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.

No math 55 or physics 16 or CS 1210 at Haverford. JHU is very prestigious.

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.

Which is why Harvard is falling behind

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.

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.

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.

What is that supposed to mean? Weirdo.

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.

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?

It’s less about what and how many classes you take. That’s training. It’s more about raw talent, which Harvard trails wayyy behind MIT these days.

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?

We need more Nvidia, Tesla, not consulting BS.

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.

Poor doesn’t understand that leaders are educated while engineers and accounts are trained. He wants to be trained which quickly shows where his limits in climbing the economic food chain. PP has the same issue.

The so called “educated leaders” are so last century and is exactly why American is falling apart. The new world demands leaders who can truly innovate. They’re not made out of networking and empty talkers produced by Harvard.

Once you get in ivies, it’s pretty much guaranteed success. It’s a circle, a small private club, a lifetime connection. Nothing is going to weaken it, no matter how much Trump and maga want to destroy them.

Anonymous wrote:Some of these colleges and institutions have been through multiple world-changing developments and managed to figure it out and survive. This one won't be any different.

Complacency is not how leadership is maintained.

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.

The point of this article is exactly that what happens when companies don’t hire by prestige anymore?

A large percentage of Harvard graduates will do consulting. With AI, the need for consulting NG is shrinking. Consulting is an epitome of hiring by prestige. IB is another example.

What do you mean by consulting NG?

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.

Poor doesn’t understand that leaders are educated while engineers and accounts are trained. He wants to be trained which quickly shows where his limits in climbing the economic food chain. PP has the same issue.

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.

This is some serious blithering. Haverford sits in the same elite bucket as the Ivies, except the education might be better. And your comment about JHU is just daft.