Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/01

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Harvard tuition
From: scott at adrenaline.com (Scott McLoughlin)
Date: Fri Sep 1 04:49:32 2006
References: <004c01c6cd0e$4e6a3fa0$62caa8c0@shulman> <030301c6cd14$663d9630$6401a8c0@FrankDell2> <9b678e0608311631t6e4249edt476eed82af3d96cc@mail.gmail.com>

On this one, I think Frank could not be more wrong and Don's
on the right track.

When you show up as a freshman, the President gives the new
class a talk with everyone sitting in front of Widener Library.

I very clearly recall two distinct messages delivered that day.

(1) We were given a huge laundry list of Harvard grads who did
*really* famous things (Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzers, presidents,
and on and on and on - crap like that). So while we're busy being
intimidated already (it's super common for kids to have nightmares
where they learn the admission office made a mistake - intimidating
place), then Derek Bok tells us all that if we came to Harvard just
to make money that we were wasting a valuable education that
should go to someone else and were doing a disservice to Harvard.

I kid you not - that's what told us.  Man! He got that Harvard
"self-competitive" dynamic thing going in overdrive from the get go!

(2) As Don pointed out, Bok said very explicitly that we were the
"best and brightest" and would learn infinitely more from each
other than we would learn from books or professors. And that
was pretty true. 

Harvard is a place where at 4:00 AM on a Saturday night, kids
are up doing drugs and talking abour Jurgen Habermas in their
walnut panelled, stain glass windowed dorm room (I'm thinking
of Adams, Dunster, etc.) - it's a pretty damn surreal place.

Take it for what it is. Obviously Derek Bok was saying this because
plenty of Harvard grads *do* trod the beaten path on the way to comfy
upper middle class life. Nothing really wrong with that, IMHO.
But those *were* the two basic messages Derek Bok delivered
to us in our collective intro to being Harvard freshmen.

Going to Harvard or Princeton or Yale or Stanford is *nothing* like
the crap in "Risky Business" :-)   

Really. It's about admitting a brilliant, blind, dying young physicist who
died from brain cancer his sophmore year. It's about a young girl who
had already published poetry in some of the leading journals. Another
classmate wrote for Rolling Stone during the summers.

It's about HSA, a very successful completely undergraduate run
business that among several other lines of business, publishes the
entire "Let's Go" travel series (my roomate editted "Let's Go America").
HBS used to have a 2 year work-in-business requirement - and the exec
jobs at HSA counted. 

It's about Yoyo Ma opting for Harvard instead of Juliard, so Harvard
created new rules about credit for musical instruction (I got to take
a semester's music instruction for credit). And on and on and on
and on.

Really remarkable, accomplished and serious young people. And
an even more remarkable institution that will often bend over
backwards for their students.

And it's unfortunately not true that one can get an equivalent education
at just about any other college. The elite institutions have most colleges
beat by miles. So many details, it's just not worth going into.

Don't get me wrong, I've sometimes thought I might have been happier
at either Chicago or a smaller, undergrad only college (Williams, 
Swarthmore,
St. Johns "Great Books" program) - there are alot of factors in picking
the right school for a student.

But really, I don't think better/worse are the right way to characterize
these institutions.  They just provide a pretty darn unique, heady and
empowering experience for the kids that go there.

I really just consider myself lucky to have had the experience.

Scott

Don Dory wrote:

> All,
> Another perspective of why a highly selective school might be worth the
> cost.  First, at the very least, your child will not be bored by easy 
> work.
> Competition from peers will keep the juices flowing.  Second, the 
> other kids
> at the school are at least as smart as your child so the cross 
> pollination
> of ideas is highly probable.  Third, some of the very best professors 
> are at
> the highly selective schools; sometimes those folks can open whole new
> worlds of thinking.  Fourth, most of these schools are pretty small so
> interactions with all classes is more probable, again, more 
> opportunities to
> widened horizons. (Exceptions would be Berkley, Michigan, etc.)
>
> Now, if your child doesn't really care about learning or isn't excited by
> new knowledge then you are left with the whole name thing.
>
> Last, your child should attend an institution that fits their personal
> psyche or no matter how good the school is they will have a terrible
> experience.
>
> Don
> don.dory@gmail.com
>
>
> On 8/31/06, Frank Filippone <red735i@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Different perspective...
>>
>> The reason you send your kid to Harvard, Princeton, etc. has nothing 
>> to do
>> with education.  It has to do with the perceived value
>> the prestigious name that excites companies into hiring those
>> names.  There are some people that will only hire Harvard, MIT,
>> Stanford, USC, and for that matter, UCLA, Berkeley, etc.  There is a 
>> major
>> company that sends out recruiters only to certain
>> schools.  All of which are fancy name and high tuition.   It is a
>> perceived quality reference and, to be honest, a snob appeal
>> thing.  It has nothing to do with the kid.
>>
>> Wear the "Ring", and you can get the job.  Be the brightest guy in your
>> class at Podunk U, and your resume may never make it past
>> the HR filing cabinet.
>>
>> The message?  The perceived value of "The Ring" is what you are
>> buying.  Your kid gets better jobs, more pay, more promotions, and
>> generally is more respected ONLY because he wears the ring.  The
>> additional cost of education is offset within a few years.  Yes, it
>> is expensive; Yes, it is controversial; Yes, it works.
>>
>> YMMV.
>>
>> Second different perspective......  I live in California.  Actually, we
>> have few private schools.  Not like Mass, where private
>> colleges are a dime a dozen ( in quantity).  The cost of going to the
>> State Schools, when you take into account tuition, room and
>> board, is around $5k to 15K less per year than private schools.  The kid
>> gets out in 4 years rather than 5, 6 or more at State
>> schools due to over enrollment ( sometimes referred to as 
>> "impacted").  Do
>> the math and you may find that paying Harvard's 4 x $40K
>> is not that much more than 6x $20K... and you get to " wear the Ring".
>>
>> Trade in your R-Whatever and your M-whatever system and get your kid 
>> "The
>> Ring".  After all, you are a parent first.
>>
>> Lastly... Harvard has ( or had, it makes no difference) the worlds'
>> largest endowment.  The income from that endowment is great
>> enough that it would pay for the education of every Harvard graduate 
>> for 4
>> years.  They do not need the money.  They charge for "the
>> Ring".
>>
>> Frank Filippone
>> red735i@earthlink.net
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Leica Users Group.
>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


-- 
Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps
Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35
(Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)



In reply to: Message from jshul at comcast.net (Jim Shulman) ([Leica] Harvard tuition)
Message from red735i at earthlink.net (Frank Filippone) ([Leica] Harvard tuition)
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] Harvard tuition)