Compared to what specifically? It helps to find relevant, comparable examples of electives in major areas of economic impact and demonstrating how these modern electives fail to do what you described.
> vs a lot of folks coming out today without any practical knowledge, just theoretical.
This isn't a direct comparison. But if we were to make this comparison more direct (e.g "more people were prepared in 1907 for application of practical knowledge than today), it's also in need of substance. How much is "a lot"? What is practical knowledge, and how can you be sure that the knowledge taught isn't practical?
From the modern curricula linked elsewhere in the thread, it looks like quite a few courses are directly relevant to operationalization in their domains.
It's cute, but in quite a few industries, a lot of these are driven by outside e.g regulatory forces that have proven to be necessary ("written in blood" etc), so the better question to ask is how many of these process encumberments can be streamlined e.g with paved road approaches.
Security and compliance benefit heavily from this approach, and I'm sure it can be extended elsewhere as well (architecture reviews etc).
It's probably coming from frustration with non-contributive commentary, of which the topmost comment unquestionably qualifies.
It's in poor form to do citizen-policing pretty much anywhere let alone an internet forum, but I won't begrudge the user their frustrations over something that's undeniably a problem.
> which, if you're going into finance, consulting, public policy, or political ideology, look great. But if you want to understand or manage a real-physical-world company? Maybe Econ 1745 - "Corporate Finance" would be useful?
Are you saying that the "Railroad Practice" elective is directly comparable to the "Corporate Finance" elective of today?
If anything, I'd say that Railroad Practice is best compared to "Using Big Data to Solve Economic and Social Problems" in that they're both focused on some of the biggest economic facilitators of their respective days, rail and data science. And Harvard's other electives seem similarly tailored, allowing people to get a grasp of fields of practice that can yield them a substantial advantage in practice, e.g in leveraging globalization or serving underserved markets.
Your other points aren't comparative to the Harvard of the day but rather speculative ("a puny fraction" and its suggested impact), so there's not much I can do to speak to them.
---
Tangent: it'd be an interesting analytic exercise to compare courses and curricula year by year and see what percentage of electives have generalized, what percentage have specialized, and to get a better grasp of how a school's programs are both adapting to and anticipating current and future economics landscapes.
> Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
Meta-question on the emphasis above: are you (uoaei) and bell-cot the same user?
Have they? What's changed, specifically, in Harvard's various programs in the last 118 years that lead you to your implied conclusion that their business and economics curricula have worsened?
If memory over the last two decades serves, this is a relatively recent degradation.
Microsoft's security reputation prior to the recent (5ish years?) failures was largely built up on top of the work stemming from the Trustworthy Computing memo.
I was hopeful YC coming to DC would've meant YC would've been tapping into DC's startup scene.
Wishful thinking. Linked is the more common reason (lobbying), but I'm looking forward to more institutions recognizing the talent we have in the DC region.
Wouldn't surprise me if schools go the route of forcing a cloud toolset (e.g Office 365 or Google Workspace) and measuring proof of work - in a very literal sense, not a cryptographic sense.
Ripe for being gamed but is probably the only way to do PoW without becoming wildly intrusive with personal devices.
> I can't put my finger on it, but it seems more important than a mere "gimmick."
Let me see if I can articulate it.
You know how a human conversation can have multiple threads? And ten minutes in, you find the topic has totally changed and you're trying to figure out the original topic? Sometimes you can get back to it, sometimes you can't, right?
Obviously it's not quite the same when you can see prompt history, but the conversation is still pretty linear. This pre-empts that problem by letting you fork thoughts.
> But why doesn't this happen to restaurants, or super markets or car mechanics?
Not sure, but the counterpoint is the housing crisis. So painting it as something exclusive to healthcare suggests that there's no possibility of it being a systemic problem with Private Equity.
One of the other comments raised said "because you don't have to go to those places," and it intuitively feels correct that basic needs are ripe for price gouging when supply is limited. But I'm out of my depth. Happy to hear other comments.
Teachers should be compensated as much as doctors and held to the same academic rigor, but then we'd run up against the rude reality that those of us who are well off tend to hate the idea of paying for such a feature e.g through taxes.
Grants got me through school, so I'm content being taxed up the nose. But I'm an outlier in my tax bracket for that opinion.
Depends on the work. The suggested solution may very well fall on its face with any media & entertainment work, which incidentally is one of the industries with the heaviest Mac usage.
> Bottom line: it wasn't hidden from you[1]. You made an assumption without reading up on your "$2.2k laptop" and it didn't work out for you. Fortunately Apple have a relatively generous returns policy, take it back and get on with your life.
Speaking of assumptions, looks like you made an assumption the OP bought this laptop themselves.
How does any of this detract from the absurdity that no MacBook Pro with the mainline M1/M2/M3 chips has been able to natively drive two external screens?
Being able to use two external screens is practically an expectation of any laptop at this point. I can understand the OP's point that this is ridiculous.
Honestly, if there ever exists a web-focused LLM that's hyper-competent in media literacy, I'd be happy to delegate to it the job of teaching my kids. We don't expect the most of our teachers, nor do we effectively compensate them for such an important role, so I'm more inclined to trust an LLM that can capably sift through all the data online and teach from what it understands to be true.
Which essentially means the hallucination problem needs to be solved, which is a ways off.
You certainly would, because not every case of obesity results from the same mechanisms. But just as with all the other what-about comments, this comment misses the point: this class of drug is wildly successful, and it's the most specific drug for this problem that's been developed so far
2) shalmanese, how would you relate this back to platforms like Reddit that are driven both by community members as well as volunteer janitors?