<p>Oh really? You could pick out any person in 6.002 (whatever that class is) at MIT, and he can be Bill Gates. First of all, Bill Gates dropped out of college. He had the charisma, the drive, the social skills to buy IBM (correct me if I’m wrong). No **** he was smart, just like everyone at elite schools. I’m trying to get across the point that it does not just take brains. Millionaires don’t crawl up in a hole all day and do science experiments. They have to bring their innovation out to the public eye, they have to know how to market themselves, how to make connections among the people who will make their ideas reap rewards.</p>
<p>I am not disputing the value of engineering and the sciences. Like I said in another thread, you could tell me that Caltech/MIT are the top schools in the world, and I would completely agree. However, I would not choose to go there to get my primary education. Sure, I’d love to go to those places to learn science, but aside from that, I would feel like I’m missing out on a big chunk of my education–getting to know future leaders, people skills, the humanities, etc.</p>
<p>With that being said, Bill Gates would make a wonderful politician if he chose to do so. He has the personality for it. I wasn’t being LITERAL when I said entrepreneurs/politicians. I was using those professions as a metaphor for humans with a lot of influence in the world. For example, you have scientists talking about global warming. All of their research/hard work is CONTROLLED by the politicians. Everything in America is a political issue. Everything in America is a potential lawsuit. Do you really think we would have this many problems if people from MIT/Caltech ran the world? no. Politicians have scientists by the balls. Look at the GP oil spill. We can genetically engineer humans, and the person who came up with this invention would be fabulously rich. But he will not be because genetic engineering is a political issue. The ideal person would be a scientist and a people’s person who can lead his peers. But unfortunately, the personality for a scientist and a politician are mutually exclusive.</p>
<p>In this dog-eat-dog world (regardless of what Obama is trying to do, jk), the people at the bottom rise to the top by connecting with people already at the top. So what, you get knocked down? Just try again. The reason why Harvard is the most elite college in American with the most clout is because it grooms the future leaders of America. So what, along the way, you’re a poor kid and some rich kid wonders why you work. The rich kid isn’t going to beat you up because you work in college. Just stop being so conscientious about yourself, because it is OK to be poor. Just be grateful for your opportunities.</p>
<p>People condemn Princeton’s eating clubs, Harvard’s finals clubs, Yale’s secret societies (but surprisingly eating clubs get more backlash). It’s fine to think whatever you want, but realize that eating clubs are microcosms of society. Eating clubs prepare you for the real world while you’re in college. Most of them require intelligence, social poise, popularity, to join. The majority of the people you WANT to encounter in life aren’t these humble, down to earth, diverse, unfortunate human beings. They will have their heads so far up their asses that they won’t even make conversation with you. If you really want to avoid this, go to your local community college, or your state school, where people will be more “down to earth.”</p>
The Intel founders, who went to Caltech/MIT, did fine without the connections that you claim are so important in life. Going to Harvard will not automatically get you to know future leaders. And saying that Caltech/MIT would make you miss out on people skills is absurd. Are HYP the only places where you can get people skills?</p>
<p>Well, this is not entirely true. Perhaps you should qualify your point, because as of now there are several major flaws in it, namely this one: if the people you disparaged in your statement eventually go on to become powerful, what then? Wouldn’t you want to have befriended them at college?</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I partially agree with TheGFG. Students who do not come from upper class families definitely have to work harder to make those connections, but they will still be there to be taken advantage of. Sure, lower income students, like myself, will have to spend more time working, but there is more than enough time to still participate in “intellectual” activities, and we can still be intellectual wherever we are.</p></li>
<li><p>The statement that HYP prepares people to be sociable humans, etc., is absolutely false. many students do some out that way, but not all of them, so it is illogical to say “Schools such as HYP make you into a real, employable, approachable HUMAN BEING” and IMO its not exactly a main focus of any of those schools. I just talked to the head of HR at JPMorgan Chase (after i mentioned that i chose S over P), and she says that they always hesitate to hire people from HYP because they (NOT EVERYONE, but in her experience this is the trend) are not used to non-intellectual work, are not as good working with people, and are not as good at listening to authority . She said that they prefer Stanford and Wharton students to all others because they tend to be more personable out of the elite schools. I’m not going into business, finance, or banking, so it doesnt really matter to me, but it seems to also be the trend at several engineering firms that my brother talked to.</p></li>
<li><p>HYPS all have future leaders, but Harvard has always been and will continue to be the “elite” school out of them simply because of its name. even if the quality of education, by whatever measures, was better at Y P or S (im not saying it is or isnt), Harvard would still carry the name and attract people with the ambition, work ethic, and capability to become future leaders. that doesn’t mean that Harvard prepares people to be future leaders. its a correlation, not a connection.</p></li>
<li><p>In my opinion, the personalities of scientists and politicians are not mutually exclusive. It’s just not common for a scientist to become a politician because the two fields are so different.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>No, it’s not surprising that the eating clubs have received more negative attention. They function as centers of social activity much like fraternities or sororities, but there’s one crucial difference. At most schools frat parties have an open door policy for their parties. The frats actually want as many people as possible to come to their signature events, like their big themed events. At Princeton, the eating clubs have bouncers at their door and if your name is not on the club’s approved guest list you are not allowed in. And the students themselves will tell you that you can be extremely charismatic and likeable, but if your parents don’t have a certain economic status you just are not getting in certain of those clubs. </p>
<p>Secret societies might select a few kids for economic reasons, but it’s more of a meritocracy. To be chosen, the student must be a mover and shaker; these societies want to admit people who are leader in some sphere of campus life. They want the newspaper editors, the star athletes, the student govt. officers, the most talented artists, etc.</p>
<p>Some of you missed my point. I never said you couldn’t get people skills at MIT/Caltech. I was responding to a poster’s belief about how college should be entirely pre-professional, and how poor people don’t have the “opportunity” to engage in the humanities. It’s not time to be overly sensitive when you’re at an elite college. If you’re poor, there is no reason to be offended because some wealthier person was surprised that you had a job. You don’t need to deprive yourself by narrowing down your college focus to obtaining an employable skill (ie preprofessional programs). You are placed in an environment in which you can get a broad, fulfilling, enriching, education. Embrace it, because life isn’t just about learning how to administer drugs or program computers.</p>
<p>By engaging in purely preprofessional, vocation programs, you cut yourself from interpersonal growth. Humans are group creatures. Psychology experiments have shown that 4 month olds are able to attribute human qualities to an inanimate object, and play with the teddy bear that they deem most friendly after watching a puppet show. Look at all of the world’s great institutions. Cambridge. Oxford. Harvard. Yale. Princeton. The ivy league. Stanford(although Stanford is a bit young, and less “established”). Why have they lasted? Because they were founded on a liberal arts foundation, and as long as people live, there will be a need to be more conscious of the world, existence, society, and humanity. The sciences only complement the human world of emotions and interactions, making humans more or less happy and productive.</p>
<p>You are going to tell me that Yale’s secret societies are more open than Princeton’s eating clubs. Pfffft. Have you looked at past people in secret societies? Have you visited Princeton’s eating clubs? Have you bickered?</p>
<p>Yes, I meant the BP oil spill. </p>
<p>I feel bad for going so off-topic in this thread. I’m not promoting Stanford hate. Don’t have Stanford people.</p>
<p>I never said that I believe college should be pre-professional. What I said was that people on CC like to equate being pre-professional as being non-intellectual or intellectually inferior. I was merely trying to make the point that some kids don’t have the luxury of not being pre-professional. That doesn’t mean they won’t contribute to a vibrant, intellectual atmosphere on campus at Stanford or anywhere else. </p>
<p>You can major in philosophy, classics, history, English, etc. but you will liikely then be forced to go to grad school afterward if you want to eventually find a job which can pay your bills. That’s fine, but if you are a poor or middle class student, then you better hope you’ve done well enough during your undergrad years that you will be offered an assistantship or other financial aid of some kind so you can actually afford to attend said grad school. Go to the career office of your elite school this coming spring and see who’s recruiting and for what fields. Please come back and report to us how many companies are looking for students who have majored in the arts or humanities. Even at the Ivies, companies come looking for engineers, science and math majors, and econ majors. And even at the Ivies, you will see a new grad unemployment rate that’s pretty high. At my S’s school, a third have jobs, a little more than another third are going to grad school, and the rest have no idea. Not having a job won’t be a problem for the rich kids (who majored in women’s studies or whatever), but for the common folk it can be harrowing because after a while the grace period runs out on those student loans and mom and dad have retirement to save for and can’t keep supporting their adult children.</p>
<p>I’m just trying to point out that wanting a job after graduation is not a bad reflection on a person’s intellect.</p>
<p>iCalculus, thinking that a pre-professional education means no “interpersonal growth” is completely wrong. You continue to think that only a liberal arts education makes you more concious of the world, existence, and society. Your whole post is just full of wish washy claims of broad, “enriching” education coming from a liberal arts foundation. Once again, you undermine an education in the sciences in favor of “the human world of emotions and interactions”. Are you serious? Humanities majors do not give you interpersonal growth nor expand your world of emotions and interactions.</p>
<p>Your telling us that poor and middle class students should embrace humanities at their university because you actually think that’s a fullfilling education. Not many poor students will take the risk of finding themselves with little job offers after a philosophy major. Frankly, nobody wants to hear you tell us that life isn’t about doing some sort of practical work. Here’s one for you: life isn’t just about embracing humanities and arts in college so that you can feel better about yourself and your interaction skills but then in the end not make any real contribution to society whatsoever.</p>
<p>I would never major in the humanities, because I do want a fruitful skill. WHAT I AM SAYING, if you have read my posts, is that although you feel that you need to focus on obtaining a skill because you’re from the lower class, you shouldn’t neglect other classes. Someone said that the poor do not have the opportunity or the time to engage in the humanities, and I was explaining that this is not true.</p>
<p>Some people are skilled at, interested in, and thus benefit from learning to approach life in a more intellectual and dynamic way. In fact, the existence of a residential collegiate environment is most conducive to those studies. Others are more scientifically and mathematically oriented and are simply frustrated by those pursuits.</p>
<p>No need for one side to diss the other. A humanities/social science major is certainly more collegiate and intellectual than a pre-professional major, and people who value that will prefer the former to the latter. Others just want to prepare to be the best in their field. I personally think those people are missing out on a part of the college experience, but I could just be envious of their skill in their area of expertise. </p>
<p>I will say, that if you took two identical people, skilled at both engineering and philosophy, and had one major in engineering and the other major in philosophy, the one who majored in philosophy would turn out to be a better engineer. That is entirely my opinion and not backed up by ANY scientific evidence. :)</p>
<p>Also, it’s important to note that just because someone majors in humanities or social science doesn’t necessarily make them less pre-professional. If they don’t consciously approach life and their studies in an intellectual way, many of the posters above are probably right in that they may just be wasting their time because fields like engineering are too difficult for them.</p>
Please explain what makes a humanities major more collegiate, intellectual, and "dynamic’ than other majors.</p>
<p>You shouldn’t approach college thinking that it’s a place to pursue useless activities (i.e. philosophy major, joining eating clubs) with the excuse that you are becoming a more dynamic, well rounded and intellectual god who is superior to others.</p>
<p>^That is false. Take Harvard, for example? Why do you think students there spend more time on extracurriculars than on academics? Does this make students less successful? No, it makes them some of the most successful people. What is the importance of engaging in other activities rather than pure academics? You meet diverse, interesting people. Your friends introduce you to cultures, experiences that you would never have thought of. You become more outgoing, and getting that internship/work experience becomes easier as you learn more about the world around you, and how to connect with people. The person with a 4.0 GPA doesn’t get the internship. It doesn’t work that way in college. Why are elite colleges SO interested in building a well rounded, diverse class? Specifically for the reasons stated above. Elite colleges do it right: look at the success of their graduates. They can admit 2400 SAT, nerd kids, but they don’t, because that does not add to the vibrance of a campus. In elite colleges, your peers are just as worthwhile as your professors. I’m sure you’ve heard that saying before.</p>
<p>I didn’t know we were discussing extracurricular activities. I was referring to pursuing some of the things you mentioned in earlier posts, such as joining eating clubs or pursuing humanities. Yes, extracurriculars help make more successful people, but going to college to seek connections to other people solely for business does not.</p>
<p>“You shouldn’t approach college thinking that it’s a place to pursue useless activities (i.e. philosophy major, joining eating clubs) with the excuse that you are becoming a more dynamic, well rounded and intellectual god who is superior to others.”</p>
<p>One of the main reasons Harvard undergrads spend more time on ECs than on academics is because Harvard takes relatively little interest in educating its undergrads. As reported in the Crimson on several occasions, the faculty tend to look the other way while students subordinate academics to many other activities. This is one of numerous areas in which Stanford provides a much better undergraduate experience; there’s obviously no shortage of activities at Stanford and some students have to work at finding a balance, but the emphasis on undergraduate academics is also powerful.</p>