Would you send your kid to Harvard?

They have graduate programs at Princeton. I know, I applied (and got rejected). But I got into Harvard, and that's where I wanted to go anyway

 

Half of a person's K-12 curriculum (History, English, Reading, Foreign Language, Economics, Govt) is derivative of liberal arts coursework.

They force people to read, write, debate and formulate arguments more independently of pre-defined rules or procedures than math, science, engineering or business.

A very large portion of corporate jobs have on-the-job training, due to companies and industries having internal processes and procedures; this diminishes the comparative advantage of vocational training, and enhances the value of unique thoughts, ideas and long-term experience communicating those ideas. I suspect this is even more valuable in the public/non-profit/government sector, where grant-writing, social research and position papers hold much more sway.

I suspect further still that alot of the arguments against liberal arts now were the same exact arguments made against college eductation thirty/fourty years ago.

Can you tell I was a business (non-liberal-arts) major?

 

I would send my kid to harvard, but I'd make sure they dont let it get to their head and think they are smart and better than everyone else because they went to harvard. They do it because it gives them better opportunities, not because it gives them a better education. Attaching your ego to your affiliations means you are nothing without them.

My mom is a vp in a huge private bank, she fires double degree harvard grads left and right because they are usually lazy and have a high sense of deservedness. Id be pissed if my kid went to harvard and then expected the world to treat him better because of it.

 

keep your friends close, and your enemies closer

 

And if that doesn't work, see my signature.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

You're humor detector appears to be as broke as your opinion

BTW, the motivating article that you posted is huge pile of toss. A winy, disgruntled 2005 Havard grad is hardly a starting point in a discussion about what is wrong with Havard and by implication other prestige universities who have advertised themselves as "liberal educators". The whole premise of the benefits of a "liberal education" is even open to debate

You asked

Does the world’s most prestigious university deserve its stellar reputation?

Havard does not take in stupid people and make them geniuses. Havard outside of legacy students (who arguably are genetically likely to be good enough to get in on their own merits) admits the best and the brightess. These students not only have pegged SAT scores but also likely have stellar extracurricular accomplishments. Would it be any surprise that these best-of-the-best students after they graduate Havard went on to lead wildly successful lifes, continuing their lifes' trend before Havard after Havard?

My argument here is that Havard's stellar reputation is based on how successful their graduates are in life. This is determined by who Havard admits more so than how well Havard edcuates its students.

Now one could argue that Havard might not give its students "the finest education that money can buy" while billing them for it. Before we could "grade" Havard on this, we would have to establish what a quality college education should entail. This is a highly contentious topic between university facility and there is likely no consensus opinion.

 

But has plenty of libpigs as well.

 

it's true. a friend of mine is the chair of the visual arts department there. she got her MFA at yale and taught at UH for a bit before joining the faculty of UC. she is definately a libpig, god bless her.

 

I don't think Harvard educational value should be "penalized" for whom they admit. These students are still in a "developmental" stage in terms of preparing themselves for the real world. That means their drive, discipline, direction and accomplishment will still be affected by their environment. In an envrionment chock full of high-achievers, studying and succeeding has much more "social currency" amongst peers than partying, working or slacking off. And slackers at Harvard get a much ruder awakening then they would at a public university, because the grading curves are probably tighter.

Ivies also seem to do a pretty good job investing in solid, nationally renowned professors, people whose ideas and innovations have probably helped shape our government, and business sectors. Can't think of a better roup of people to learn from.

Of course, flagship public Universities get the same amount of money that Ivies get, but generally for 5-10-15 times as many students. Of course, it might not hurt to stop funding multi-million dollar athletic programs. How 'bout not paying Coordinators on the football team more than your Provost, President, Academic Deans or Nobel laureate professors?

 

I believe it's, "You are pretty good at being patronizing."

 

This is wrong on so many levels.

The bottomline for reserach universities is money. They hire research positions with the goal of bringing in money. A professor who does good research and has a great track record of bringing in the $$$ is worth more than a smarter, better professor who bring in less $$$. The exceptions make the rule.

What this is not about is teaching undergraduates. The skill set needed to teach well is different than the skill set to bring research $$$ in. Again, the exceptions make the rule.

There is a benefit for undergraduates to having a great research facilty. The undergraduates in this situation can work in the labs and gain resume making skills for an industry job or grad school. Note this benefit is not gain is a classroom.

 

UC is one of the dumpiest college campuses I've ever seen. Consiering that it is pretty well respected, you'd think they'd put a little more into the upkeep of their buildings and public areas...it seemed like it was probably a nice campus...in 1920.

 

Well my sister goes to Harvard. Of course the decision was a slam dunk considering that she got turned down by Berkley and Stanford, but is getting a (practically) "full ride" financial aid package from Harvard.

She's a good student but has nowhere near the ambition or dedication of some of her classmates, and she's not entering any career field where the school's name value would be most beneficial (corporate world, law, medical etc). She's "majoring" (They don't use major. They use another term. "Focus" or something) in psychology, but seems to be busier with performance arts projects (acting in and directing plays).

Regarding the whole "is it worth it" question, if you are pursuing career in business, politics, law or medicine, then the name value alone makes it worth it. And in general having Harvard on your resume couldn't hurt. Otherwise, if you can afford it, or if you can cover much of it with financial aid, scholorships etc, then go for it. But if you're going to be in the hole for 6 figures and aren't getting a degree worth that much, then obviously it's smarter to pass.

 

In my college career I've attended-

Windward Community College (Hawaii)
University of Houston
University of Texas (Graduated with Bachelors)
Johns Hopkins University (Graduated with Masters)
Loyola College (Masters level courses)
Baltimore County Community College


In my experience the highest quality instruction was definitely at UT. The lowest was at Loyola. Windward had surprisingly high quality instructors (probably because it is in such a desirable location).

As for Harvard, if I was paying for my child's education (no scholarships) I would not take out massive loans to send her unless she was passionate about a field in which they were clearly recognized as the leader.

 

I've heard that instructors/qualified professors who prefer to teach usually stick to community college.

There's also hoops to jump for that PhD, which would lump with the lower preference to researching...

 

Not fully accurate. Instructors/professors who prefer teaching usually go for small liberal arts colleges. There you do not have the "publish or perish" guidelines, you have small classes to maximize student-teacher interaction, and you usually get good students. Problems with community colleges can be poor students, ridiculously bad administration, and no classes over sophomore level - so everything stays at a very basic level.

To Brightside - as someone already said Princeton has graduate programs and actually they are one of the worst at producing complete idiots. They are also pretty sexist in their hiring admittance record (heavily male). Everyone I have known from Yale (undergrad and grad), though, has been solid and speak glowingly of the school.

 

Well I think that's pretty presumptuous of you. And what's it based on? The fact that students might not have the extensive set of core classes that you would find at another university. Who's to say that one is necessarily better than the other.

And what does keeping in touch with everyone have to do with anything. I mean it's not as if you can't build strong friendships, and connective bonds at any school big or small. Harvard or Backwater U. And it certainly doesn't require taking all the same classes to find a shared experience with your fellow schoolmates.

This line of reasoning that you are "more prepared for the world" smacks of salt-of-the-earth righteousness. A backlash against the elite that not only says that "they ain't all that", but "in fact we're better than they are". Don't you see that you're fighting this aura and perception of elitism with the dressed up equivalent of, "You suck." "No, You suck."

Like I said before, my sister goes to Harvard, so I've got a peripheral stake in this discussion. But I do recognize that Harvard isn't the alpha and omega where higher education is concerned. That being said, I find it shallowly inane to cut down such a respected institution with a track record a mile cubed, based on what I find to be a monumentally flimsy excuse like undergraduate requirements.

I mean it's not as if they are lowering the standards and caliber of their student's program. Nobody is saying that these classes aren't any good. Just that they can pick an choose from a bigger slab of classes. Most of which are presumably valuable and worthwhile, and others not so much. And that will be true for any school. So I don't see how giving students more breadth and variety in their scholarship is a bad thing. It's different maybe, but how can it be flat out worse.

This article strikes me as a writer searching for flaws and profundity only to find differences and trivialities. Differences which he will paint as flaws to fit his needs, in order to draw profound conclusions that a less vested observer would respond with, "Who gives a s***".

 

twhy77, it sounds llike you had a great experience in college. Good for you.

Rice is more a science school than a liberal arts college. Most Rice students of yesteryear (less so today due to APs) take the The Big Three as freshmen: Calculus, Physics, and Chemistry. Thus, 60% of my first year at Rice was a shared experience. Methinks whatever "bonding" we had as freshmen was short lived, as least for me.

My greatest experience at Rice was not the education but the people. Rice attracts smart people who will be wildly successful in their lifes (much like Havard). In addition, Rice attracts a real eclectic bunch. the kind of people who go to Havard but choose not to since they do not want to "fit in" there. These eclectic folx are bound and determined to lead an interesting life.