<p>^Yes, because the New York Times is sloppy, as are Merriam Webster and all the other sources. God I can’t believe I’m feeding the ■■■■■. </p>
<p>
Unfortunately I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic. Harvard undergrad was the point of this thread, but you may be saying that Harvard undergrad is obviously quite satisfactory so there is no need to debate it any more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t aware that H. W. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage from 1926 was a product of “the sloppy, whatever-floats-your-boat school” of the late 20th century.</p>
<p>"wasn’t aware that H. W. Fowler’s Dictionary of Modern English Usage from 1926 was a produce of “the sloppy, whatever-floats-your-boat school” of the late 20th century. "</p>
<p>Well now you know.</p>
<p>And by the way, I KNEW H.W. Fowler. H.W. Fowler was a friend of mine. And you, silverturtle, are no H.W. Fowler.</p>
<p>If you and H.W. are right, silverturtle, I apologize. By the way, H.W. got more *** than Frank Sinatra.</p>
<p>Schmaltz:
Henry Watson Fowler, who died in 1932 at the age of 75, was a friend of yours? How old were you when you met him?</p>
<p>^^He was joking. He was paraphrasing a famous quote by Lloyd Bentsen.</p>
<p>According to Modern American Usage, “in some contexts none means not a single one, making singularity emphatic, whereas in other contexts it means no two, no few, no fraction, no fraction of many. In ‘None of us is entitled to cast the first stone’ the singular meaning is hardly mistakable; in ‘None of the commentators agree on the meaning of this passage’ the plural meaning is equally clear. None, then, is freely singular or plural according to the sense suggested by its context” (pg. 205).</p>
<p>Isn’t this fascinating! I used to think I was the only person who found these things really interesting.</p>
<p>As for what this thread was supposed to be about: One of my friends goes to Harvard and loves it. She was definitely one of the ten brightest students at my high school, and wanted to pursue the hard sciences while taking classes in other subjects. I was probably considered one of the ten brightest students at my high school, too, and I go to Swarthmore. I love it, and I can’t wait to head back in a week and a half. I’m pretty sure that all the top schools offer great professors and great classes. </p>
<p>With that said, at Swarthmore we have no TA’s, and we don’t have professors who have to leave for a talk and require a TA to substitute. But Harvard attracts tons of famous scholars and political leaders very often, something I’m definitely jealous of. It’s just not an opportunity that you find anywhere else except in other famous universities.</p>
<p>We should also remember that there are plenty of people who go to Swarthmore who got rejected from Harvard.</p>
<p>Thank you, coureur.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Senior, I wasn’t being sarcastic, I was being wry. I think the notion that Harvard doesn’t have adequate undergraduate orientation is silly in the context of any meaningful apples-to-apples comparison (i.e., compared to Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, Chicago, Berkeley, etc.). </p></li>
<li><p>I have been completely convinced that silverturtle, Senior, et al. are correct about “none”. In case that wasn’t clear yesterday. Props to them.</p></li>
<li><p>Schmaltz and I DO agree that English teachers seem to have abandoned grammar teaching at some point. I was always shocked at the number of errors in my kids’ papers that went uncorrected by their teachers, and they went to schools with big reputations and lots of good students.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is my experience as well.</p>
<p>For the little that it’s worth, my post #32 could have used quite a bit of editing. My 9th grade English teacher (who reminds me of JHS’s description of his mother) would certainly have favored the is.</p>
<p>And there was a rather harsh reply (by Schmaltz?) that really attacked that post (and is now gone?) - which I feel like was 80% off base, but also 20% correct (I started by saying that the rumor is “totally bogus” but then acknowledge the lack of focus in Econ).</p>
<p>Regarding sewhappy’s son’s situation (#39) - as a former dabbler at Harvard, I certainly know the challenges of never being the best at anything. But at the same time, I felt like Harvard was the best place for a dabbler. Where else could I get lunch with a world class violinist, dine with the next Zuckerberg, and then work on a problem set with three amazing biomedresearchers? </p>
<p>And beyond the ability to pick up so much from your mega-talented peers, I feel like the job market gives Harvard dabblers quite a bit of leeway. My “story” at Harvard totally lacked direction - I concentrated in the life sciences (a “slacker” LS concentration), had a secondary in computer science, worked for the newspaper, etc… and was able to get interviews for a huge range of positions - from finance to teaching to tech. I certainly would have had a tougher time if I wanted to apply to a PhD program, but I feel like Harvard dabblers are welcomed if not beloved by companies and professional programs.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Thanks to the tyranny of the Descriptionists.</p>