5 ms·

He assumes that you should go to Harvard because you want to get a good job and leave with the best qualifications. This is not why you should go to Harvard. Ha

by objclxt 13y ago

He assumes that you should go to Harvard because you want to get a good job and leave with the best qualifications. This is not why you should go to Harvard. Harry Lewis (who has an excellent blog that's well worth reading if you're into higher ed[0]) has said in the past that students should really be going to Harvard to become better people. Delivering education at scale is not in itself hard. Coursera, Udacity, Khan, edX...lots of people are making a very good go at it. Delivering the personal and social development that comes with a college education - that's the hard part. That's I have to disagree with Ferreira when he says: > Even Harvard could admit five totally different freshman classes every year from the United States alone without compromising its standards Technically, this is probably true. The majority of people applying to Harvard are more than qualified on paper (I've interviewed enough of them!). But a college education is so, so much more than just taking classes and getting good grades. It is about developing as a person, finding yourself. Doing that online: that's a very, very hard problem. The funny thing is that Harvard already is making significant progress in the six areas Ferreira has identified (...edX, for example, a self governing body that uses the Harvard brand to further internet learning). The difference is that many faculty at Harvard understand that college is not, in itself, all about the lectures and grades. [0]:http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com http://harry-lewis.blogspot.com - Harry Lewis also has some excellent thoughts on why Harvard doesn't, as Ferreira suggests, offshoot campuses into rich countries.

sanderjd 13y ago
Hmmm. I really like your ideas, but unfortunately I don't think the system you describe is the system Harvard is at the top of. I think it is at the top of the system where the goal is to have strong qualifications and get many incredible opportunities throughout life (not just a first job). It may also be a good place to become a better person, but ranking that seems much murkier to me. I can think of lots of things that could arguably be higher in the become-a-better-person rankings than going to Harvard or, indeed, any university.
- objclxt 13y ago
  You're right - I'm simplifying considerably. College is not for everyone, and there are many positive life-changing things one can do that don't involve going to university. The thing is that even at universities like Harvard, Oxford, MIT, etc there's considerable debate over what the university itself should be doing. The Harvard Business School, for example, is culturally (and geographically) a world apart from the undergraduate programme. Trying to distill what a university should become is hard, because there are so many stakeholders with vastly differing views.
weland 13y ago
> Delivering education at scale is not in itself hard. Coursera, Udacity, Khan, edX...lots of people are making a very good go at it. Delivering the personal and social development that comes with a college education - that's the hard part. This is spot-on. The university I went to was good in terms of education; I learned a lot while I was there and it's definitely a cornerstone of my intellectual development. However, in terms of personal and social development, it was a dead end. There are some institutions that manage to build thriving communities which encourage growth beyond the mere knowledge you gain there. That's something which you cannot replicate easily -- and a phenomenon that was long known. The wise men of the Lyceum or the Academia didn't spend their time there just for the lectures. I don't know if Harvard is such a place, but if it is, that's a great asset for them.
netcan 13y ago
This is the type of thing that come up every time a post-university world is mentioned. College is so much more than... It's true but not true in a way that invalidates the arguments that college will become less important/desired. People spend 1-2 years trying to get into college programs and then 4 years of their life at college. Parents save for decades. Students go into debt for it. Governments give it priority in their budgets. The costs are huge. The only reason so many people will put so much emphasis on anything is that it eventually impacts their socio-economic status. Some people take a year off to travel. This can be good for character development too. It costs far less in time and money. The reason its not an institution like college is because it doesn't directly impact socio-economic in the same way. Especially with old, elite schools this is as much about impacting students' social identity & skills as it is about their intellectual and technical skills. Its often best to approach the socio-economic status thing from an angle. All these things can't be decoupled. If college stops becoming the path to getting high paying, high status jobs, it will not be worth the cost. I think the erosion will start farther down the food chain than Harvard though.
- objclxt 13y ago
  > If college stops becoming the path to getting high paying, high status jobs, it will not be worth the cost Oh, definitely. The cost is a huge problem. I think elite universities realise this - financial aid is, at universities that can afford it, at record high levels. If you're going to MIT, the Ivy Leagues, etc you're probably not going to be breaking the bank to pay your fees (...and if you are, it's because you were rich enough to start with). But for the majority of people who want to go to college and don't have access to generous financial aid then at some point the investment clearly outweighs the benefits. So like you say, it seems almost certain any impact is going to be felt at the bottom of the chain, not the top.
- 001sky 13y ago
  The only reason so many people will put so much emphasis on anything is that it eventually impacts their socio-economic status. == we need a new/different test. University was a proxy for 'merit', coming on the heels of the Enlightenment during the 18th and 19th centuries.
voyou 13y ago
"But a college education is so, so much more than just taking classes and getting good grades. It is about developing as a person, finding yourself." Yes, and, furthermore, its because of similar intangibles that companies like Goldman like to hire Ivy League graduates. The idea that Goldman hires Harvard MBAs because that's their best proxy for specific technical skills is, well, I guess it's kind of sweet in its naivete. The old boy network that the post mentions in passing isn't an accident, it's the point - a Harvard degree isn't a proxy for technical skills, its a proxy for a particular kind of person with a particular kind of outlook, and that's what gets people hired.
decasteve 13y ago
> ...college is not, in itself, all about the lectures and grades. The great thing about Khan et al is that they have "disrupted" the lecture part of the equation. I would like to see this result in more emphasis on research for the professor and less on lecturing. This will also make class time more about rapport building with one's professor and fellow students.
mcherm 13y ago
> He assumes that you should go to Harvard because you want to get a good job and leave with the best qualifications. This is not why you should go to Harvard. [...] students should really be going to Harvard to become better people. Nevertheless, that is why people DO go to Harvard. For qualifications, connections, and the boost to their reputation. $250,000 (assuming you graduate in 4 years) is an awfully expensive way to become a better person if that is your sole goal.
- superuser2 13y ago
  I'm guessing you haven't done the financial aid process on a while. http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/ http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/ Even for a family making $100,000/year, Harvard's net price is roughly half that of public school ($12,600 compared to $25,000). At US median wage ($50,000) Harvard is free to parents and $4,600/year to students, which is a reasonable expectation for summer and term-time work. No one (in the US) pays full price at a high-end Ivy unless their parents can afford it. You can only rack up huge amounts of debt at state schools and less prestigious (and therefore poorly endowed) private schools.
wisty 13y ago
When your best case for universities is "education isn't the thing that really matters", you know they are in trouble.
mathattack 13y ago
Harry Lewis is a very profound thinker, who also has put some of his coursework online. Good link. A couple thoughts on this: - Harvard is the last to worry about on-line disruption. Every other school will be disrupted before then. People will want to send their kids there purely for the elite association. Boston University, Boston College, Brandeis and Tufts will all suffer immense disruption before Harvard feels it. - Despite this, Harvard does offer on-line degrees. - Even still, the worth of graduate degrees seem to be going down. To cite his example, Goldman Sachs seems happier to keep around analysts with 2-3 years experience, rather than hire new MBAs. It's not getting rid of the MBAs, but they're devaluing the degree relative to 2-3 years of relevant experience.
- extra88 13y ago
  Harvard offers no degrees that can be earned 100% online. But I think the Extension School has some that you can do mostly online and a semester of "residency."
  - mathattack 13y ago
    Yes, the semester of residency can be a class that meets one Saturday a week.

by objclxt 13y ago

sanderjd 13y ago

Hmmm. I really like your ideas, but unfortunately I don't think the system you describe is the system Harvard is at the top of. I think it is at the top of the system where the goal is to have strong qualifications and get many incredible opportunities throughout life (not just a first job). It may also be a good place to become a better person, but ranking that seems much murkier to me. I can think of lots of things that could arguably be higher in the become-a-better-person rankings than going to Harvard or, indeed, any university.

objclxt 13y ago
You're right - I'm simplifying considerably. College is not for everyone, and there are many positive life-changing things one can do that don't involve going to university. The thing is that even at universities like Harvard, Oxford, MIT, etc there's considerable debate over what the university itself should be doing. The Harvard Business School, for example, is culturally (and geographically) a world apart from the undergraduate programme. Trying to distill what a university should become is hard, because there are so many stakeholders with vastly differing views.

weland 13y ago

> Delivering education at scale is not in itself hard. Coursera, Udacity, Khan, edX...lots of people are making a very good go at it. Delivering the personal and social development that comes with a college education - that's the hard part. This is spot-on. The university I went to was good in terms of education; I learned a lot while I was there and it's definitely a cornerstone of my intellectual development. However, in terms of personal and social development, it was a dead end. There are some institutions that manage to build thriving communities which encourage growth beyond the mere knowledge you gain there. That's something which you cannot replicate easily -- and a phenomenon that was long known. The wise men of the Lyceum or the Academia didn't spend their time there just for the lectures. I don't know if Harvard is such a place, but if it is, that's a great asset for them.

netcan 13y ago

This is the type of thing that come up every time a post-university world is mentioned. College is so much more than... It's true but not true in a way that invalidates the arguments that college will become less important/desired. People spend 1-2 years trying to get into college programs and then 4 years of their life at college. Parents save for decades. Students go into debt for it. Governments give it priority in their budgets. The costs are huge. The only reason so many people will put so much emphasis on anything is that it eventually impacts their socio-economic status. Some people take a year off to travel. This can be good for character development too. It costs far less in time and money. The reason its not an institution like college is because it doesn't directly impact socio-economic in the same way. Especially with old, elite schools this is as much about impacting students' social identity & skills as it is about their intellectual and technical skills. Its often best to approach the socio-economic status thing from an angle. All these things can't be decoupled. If college stops becoming the path to getting high paying, high status jobs, it will not be worth the cost. I think the erosion will start farther down the food chain than Harvard though.

objclxt 13y ago
> If college stops becoming the path to getting high paying, high status jobs, it will not be worth the cost Oh, definitely. The cost is a huge problem. I think elite universities realise this - financial aid is, at universities that can afford it, at record high levels. If you're going to MIT, the Ivy Leagues, etc you're probably not going to be breaking the bank to pay your fees (...and if you are, it's because you were rich enough to start with). But for the majority of people who want to go to college and don't have access to generous financial aid then at some point the investment clearly outweighs the benefits. So like you say, it seems almost certain any impact is going to be felt at the bottom of the chain, not the top.
001sky 13y ago
The only reason so many people will put so much emphasis on anything is that it eventually impacts their socio-economic status. == we need a new/different test. University was a proxy for 'merit', coming on the heels of the Enlightenment during the 18th and 19th centuries.

voyou 13y ago

"But a college education is so, so much more than just taking classes and getting good grades. It is about developing as a person, finding yourself." Yes, and, furthermore, its because of similar intangibles that companies like Goldman like to hire Ivy League graduates. The idea that Goldman hires Harvard MBAs because that's their best proxy for specific technical skills is, well, I guess it's kind of sweet in its naivete. The old boy network that the post mentions in passing isn't an accident, it's the point - a Harvard degree isn't a proxy for technical skills, its a proxy for a particular kind of person with a particular kind of outlook, and that's what gets people hired.

decasteve 13y ago

> ...college is not, in itself, all about the lectures and grades. The great thing about Khan et al is that they have "disrupted" the lecture part of the equation. I would like to see this result in more emphasis on research for the professor and less on lecturing. This will also make class time more about rapport building with one's professor and fellow students.

mcherm 13y ago

> He assumes that you should go to Harvard because you want to get a good job and leave with the best qualifications. This is not why you should go to Harvard. [...] students should really be going to Harvard to become better people. Nevertheless, that is why people DO go to Harvard. For qualifications, connections, and the boost to their reputation. $250,000 (assuming you graduate in 4 years) is an awfully expensive way to become a better person if that is your sole goal.

superuser2 13y ago
I'm guessing you haven't done the financial aid process on a while. http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/ http://npc.fas.harvard.edu/ Even for a family making $100,000/year, Harvard's net price is roughly half that of public school ($12,600 compared to $25,000). At US median wage ($50,000) Harvard is free to parents and $4,600/year to students, which is a reasonable expectation for summer and term-time work. No one (in the US) pays full price at a high-end Ivy unless their parents can afford it. You can only rack up huge amounts of debt at state schools and less prestigious (and therefore poorly endowed) private schools.

wisty 13y ago

When your best case for universities is "education isn't the thing that really matters", you know they are in trouble.

mathattack 13y ago

Harry Lewis is a very profound thinker, who also has put some of his coursework online. Good link. A couple thoughts on this: - Harvard is the last to worry about on-line disruption. Every other school will be disrupted before then. People will want to send their kids there purely for the elite association. Boston University, Boston College, Brandeis and Tufts will all suffer immense disruption before Harvard feels it. - Despite this, Harvard does offer on-line degrees. - Even still, the worth of graduate degrees seem to be going down. To cite his example, Goldman Sachs seems happier to keep around analysts with 2-3 years experience, rather than hire new MBAs. It's not getting rid of the MBAs, but they're devaluing the degree relative to 2-3 years of relevant experience.

extra88 13y ago
Harvard offers no degrees that can be earned 100% online. But I think the Extension School has some that you can do mostly online and a semester of "residency."
- mathattack 13y ago
  Yes, the semester of residency can be a class that meets one Saturday a week.