the Sam Jackson College Experience

Time Magazine cover story, August 21st 2006: “Who Needs Harvard?”

Guys, guys! Harvard was named #1 in the Shanghai school rankings! Check it out here: Top 500 World Universities. Wait, what’s that you say? That methodology is tremendously flawed and generally just ridiculous?

I… I’m sorry, I was just trying to compensate for the terrible psychological shock the part of my brain programmed to hypervalue “Harvard prestige” has received this week–that Shanghai rating was just about the only good Harvard-related news I’ve been able to dredge up in a while! I mean, with the recent US News & World Report college rankings which have Harvard ranked #2 behind Princeton, and the fact that Harvard’s selectivity was behind Yale’s again this year? I just don’t know what to do about it. Newsweek decided on “25 new ivies” which can’t help but take a marketing edge off the Harvard buzz. What’s worst is that Time Magazine, that beacon of truth in the world of periodicals, is running a story titled “Who Needs Harvard?” as its August 21st cover…

Bzzt. I don’t know who takes Time magazine seriously, but I sure don’t. The article isn’t written or reasoned particularly well, and the good points it tries to make are nothing new– the fact that you should look for the college that suits you as an individual and the complementary fact that you can get a great education anywhere you go are nothing new. So long as you apply yourself and make the best of your college experience, there is no difference in where you attend school, as a general rule. Academic studies support this; for all but the very economically disadvantaged, there is little to no difference in later-life wage earnings for Harvard, Yale, etc grads than for those who were accepted at aforesaid hyperselective institutions but decided to go to University of Miami or some other random place. (See: Alan Krueger and Stacy Dale’s study: ESTIMATING THE PAYOFF TO ATTENDING A MORE SELECTIVE COLLEGE )

This title “Who Needs Harvard?” and this publication date both are just meant to coincide with US News & World Report’s ranking release; Time is just trying to hijack some of the limelight to increase sales, which is appropriate marketing but generally underwhelming. I don’t like Time magazine normally and I certainly don’t care for its set of education-themed articles because I feel they lack the depth these thorny issues deserve. Airy and whimsical, a Princeton grad (Walter Kirn) is certain that it was the name on his diploma which ensured him his success. Or a short interview with the author of a book about college admissions; usual bland, lifeless Time fare. The point is that this theme gets them attention, as evidenced by the fact that my grandmother mentioned it to me when we spoke on the phone today.

This article has been getting a lot of play on blogs and on the Internets in general; it’s clogging up the tubes and muddying the news-waters of any other good new stories which might be trying to make their way to the front these days. It needs to stop because this lowest-common-denominator tripe doesn’t merit the attention we’re all giving it. Read the articles if you must, but don’t bother to buy the magazine.

One more fun note: Remember how I wrote that one of Harvard’s professional schools was being more trans-positive (i.e. more friendly towards trans people)? Turns out Harvard has a very specific club–the Harvard Trans Task Force! Not particularly relevant, I was just pleased to have happened upon that club today for no particular reason.