5 ms·

Of course there are — they are the “Michael Jordans” of the world... not only Michael Jordan himself, but all of the top accomplished people in the world... pre

Of course there are — they are the “Michael Jordans” of the world... not only Michael Jordan himself, but all of the top accomplished people in the world... presidents, Nobel Prize winners, CEOs, famous authors... Harvard is prestigious because they admit people who later do those things. The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Harvard is looking for people who have the highest probability of becoming prestige generators, the same way that NBA teams are looking for people with the highest probability of being points generators. Sure, the assessment methods for Harvard are much more coarse, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

defen 7y ago
You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. Finally - Harvard's prestige in the sciences is mostly due to graduate students/professors, not undergraduates. > The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Maybe in some departments, but Harvard's math curriculum is not the same as most other colleges in the US, for example.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group than those who do not, then it is fair to say that attending Harvard led to their success. Personally I'd say it's some of each: the admissions process does in fact manage to select for applications who are more likely to be successful, as a group, and there are also some unique benefits available to Harvard students and alumni (as you yourself pointed out) which tend to boost their chances even further. > For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. That would be one of the means by which people achieve things because they went to Harvard. It's not just about the academics. Of course, not everyone would be capable of taking full advantage of that network even if it were made available to them.
  - defen 7y ago
    What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students. However, getting that Harvard stamp of approval (which really comes down to luck, if you're qualified) opens a ton of doors, in terms of network, "brand", etc. One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
    - dwoozle 7y ago
      > I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students On what basis do you think that? What data or reasoning suggests that the people Harvard almost admits would produce equal (fame, donations, other currency) to the university as those who are actually admitted?
      - defen 7y ago
        No concrete evidence, just my opinion based on personal experience. I attended Princeton as a lower middle class white, non-athlete, non-legacy admit. Most of the undergrads aren't particularly intellectually impressive - you'll find way smarter and more intellectually curious people in Silicon Valley. The Ivies have a baseline level of intelligence you need to hit, which isn't extraordinarily high, but after that they're selecting based on conscientiousness, willingness to work hard, athletic ability, parental resources, and luck. See https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the-organization-kid/302164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the-org...

defen 7y ago

You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. Finally - Harvard's prestige in the sciences is mostly due to graduate students/professors, not undergraduates. > The content of the curriculum is largely the same as other colleges. Maybe in some departments, but Harvard's math curriculum is not the same as most other colleges in the US, for example.

nybble41 7y ago
> You can't really assess someone's capability of becoming a president/CEO/famous author based on their achievements before age 18. It's also really hard to determine whether people achieved those things because they went to Harvard. These statements are almost completely incompatible. If there is no way to tell who is likely to be successful beforehand, and yet those who attend Harvard are more successful as a group than those who do not, then it is fair to say that attending Harvard led to their success. Personally I'd say it's some of each: the admissions process does in fact manage to select for applications who are more likely to be successful, as a group, and there are also some unique benefits available to Harvard students and alumni (as you yourself pointed out) which tend to boost their chances even further. > For example, getting access to the Harvard network massively increases your chances of getting a business funded, being successful in politics, etc. That would be one of the means by which people achieve things because they went to Harvard. It's not just about the academics. Of course, not everyone would be capable of taking full advantage of that network even if it were made available to them.
- defen 7y ago
  What I'm trying to say is that Harvard has a selection process in place, for which thousands of people per year count as "qualified", and I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students. However, getting that Harvard stamp of approval (which really comes down to luck, if you're qualified) opens a ton of doors, in terms of network, "brand", etc. One big difference between Harvard and OPs NBA example is that Harvard gains prestige from its alums, for things they do years or decades after their affiliation with the institution.
  - dwoozle 7y ago
    > I don't think there's a strong reason to believe that the admitted students are in any way "better" than the qualified-but-not-admitted students On what basis do you think that? What data or reasoning suggests that the people Harvard almost admits would produce equal (fame, donations, other currency) to the university as those who are actually admitted?
    - defen 7y ago
      No concrete evidence, just my opinion based on personal experience. I attended Princeton as a lower middle class white, non-athlete, non-legacy admit. Most of the undergrads aren't particularly intellectually impressive - you'll find way smarter and more intellectually curious people in Silicon Valley. The Ivies have a baseline level of intelligence you need to hit, which isn't extraordinarily high, but after that they're selecting based on conscientiousness, willingness to work hard, athletic ability, parental resources, and luck. See https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the-organization-kid/302164/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2001/04/the-org...