Slashdot Mirror
Who Needs Harvard?
theodp writes "Slate's Daniel Gross explores why big corporations are hiring fewer Ivy Leaguers. Is it because today's bosses aren't as snowed by polished young Ivy grads as they were in the past? Or are today's Ivy League graduates simply so wealthy that they no longer feel the need to find stable, high-paying jobs at big companies?"
Could it be that other schools are becoming better as access to information increases?
try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
Being alumni of the ivy I can say I have had no real advantage in the direct job market because of my school but the network that I was able to develop while at school is second to none.
There is a idiom of ivy arrogance that the only difference between the education you get at Harvard vs other schools is that at other schools you learn about history at Harvard you are taught by the people that made history and sitting in a room with others that will make history.
So to say that education is less desirable than motivation and work ethic is a fallacy since it takes motivation and work ethic to get an education.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Those stats didn't sound quite right to me, and they seem to contradict the numbers in Harvard's own information book:
http://vpf-web.harvard.edu/budget/factbook/current _facts/enroll_ethnicity_7.html
It shows (American) whites as comprising 44 percent of the student body. And since a third of the international students are from Europe, that probably tips the total over half. No info on how many are 'gentiles' though.
That's less than the 70 some percent whites make up of the population, but lets see who is even more under-represented: Wow, even though blacks make up about 12% of the population, they're just 6.3 percent at Harvard! And Hispanics, who I believe recently passed blacks as Largest minority in the US, have just 5.5%!
Of course we all know who the real culprits are: those crafty Asians and Pacific Islander's. Of course their status as the lone over-represented race is due to white guilt, not a culture that values academic achievement. (/end sarcasm)
To disclose my slight personal connection to the issue: My uncle was the first Irish Catholic to get tenure at the history department at Harvard.
I'm sure you're well aware of this debate, but since it's relavant - more than half of all grades at Harvard are As or A-minuses. Is that all be attributable to the libaral arts as you suggest?
Actually, it isn't a decline in generalism, it's a decline in liberal arts degrees. If you really want a generalist, hire a physics major. Most liberal arts majors get almost no meaingful training in mathematics, or science. Mathematics and science background, and more importantly the kind of critical thinking they engender, is crucial today. Liberal arts majors don't have that.
I interview lots of job candidates. While specialization that will make them applicable to the problem their being hired for is a plus, it's not the deciding factor, because I will need to use them on something completely different in 6 months to a year. Adaptability is key. Quick learning is key. The ability to flesh out a hard technical problem and come up with an innovative solution to it is key. I've never seen anyone with a liberal arts degree who could do those things. I see physics, mathematics, biochem, and engineering people do them routinely.
The one kind of liberal arts major I've seen a general use for is history majors. They can pull together large quantities of scattered data and write a coherent explanation of what it all means. That's a niche, but it's a highly useful niche.