Harvard Is Training Us for a World That No Longer Exists

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

There are plenty of preprofessional students at Harvard. The majority of their students go on to get one of the following professional degrees, JD , MD, phD, MBA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

There are plenty of preprofessional students at Harvard. The majority of their students go on to get one of the following professional degrees, JD , MD, phD, MBA.

I don’t think you understand what preprofessional means.

[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

OMFG how condescending! So the student can’t have their voice? Their opinion counts less? Are we still a democratic society? Suppose this article is written by a faculty, does it make it more authoritative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

OMFG how condescending! So the student can’t have their voice? Their opinion counts less? Are we still a democratic society? Suppose this article is written by a faculty, does it make it more authoritative?

In short, yes, an article by faculty is more authoritative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

OMFG how condescending! So the student can’t have their voice? Their opinion counts less? Are we still a democratic society? Suppose this article is written by a faculty, does it make it more authoritative?

In short, yes, an article by faculty is more authoritative.

Meh, the shlop that Harvard faculty are creating these days leads me towards the other direction.

[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.

Agree. I'm stunned at how clueless the author seems.

[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.

Agree. I'm stunned at how clueless the author seems.

Yes, student is clueless and clearly did not do sufficient research to understand what course would be available to them.

With that said skills such as prompt engineering can be developed online without the need for a semester long course. Participation trophy generation needs to be spoon feed everything.

So, looks like Harvard is not helping itself by choosing strong students. Harvard’s reputation will continue its free fall.

[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

+1 The student author may be trolling too.

[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.

Even you are misunderstanding what engineering and CS degrees are from even 'below average schools." You seem to be confusing IT and CS.

[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.

Agree. I'm stunned at how clueless the author seems.

Yes, student is clueless and clearly did not do sufficient research to understand what course would be available to them.

With that said skills such as prompt engineering can be developed online without the need for a semester long course. Participation trophy generation needs to be spoon feed everything.

So, looks like Harvard is not helping itself by choosing strong students. Harvard’s reputation will continue its free fall.

He’s a DEI black student with no respect for his education, no surprises he comes from class of 27

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For your reading pleasure…

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/mit-dean-resigns-after-falsifying-degrees-idUSN26311440/

They couldn’t even background check someone to work in admissions. Btw, two kids from my kid’s school got into MIT by lying that they did my kid’s project. My kid was a year younger than them. After my kid applied with a bunch of national awards for said project, MIT has never accepted anyone from the school. And we have had some superstars after my kid, but I guess we’re blacklisted now. They must have been mad!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

For your reading pleasure…

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/us/mit-dean-resigns-after-falsifying-degrees-idUSN26311440/

They couldn’t even background check someone to work in admissions. Btw, two kids from my kid’s school got into MIT by lying that they did my kid’s project. My kid was a year younger than them. After my kid applied with a bunch of national awards for said project, MIT has never accepted anyone from the school. And we have had some superstars after my kid, but I guess we’re blacklisted now. They must have been mad!

Pp — my kid was admitted to mit, btw!

[Anonymous]

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

Male MIT students can’t even talk to girls. Leading a world is not their forte.

[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.

Admitting truly talented students based on merit does NOT make Harvard (or any school) a trade school; it simply means the institution is fulfilling its mission to educate the most capable students. Confusing merit-based admissions with vocational training reflects bigotry and lack of intelligence.

That has never been Harvard's mission.

If that wasn’t true they wouldn’t have half the class not paying tuition because of low income or born in a country with a lot of poverty. There will always be a minority of legacies or children of super rich accepted even though they aren’t the brightest because someone needs to subsidize the merit students. But they don’t matter and the professors know which ones they are.

[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.

So Ivy League matters even though they churn out a lot of nasty people, but Steston has a bad law school because of Bondi? We judge South Dakota State based on Noem? That university didn't make her bad.