Quote:
sakky, #36 is once again an obvious point. but then you jump from "useful" to "likely to increase future income" and the latter just isn't a good model of how the world works.
look, i understand how someone who is focused on careers (perhaps as a professional occupation) would see things in your way, and an ivory tower academic would see it in my way, and the truth is somewhere in between. but it's very clear that maximizing {money earned}/{hour of work} isn't everybody's goal, and neither is maximizing {hardcoreness of class load}. the truth is complicated and somewhere in between.
|
Again, nobody has ever argued that people are always out to maximize
every single dollar that they will make. Ben, you're an economist, and so we both know that people don't actually do that, as the marginal utility of every dollar is a decreasing function. That is to say, once you have secured a middle-class lifestyle, earning a few thousand dollars more a year doesn't really matter very much. But certainly nobody wants to be below the poverty line. When you're at that level, extra money really matters.
Similarly, I have never stated that nobody ever values 'hardcoreness'. Like I've said throughout this thread, if you can handle rigorous topics, then by all means do so. I did. You did. But what I am asking is what about those people who
can't handle it? These are like people below the 'poverty line'. For these people, some marginal decreases in 'hardcoreness' really matter, just like for poor people, a few thousand dollars more a year can really matter.
And that's precisely the point I've been making. I have never said that
everybody should want to go to Sloan. In fact, I have specifically stated that this is not the case. What I have said is that
some people, and in particular, those people who are failing in rigorous technical majors, will probably be better off in Sloan. In other words, if you're in course 6 in MIT and are doing well, good for you! Stay there! But my question is, what if you're not doing well?