patrick.net

Rin says

The Ivies are overrated. In contrast, the SEALs are the real deal.

Guess what, I know plenty of Ivy leaguers, however, I don't know a single Navy SEAL personally. Everyone I knew, who'd tried for it, dropped out of BUD/S training. Yes, it's that hard.

Hey Rin........Where were you all this time? Honeymoon?

Hey ppl, where's the debate? Where are the conformists?

Here's a counterargument ...

No, Ivy league schools are a bastion of leadership and academic excellence.

They place anywhere from 60 to 70% into careers like management consulting, financial services, law, or medicine and those fields pay the best. And the more you get paid, the smarter and more qualified you are.

At best, a Navy SEAL will retire with a military pension but then, work as a contractor (er, mercenary) or perhaps, serve as someone's private security detail. Is that the best use of someone's physical fitness?

Rin says

They place anywhere from 60 to 70% into careers like management consulting, financial services, law, or medicine and those fields pay the best. And the more you get paid, the smarter and more qualified you are.

So the Ivy league wins again!

Rin says

all the wonks out there, like to compare passing the training to enter the Navy SEALs or really, any other special forces team like the Delta Force, UK's SAS, etc, to getting an education from let's say Harvard University.

Rin says

Hey ppl, where's the debate?

I don't believe many people try to compare the two. What's to compare ? I have a lot of respect for Navy Seals and other special forces, but many of the skill sets are quite different than those rewarded in the academic world. Getting into the training program is going to be far easier than getting into harvard, but once in, it's grueling and you say only 20 to 25% make it through.

Getting in to Harvard (if you aren't a "fortunate son/Senator's son") is very tough. most years it's 5 or 6% of the applicants, and you have to figure a lot of people that wish they could go to Harvard self reject and don't bother applying. THat is most applicants think they stand a chance of getting in. Getting in alone (with exception of fortunate sons) means a student is high bandwidth, high aptitude and disciplined and hard working. That is while in high school.

So to some extent it's a measure of a child being an "early bloomer" and driven towards excellent performance in school at an early age. I've taught five students who have gotten in to Harvard and Mit, and I can tell you these are exceptional people, just to get in. One of the 5 maybe not quite to the extent of the others, but in general we are talking young people that not only have the discipline and work habits to get the job done well, but they have the raw intelligence and band width as well.

Rin says

The Ivies are overrated

I don't think Harvard is over rated, not if you understand what the rating means. But you are right that if one applies themself, and has decent abilities they can learn just as much or more at U of I Urbana, of many of California's UC schools as well as countless other Universities and Colleges.

marcus says

most years it's 5 or 6% of the applicants, and you have to figure a lot of people that wish they could go to Harvard self reject and don't bother applying. THat is most applicants think they stand a chance of getting in. Getting in alone (with exception of fortunate sons) means a student is high bandwidth, high aptitude and disciplined and hard working. That is while in high school.

So to some extent it's a measure of a child being an "early bloomer" and driven towards excellent performance in school at an early age. I've taught five students who have gotten in to Harvard and Mit, and I can tell you these are exceptional people, just to get in. One of the 5 maybe not quite to the extent of the others, but in general we are talking young people that not only have the discipline and work habits to get the job done well, but they have the raw intelligence and band width as well.

Once again Marcus ... you'd completely missed the point. Many of us know that admissions to Harvard College, the residential undergraduate program at Harvard, is winning a few coin tosses (esp for the non-Al Gore, middle class). But then, upon admissions, is everyone getting F's, D's, and C's, instead of A's and B's?

You see, that's the whole point.

If a vast majority of Harvard College students were getting D's and C's and then, someone compared that to B's and A's at Univ of Illinois/Urbana-Champaign engineering and said .. Yes, Harvard is significantly more challenging that some midwestern elite State U, then yes, there's a valid argument.

Instead, almost everyone at Harvard, gets B's and A's, even those, meaning local Bostonians, who couldn't gain ordinary admissions, can still do that, as a Special Student taking classes alongside their so-called more talented classmates. Being a Bostonian, I know these persons. They'd taken classes during the day and gotten good grades, alongside Harvard College undergrads. If these HC undergrads were so remarkable, like Goethe/Newton, then at best, a local Bostonian could hope for a C/C-, not a B+ or an A-.

Now, contrast that with the Navy SEALS. Can an ordinary athlete (from the neighborhood near the SEAL's program) become a SEAL or even pass their basic training? In fact, it's been shown that talented athletes seldom make it through BUD/S because throughout HS or College/NCAA, they were so used to being called talented, that being put through a grueling series of mental and fitness tests, broke their spirits over time.

Yes, I believe that Harvard is overrated because its only challenge is winning a few coin tosses for admissions, little else.

Never let your schooling interfere with your education. College is just a tax on entering the workplace. It's been bullshit since at least the 1970s.

Real education is a lifetime effort and has nothing to do with schools, campuses, degrees, or academics. And today you can easily get a real education, free while sitting naked in your living room. From the The Open Education Consortium, to MIT Open Courseware, to World Science U.

Education is great. College is bullshit, a waste of time and money. Most people in college are in there just to party, fuck, and delay adulthood. And those who aren't are missing the sole purpose of college. There is nothing you can learn in college, save maybe getting hands-on experience with cadavers -- for medical studies only, CIC! -- that you cannot learn outside of college faster and easier.

Dan8267 says

Real education is a lifetime effort and has nothing to do with schools, campuses, degrees, or academics.

Dan, my arguments are aimed against the likes of Marcus and other society types, not real ppl like you.

marcus says

I don't think Harvard is over rated

BTW, in the real world, I'd kicked many HU grads' asses. Very few of them have ever impressed me in the the actual world of work.

In contrast, since I haven't met anyone who'd even made the SEALS, I'd be afraid to meet them on the court for any challenge. In fact, I'd suspect that in a basketball game, if my outside shooting wasn't near perfect, like a Larry Bird (+), a SEAL could beat me one-on-one, anytime he wants.

I know, but I had to throw in my support. I feel sorry for the people who have Marcus as a teacher. A good teacher encourages students to question everything. Of course, there are damn few good teachers because anyone who would be a good teacher probably is directly contributing to the world outside of academia. There are exceptions, of course, but they are outcasts in a system designed for conformity.

Students look at schools as a place where they play and fuck while being forced to do busy work by assholes who don't give a shit about them.

Teachers look at schools as job security.

Parents look at schools as free (or private paid) daycare for their kids.

Government looks at schools as propaganda mills for making the next generation of patriotic cannon fodder and worker drones just smart enough to work the machines but not smart enough to rock the boat.

marcus says

I don't think Harvard is over rated

'nuff said.

Dan8267 says

I feel sorry for the people who have Marcus as a teacher.

Marcus is very common. I remember so many teachers, who'd kissed the Ivy @ss, growing up.

Dan8267 says

marcus says

I don't think Harvard is over rated

Why pick on Bush? We all know that he's a chump.

Al Gore had not only gotten through Harvard undergrad with a C/C- average but he'd flunked out of law school.

In fact, the dean of Vanderbilt Law called his dad, Senator Al Gore the Senior, and asked if Al Junior the Idiot, would submit a term paper, so that the school could at least, pass him and save face. Al Junior, being the lazy schmuck that he was, didn't even bother doing that.

In a nutshell ... Al Gore, George W Bush, and John Kerry were all mediocre students.

Rin says

You see, that's the whole point.

I understood your point. And yet I don't.

Maybe next we can compare smartphones to electric cars ?

I even agreed with the part of what you said that makes sense.

marcus says

you are right that if one applies themself, and has decent abilities they can learn just as much or more at U of I Urbana, of many of California's UC schools as well as countless other Universities and Colleges

And of course, with respect to the "fortunate sons" and senators sons and legacy admissions, having attended Harvard tells you little about their potential or competence. But if someone earns a scholarship to Harvard, on the merits of their work in high school and test scores, trust me, they are even smarter than Dan.

Dan8267 says

I feel sorry for the people who have Marcus as a teacher

Very compelling argument and on topic. I take it as proof that you're dishonest and devoid of any integrity whatsoever.

Rin says

winning a few coin tosses for admissions, little else

Sounds like petty envy to me, because it's a bit more than that. They are often valedictorians of their high school class, with test scores in the extremely high range.

“This year’s applicant pool was remarkable by any standard in its academic and extracurricular excellence,” said Fitzsimmons. More than 14,000 scored 700 or above on the SAT critical reading test; 17,000 scored 700 or above on the SAT math test; 15,000 scored 700 or higher on the SAT writing test; and 3,800 were ranked first in their high school classes.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/03/2032-admitted-to-class-of-16/

Apparently in Dan's world, it makes me a bad teacher that I did not advise students that EARNED full ride scholarships to Harvard that they should look up this guy Dan, who could give them excellent advice on what to do with their lives, and that he would guide them to a better path that included skipping college and learning a trade or profession online.

marcus says

Rin says

winning a few coin tosses for admissions, little else

Sounds like petty envy to me, because it's a bit more than that. They are often valedictorians of their high schools, with test scores in the extremely high range.

This is where you're being a typical educational wonk. If these students were astronomically brilliant, as in Newton/Goethe, then no one from the greater Boston area, could take classes as a special student during the day, and get B's and A's. In fact, those students would be mopping up all the C's to B-'s. Instead, EVERY single person I'd known, who'd taken classes at Harvard, as special student during the *day*, class valedictorian or not, got B's and A's.

I'd also taken two daytime courses at Harvard myself and had gotten flat A's, in other words, over a 92% exam average w/ any additional assistance on the grading distribution. Sorry, I'm just not that convinced.

marcus says

it makes me a bad teacher that I did not advise students that EARNED full ride scholarships to Harvard that they should look up this guy Dan, who could give them excellent advice on what to do with their lives

Actually, the cultural advice is to apply for careers in management consulting or financial services. Yes, that's typical for most Ivy graduates. I didn't invent it.

Rin says

Marcus is very common. I remember so many teachers, who'd kissed the Ivy @ss, growing up

I guess by kissing Ivy League ass, you mean mean that in the very rare (one out of 800) instance that a student I work with, who has the potential to receive a full or partial scholarship from Harvard, or Mit, or Cal Tech, I don't discourage them for going for it, then yeah, I guess you must be right.

Of course two of the schools I mentioned aren't "Ivy League" but they are similar in prestige in my book, as is Stanford and a several others. DO I ever lecture the highest performing students about how they should consider NOT going to college. No.. No I don't. I do often advise an average performing student that doing their first couple years in community colleges is a very good option, and that good grades there might enable them to get in to a UC school that they are not eligible for at present.

But the truth is, we have a college counselor at our school, and I don't get way in to advising many students, unless they ask me. In my opinion it's not really my place. I'm humble enough to know that I can't tell them what they should do with the next few years of their lives.

What I mean by kissing ass is that you confuse the randomness of admissions, since so many ppl apply for the freshman class, with the actual rigor of the program, which is farcical.

And the reason why it's farcical is that given the propensity of legacy and fortunate son admissions, in addition to the Asian figure skating valedictorians, the school can't adopt a sink or swim mentality in terms of coursework.

On the whole, Harvard has to make certain that enough ppl can score a B-, w/o going crazy. And thus, when an ordinary Bostonian, meaning one with a B to A average in Extension classes takes classes during the day, he doesn't find the program all that overwhelming. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the "Al Gore" who sits next to him, is ready to take the C+. And then, if this ordinary Bostonian is extra diligent, even he can compete against the Asian figure skating valedictorian for an A, because that's scoring an ~88 average, not a ~95 one. That's also an effect of generalized grade inflation where HU leans more towards A-'s and A's than B+'s. Therefore, the average Bostonian can get his 89 and the valedictorian Asian, a 96, and both of them can be honors graduates.

When I say average Bostonian, I mean one who does his work, not some lazy schmuck. And yes, this also means that this person has got some modicum of intelligence.

Rin says

as in Newton/Goethe, then no one from the greater Boston area, could take classes as a special student during the day, and get B's and A's.

Here you really make me wonder. DO you have any idea how stupid this sounds ? If Newton was a student today, he would still have to take some BS survey level classes, and he wouldn't be putting much effort or attention to them. Where as some local taking the class for night school would be seeing it as a serious challenge. Even for more challenging classes, do you really think they get curved that much to the higher performance level of the students ? The content of the class is what it is. It's not like the professors are going to intentionally ask tricky questions because the straightforward facts that are the content of the curriculum are too easy, and they need to have some C and and D grades.

They'll get those C and D grades anyway, from people that are too lazy or are partying too much or too much in love or countless other reasons why they might not attend to the work and the reading properly. Maybe Newton gets distracted with some modern version of alchemy and he's the one getting a D in that boring class.

This is a really stupid thread, I have to get back to my tedious and boring work, grading tests. Great way to spend my Veteran's Day off. Bascially grading stuff all day (when I'm not participating in this nonsense).

marcus says

those C and D grades

It's obvious that you don't know Harvard, almost no one gets Cs and Ds there.

marcus says

It's not like the professors are going to intentionally ask tricky questions because the straightforward facts that are the content of the curriculum

Actually, in a lot of places, professors not only ask tricky questions but also test the depth of student's knowledge outside of the basic class notes. This is why there are so many state univ engineering courses where ppl get Cs in subjects like Thermodynamics.

Rin says

almost no one gets Cs and Ds ther

YEah, I know, it's like graduate school. A C is kind of like failing.

marcus says

YEah, I know, it's like graduate school. A C is kind of like failing.

At a place a like Harvard, that thermodynamics would be structured in such a way that getting from an A- to an A, is the tricky, most difficult problem on the exam. And thus, it gives some distinction to the flat A student over the lesser ones.

On the whole, many ppl will get from a B- to an A-. Those who get below a B-, generally didn't learn the material well at all.

Rin says

On the whole, many ppl will get from a B- to an A-. Those who get below a B-, generally didn't learn the material well at all.

In other words, there's nothing so special about places like Harvard.

Rin says

In other words, there's nothing so special about places like Harvard.

Except the quality of the students.

marcus says

Rin says

In other words, there's nothing so special about places like Harvard.

Except the quality of the students.

I'd prefer that half the school be filled with local *special students* from the Boston area (meaning ones who'll do ALL the work), along with the Asian valedictorians, and make sure that all the legacies and Gores, get their C-'s. And then, Harvard would be a great school.

Aside from that scenario, it's still a finishing house for recruitment onto management consulting or financial services firms because in time, even the former valedictorians start to become idle and self-indulgent. I'd seen this with former New England attendants, who'd lost their academic mojo during their time at Harvard College. Being surrounded by kids with privileged backgrounds does that to an ordinary person.

Rin says

local *special students* from the Boston area (meaning ones who'll do ALL the work)

I say local because this cohort effect would only happen, if these kids were co-located. Only the presence of hard working ppl, can inspire others to follow suit. A bunch of distance learners won't have the same effect. Thus, it's limited to those in commuting distance of the greater Boston area.

Rin says

In a nutshell ... Al Gore, George W Bush, and John Kerry were all mediocre students.

Gore and Kerry were mediocre. Bush was an imbecile by any standards. But point taken.

Here's a concrete scenario as to why Harvard College, the undergraduate school, is overrated ... this is in contrast to let's say the distance program at the Univ of London, with London School of Economics as the lead college.

If one's let's say a Bostonian and takes classes at night at the Extension program, sure, the program is less rigorous than the day time sections, however, to complete certain programs, taking classes during the day is necessary, as not all comparable courses are available at night. So if a person wants some Math/Econ concentration, he'd have to take Econometrics during the day with the day time Harvard College bunch. For that, he'd be spending a slew of cash and thus, won't be able to afford too many stints like that. In that situation, he'd taken Econometrics and with probably an ordinary amount of effort (doing one's work on time), get a B+ or even an A-. And with just a little bit of an extra push, he could get an A, and an A in a school full of former valedictorians (sans Gore).

At the Univ of London, however, it won't be the same. You see, in the distance program, the exams are constructed the same, on or offsite. And thus, many students at LSE on-campus fear math heavy courses, esp Econometrics, because the coursework is 100%, covering all aspects of the material. There are almost no shortcuts and thus, to get a first class honours, an A grade, one needs a 70+% on a fully comprehensive year long exam. For the most part, a lot of ppl at UoL (distance or on-campus) take a B or even a C in that class, simply because the work to accomplish that A is overwhelming, since they need to study the full year to cover that many chapters and exercises in full detail. In fact, the stupid rich kids who study there, are happy with a passing mark, since for them, their future banking job is guaranteed by their parents and that the only purpose for college is to party in the West End.

marcus says

Dan8267 says

I feel sorry for the people who have Marcus as a teacher

Very compelling argument and on topic. I take it as proof that you're dishonest and devoid of any integrity whatsoever.

And that is exactly why you make a shitty teacher. Is that what you consider delving into a subject? Someone makes a criticism of you and instead of dealing with the criticism either by refuting it or, better yet, addressing its merits and changing, you simply attack the criticizer. No good student, teacher, or person would do that.

Even in my brief criticism, I gave you are very specific reason why you aren't a good teacher. A good teacher encourages students to question everything. Clearly, you do not. In fact, you cannot even handle having your abilities questioned. As such, you prove my point time and time again. And you expect us to think that you are challenging students to think critically? How laughable.

Anything worth believing in can stand up to questioning. And that includes any particular person's skills.

It's nice to see the libbies at each others throats as they come to the realization that their time in power is bottoming out like the luminosity of a new moon...

Dan8267 says

marcus says

Dan8267 says

I feel sorry for the people who have Marcus as a teacher

Very compelling argument and on topic. I take it as proof that you're dishonest and devoid of any integrity whatsoever.

marcus says

Apparently in Dan's world, it makes me a bad teacher that I did not advise students that EARNED full ride scholarships to Harvard that they should look up this guy Dan, who could give them excellent advice on what to do with their lives, and that he would guide them to a better path that included skipping college and learning a trade or profession online.

A good teacher would not have to resort to such a petulant straw man argument. Nor would anyone living up to even the lowest academic standards have to resort to ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the topic at hand, which is whether or not Ivy league degrees mean crap.

But to your point, of course I could teach any computer science major far more than any college could. The thing is, I wouldn't waste my time doing that. I'm far more productive, and earn far more, doing real work in the real world than teaching my replacements. Any software developer is going to have far more valuable knowledge and experience than a college professor. Hell, that should be true for just about every field, but especially so in computer science. It is ridiculous to even suggest that people living in academia are even remotely away of what real-world software development is like. The real industry is far more sophisticated and complex and beautiful than academia can ever imagine.

Ironman says

and

Kids, remember to stay of the drugs or you'll end up servicing goats and glory holes in New Jersey just like CIC.

Dan8267 says

I wouldn't waste my time doing that. I'm far more productive, and earn far more, doing real work in the real world than teaching my replacements

Ouch!

SoftShell says

It's nice to see the libbies at each others throats

You're an idiot if you think Marcus is a liberal.

Dan8267 says

Gore and Kerry were mediocre. Bush was an imbecile by any standards. But point taken.

Bush had been skewered for ages.

In mean time, Gore and Kerry had gotten off scot free, that's why I'm picking on them as well.

Rin says

Dan8267 says

I wouldn't waste my time doing that. I'm far more productive, and earn far more, doing real work in the real world than teaching my replacements

Ouch!

I wasn't actually trying to be snarky there. I was just being honest. It would be a huge pay cut for me to switch to teaching. It would be ridiculous. And I'd have to put up with some college's administrative department. I'd rather make far more money doing far more interesting things and not having to put up with much bullshit. Of course corporate America does have it's share of bullshit, but my current gig is a really nice one with no office politics, a good work environment, intelligent coworkers, a short commute, and interesting work.

The fact is that being a teacher is a low-pay profession and that's why teachers are usually -- and I mean this as an observation not a judgement -- people who can't crack it in the real world. Those who can't do teach.

I'm not saying all teachers are bad, but if you are really good at something, you're probably doing that something not teaching it. The few exceptions to this rule are research professors who teach AND do primary research, and they usually aren't good teachers. Think professors that publish peer-review papers in sciences and other fields.