The unbundling of Harvard has begun

It is possible but unlikely that Harvard has Secret Math and Unknown Physics that their undergrads are exposed to, but their literary and philosophical studies are going to have access to the same books as everyone else. Online-only Harvard has as much value as any top-10% university on the globe. There is absolutely no shortage of incredibly clever people who are willing to explain things to a student. I think we had an article the other week pointing out that hiring a private tutor is a better option if what matters is the quality of education.

[0] Although I see the new CEO doesn't come from Harvard. Last bloke did though.

I can't believe a grown adult considers this some sort of qualification.

As for "education-based communities on the backs of (social) media empires"... what a horrible thought. Imagine getting your education from a Twitterati or Fox News-backed organisation.

"Psychology is the most underrated major in tech."

Maybe for someone with a psychology degree who's looking for a "Silicon Valley" job. I don't think I'd see psychology majors clamouring to get through the doors of IBM or Capita.

No one looks at Harvard on your resume and thinks "they must have learned so much at Harvard". The thought is laughably absurd. It's not that someone can't learn something at Harvard, it's that everyone knows Harvard academic rigor is a joke and you can just as easily party your way through 4 years and graduate with a B+ average. They think "they got into Harvard, so they must be smart". The most important department at Harvard is the admissions department.

This strange power is then abused for the sake of funding the institution, pursuing its political goals, etc. Donor's children get preference. Politically-favored groups get preference. Applicants who signal that they share certain views get preference. I'm sure the motives are often quite noble, but it is corrupting nonetheless I think. They are just counting on the fact that it's still worth treating a Harvard degree as a proxy of intelligence despite the fudging they do at the edges.

Even though going to college means you may take out more debt that you can pay off in any reasonable amount of time, bailing on college to classes from social media entrepreneurs or to start a company backed by Peter Thiel is a risk-heavy strategy that will not pay off for most. Yes, autodidacts with a safe family situation will likely do well.

But what about students from poor backgrounds, students without stable family life, or just students who don't fall into the upper echelons of industriousness? How many of these students are thriving right now in a world of Zoom classes? Talking with friends who are teachers, many students are just skipping their classes altogether. Why would we expect them to do well in this new online world?

College, although way too expensive, works decently well for many of these students. I don't think online influencer courses will substitute.

Yes, unbundle Harvard. But the harder and more impactful piece is providing quality education to those who aren't in the tails of the distribution.

It requires an immense amount of motivation to grind away reading 80 pages of a boring CS textbook every day. The structure and motivation provided by an institution encourages people to go deeper, meet deadlines, and not just skim the boring stuff. It isn't the only way to learn, but when I did a master's degree I felt motivated even when the road was rough.

Traditional college is not just about information scarcity either. People also go to bond, network, participate in extracurricular groups, party, etc.

Traditional college isnt going to go anywhere.

Also, it's depressing to think of society sitting behind a screen all day. I think most people feel the same way. We need to stop using technology to tear apart the social fabric of society.

Here's the opposite argument: universities will eat bootcamps for lunch because in the post-COVID era they will be hungry for the same dollar and I would much prefer getting a Harvard Online degree than from Fullstack Camp TM.

There's no doubt that higher education will be transformed by the COVID19 crisis but it's extremely unlikely (in my view) that the shifts will go along the lines predicted by Silicon Valley 'product thinkers.' There's a reason why Universities have lasted longer than civilizations.

While it may be true that for the world's elite that the value prop of Harvard is rubbing elbows with other elites, it's also true that for the rest of us the value prop of Harvard is merely having it on your resume. There's no shortage of talented students who'd love Harvard on their resume even if they have to spend a year remote.

Some of the opinions expressed in this article seem rather naive, such as:

> Use your time to start an online business. Live at home, spend as little money as possible, and find a side job if you need to.

For students in a pandemic, "live at home, spend as little money as possible" is basically implied outside of education expenses. So at this point we return to the standard debate: is a diploma worth the cost of tuition and opportunity cost on time spent? This argument has been played out a million times and is otherwise unchanged by the pandemic.

Imagine if you could be anywhere in the world but claim to have passed the math course of some famous university. I think that would change a lot of things about how we view education and qualification.

- Most of the educational material that this article describes as the downfall of universities, has been posted by universities. Don't you think that shows how little it matters?

- Anyone who gets into Harvard will have no trouble attending financially. The aid covers the cost. The crazy tuition are for the richest people, who have no trouble paying.

- Textbooks and papers have been available at your library for the past few decades. The freedom of information was enough s.t. someone in the 1970s could replicate the experience of studying in college.

e.g. “You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library.” -Good Will Hunting

--

I think what we really want to solve isn't to reduce the value of elite institutions, but rather scale what's already there. The issue is that what's there is much more intangible to identify.

I guess it's only appropriate that someone that wrote their thesis on the telephone game/chinese wispers ends up making a newsletter summarising twitter rumours.

I see this also as an opportunity to improve the online aspect of education. I remember one of my electrical engineering classes had all the lectures recorded and available at the library. This was before YouTube. But it was great that you could re-watch them for points you missed. Better online material could be a boon for primary education. Imagine a public school with a low budget. What happens to the very talented students?

The reason people don't want to pay full price for online learning is because they know it has much lower value than in-person instruction.

I went to a public school and my 4 year tuition cost is equivalent to half the cost of single a semester at Harvard. I only graduated a couple of years ago so inflation is negligible.

Guess who I work with the most and still earn the same wage (if not more)? It makes you wonder if Ivy League is nothing more than a brand name at this point.

It’s like buying anything “Supreme” or Gucci related, except for the “intellectuals”.

As for the article, I didn’t really care too much for it. Sort of just skimmed through it and it seemed like an ad for something he was part of. The only thing that caught my eye was the tuition bill at Harvard.