Harvard Is Training Us for a World That No Longer Exists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/11/18/wyche-harvard-ai-education/

Cornell and Penn in comparison are much more pragmatic. Both have separate engineering schools that teach kids how to actually code. Both have separate undergraduate b-schools. In general Wharton and Dyson kids are very preprofessional, go getters.

Harvard has a School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

NP. Yes, relatively recent addition and not highly regarded as yet.

[Anonymous]

Since the beginning of college newspapers, certain kids have sought to write controversial articles in order to get attention and make a name for themselves. That’s how this reads to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Harvard students don’t have the aptitude of leading a future world. That’ll be MIT.

I thought students at Harvard could take classes at MIT. If Harvard is missing a useful class, why wouldn’t a student head over to MIT?

Median MIT IQ = median Harvard IQ + 30

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I’m shocked a Harvard student wrote this. Perhaps, the student is relatively poor and believes Harvard should land him a fancy job on Wall Street. But, the irony is that the basic skills this student seeks are not the goal of a liberal arts education or really what gets someone an IB job. Going to Harvard, or any elite school, is about developing the philosophical and ethical orientation to become a national leader. Graduate/professional school is for a more specific and toolbox approach. Harvard is not and should not be a trade school.

Like Schilling , the Enron guy and a psychopath, was a Harvard alumnus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I’m shocked a Harvard student wrote this. Perhaps, the student is relatively poor and believes Harvard should land him a fancy job on Wall Street. But, the irony is that the basic skills this student seeks are not the goal of a liberal arts education or really what gets someone an IB job. Going to Harvard, or any elite school, is about developing the philosophical and ethical orientation to become a national leader. Graduate/professional school is for a more specific and toolbox approach. Harvard is not and should not be a trade school.

Like Schilling , the Enron guy and a psychopath, was a Harvard alumnus!

Or the disgraced Harvard president Summers!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, keep telling yourselves these things people. Keep putting down the liberal arts. You’ll see in the long run how that will work out.

+100

Actually, in AI world, liberal arts is what will prevail. They have philosophers and other lib arts training AI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/11/18/wyche-harvard-ai-education/

Cornell and Penn in comparison are much more pragmatic. Both have separate engineering schools that teach kids how to actually code. Both have separate undergraduate b-schools. In general Wharton and Dyson kids are very preprofessional, go getters.

Harvard has a School of Engineering and Applied Sciences

NP. Yes, relatively recent addition and not highly regarded as yet.

Founded 14 years before MIT but renamed several times. The name isn't the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, keep telling yourselves these things people. Keep putting down the liberal arts. You’ll see in the long run how that will work out.

+100

Actually, in AI world, liberal arts is what will prevail. They have philosophers and other lib arts training AI.

Please define "liberal arts". They have EVERYONE training AI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Harvard students don’t have the aptitude of leading a future world. That’ll be MIT.

I thought students at Harvard could take classes at MIT. If Harvard is missing a useful class, why wouldn’t a student head over to MIT?

Median MIT IQ = median Harvard IQ + 30

Median MIT IQ = your IQ + 100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, keep telling yourselves these things people. Keep putting down the liberal arts. You’ll see in the long run how that will work out.

+100

Actually, in AI world, liberal arts is what will prevail. They have philosophers and other lib arts training AI.

Here’s a sharply argued paragraph that makes your point clearly and forcefully:

Liberal arts education is one of the biggest intellectual frauds of the past century, sustained not by evidence of its causal impact but by a historical coincidence. The rise of the United States as an economic and geopolitical superpower happened alongside, not because of, the flourishing of elite liberal arts institutions. Yet schools like Harvard cleverly turned this correlation into a marketing myth: that their particular model of education produced the nation’s great leaders. In reality, these leaders rose to prominence because they were already positioned to ride the wave of America’s unprecedented expansion, benefitting from socioeconomic privilege, industrial growth, and global circumstances far more than from seminar discussions or canonical texts. The universities simply captured the prestige created by this historical moment and retroactively claimed credit, convincing the public that liberal arts training was the engine of national success, when in truth it was merely along for the ride.

[Anonymous]

Harvard isn't training anyone for anything let's be real. It's not a practical school. That's not the point of Harvard, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because Harvard students don’t have the aptitude of leading a future world. That’ll be MIT.

I thought students at Harvard could take classes at MIT. If Harvard is missing a useful class, why wouldn’t a student head over to MIT?

Median MIT IQ = median Harvard IQ + 30

Median MIT IQ = your IQ + 100

MIT grad here - I have no love for Harvard, but I would argue the only thing that makes them elite is the kids that go to Harvard are as smart and ambitious as the kids at MIT. So essentially they are just a screening process for other elite schools and employers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is such a poorly written article I am surprised. The kid wants colleges to change their curriculum every time something is demanded in the tech market? Also, how does he expect to be anything but a less intelligent AI system if all you learn in a CS degree is the skills to do CS and none of the theory that goes into development. This reeks of mediocrity.

+1. The point of liberal arts is to learn how to think so that you can figure out what skills are needed as the world adapts and different skills are needed. If the author just wants to learns the skills that are relevant right now, they should have gone to trade school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Frankly, I’m shocked a Harvard student wrote this. Perhaps, the student is relatively poor and believes Harvard should land him a fancy job on Wall Street. But, the irony is that the basic skills this student seeks are not the goal of a liberal arts education or really what gets someone an IB job. Going to Harvard, or any elite school, is about developing the philosophical and ethical orientation to become a national leader. Graduate/professional school is for a more specific and toolbox approach. Harvard is not and should not be a trade school.

Like Schilling , the Enron guy and a psychopath, was a Harvard alumnus!

Or the disgraced Harvard president Summers!!

Or the disgraced cheating/plagiarizing former President of Harvard Gay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But you *can* take vibe coding as one of your CS requirements: CS1060 meets one of the CS major's requirements.

And Harvard 15 years ago already to redesigned it's classic CS 50 intro CS class to a general intro to computing survey class 15 years ago, when Government major tool over the course. Then redesigned the entire undergrad curriculum to be much industry based.

The reality is, the more society advances technologically, the more people need to learn non-fundamentals, and something has to give.

Our science and technology grow exponentially in complexity, but each human has about the same capability to learn and understand as one from a previous generation.