says "The collections, housed in more than 90 libraries, contain more than 15 million volumes... Most of these are in Cambridge and Boston. Other locations include Washington, D.C., and Florence, Italy."

If Harvard is allowed to include holdings in Italy in its total, it's not obvious why the University California shouldn't be allowed to lump in Irvine and Merced.

And just as there are surely duplicated titles among the University of California campuses, I'll bet that there are duplicated titles in Lamont and Widener. (The Bible? Dr. Johnson's dictionary? Strunk and White?) So I don't know how to draw a bright-line distinction between the two situations.

(As far as I'm concerned the relevant count would be: what is the number of uniquely-titled volumes which have the characteristic that a student holding an ID card, could touch it with his or her hand within two hours of leaving Harvard Yard or the Sather Tower, respectively, on foot?) Dpbsmith (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

99 % of the library holdings are at the college in cambrigde, MA the stuff in italy and DC doesnt even matter. its less then one percent. jeez.

the online version of Britannica Encyclopedia online says

"The Harvard University Library is both the oldest library in the United States and the largest academic library in the world. It was established when John Harvard, a young Puritan minister, left his collection of 260 volumes to the new Harvard College in Cambridge, Mass., in 1638."

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9325859

The list of Notable Student Organizations has grown desperately unwieldy. Not all of these organizations are notable, and not all of those that are are notable enough to go on the Harvard University page instead of the Harvard College page, for instance. This list needs to be trimmed down. At a first pass, I'd keep the Crimson, the Lampoon, the Advocate, the Pudding, WHRB, maybe the IOP, Phillips Brooks House, and Harvard Model Congress—i.e., the ones that are prominent enough to be widely known and influential beyond the Harvard campus. Thoughts, criticisms, emendations? AJD 14:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean, if there's no objection, I'll just go ahead and remove them. AJD 20:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I put the three musical organizations back in, as they are the oldest groups of their kind in the entire country and all three are arguably recognized far beyond the campus (this is certainly true of the Glee Club though perhaps not the Univ. Choir and the orchestra.) I mean, this is an objective criteria, right? 67.85.183.103 03:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Cornell University page, which is the featured article today, is much better organized and executed than the Harvard article. It follows a well-organized structure, and the effect is a clear and understandable whole. In comparison, the Harvard page is a jumbled mess, with no overall vision. It would take a considerable effort to get the Harvard article up to a similar standard. For one thing, we need a lot more pictures (which I'm happy to supply if there are some ideas of what to take pictures of).

I notice that almost all of the discussion on this talk page is picking nits with little details. Instead, why not a real meaningful discussion of page structure and content? I think that most of the relevant material is somewhere on Wikipedia, but summarizing it clearly at this page is quite a task. It should be undertaken, however, as the Cornell article currently puts this one to shame.

--jacobolus (t) 07:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, do whatever you like as long as: rankingcruft and boosterism stay out of the lead section... the reorganization does not selectively delete items that could be seen as uncomplimentary to or critical of the institution... and as long as any items that have references now do not lose them. (Regrettably, these are things that I have seen follow in the wake of university articles that undergo "reorganization.") Dpbsmith (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph in the introduction that talks about Harvard's financial endowment needs to be revised. It says that Harvard, with $ 29 billions, has the largest financial endowment of any academic institution. This is wrong because Cal Poly's endowment stands at $140 billion, which is roughly five times higher than Harvard's. I would like this part of the article that places Harvard at the top of the financial endowment to be revised and hopefully rewritten with accuracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shady19 (talk • contribs) 11:35, September 21, 2006

Doublecheck your source for Cal Poly's endowment. It's well know than Harvard has by far the largest endowment of any US institution. There was even a recent blurb in InsideHigherEd yesterday mentioning Harvard's endowment as "the largest in the United States" and its continued growth. I'd be happy to cite other sources if you desire. --ElKevbo 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Cal Poly says that as of 2004 its endowment was 140.1 million. http://giving.calpoly.edu/campaign_highlights/campaign.htm#endowment . (By the way... on that chart... do the bars for 2003 and 2004 jibe with the numbers?) Our article on California Polytechnic State University also says $140.1 million. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for not having read carefully the Harvard and Cal Poly articles. I certainly did not notice at first that Cal Poly's endowment was $ 140 millions, instead of the $ 140 billions I thought. Therefore Harvard has the largest endowmemt with 29 billions. It makes totally sense because I never heard about Cal Poly before.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shady19 (talk • contribs) 20:29, September 21, 2006

No problem! Cal Poly's a fine institution but Harvard has quite a bit of a head start on them (and everyone else).

One other thing - please sign your posts. You can do so by typing four tildas: ~~~~. --ElKevbo 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the article should be written to conform neither to American nor British usage, but to American usage with a Harvard accent. v So, how would you spell "color"—with a Harvard accent? User:Clerke of Haverford 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be spelled "color" because Harvard is in the U.S., not England. Wikipediarules2221 23:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

(diff) The statements were sourced, and the sources were reputable. What's the problem? Thanks. —dto (talkcontribs) 05:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft's recruiting and hiring practices are of intense interest to software engineers seeking jobs, but the proper subject of the Microsoft article is what Microsoft, as a company, is, was, and does. Quite properly, Microsoft's interviewing customs receive a brief mention in the "business culture" section about midway through the article, but the article does not headline how selective Microsoft is or what percentage of applicants get accepted compared to Apple or anything like that.

Similarly, while Harvard's admissions statistics are of intense interest to ambitious high-school seniors, they are not particularly important in any balanced, overall picture of what Harvard is, was, and does, and should not receive pride-of-place in the article. I'm not too sure the present structure of the article is very logical, but within the current framework I've moved it below "library system" (which is more important) and above "Harvard in fiction and popular culture" (which is less important).

I also think the admissions section is way, way too long. What the heck do "estimated" SAT scores have to do with anything, for example. Why the urgency to jump the gun? Let's wait until there are real numbers. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the material about Georgetown having a rival claim to being the oldest institution of higher learning in the U. S. In one edit, this material took the form:

One of the few other potential rival claimants is Georgetown University itself, since Jesuit education began at its current site two years before Harvard's founding. However, the university was not officially founded until January 23, 1789; that year, the Jesuit order acquired the title to the land that became the core of the campus, students were first admitted to a school under the name "Georgetown College" in 1791, and classes there commenced in early 1792.

No published source is given for this narrative. In particular, Georgetown itself says:

Founded in 1789, the same year the U.S. Constitution took effect, Georgetown University is the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university.[5]

If someone is going to make a claim for Georgetown that Georgetown does not make itself, there'd needs to be a good published source for that claim. We don't accept original research. CIte a source for Georgetown being a claimant for "oldest institution of higher learnin in the U. S." and I'll strongly support the reinsertion together with that supporting source. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

P. S. It should be noted that traditionally colleges and universities have a strong motivation for making the case for the oldest remotely-conceivable "founding" date, since it is an important university status symbol, and all sorts of strained and fanciful connections are made in order to claim the earliest possible founding date, so if Georgetown claims 1789 its really unlikely that there's a good case for anything earlier. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed on your removal. As you probably saw, I took out a fabrication this morning on the same issue - fairly nicely done, as vandalism goes, and it too pushed Georgetown as the oldest. Some Georgetown student with a fixation, most like. Guess the user didn't get into Harvard ... 8) - Corporal Tunnel 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about Harvard University. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Isn't part of harvard. It's a private dental research institute. Some harvard dental school faculty members are part of the institute, and have labs there.--HarvardToofDoc 19:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)