Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a Harvard degree it signals you are smart and/or talented no matter what field you major in. Among schools that signal graduates are smart and/or talented, a Harvard degree signals you are at or near the top of the pack. If you have a degree from almost all other other top schools, it signals you are smart and/or talented, but not quite to the extent to make it to Harvard.

That's the old Harvard.

In the new Harvard it signals you're wealthy or connected or the token minority.

Most of the alums* I know are in this cohort. And none of them are setting the world on fire if I'm being 100% honest.

You know how many? Two?

More like two dozen - who are now in their 30s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard is the type of school where you can study art history or “Government” and still end up with a lucrative career in finance.

Whatever that tangible benefit is called….people really want it. I bet there’s a German word for this.

Nope, again that's your imagination. 

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?166027-Harvard-University&fos_code=5401&fos_credential=3
Harvard History: $60,343

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?166027-Harvard-University&fos_code=4510&fos_credential=3
Harvard Political Science: $64,803

History and Political Science are the better ones, but still don't look 'lucrative'
Just a little better than lower tier schools, but not so lucrative.

Again elite majors >>> elite name brand schools
It's 21st century.  Don't rely on rumors or imagination.
Middle class/UMC folks who spend $$ better be aware.

For comparison in Boston area.

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?167358-Northeastern-University&fos_code=5201&fos_credential=3
Northeatesrn Business: $78,684

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?164988-Boston-University&fos_code=5202&fos_credential=3
Boston University Business: $71,952

Not even STEM.
Is Harvard overrated? Very Much.

Harvard computer science - $163,896.

That is a massive premium to the CS earnings at Northeastern and BU

Agree, Harvard CS is on par with MIT CS, Stanford CS, and Berkeley CS (can't find the numbers for Princeton CS). Big misconception that it isn't. Same goes for Yale, also on par with all of those four. All five of these fall underneath the Carnegie Mellon though

Of course Harvard + CS is a real deal unlike the ALDC kids in easy majors(43% of White kids)

Many of them actually get into the lucrative finance field mentioned earlier, but not the history major as someone's delusion.

I know you’re bizarrely obsessed with the idea of elite vs easy majors, but if you really think a Harvard history major can’t get a finance job out of school, you are blinded by your beliefs.

Seriously, what is wrong with these people??
It's not about my belief or your imagination.

We have the data, and this is exactly why the Obama administration started it.
https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?166027-Harvard-University&fos_code=5401&fos_credential=3
Harvard history = $60,343

https://collegescorecard.ed.gov/school/?166027-Harvard-University&fos_code=1107&fos_credential=3
Harvard CS = $163,896

Why do you think there's such a  humongous difference?
One is an easy major that is not valued much by society and the industry.
The other one gets tremendous respect hence rewarded as such.

Rich people are promoting the delusional value of the elite school because they send their ALDC kids there to take easy majors.  They have rich dads, fancy connections, and the children have trust funds.  Some poor middle class people blindley buy that.Middle class people should be aware of these dumb delusional and fantasy.
Again this is why Obama started this information.
Go with the baseless fantasy or the Department of Education data.
Take a pick.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a Harvard degree it signals you are smart and/or talented no matter what field you major in. Among schools that signal graduates are smart and/or talented, a Harvard degree signals you are at or near the top of the pack. If you have a degree from almost all other other top schools, it signals you are smart and/or talented, but not quite to the extent to make it to Harvard.

That's the old Harvard.

In the new Harvard it signals you're wealthy or connected or the token minority.

Most of the alums* I know are in this cohort. And none of them are setting the world on fire if I'm being 100% honest.

You know how many? Two?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

These people assume that as a school becomes less white it becomes less meritocratic. That’s the only way to demonstrate merit- don’t admit minorities.

Oh please. The data is public for all to see. Harvard is 90+% either a) very wealthy and not the brightest or b) not the brighest but having the desired skin color.

Only 10% or so are there on their true merits. Again, the data is public thanks to the Harvard discrimination case. Look it up.

I’d like you to do the math on that. The Harvard data simply says 43% of white admits are ALDC. white admits make up roughly 40% of the class. URMs are about 27%. Asian Americans make up 25%. 55% get grants from Harvard to attend. 19% get Pell grants. 20% of parents do not contribute anything to their student’s education. That’s a lot of numbers but to summarize, you’re full of sh*t.

67% of the Harvard class comes from the top 20% of family income. Only 4% come from the bottom 20%.

That's not a system built on merit to attract the brightest. It's a closed club to attract the rich, ideally bright enough, plus some token minorities, plus a sprinkle of the real brightest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

These people assume that as a school becomes less white it becomes less meritocratic. That’s the only way to demonstrate merit- don’t admit minorities.

Oh please. The data is public for all to see. Harvard is 90+% either a) very wealthy and not the brightest or b) not the brighest but having the desired skin color.

Only 10% or so are there on their true merits. Again, the data is public thanks to the Harvard discrimination case. Look it up.

I’d like you to do the math on that. The Harvard data simply says 43% of white admits are ALDC. white admits make up roughly 40% of the class. URMs are about 27%. Asian Americans make up 25%. 55% get grants from Harvard to attend. 19% get Pell grants. 20% of parents do not contribute anything to their student’s education. That’s a lot of numbers but to summarize, you’re full of sh*t.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

These people assume that as a school becomes less white it becomes less meritocratic. That’s the only way to demonstrate merit- don’t admit minorities.

Oh please. The data is public for all to see. Harvard is 90+% either a) very wealthy and not the brightest or b) not the brighest but having the desired skin color.

Only 10% or so are there on their true merits. Again, the data is public thanks to the Harvard discrimination case. Look it up.

Harvard parent here — upper middle class, public school, Asian. And I find this comment funny! You truly don’t know what you don’t know.

My DD knows several of the wealthy kids (not great friends with them or anything, but knows them from some of her classes.) From what I am hearing these kids have had the best education in high school (not surprising!) and are really motivated to pursue rigor in their courses. One kid takes graduate level courses as a freshman! That’s really motivated.

She also knows many URMs and says they are all very accomplished as well. Many went to boarding schools or are Gates Scholars etc — so very accomplished. No URM that she knows is not academically qualified to be there! They are all very smart and most studied more math in high school that my ASIAN daughter, who is a STEM major, studied.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

These people assume that as a school becomes less white it becomes less meritocratic. That’s the only way to demonstrate merit- don’t admit minorities.

Oh please. The data is public for all to see. Harvard is 90+% either a) very wealthy and not the brightest or b) not the brighest but having the desired skin color.

Only 10% or so are there on their true merits. Again, the data is public thanks to the Harvard discrimination case. Look it up.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

These people assume that as a school becomes less white it becomes less meritocratic. That’s the only way to demonstrate merit- don’t admit minorities.

Oh please. The data is public for all to see. Harvard is 90+% either a) very wealthy and not the brightest or b) not the brighest but having the desired skin color.

Only 10% or so are there on their true merits. Again, the data is public thanks to the Harvard discrimination case. Look it up.

Anonymous wrote:If you have a Harvard degree it signals you are smart and/or talented no matter what field you major in. Among schools that signal graduates are smart and/or talented, a Harvard degree signals you are at or near the top of the pack. If you have a degree from almost all other other top schools, it signals you are smart and/or talented, but not quite to the extent to make it to Harvard.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

These people assume that as a school becomes less white it becomes less meritocratic. That’s the only way to demonstrate merit- don’t admit minorities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

These people assume that as a school becomes less white it becomes less meritocratic. That’s the only way to demonstrate merit- don’t admit minorities.

They ignore the fact that to get in now, you have to be a superman - or woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

These people assume that as a school becomes less white it becomes less meritocratic. That’s the only way to demonstrate merit- don’t admit minorities.

Anonymous wrote:No, it's an amazing school.

And it's funny that people think it's become less meritocratic--it's quite the opposite (same as most other elite schools). Used to be (1950s-60s and earlier) if you were a reasonably well-off, high achieving student you could assume you could get in. Add in legacy and you were golden. There just wasn't that much competition. Opening it up to diversity increased the pool and increased the competition. Just look at accomplishments over time and the acceptance rate. (Same story at many elite institutions). This has been a steady rise to this point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you have a Harvard degree it signals you are smart and/or talented no matter what field you major in. Among schools that signal graduates are smart and/or talented, a Harvard degree signals you are at or near the top of the pack. If you have a degree from almost all other other top schools, it signals you are smart and/or talented, but not quite to the extent to make it to Harvard.

That's the old Harvard.

In the new Harvard it signals you're wealthy or connected or the token minority.

Most of the students I know are in this cohort. And none of them are setting the world on fire if I'm being 100% honest.