Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]
|
Date Posted: 16:16:55 04/17/24 Wed
I'm not disagreeing with you as much as I'm saying the market disagrees with you. In this case, the market is the conferences with the money and the leverage, that is, the Big Ten and the SEC.
I'm certainly with you in the following way:
Over the very very very long run, what determines the prestige of a university?
In the short run, it might be bumped up by a winning football or basketball team, but only a little and not for long.
In the longer run, a university's prestige is impacted by Nobel Prizes its faculty wins and Rhodes Scholarships its seniors win.
And like it or not, fair or not, a university's prestige is impacted by its ranking in the US News Best Colleges list. That's why schools like Columbia and Penn have gamed the system so aggressively.
But in the very very very long run, a university's prestige is determined most directly by the achievements and renown of its graduates.
I hope that science advances so much that all of us could still be around in a century. Ivy League and other elite universities are doing so much social engineering in their student bodies right now that I am fascinated by how and how much their alumni achieve and accomplish over the next century.
There might not be too much difference between them because certainly all of the Ivies are playing out of the exact same playbook. The same desire for diversity, the same political screen and so forth.
But I wonder whether the alumni of, say, 2024 Ivies will contribute and achieve the way that the alumni of 1964 Ivies did. What about 2024 HYP and 1964 HYP? There are a lot of other variables in the mix, too, of course, but I want to see what happens in the long run to these whining, hyper-left-leaning students. I don't think it will be pretty.
|
Feedback: 