<p>^^Sorry about that. I googled and it came up. It carried no date so I wrongly assumed it was current.</p>
<p>So, when Harvard supporters get all up in your face about being able to do extensive research with dozens upon dozens of Nobel Prize winners, they really have no idea what they’re talking about? Ha.</p>
<p>@just<em>forget</em>me,</p>
<p>you said, “it’s certainly possible to get a near-unparalleled education at Harvard if you choose the right concentration…” etc.</p>
<p>what are some examples of “the right concentration?” Or did you mean any concentration as long as it is enjoyable and challenging for them?</p>
<p>@papanoel</p>
<p>A bit of both… thanks for picking up on this.</p>
<p>Some concentrations are “right” because they inhierently provide a good experience in terms of classes, advising, etc. I think that if you want a Swarthmore style education (knowing all of the profs in your dept, having almost all seminar classes junior/senior year) that’s sort of the default in certain departments. Some examples would be Classics, Philosophy, Linguistics and, of course, Folklore & Mythology (to a lesser extent, I think my concentration, Human Evolutionary Biology, fits the bill). If you pair this with intentionally choosing smaller core/GenEd classes and electives, you’ll end up with a very LAC-like education.</p>
<p>But for some of the mega-concentrations (i.e. Econ, Gov, Psych), the experience is much more varied. Here, “right” is much more about student passions, interests + attitudes. If you work to meet professors, dedicate yourself to doing research, and choose classes wisely, your experience as a Harvard Psychology or Economics concentrator can be beyond phenomenal (i.e. being on a first name basis with Marty Feldstein or Stephen Pinker). But it’s also incredibly easy in these concentrations to just take large lecture classes, only ever interact with TFs, and end up with a very generic, impersonal education. </p>
<p>Hope this helps - let me know if I can clarify in any way.</p>
<p>^ no offense to the above, but why would anybody spend 40K a year or the max your parents can afford to study Classics, Philosophy, Linguistics and especially- Folklore & Mythology?? There is basically zero demand among hiring managers for people in these subjects. Most take jobs they could do without college or go on to law school (best option) or a PhD in these fields (and then come out with no job prospects and an endless string of adjunct appointments or teaching gigs at a community college). </p>
<p>Right now, employers want functional skills- computer programming, accounting and some areas of engineering. Econ, government and psych are all pretty useless also. That’s why most of the class of 2009 is unemployed right now. Ideally it would nice to have the academic freedom to study whatever one wanted but the reality is there are bills and rent to pay.</p>
<p>My Harvard alumnus interviewer double majored in Black Studies and Comparative Literature. He’s managing hedge funds his first year out of college.</p>
<p>I mean, he came from a wealthy and landed family, but my point is that at a school like Harvard you can pretty much take it easy in terms of agonizing over practical academic pursuits.</p>
<p>haha nice try, it takes ten to fifteen years before you are running money at a hedge fund, and the vast majority of IBD and S&T analysts never get to that point anyway… maybe and I highly doubt this, your interviewer could be managing his family’s money but that’s about it…</p>
<p>also, what are Black Studies? Def Jam and the collected speeches of Al Sharpton? </p>
<p>read the Crimson, this year’s class and last year’s and probably next year’s are absolutely screwed on the job front. The real world is a tough place.</p>
<p>He’s Class of '07, and that’s what it said on the business card he handed me. I don’t care to argue.</p>
<p>My example was less run-of-the-mill, but my point is that one can’t go wrong majoring in English or Philosophy. And, to dismiss Economics and Psychology as “pretty useless majors” is just silly. All of these disciplines impart crucial methods of thinking and communication that are necessary for the most demanding and challenging jobs, and such jobs require a breadth of perspectives and skill sets.</p>
<p>“That’s why most of the class of 2009 is unemployed right now.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The real world isn’t so tough when one is young, and has ambition and a strong spirit of altruism.</p>
<p>@cmburns </p>
<p>I agree with you that, in a tough economic climate, it is easier to find work if you have Computer Science skills.</p>
<p>But I think your argument as a whole is full of hyperbole. Unless the job market has changed dramatically since I went through recruiting six months ago, nearly all of the companies who recruit Harvard employees don’t care what your concentration was. What they care about are:
- Your GPA (likely to be higher if you study something you care about)
- Your ability to express why you studied what you did.
- That you have some quantitative skills (take a couple Ec classes, or 21a or CS50 or something).</p>
<p>I concentrated in Human Evolutionary Biology (which is essentially Anthropology) and had the option of working at a variety of consulting, finance, and tech companies*. Friends of mine who studied Philosophy are working on the hill. Friends who did History are at top hedge funds. Friends of mine who never took a computer science class are working at Microsoft, Facebook, and Google. And the one Folk & Myth concentrator that I know worked as a consultant for a few years after graduating. I don’t a good list off the top of my head, but I know that a ton of the Harvard alums who are CEOs now concentrated in things like history and philosophy.</p>
<p>Certainly more Applied Math majors end up at banks/funds/etc, but correlation ≠ causation.</p>
<p>*Disclaimer: I did end up getting a secondary field in computer science, but didn’t decide to do that/put it on my resume until after junior recruiting.</p>