<p>Before I attempt to answer your questions, I would like to say that your thoughts do seem a bit unconnected in the sense that they are definitely uninformed, especially in your usage of analogies. Here are my answers, and the alumni are more than welcome to chime in.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
As I know, a lot of American companies have transfered their programming work to India and it is a trend that won't stop. If one doesn't keep an eye on what's going on there, what is the use of all his efforts in studing so hard? Maybe my example is an exception since Harvard is leading trends in many fields. But I do know that many universities are catching up in a world wide. Can you assure yourself that as long as you are a Harvard graduate you'll excel anyway?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>I have several points I want to make here:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>For better or worse, Harvard is a liberal arts institution. Therefore, we don't have programs that will directly translate into practical training for the workplace. For example, one of our most famous alumni is Yo-Yo Ma, a world-renowed cellist. One would believe that he should have gone to a conservatory, since he was sure that he wanted to pursue music as a career. However, as he mentioned in the admissions video, his training at Harvard provided him the tools to read any piece of music from anywhere in the world. This is the core of a liberal arts education, in which the education you receive transcends practicality; in other words, it will help you critically analyze anything in this world from different perspectives. In essence, you develop a "toolbox" that will serve you well for your life. I think the philosophy of a liberal arts education is lost or misunderstood these days.</p></li>
<li><p>I don't think Harvard particularly helps us excel. The admissions office takes special care to choose students that WILL excel, so the causality argument that you present is faulty. However, the Harvard name gets us through the door. As many alumni on this board have mentioned again and again, after "getting through the door," it is up to us to "prove ourselves." In some sense, my friends in the workplace now relate to me that they feel that they are held to a higher standard by virtue of their undergraduate institution.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[QUOTE]
A label can undoubtedly bring boons to customers, but it can also bring degeneration for both the customers and itself. That's why I asked in the first place, "have you compared yourself to students in other top universities who pursue the same interest as you do? Do you think you are now more advantaged?"
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Hanna would be more well-versed in answering this question, as she entered Harvard as a transfer student. First, I have some qualms about this statement, especially your usage of the word "degeneration," "label," and "advantaged."</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Degeneration: First, this word implies that we are experiencing a backwards trend. This term was first coined in the field of psychiatry in which doctors tried to explain mental illness by asserting that mentally ill patients were somehow more "backward" and "less evolved" than the current society. I hardly think that this is the case for a company or an institution. </p></li>
<li><p>Label: Yes, labels are powerful -- after all, the labelling theory is quite influential in the field of sociology and psychology. However, a label also implies that there is an association that occurs. For example, when I say "salt," you automatically know the characteristics of "salt," since you know English. However, if I said "salt" to a non-English speaker, he/she would have no idea what I was talking about, in part due to the fact he/she did not speak English. This can also apply to Harvard. For example, again, if you view Harvard's admissions video, Mira Nair, a famous filmmaker, says that she was shocked that Harvard commanded such a respect, especially among Americans who grew up with the myth of Harvard. In her native India, "Harvard" was not associated with a "rich and powerful" place, but rather just a "good school." </p></li>
<li><p>Advantaged: I think this is your true question. Perhaps Hanna will be more well-versed in answering this question. As my only undergraduate institution that I have attended is Harvard, it's hard for me to compare apples to oranges. Moreover, being "advantaged" can be viewed from many different angles. One might be viewed as more "advantaged" in one's physical looks (height, etc.) Another might be viewed as more "advantaged" by coming from an old-money family. Being "advantaged" is all about perspective. However, Harvard is a powerful name, and commands much respect. However, with respect comes freedom -- but again, as the old cliche goes, with freedom, comes responsibility. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Are you really aware that you are competing with all the smart students globally?
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>You specifically cite Thomas Friedman's "The World Is Flat." He argues that America has to "wake up." However, realize that this kind of thinking has been around for centuries when one views the history of education. For example, we have the mental hygiene movement in the 1960s in which children were to learn healthy habits so that they would not be prone to mental illness in the future. We had the GI Bill to provide education to tons of people. Now, we have federal scholarships for students who study science and foreign languages.</p>
<p>I do also take qualms with your stating that "Harvard is just a token." I don't think it's just a token, and by virtue of your questions, you don't seem to think that it's a token, either.</p>