TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Maybe the problem is that Harvard exists

233 pointsby Schroedingers2calmost 2 years ago

47 comments

glimshealmost 2 years ago
This is a typical &quot;let&#x27;s be all equally poor&#x2F;bad&quot; argument. Harvard is simply a private institution with excellent reputation and not a single person is <i>required</i> to go there or hire someone from there.<p>Why do Harvard people &quot;drive 20% above the speed limit&quot;? Because selecting good people in a sea of resumes is HARD. Degrees aren&#x27;t amazing proxies for productivity, but they are <i>decent</i> proxies. I&#x27;ve seen dozens of theories on how to interview and triage people, but few approaches beat the cost-benefit of supporting decisions based on a degree from a solid institution.<p>Having managed over 100+ people, I can say that <i>on average</i> the people from better institutions are better employees - even though I have managed amazing people without college degrees and bad people with amazing degrees. The top schools can be pretty darn great, Harvard being just one of them.<p>Not very different than an Apple product being generally better than a product from some random vendor from Amazon with names like &quot;GREAT TECH&quot; or &quot;SUPER QUALITY PRO&quot;.
评论 #37077505 未加载
评论 #37077540 未加载
评论 #37077525 未加载
评论 #37077532 未加载
评论 #37077561 未加载
评论 #37078366 未加载
评论 #37078682 未加载
评论 #37077573 未加载
评论 #37078030 未加载
评论 #37078246 未加载
评论 #37078266 未加载
评论 #37077776 未加载
评论 #37077783 未加载
评论 #37079017 未加载
评论 #37077699 未加载
评论 #37085384 未加载
评论 #37078035 未加载
评论 #37079509 未加载
评论 #37078439 未加载
评论 #37077486 未加载
评论 #37077451 未加载
评论 #37079812 未加载
评论 #37077775 未加载
评论 #37077428 未加载
评论 #37077765 未加载
fnordpigletalmost 2 years ago
I find the Harvard angst interesting. I’ve never once felt someone else going to Harvard impacted my life in any way whatsoever. I’ve advanced further than everyone I know that went to Harvard in my career and not once did someone wink at the Harvard guy and pass me over.<p>I’m sure it happens, and I’m sure there are secret clubs I don’t get invited to (well the Harvard club is pretty nice and I was invited there by a great uncle who went to Harvard - they have these really great puffy dinner rolls). But it’s never caused me a moment of anxiety, suffering, doubt, or jealousy.<p>The fascination has never made sense to me.
评论 #37077424 未加载
评论 #37077484 未加载
评论 #37078575 未加载
评论 #37077373 未加载
评论 #37077263 未加载
评论 #37078404 未加载
评论 #37077423 未加载
评论 #37079793 未加载
评论 #37077228 未加载
评论 #37078791 未加载
评论 #37077335 未加载
评论 #37077388 未加载
评论 #37077521 未加载
Chabsffalmost 2 years ago
&gt; There’s a reasonable argument for putting the top professors together in one school, sure, and maybe even PhD students.<p>Who&#x27;s &quot;putting&quot; the professors there? The entire thing seemingly hinges on the idea that Harvard&#x27;s role in society is somehow intentional and planned, as opposed to emergent and organic. I just don&#x27;t buy it.<p>The institution&#x27;s stated objective may be the creation &quot;citizen-leaders&quot;, but the influence Harvard has, and the harm this causes, is entirely predicated on our willingness to buy that narrative.<p>Make an argument that Harvard&#x27;s importance and credibility is vastly overrated, go ahead. I&#x27;m fully on board with that. But don&#x27;t go blaming the institution itself for it. There&#x27;s a ton of organizations with similarly lofty goals and aspirations, but we don&#x27;t consider them harmful. That&#x27;s because the harm is coming from without, not within.<p>Harvard doesn&#x27;t need to not exist for us to be able to ignore it.
评论 #37085241 未加载
评论 #37082576 未加载
viburnumalmost 2 years ago
Every tech company I’ve worked at has been run by Ivy people but all the actual code is written by Cal State graduates and high school dropouts.
评论 #37077787 未加载
评论 #37077280 未加载
评论 #37077328 未加载
评论 #37077311 未加载
sugarpilealmost 2 years ago
It has fallen out of favor but I am a massive proponent for graduated drivers licenses. Free toll roads would be silly but higher&#x2F;removed speed limits seem 100% ok to me as long as it&#x27;s coupled with an actual assessment of driving ability, semi-frequent required reassessment, and stiffer penalties for things such as DUI when driving in the graduated speed limit range.
评论 #37078282 未加载
评论 #37077248 未加载
mapgrepalmost 2 years ago
Post made some good points but in the end it&#x27;s pretty nihilistic to say that elite spaces shouldn&#x27;t exist merely because they tend to cultivate elites and other elite spaces. Also very reductive to say that Harvard exists just to perpetuate elitism (no, it has a genuine educational and research mission, whatever its various flaws, that&#x27;s patently clear).<p>The world is flawed and imperfect and perfect things don&#x27;t really emerge from it. Harvard is glorious. Our best and oldest (in the US) university is bad because it&#x27;s not sufficiently egalitarian, and let&#x27;s destroy it? It&#x27;s an engine for our society and other universities have followed in its footsteps. Stanford, Caltech, Rice, Berkeley, the Claremont schools, etc etc - none of these were in the original ivy league, all are imperfect to some extent in their admissions and embrace and fulfillment of egalitarian ideals. They are also glorious though. They make our country a dynamic, innovative, intellectually vibrant place and attract students from around the world. They absolutely are key to our (staggering) economic and cultural success (in the US).<p>Elite clubbiness is an unfortunate side effect of success, but it doesn&#x27;t mean we should then intentionally obliterate the engine of that success out of distaste for the cose of it.
marcinzmalmost 2 years ago
This article misses the simple fact that the type of fellow students you have will impact how well you do as a student. Humans are social creatures and will influence each other&#x27;s behavior. That&#x27;s not even getting into negative pressure from things like bullying.<p>edit: Also their point on the curriculum being similar misses the fact that the standard for doing well differs. Barely learning some material is different from understanding it well. I&#x27;ve had the experience of taking various college math classes from a variety of institutions. There is a very large difference in the effort I had to put in to do well at a top school versus a middling school. This is of course related to my first point on the quality of students mattering as you simply cannot have the same bar given such different student populations.
评论 #37077234 未加载
评论 #37077211 未加载
评论 #37077229 未加载
a2xd94almost 2 years ago
The thing that gets me is that nearly every single podcast or article that talks about admissions and how fair&#x2F;unfair they are focuses almost solely on Ivy League schools and leaves out the state and local colleges&#x2F;universities that actually churn out 99% of college graduates in the US. Maybe we tax payers need to do better about steering the conversation towards those institutions that we fund as opposed to those that function almost solely in a closed legacy-admissions environment (regardless of what pretty&#x2F;diverse narratives those schools would like to have us &#x27;normies&#x27; believe).
评论 #37079192 未加载
评论 #37077853 未加载
curiousllamaalmost 2 years ago
&gt; But we agree on the ideal, right? In dreamworld, every kid would follow their own path. There would be no “advanced classes” or “tracks” because those concepts wouldn’t exist.<p>If I grew up in this ideal, I&#x27;d be a bum. I was a lazy and arrogant teenager; my ideal path was to go &quot;oh, sh*t, I need to work hard or I won&#x27;t get into a good school&quot;<p>I&#x27;m not saying our system is perfect (or even good). But it&#x27;s easy to critique a system when you acknowledge exactly 0 of its benefits.
less_lessalmost 2 years ago
I agree that there are many aspects of how elite universities work that are not what&#x27;s best for society. I don&#x27;t think this is the best thinkpiece on it though. One small thing that jumped out at me is the bit about &quot;we don&#x27;t have to sort kids at 18, because most colleges teach the same stuff&quot;. To support this point, the author compared Harvard Math 1a to SIUE Math 150.<p>This is a bad comparison, because these are introductory math classes for first-year students who aren&#x27;t math majors, used to satisfy distribution requirements or give math background for non-math-intensive courses. There&#x27;s a placement system to decide what math class to take, probably at both universities, but here is Harvard&#x27;s (2020-2021):<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.math.harvard.edu&#x2F;media&#x2F;Math-for-first-year-students-2020-2021.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.math.harvard.edu&#x2F;media&#x2F;Math-for-first-year-stude...</a><p>As you can see, first-year Harvard math or physics majors sometimes take Math 21, but more likely Math 23, 25, or 55. (Math 55 is weirdly fetishized, but that&#x27;s another story.) These classes are significantly more rigorous than Math 1.<p>Having taken math courses for math majors at both an Ivy school and a decent non-Ivy, it is my experience that while they teach roughly the same subjects, they do not teach the same things within those subjects, nor at the same pace, nor to the same level of rigor. Nor are the students in those classes equally good at math. So, while sorting those students can and does contribute to injustice (especially with the actual way it&#x27;s done!), it&#x27;s also not a completely pointless just for the sake of giving gold stars.
评论 #37078320 未加载
aidenn0almost 2 years ago
&gt; [We should maximize individual potential even if this causes more variance than we have now]... But we agree on the ideal, right?<p>Some people absolutely disagree with this ideal. One argument against gifted classes is roughly &quot;Those kids will do alright regardless of the classroom, so we should ignore them and focus resources on less gifted kids&quot;
HPsquaredalmost 2 years ago
There is always a ruling class. It&#x27;s an emergent phenomenon which always reasserts itself after any upset. Basically a law of nature.
评论 #37077282 未加载
评论 #37077238 未加载
评论 #37077298 未加载
评论 #37077206 未加载
评论 #37077277 未加载
评论 #37077501 未加载
TrackerFFalmost 2 years ago
It is much easier these days to interview for top jobs that would have excluded you 20 years ago, because you went to the wrong schools.<p>If you&#x27;re a smart and ambitious student, don&#x27;t let your alma mater be the deciding factor in your life. It is true, you may have to work much harder than those that can coast on their HYPS-pedigree, but as the saying goes: You can&#x27;t keep a good man down.<p>The anxiety of not getting accepted into a top school is mostly a juvenile phenomena.
munificentalmost 2 years ago
<i>&gt; I think the answer is: Each kid gets whatever experiences maximize their potential. That’s not controversial, is it? Ideally, they’d learn whatever subjects, in whatever style would best help them flourish into rich, happy, successful adults.</i><p>Actually, that isn&#x27;t what people want.<p>If your ideal is &quot;what each child receives is what that child deserves&quot; then the only inputs that determine what the kid receives are from the kid themselves. What is missing from that equation? <i>Parents.</i> One of the fundamental goals of almost all parents is <i>help my kid</i>. They want to increase the opportunity and resources their kid has regardless of that kids&#x27; potential relative to others or whether the kid <i>deserves</i> those extra resources in any general or moral sense.<p>This is just another way to think of Pinker&#x27;s trilemma, which is one of the most insightful things I&#x27;ve <i>ever</i> read about human society:<p>&quot;No society can be simultaneously fair, free, and equal. If it is fair, people who work harder can accumulate more. If it is free, people will give their wealth to their children. But then it cannot be equal, for some people will inherit wealth they did not earn.&quot;
评论 #37082605 未加载
542458almost 2 years ago
&gt; But we agree on the ideal, right? In dreamworld, every kid would follow their own path. There would be no “advanced classes” or “tracks” because those concepts wouldn’t exist.<p>Aren’t “path” and “track” essentially synonyms? And why wouldn’t there be advanced classes? Somebody who wants to become a tradesperson needs to know math, but doesn’t need the same level of advanced math that somebody who is interested in particle physics would need.
评论 #37077333 未加载
pxxalmost 2 years ago
&gt; You can&#x27;t start a tax-exempt country club.<p>Uh... Sure you can? This is literally section 501(c)7; private clubs in general are exempt from federal income taxation.
评论 #37079815 未加载
nseniftyalmost 2 years ago
Gating as late as possible was precisely the philosophy of the OMSCS program of Georgia Tech. They reduced the bar for admission and admitted as many as they could (given they didn&#x27;t need to fit everyone in physical classrooms) but kept the same academic rigor.<p>I benefited greatly getting this program, but would have never bothered to apply by taking GRE first (in my 30s, if I may add) otherwise.
photochemsynalmost 2 years ago
The issue is that American academic institutions have adopted the inherited-wealth &#x2F; social-class-based model that was so prevalent in Britain in the early 20th century. Elite schools are not centers of education so much as they are centers of networking for feeding the anoited few into positions in government and business, regardless of what actual skills and talents and abilities they possess.<p>Eliminating legacy admissions and ensuring that K-12 schools across the country are of uniform high quality (in particular in the STEAM fields, yes that includes Art) would do much to reverse this trend, along with reducing college tuition costs.<p>It&#x27;s like wild salmon vs. farmed salmon - pampered students who never have to swim upstream don&#x27;t develop the best qualities.
JoshTkoalmost 2 years ago
Harvard is obviously a problem. Does any institution work against the interests of the people that fund it? Rich people fund Harvard. Harvard will work in the interests of rich people. Meritocracy is not in the in the interests of rich people.<p>Harvard is just a pay to play gated community.
tlbalmost 2 years ago
You could base a society on randomly selecting people at a young age to be elite. It would still have advantages over a society with no elites at all.<p>The goal of having an elite class is to make better collective decisions about how society should organize itself. Decisions are best made by people with the best information, and elites (regardless of any intrinsic merit) have better information. By virtue of being elite, they get better educations and more inside access to new information.<p>The classical way of doing this was through inherited privilege. Whatever intrinsic merit first-generation aristocrats may have had to win their position is mostly gone after a few generations, so for example 19th century English aristocrats had little genetic advantage over the average population. But they were selected at birth to receive the best educations and inside access to each other, so they made better decisions than if you chose random citizens in adulthood to put in charge.<p>Part of what Harvard does is to say &quot;You are now an elite. You will shape the future of society.&quot; Most students take that seriously and try to become worthy of the challenge.<p>No society has tried selecting random people in adulthood to put in charge. The closest natural experiment is societies that select leaders based on physical strength and courage. They seem to make fairly bad decisions.
评论 #37078695 未加载
sokoloffalmost 2 years ago
&gt; What would happen in schools if we lived in a magical dreamworld? I think the answer is: Each kid gets whatever experiences maximize their potential.<p>That answer sure does sound like the stuff of magical dreamworlds.<p>Whatever experiences maximize their potential is the province of families, not the stuff of society-paid education. It&#x27;s not that it <i>couldn&#x27;t be</i> provided by the latter, but the daunting expense means that it will never be funded to a level that maximizes on an individualized basis.<p>What would that require? One teacher for every 4 kids, maybe you could stretch it to 6 or 8. On top of that, a multitude of specialists to ensure that any special needs are addressed in an individually customized fashion to maximize the potential of every kid. In many districts, we can&#x27;t get agreement that we should <i>feed every kid</i>, let alone agreement that there should be roughly one professional adult in total for every 2-3 kids.<p>&gt; In dreamworld, every kid would follow their own path. There would be no “advanced classes” or “tracks” because those concepts wouldn’t exist.<p>Those concepts would absolutely exist, just under a different label (and maybe not even that), because kids at the very top of the range would be taking something that would be readily recognizable as the close equivalent of today&#x27;s advanced classes.
评论 #37077806 未加载
sevenseventenalmost 2 years ago
A lot of these responses seem to think that Harvard is better to go to because the education is better there, which is explicitly if lightly addressed in the article.<p>The article&#x27;s thesis is that the benefit of going to Harvard is mostly derived from just from having gone to Harvard irrespective of the education itself. That could accrue just from the credential, or from the enormous and powerful social and support networks that graduates benefit from.
kweingaralmost 2 years ago
The most galling part about these institutions is that they have the capacity to teach many, many more students, and they don’t. They can’t expect me to keep a straight face when they prattle on about their &quot;genuine educational mission&quot;, while their class sizes are artificially tiny so they can preserve The Brand and make sure The Club doesn’t get so big as to be unwieldy.
waffletoweralmost 2 years ago
Endowments are not meritocratic. While I can&#x27;t quote data, I imagine that wealthy students provide much more growth for endowments, which in turn contribute not only to reputation, but also research, and ratio boosting hiring capacity. While Princeton and other Ivies, do have aggressive financial aid programs, <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.princeton.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;2022&#x2F;09&#x2F;08&#x2F;princeton-will-enhance-its-groundbreaking-financial-aid-program" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.princeton.edu&#x2F;news&#x2F;2022&#x2F;09&#x2F;08&#x2F;princeton-will-enh...</a>, it is important for the elite schools to admit the wealthy, particularly students whose families will donate generously initially upon admission, and also throughout the student&#x27;s life. Less wealthy students are less attractive fiscally, but reputation is influenced by a schools willingness to admit lower income students.
jwiealmost 2 years ago
The problem is not that elites exist.<p>The problem is that the current elites hate the people they rule over, and conspire with capital to rob everyone.<p>The dreamworld is not a classless society. But rather one where the leaders love those they lead and work for their betterment.<p>That being said, I’ve met enough Harvard and ivy types to have a low opinion. They’re no smarter than anyone else. These networks are powerful though. They will eventually collapse due to the crushing weight of their own incompetence and greed, but such corrections to the natural order take generational time.
thatcherthornalmost 2 years ago
The depth of the subject is much too great for an article. But, there&#x27;s certainly some interesting discussion to be had around the relationship between people&#x27;s general work outcomes and a strong gating mechanism evaluated earlier in life.<p>I really hope we soon see innovation around education. When the entire corpus of human knowledge became available freely - surely we would&#x27;ve seen changes in higher education by now (if they were&#x2F;are ever going to happen).
zeroonetwothreealmost 2 years ago
There have been several studies finding no benefit from going to “top” schools when controlling for student quality. So the entire premise is false.
endisneighalmost 2 years ago
this article had so many terrible takes I don&#x27;t know where to begin. the simplest refutation of the entire thing is the extensive evidence that people who are <i>accepted</i> to top schools, but do not <i>attend</i> have similar achieves as those who go.<p>this lends credence to the idea that the top schools are simplest triaging the successful and do not create them, in general. Of course there are specific exceptions to this, such as Supreme Court Justices, but in general it seems to be true.<p>The paper (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opportunityinsights.org&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2023&#x2F;07&#x2F;C" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;opportunityinsights.org&#x2F;wp-content&#x2F;uploads&#x2F;2023&#x2F;07&#x2F;C</a>...) is ultimately flawed because it doesn&#x27;t (and cannot) evaluate the simplest thing: look at people who are accepted to the top schools who do not attend. The problem with using waitlist and is that waitlist is ultimately as arbitrary as rejection and not some arbiter of a &quot;marginal acceptance&quot;. The entire premise of their argument is flawed to begin with.<p>Furthermore it goes into jobs held after selection and are highly fixated on &quot;social&quot; jobs, e.g. politicians and supreme court justices, which are inherently scarce and highly likely to be stratified in such a way that is perpetuated by elitism, irrespective of &quot;elite colleges&quot;.<p>In the end the authors (who are from the very schools they think are perpetuating issues ironically) miss the point. Definitionally elite colleges want elite results. Their call to diversify the background of their students and thus the future leaders is inherently at odds with this unless those diversity people already had a propensity to be elite, by definition.<p>the stratification of society is an emergent phenomenon.
评论 #37079832 未加载
Kyragemalmost 2 years ago
The existence of these institutions hinges solely on the reputation we assign to them. If we collectively recognize them for their role in perpetuating economic inequality, catering primarily to privileged white adults whose parents bought them a ticket to attend, their worth will diminish rapidly over time.
squokkoalmost 2 years ago
&quot;We don’t need to sort and classify 18-year olds. It’s absurd. Stop trying to fix it and get rid of it.&quot;<p>Would the OP make the same argument about athletics? That 18-year-old Cristiano Ronaldo and 18-year-old Frankie Fatass, instead of being sorted and classified, should be put into the same soccer program?
评论 #37080763 未加载
earthboundkidalmost 2 years ago
Working at NYT isn&#x27;t as gated as the article suggests. I know two people who work there. AFAIK, neither went to an Ivy. (Old joke: How do you know if someone went to an Ivy? <i>They tell you</i>.) You do need a college degree, but you can work at a smaller paper first and get recruited from there.
dekhnalmost 2 years ago
Harvard exists for strategic reasons. It helps maintain the establishment (that ambiguously defined collection of people and processes that keep the US running and a major world power). Getting rid of it would likely have a very negative effect in the medium-term.
xwowsersxalmost 2 years ago
Related: Glenn Loury in conversation with Jay Kaspian King. &quot;Elite Schools Only Care About Rich Kids&quot; <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;lC-rviti8dU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;lC-rviti8dU</a>
seydoralmost 2 years ago
Bees select their next queens at random. They treat them literally royally and it grows to be a big wise queen and they are loyal to her.<p>Maybe humans are more like other eusocial animals, and things like merit and equality are a comforting charade.
tbarbuglialmost 2 years ago
Problems, problems, problems. What about constructive ideas?
nooberminalmost 2 years ago
This article is actually quite good. Too bad some on HN are too blind to their own life circumstances to examine their biases and perform some introspection.
drdrekalmost 2 years ago
Equality is one value out of many important values of a society. Looking for ways to over-optimize society for this one thing leads to many silly conclusions.
Bostonianalmost 2 years ago
Letting employers filter employees by SAT&#x2F;ACT scores without fear of disparate impact lawsuits would reduce the Ivy League premium.
pphyschalmost 2 years ago
If Harvard revolutionized its admissions tomorrow, elite debutants would find a different way to signal.
评论 #37078428 未加载
gwbas1calmost 2 years ago
A few years ago I read a book called &quot;Listen Liberal.&quot; It was a book written by liberals, for liberals.<p>One of the criticisms it made of the Obama Administration&#x27;s cabinet was that it was far too heavy in choosing Ivy-League graduates. The book pointed out that the cabinet was racially &#x2F; ethnically diverse, but because the vast majority of the cabinet was Ivy-League educated, it had all of the biases that come with an Ivy-League education.<p>I don&#x27;t think Harvard is the problem: They are an organization that exists, and the selection criteria they use is to choose people who they believe will graduate. Granted, someone could argue that they should take more risks on applicants, but that&#x27;s not my argument to make.<p>In part, the value of these institutions is that they are exclusive. Many people argue that the advantage of an Ivy League education, compared to an equivalent, less exclusive school, is the people you meet while on campus. This difference can only be maintained if the schools maintain their selection criteria.<p>I think the bigger problem is that far too many people &#x2F; organizations put too much weight on an Ivy League education. It&#x27;s generally unobtainable, even if you &quot;check the boxes,&quot; because these schools get far more applicants than they can ever accept. Which is why I don&#x27;t want to argue that they should change their selection criteria: Who is to say what is the best selection criteria? Everyone will try to argue that it should be changed in a way to benefit the person making the argument.<p>IMO: We need some new institutions to displace the Ivy League as the &quot;best.&quot; Perhaps, if there are enough schools with differently selective admission criteria, everyone will be able to find a selective school that they can get into?
montyboy_usalmost 2 years ago
“If you must mark and sort young people, gross, but OK. But why do it at 18 rather than 22?&quot;<p>Because success, outside entertainment, is oft detectable through cultural mores; well ingrained and detectable by 18 years of age.
jononomoalmost 2 years ago
I think once a schools endowment goes over a certain amount they should simply be required to educate more students -- I think Harvard should just admit 10x the number of students that they currently admit.
thrawa8387336almost 2 years ago
&quot;Old man yelling at cloud&quot;<p>Guys can we move on?
graycatalmost 2 years ago
The OP (original post) describes what we might call problems, issues, or challenges in US formal, academic education, say, K through 4 year college. Here is a theme of a rough solution, necessarily &quot;rough&quot; if only because US education and the problems are not precisely stated or understood.<p>(1) Learning, Knowledge, Understanding. Yup, for doing well in life, learning, ... is usually (being &quot;rough&quot; here) from somewhat useful to crucial. Some of the knowledge is explicitly taught in the education, some is taught outside that education, and still more an individual has to pick up, ..., discover, on their own. E.g., on my own I had to learn the fast Fourier transform and discover office politics.<p>(2) US Academics. The US K through college emphasizes <i>learning</i>. In an old joke the teacher has a full pitcher of knowledge, pours it into the student&#x27;s empty pitcher, on tests has the student pour back what they have learned, and determines the grade from the fraction that comes back.<p>From this &quot;emphasis&quot; and &quot;process&quot;, there can be a LOT of struggle, strain, lost sleep, hard work, anxiety, etc. for a student and their family.<p>(3) Surprise. After 4 year college, US academics no longer much cares what the student has learned and, instead, cares almost only about what the student can DO, especially in delivering new <i>research</i> results. For more, do well in such research and all the student did in education will be forgiven, forgotten, ignored, etc.<p>So, if want a degree from a famous research university, get a graduate degree, Master&#x27;s and&#x2F;or Ph.D. Generally admission to such university&#x27;s graduate school is much easier than to their 4 year college -- also much cheaper. For such admission, doing well on the GRE (graduate record exam) can help. Having done well in an early career can help. Some research can help a lot more, really <i>close the deal</i>, giving the student admission, no tuition, and maybe some money for doing some ugrad teaching, work on some prof&#x27;s research project, etc.<p>Summary: For a degree from a famous research university, go for a graduate degree and there emphasize research.<p>Or, what US research universities care about, more than nearly everything else, is in just one word <i>research</i>.<p>In my case, while in grad school, I picked a problem, for two weeks did some research, and found a solution, clearly publishable (later did publish the solution). Presto, bingo, magic, I was regarded as a star student in the department, and everything else about my work was irrelevant. I went ahead and did some dissertation research, also clearly publishable, while doing that work was beyond any criticism, had a shiny halo, was untouchable, got my Ph.D., and with great joy LEFT.<p>The OP mentions Harvard; I got into Princeton and Cornell but never applied to Harvard. Sure, going to any such university for any degree can involve more than just &quot;research&quot;, but might want to critically evaluate the &quot;more&quot;.<p>One more point: Research that finds mathematical solutions, <i>mathematizes</i> the subject, is relatively highly regarded. For that approach, a big issue is learning the math, but in grad school beware of advanced math courses: Commonly the teaching is poor and the <i>hidden agenda</i> is to set up a competition to <i>filter</i> the students. But if mostly know the math before the course, then can be 10 yards from the finish line in a 2 mile race, be by a wide margin the best student in the class, and greatly reduce the chances of being <i>filtered.</i> Yes, doing so well can cause some of the profs to resent you and become hostile.<p>With math, doing the learning before the class is relatively easy: Just get some of the best books, usually from famous authors, study the theorems and proofs, work the exercises, try to find intuitive views of the material, reasons for the particular definitions and theorems, and examples.<p>Beyond calculus, I&#x27;d suggest: Abstract algebra, linear algebra, ordinary differential equations, measure theory, Fourier theory, differential forms, the Gauss, Green, and Stokes theorems, differential geometry, probability based on measure theory, and statistics based on that probability. Some good authors include Halmos, Nering, Coddington, Rudin, Royden, Breiman, Neveu, Cinlar. To boil it down to just two books to study carefully I&#x27;d recommend Halmos for linear algebra (<i>Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces</i>) and Breiman for probability.
kneebonianalmost 2 years ago
No the problem goes thusly.<p>The university was a place of learning, education, and becoming a better person. It was focused on the pursuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge.<p>Then it became noticed that smart educated people went to college, and so the idea then became if you went to college you to must be smart and educated.<p>Then because that was accepted as true many people saw college as the path to a better life. Then after WW2 because college was seen as the path to a better life the US Govt. decided that everyone should get the chance to go to college with the GI Bill.<p>Then college morphed from a place you went to learn to study and to understand to a place you go so you could get a job.<p>Then because that is why people were going colleges started optimizing as places to get a job.<p>Harvard became optimized for getting certain types of jobs, namely CEO, politician, etc, essentially seen as the jobs of &quot;the elite&quot;. But remember for every person who went to Harvard and is now an overqualified CEO there are also 10 Andy Bernards out there.<p>So the whole purpose of the university and higher education has been gutted, as thanks to the introduction of the Business and Communications degrees you can actually be college educated while learning nothing of real value, or of beauty or science or anything that the traditional colleges existed to teach us.<p>As a final though I leave this article against Tulip Subsidies. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;06&#x2F;against-tulip-subsidies&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;slatestarcodex.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;06&#x2F;06&#x2F;against-tulip-subsidie...</a>
评论 #37077342 未加载
评论 #37078636 未加载
评论 #37077352 未加载
chinchilla2020almost 2 years ago
The author is pontificating on some very fundamental things without considering reality.<p>8 Billion human beings cannot be jammed into the same exact university. It&#x27;s as simple as that. Sorry for being reductive but that&#x27;s the reality. Naturally, you have to have more universities. Naturally, some will be better than others.<p>The author tries pushing some marxist ideas about how everything can be exactly equal but even in a marxist utopia you are going to have some neighborhoods&#x2F;schools&#x2F;universities&#x2F;hospitals that are better than others.
fallingknifealmost 2 years ago
I have no issue with Harvard existing. However, it should be taxed on its endowment and it should not receive taxpayer support like student loans unless it commits to being a purely meritocratic institution.
评论 #37077513 未加载