Harvard Is Training Us for a World That No Longer Exists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Keep trying, racist troll.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or the disgraced cheating and plagiarizing former professor of ethics[i][u] in the Harvard Business School.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Elite universities are immune from these concerns. Brown, Dartmouth are the same or worse. They hire ivy graduates due to the prestige. There is no much difference between what’s taught at Harvard vs what’s taught at Haverford. As long as corporations continue hiring elites there is nothing to worry about.

Schools like JHU are different, they were built on German models. There is no prestige associated with JHU. Their success is measured by output.

And yet world leaders and their top people come to the US to go to Harvard and other Ivy League schools and leave to become successful in their countries. Harvard has graduated over 100 recent billionaires. The top hospitals in Boston are teaching affiliates of Harvard with Harvard trained doctors.

The White House administrations continue to be overrun by Harvard and other Ivy League graduates. Biden had 26 staffers from Yale and 18 from Harvard. Surprisingly Trump had more Harvard graduates in his cabinet than any other school. And for all of their talk about Harvard, Yale, Princeton being elite liberal havens the school also teaches their share of right wing including Steve Bannon , Reince Preibus, Mike Flynn, John Bolton Jarod Kushner, Ben Shapiro. Their education helped them become who they are, good or bad.

On the opposite end, the so painfully unqualified people Trunp put in power have shown the difference between an Ivy League education and a tier 3 type college education in terms of success and failure. Bondi, a graduate of UF and Stetson Law School, Kristi Noem, a graduate of South Dakota state with a BA are two example of the reason Ivy League education still matters.

Trump and Musk went to Penn. Ivy League!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. the author is not understanding the purpose of higher ed. Trade school-like entry-level tech jobs in "CS" or "engineering" from below average schools are the ones that will be replaced by AI. Harvard and other top schools teach how to think and process on a different level, to set you up for lifetime of learning and adapting to new technologies and creating new technologies (for those in the engineering R&D or startup space).
Harvard Econ has been a fast-tracked path to top finance careers forever. The fact that the author does not understand that is concerning. Wharton undergrad is in fact a Bachelor of Science in Economics, not a "business" major. Wharton is of course the quintessential fast track to top finance, but Econ grads from the college as well as Econ grads from other ivies or Duke also fast-track into top finance due to being target schools. This author by the mere fact of being at Harvard and studying Econ is already 10 steps ahead of the competition. He presents as fairly obtuse for someone who got into Harvard.

[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.

False. Harvard SEAS started around 1918 but has its roots in the partially affiliated Lawrence scientific school circa 1850. Penn Engineering started in 1852 with its school of Mines.
MIT was founded in 1861. Stanford Engineering is celebrating its centennial this year and is generally considered top3. Age of school is not necessarily relevant to engineering prowess at the cutting edge of research and technology.

Harvard Engineering may not be the level of MIT or Stanford, and is in fact not quite Penn or Cornell or Berkeley or CMU but it is a well established Engineering school with top grad programs and top research overall T20 for Engineering, T10 in some areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False. Harvard SEAS started around 1918 but has its roots in the partially affiliated Lawrence scientific school circa 1850. Penn Engineering started in 1852 with its school of Mines.
MIT was founded in 1861. Stanford Engineering is celebrating its centennial this year and is generally considered top3. Age of school is not necessarily relevant to engineering prowess at the cutting edge of research and technology.

Harvard Engineering may not be the level of MIT or Stanford, and is in fact not quite Penn or Cornell or Berkeley or CMU but it is a well established Engineering school with top grad programs and top research overall T20 for Engineering, T10 in some areas.

Into this century, Harvard offered only General Engineering degree to undergraduates, which is only a half step better than no engineering at all. They only started offering EE and MechE degrees fifteen or twenty years ago. So it is a young program.

[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

Absolutely not true....but what is true is that the median IQ at either is likely around 135ish which places it about 50 points higher than yours.

[Anonymous]

If you want job training go to a coop school.
If you want an education that teaches you how you think, how to learn on your own, go to Harvard, MIT.

My first job had subject matter "not taught in schools" but they hired me because " if you went to MIT we know you can pick it up quickly. "

I had 5 different careers all building on thinking skills, learning skills, and confidence I could start over with new subject matter, along with basics from continuing self education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want job training go to a coop school.
If you want an education that teaches you how you think, how to learn on your own, go to Harvard, MIT.

My first job had subject matter "not taught in schools" but they hired me because " if you went to MIT we know you can pick it up quickly. "

I had 5 different careers all building on thinking skills, learning skills, and confidence I could start over with new subject matter, along with basics from continuing self education.

These were
SB physics
Aerospace engineer
SM technology and policy
Congressional staffer
Policy analyst information technology areas
Export manager for information security startup
Associate in early stage venture firm
And circling back
Director of Policy Analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. the author is not understanding the purpose of higher ed. Trade school-like entry-level tech jobs in "CS" or "engineering" from below average schools are the ones that will be replaced by AI. Harvard and other top schools teach how to think and process on a different level, to set you up for lifetime of learning and adapting to new technologies and creating new technologies (for those in the engineering R&D or startup space).
Harvard Econ has been a fast-tracked path to top finance careers forever. The fact that the author does not understand that is concerning. Wharton undergrad is in fact a Bachelor of Science in Economics, not a "business" major. Wharton is of course the quintessential fast track to top finance, but Econ grads from the college as well as Econ grads from other ivies or Duke also fast-track into top finance due to being target schools. This author by the mere fact of being at Harvard and studying Econ is already 10 steps ahead of the competition. He presents as fairly obtuse for someone who got into Harvard.

The author is a student! The Crimson is a student newspaper! The student doesn't graduate until 2027. Why are you all paying any attention to a student piece in a student newspaper? Learn to check sources before you invest in them. What is the publication? Who is the author? What axe do they have to grind? THEN decide if you want to read or not

[Anonymous]

Harvard is training me? I'm concerned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False. Harvard SEAS started around 1918 but has its roots in the partially affiliated Lawrence scientific school circa 1850. Penn Engineering started in 1852 with its school of Mines.
MIT was founded in 1861. Stanford Engineering is celebrating its centennial this year and is generally considered top3. Age of school is not necessarily relevant to engineering prowess at the cutting edge of research and technology.

Harvard Engineering may not be the level of MIT or Stanford, and is in fact not quite Penn or Cornell or Berkeley or CMU but it is a well established Engineering school with top grad programs and top research overall T20 for Engineering, T10 in some areas.

Into this century, Harvard offered only General Engineering degree to undergraduates, which is only a half step better than no engineering at all. They only started offering EE and MechE degrees fifteen or twenty years ago. So it is a young program.

This. General Engineering degrees are a wholly different animal from specific degrees like EE and MechE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agree. the author is not understanding the purpose of higher ed. Trade school-like entry-level tech jobs in "CS" or "engineering" from below average schools are the ones that will be replaced by AI. Harvard and other top schools teach how to think and process on a different level, to set you up for lifetime of learning and adapting to new technologies and creating new technologies (for those in the engineering R&D or startup space).
Harvard Econ has been a fast-tracked path to top finance careers forever. The fact that the author does not understand that is concerning. Wharton undergrad is in fact a Bachelor of Science in Economics, not a "business" major. Wharton is of course the quintessential fast track to top finance, but Econ grads from the college as well as Econ grads from other ivies or Duke also fast-track into top finance due to being target schools. This author by the mere fact of being at Harvard and studying Econ is already 10 steps ahead of the competition. He presents as fairly obtuse for someone who got into Harvard.

The author is a student! The Crimson is a student newspaper! The student doesn't graduate until 2027. Why are you all paying any attention to a student piece in a student newspaper? Learn to check sources before you invest in them. What is the publication? Who is the author? What axe do they have to grind? THEN decide if you want to read or not

We’re aware, just commenting that it’s a poorly written article and one would expect more from an undergrad at a top university.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you want job training go to a coop school.
If you want an education that teaches you how you think, how to learn on your own, go to Harvard, MIT.

My first job had subject matter "not taught in schools" but they hired me because " if you went to MIT we know you can pick it up quickly. "

I had 5 different careers all building on thinking skills, learning skills, and confidence I could start over with new subject matter, along with basics from continuing self education.

I trust MIT admissions more than Ivy AOs.

[Anonymous]

If the author wanted a pre professional degree, there were other options. I’m not sure why the author didn’t go to one of those schools. Presumably they had other options