Harvard — December 5, 2011 1:45 am

Harvard Exceptionalism?

By

Recently, the Marshall Scholarship announced its 2012 winners, rewarding 36 students with scholarships. The Crimson reported that Harvard only had one recipient this year, noting in the title that Mr. McAuley was our “sole” winner. The article quickly goes on to mention that a few of our colleagues from the Ivy League either tied or exceeded the mark. Princeton won 5, Penn had 2, Columbia and Yale both with 1. Meanwhile, Stanford had 2.

The Crimson‘s piece was striking in that it chose to report how well other top universities performed in the competition—and so early on in the article. Its peers, The Daily Princetonian, The Daily Pennsylvanian, Columbia Spectator, Yale Daily News, and The Stanford Daily, all chose not to mention the number of winners at other schools. While I’m not picking on this one particular article’s style of journalism, it does beg the larger question of whether Harvard holds itself to a higher standard when it comes to these awards.

While these scholarships are important, especially in recognizing passionate and bright individuals, we should not make it a mission to compare ourselves to our peer institutions with the number of winners. It does not prove constructive and makes us appear preoccupied with a non-zero-sum competition.

Learning From Others

The number of Marshall and Rhodes scholars is often used to compare top universities. Forbes Magazine even assigns 7.5% of its rankings methodology to the number of awards winners. Historically, Harvard has fared extremely well in both competitions. It has the most Rhodes scholars with 336 including this year. Additionally, it has the most Marshall scholars with 235 between 1954 and 2010. Having an off year with one winner is not the end of the world.

When we focus on the aggregate, our institution is still a leader in many regards. Preoccupying ourselves with how many Marshall scholars Princeton had this year is trifling. We should take a page out of Columbia’s book and exclusively honor our winners and how hard they have worked to realize these gains.

Harvard competes with other universities in enough areas—in sports and attracting talent in the form of students, professors, and fellows. These are actual zero-sum situations. Rhodes and Marshall scholarships, while finite in the number they offer, should be victories for all schools, regardless of how others do. Universities should not count it as a loss if it only has one recipient, and Harvard is no exception to this rule.

Image Credit: New England Flag and Banner

Related posts:

Lessons from History
Looking to "Like"
The Myth of the China Model
Harvard's Problem with Problems
Tags:
Andrew Seo Andrew Seo '14 is the Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Political Review. He writes for the campus section, reviewing university policies and covering forums at the Institute of Politics. He is a history concentrator and resident of Quincy House.
  • Paul Schied

    First of all, to the specific point of the Crimson article: The Crimson reports news. It doesn’t speak for the University, or its students (contrary to what the outside world might think). Realistically, something that happens every year isn’t that newsworthy. Harvard students win these awards every year. The newsworthy thing here (what was new and different) was that we only won one: thus the angle that the Crimson took in a news article. If they wrote an editorial lamenting that we only had one, the bone you pick might make a little more sense.

    Secondly, you both suggest that these things are not a zero-sum game and then refute yourself by saying that they’re finite. Despite the fact that, yes, schools should be happy for every student that wins one, the competition as a whole is zero-sum. Furthermore, what’s wrong with being competitive? For all the “kindness pledge” silliness, being competitive is central to Harvard’s identity. If you want to make a larger normative statement that this shouldn’t be the case, that’s fine, but you have to be willing to accept that that’s pretty antithetical to the history of the University.

  • Andrew Seo

    Appreciate the feedback, Paul.

    I’m not sure it was exactly new or different. With the exception of 2009, when we had 4, Harvard has had only 1 or 2 Marshall scholars for the past decade. Even last year, when 2 students won, the piece focused more on the winners and their passions. It does not mention how well other universities did (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/11/30/scholarship-bok-history-warsh/). One undergrad won in 2009 and the story is the same (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/12/3/bjork-year-university-marshall/). A more interesting investigative piece they could write, one that would require more research and interviews, could focus on why this downward trend has persisted. Here’s a good one by Bloomberg from 2004 on other universities’ efforts to get more Rhodes scholars http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aLi7PEeNWiIk&refer=us. The Crimson ran one along those lines in 2003 when the University did not win any: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2003/12/9/harvard-suffers-marshall-drought-for-the/. However, when reporting winner(s), it shouldn’t be so prominently featured.

    The reality is that stories in The Crimson are picked up by the national media and outside world. There’s just no other alternative, as much as we all acknowledge on campus how it doesn’t speak for students. I just don’t think it’s very constructive to approach the article from that angle. It takes away from the real story, which is that someone worked really hard, followed his passions, and won a prestigious award.

    It makes us sound petty when we have to constantly compare ourselves to other universities, at least in our own reports and news stories. Why don’t we leave it to outside agencies? If the story wants to briefly mention how many scholars other schools won at the end, as a footnote and reference to the reader, I am fine with that. Placing it as the third paragraph prior to talking about the winner himself is poor form. Any other competitive and leading organization does not have to make it a mission to compare itself, unless it’s to itself.

    Finally, being competitive and maintaining a certain standard of decorum in the way we carry ourselves are not mutually exclusive. And it’s a non-zero-sum game in that any school winning should be proud of its accomplishment and not classify it as a loss. Unless you somehow interpret an extra Princeton Marshall scholar as one less scholar for Harvard. You just can’t fairly make that comparison. In the extreme case when we don’t have any, which has happened only once in the award’s history, yes, maybe it is a loss. But in any other circumstance, I’m not sure you can tally wins and losses.

  • Paul Schied

    I assumed that this was a departure from past results because you wrote, “Historically, Harvard has fared extremely well . . . Having an off year with one winner isn’t the end of the world.” If that’s not the case, then the first part of my original comment isn’t relevant. I think that it’s still very much the Crimson’s prerogative to decide what is the most interesting angle to take on a story, though, and “Harvard student works hard and is smart” isn’t the most interesting thing in the world. That third paragraph is one extra piece of information and one less glowing quote about how awesome this kid is.

    This association of the Crimson = Harvard is troubling to me on a number of levels, and just because outside sources might make it doesn’t give it any extra validity or mean we should perpetuate it by scolding the Crimson for not representing Harvard as a nice, humble institution.

    You’re fundamentally misunderstanding what a zero-sum game is. If the size of the pie is finite and any slice that someone else gets is a slice that you don’t get, it’s a zero-sum game. The fact that you should be happy that you got a slice doesn’t change that. If you can grow the size of the pie, it’s a non-zero-sum game.

  • Andrew Seo

    Technically, the size of the pie can grow. 36 scholarships were awarded this year; up to 40 can be awarded in a given year.

    I just think that the most constructive way of approaching this entire situation with Marshall scholars, Rhodes scholars, etc would be to strive as an institution to get those extra 4 slices of the pie and reflect introspectively on how to best attain that goal. But to say that Princeton’s 5 slices directly took away from Harvard is a bit of a stretch. Bottom line: Harvard should set a high standard for itself and strive for those 4 at-large slices, which is the non-zero-sum scenario. It doesn’t need to focus on Princeton or Stanford to fulfill its own ambitions.

  • Paul Schied

    “Rhodes and Marshall scholarship, while finite in the number they offer, should be victories for all schools . . .”
    I really have to stop relying on things you say in this article.

    In any event, the fact that there is a hard cap makes this somewhere in between. Regardless, it’s not a stretch to say that every one that goes to a Princeton student is one that can not go to a Harvard student. These things are indivisible. That’s just a fact.

    I’m sorry, it’s just ridiculous to suggest that the Crimson should be introspective in what it chooses to report. It’s not the Crimson’s job to be introspective (at least not on the news page, and god knows we wish they wouldn’t try to do it on the editorial page). It’s the Crimson’s job to report the news, as it determines it. If Harvard had some sort of one collective consciousness and every Harvard affiliated person or publication directly reflected that, then fine. That’s imaginary. The Crimson doesn’t have to be “constructive” except insofar as giving us information about Harvard news is constructive.

    If we’re going to entertain the thought that “Harvard” (whatever that means) “should” do something, I would argue that it should strive to provide its students with the best opportunities and resources and the awards will come. I’m guessing you agree with that though, and the distinction is largely semantic.

  • Andrew Seo

    I agree that a scholarship that goes to Princeton cannot go to Harvard. I just don’t think that’s very important to note, which was my main problem with The Crimson’s article. I don’t think we should constantly be comparing ourselves.

    I actually do think The Crimson should be constructive. Any news outlet should be constructive. Isn’t that the point of journalism? I think these are all constructive goals: http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles

  • Paul Schied

    If the Crimson only ever reported things that were truly “important to note,” it would come out once a month. The comparison is just one extra bit of information. In providing it, it is being constructive along the lines of the link you posted. (Side note: #4 is “Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.” Ie. the Crimson being independent of Harvard and Harvard’s students.)
    In witholding it, it’s being constructive to our development as a nice, self-secure institution. You originally were advocating for the latter form of being constructive, I was arguing that the former is all that is relevant.

  • Humza Bokhari

    I think Andrew raised a really interesting point here. Though Paul is right in saying that the Crimson is trying to report news that is, well, news to Harvard (our not winning as many scholarships as we’re used to, or something like that), I do think Harvard maybe shouldn’t focus too much on how others are doing, and be proud of its own accomplishments. Though – I guess Harvard does hold itself to higher standards? I wonder how this came to be the case.

  • http://twitter.com/jtmorello Jacob Morello

    While Andrew’s argument that Harvard often compares itself to other schools, I don’t think this is necessarily a negative. The fact is, our school is constantly competing for the highest quality incoming class possible each year, and the number of scholarships won does indeed factor into this, whether or not we feel it should. Moreover, the Crimson’s purpose is to write interesting and informative articles, and these figures help accomplish that. Nonetheless, these scholars should be recognized and honored for their achievement, as they certainly were.

custom writing