<p>Has anyone seen this film? My god what has happened to our "academic" institutions? They appear to be as corrupt as Wall Street.</p>
<p>Haven’t seen it.
But I guess that those who got in had money or family.</p>
<p>Haven’t see it yet, either.
Of course, some of those “academic” institutions are corrupt, and it’s not just their business schools:
[Larry</a> Summers and the Subversion of Economics - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education](<a href=“http://chronicle.com/article/Larry-Summersthe/124790/]Larry”>http://chronicle.com/article/Larry-Summersthe/124790/)
<a href=“https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03medschool.html[/url]”>https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/business/03medschool.html</a>
[Harvard:</a> the Inside Story of Its Finance Meltdown - Forbes.com](<a href=“http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0316/080_harvard_finance_meltdown.html]Harvard:”>Harvard: the Inside Story of Its Finance Meltdown)
[Business</a> Schools Mull Over Blame In Financial Crisis : NPR](<a href=“http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103719186]Business”>Business Schools Mull Over Blame In Financial Crisis : NPR)
[Why</a> Harvard is bad for Wall Street. - By Daniel Gross - Slate Magazine](<a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2109982/]Why”>Why Harvard is bad for Wall Street.)
[Land</a> grab in New York | The Post and Courier, Charleston SC - News, Sports, Entertainment](<a href=“http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jan/13/land-grab-in-new-york/]Land”>http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2011/jan/13/land-grab-in-new-york/)
[From</a> Libya With Love | Mother Jones](<a href=“http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/libya-qaddafi-monitor-group]From”>From Libya With Love – Mother Jones)</p>
<p>Just saw “The Social Network” via Netflicks- that was a Harvard turnoff for me.</p>
<p>I’m confident that realistic applicants to these schools can distinguish between works of fiction (as Aaron Sorkin described “the Social Network”) and works of journalism.</p>
<p>Looking at the first article, looks like an attempt to blame Summers (as well as others in the Clinton admin) for the financial meltdown cause they supported repealing glass steagall. </p>
<p>AFAICT no one serious thinks that we should go back to glass steagall or that that was a good way to regulate the financial sector. There are many who think the dereg went too far - largely because of Phil Gram and other congressional repub’s. </p>
<p>The failure to strictly enforce such fin regs as remained, can hardly be attributed to those who were no longer in office after Jan 2001. </p>
<p>I guess a critique of U Georgia (gramm’s alma mater) or Texas A&M (where Gramm taught) isnt as sexy. Or maybe in the contest for influence between the left, and the center left, poking at center left targets like Summers, Rubin, and the Clintons is more interesting than putting it on the radicals of the right who now claim to be “populists” and to have everything figured out.</p>
<p>^Well said BBdad.</p>
<p>“AFAICT no one serious thinks that we should go back to glass steagall or that that was a good way to regulate the financial sector.”</p>
<p>Paul Volcker, for one, thought that Glass-Steagall should be re-instated:
<a href=“Volcker Has Obama’s Ear, but Not on Overhaul of Banks - The New York Times”>Volcker Has Obama’s Ear, but Not on Overhaul of Banks - The New York Times;
<p>In any case, my point in linking to the first article was not to blame Summers for the meltdown. Rather, my point is that it illustrates the extent of conflicts of interests among academics in certain fields. This is not to say that academics shouldn’t consult or participate in policy, but it raises the question to what extent outside financial interests might influence or bias their teaching and research. Perhaps, some of these academics need to attach full disclosure statements to their course syllabi.</p>
<p>So who at Columbia connected in this story? I get the Harvard reference…</p>
<p>I saw the movie, and it was excellent and disturbing. And it made Columbia and Harvard look pretty rotten, although not in a way that would affect the majority of undergraduate teaching.</p>
<p>“I’m confident that realistic applicants to these schools can distinguish between works of fiction (as Aaron Sorkin described “the Social Network”) and works of journalism.”</p>
<p>I am not so confident that journalists can. :)</p>
<p>For anyone who hasn’t seen the movie yet I would urge you to do so. It took aim at the establishment at Harvard and Columbia’s business schools for perpetuating the status quo because it benefits them financially. The movie does a great job of explaining how and why the financial crisis occurred and who the players were. I agree with the above poster,“it was excellent and disturbing”.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Im that case it should have turned you off more to Johns Hopkins, since that was the stunt-campus double used to film most of the “Harvard” scenes. ;-)</p>
<p>Actually, a lot of Harvard people thought the movie was a very inaccurate portrayal of Harvard students:</p>
<p>[Mankiw</a> Defends Against Harvard Stereotypes | FlyByBlog | Harvard Life. To Go. | The Harvard Crimson](<a href=“http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2010/10/5/harvard-social-network-stereotypes/]Mankiw”>The Harvard Crimson)</p>
<p>Excerpt:</p>
<p>“Cue Harvard Professor of Economics and EC10 guru, N. Gregory Mankiw, who wrote in his blog yesterday that although he enjoyed “The Social Network”, he was irked by the fact that “Every Harvard undergrad portrayed in the film was a pompous snob, an annoying social climber, or an antisocial nerd (or some combination of the three).” Those of you who felt misrepresented by “The Social Network” may find a shred of solace in Professor Mankiw’s contention that “Most Harvard undergrads are in fact quite likable. If they were as unpleasant as the film made out, I would have left here long ago.” With 25 years of experience teaching real live Harvard students, Professor Mankiw makes a good argument.”</p>
<p>I’m hard pressed to think of a movie since (maybe?) Love Story that has portrayed Harvard sympathetically. Apparently dumping on Harvard sells better. As for Inside Job, it’s an ideological screed that really doesn’t deserve the title “documentary”.</p>