<p>I agree with Pizzagirl’s statement in #1438 that the compassionate nurse and the insightful second-grade teacher are performing services that make a significant difference. (I am a big fan of several of QMP’s elementary school teachers, and some of the nursing staff in one of the local obstetrical practices.)</p>
<p>However, what I don’t understand is why this should be connected in any way to Harvard admissions (or fill in other-top-school in place of Harvard). Would the nurse or second-grade teacher be more effective if educated at Harvard? From what I know of Harvard, I am inclined to doubt it–in fact, I think it is possible that going to Harvard might actually make them less effective.</p>
<p>GMT, I’m explicitly not criticizing stay-at-home moms. I actually have a very positive opinion of stay-at-home moms. What I am saying is that Harvard (as our example) as an institution and our society as a whole would be misallocating scarce resources if all of the women admitted to Harvard chose to become a) stay-at-home moms; or b) construction workers. I’m not criticizing construction workers either. The question as a society is about how we organize to get the best out of our private and public investment in education. I’d like to see female CEOs, minority CEOs, country presidents, governors, central bankers, innovative NGO leaders etc. from our investment in those people. Is that a controversial statement? I’m sure Harvard would see it the same way.</p>
<p>Another way to look at it is how much a seat at Yale contributes to someone’s ability to have an impact in the world. I would say that the impact of a Yale education won’t help a construction worker or a stay-at-home parent that much relative to an education at a flagship state school, but it might make a lot more relative difference for someone who wants to become a Supreme Court Justice, a private equity investor, a university president or head of an NGO. [Cross-posted with QuantMech. It looks like you and I are making the same argument on the differing contribution of an elite education to different career choices].</p>
<p>Well, re: Philo’s comment about “geared specifically toward educating the future elite” -
Love Yale’s bit: Many years ago, former Yale President Kingman Brewster wrote that selecting future Yale students was a combination of looking for those who would make the most of the extraordinary resources assembled here, those with a zest to stretch the limits of their talents, and those with an outstanding public motivation – in other words, applicants with a concern for something larger than themselves. He said, “We have to make the hunchy judgment as to whether or not with Yale’s help the candidate is likely to be a leader in whatever he [or she] ends up doing.” Our goals remain the same today. Decade after decade, Yalies have set out to make our world better. We are looking for students we can help to become the leaders of their generation in whatever they wish to pursue.</p>
<p>It may be that among all married households the number of children is negatively correlated with income, because with more children, one spouse, usually the wife, works less. But I doubt that the correlation of the <em>husband’s</em> income and the number of children is negative. For example look at the Romneys, parents of five children.</p>
<p>Replying to #1457
I meant what I wrote, even if I phrased it provocatively (a habit many other posters have). My assumption is that your total accomplishments equal your direct accomplishments plus some fraction of your children’s accomplishments.</p>
<p>Replying to #1458
Of course there are other well-paid professions, but my point was that it’s good for at least one parent to have a high-paying career.</p>
<p>Harvard education aside, it seems to me very well educated elementary school teachers are definitely a positive force in a second grade classroom. When students ask questions of adults, they get very different answers depending on the educational background of the adult. imho Those questions can be the starting point for all kinds of interesting inquiries which might not have occurred to the student.</p>
<p>Once I visited a kindergarten class that had just created Valentine’s Day boxes out of shoe boxes. The teacher tried to incorporate some math into the lesson and held up a decorated shoe box with lid. “How many sides does this box have?” She counted them. “Right - Four” </p>
<p>okay - I don’t know much math but I did think that could have been a rather more interesting lesson</p>
<p>I think even elementary school teachers should have an academic specialty, whether it is English, history, math, chemistry, or some other subject. I believe other countries do this. One reason elementary schools fail to serve gifted children in math is that few elementary school teachers are competent to teach algebra. If elementary schools had dedicated math teachers who had majored in the subject, math education would be better, and gifted children could be served.</p>
<p>Oh, I remember the same shoebox math thing when I was in 2nd grade. And, the correct answer, provided by a fellow who later became a famous doctor, was “five.” (No lid on that box, that day.) I remember partly because he was a 2nd grade dreamboat, a sweetheart of a guy. But also because his perception that day lit a lightbulb over my head. </p>
<p>I don’t think we can take an argument far, that accomplishments in life can be easily quantified and ranked. Or, sometimes, even easily perceived by great numbers of others. Sure, we have “titles” and recognized “leaders” or heroes, and we can see who holds strong SES status. But even the little guys can influence many, inspire in ways that roll into subsequent generations. </p>
<p>I thought (though I don’t know where I saw it,) that Yale included that leaders can be ministers, teachers, community workers, inspiring parents, etc. Point being, what some think of as accomplishments is not the whole be all/end all.</p>
<p>Which takes us back to the start.</p>
<p>Hunchy, but based on a pattern. If you assume the pattern is all stats, STEM and obvious successes you miss the rest of what it takes to leave a positive mark on others.</p>
<p>"From what I know of Harvard, I am inclined to doubt it–in fact, I think it is possible that going to Harvard might actually make them less effective. "</p>
<p>Spoken like a person who has knowledge of both Harvard and elementary education. Well done Quant.</p>
<p>But again, who decides what constitutes accomplishments? Is the second-grade teacher who is warmly remembered by students more or less accomplished than the English professor at the community, or more or less accomplished than the i-banker who makes a fortune? Are you measuring this by money made, renown in a field, personal impact on others, societal impact on others, donations / time to charity? </p>
<p>And I think that’s a lot of pressure to put on a kid, that he’d better rack up some accomplishments because it’ll reflect well on <em>you</em> the parent. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lookingforward - this is one of the best sentences I’ve ever seen on CC.</p>
<p>From my standpoint,the key question in this part of the discussion is not what makes success (there are lots of definitions of success) or what makes leaders but how much the scarce resource of an elite education contributions to different kinds of success. Being a SAH parent or an electrician can be a big success, depending upon one’s definition. But, a Yale education probably does add a lot of value relative to a good state flagship school. So, there is a clear rationale for allocating scarce resources where they would contribute more. </p>
<p>Unlikely that nurses and second grade teachers, who can make a meaningful and noticeable differences in people’s lives, or construction workers who may make much less noticeable difference, get much incremental benefit from a Yale education, whereas a potential finance minister of Peru or Togo or possibly a church minister would likely get a much greater benefit.</p>
<p>Most studies indicate very little if any value add for for an elite school over any good school. Much more depends on student ability and drive.</p>
<p>Your examples raise the question of whether our elite universities are American institutions that exist primarily to serve United States residents or global universities with an international mandate. Americans created them and continue to fund them, so I vote for the former.</p>
<p>Note that I used lots of US examples in my previous post, so by looking at just one post, you may be missing the overall point.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, our elite universities see themselves as global. I think they will and should continue to benefit the US but their worldview is global AFAIK. In addition, it is in the US interest to have finance ministers who understand the value of competitive markets and understand how the US sees the world.</p>
<p>Nice thing about Hunchy - it includes all the rich people who might have been able to make a difference. It is so exciting that Yale decided to bring this quote back from 70s or whenever when Yale was predominantly for the elite.</p>
<p>On the SAHM issue: I just want to point out that these are the people who run your schools, who serve in local government, who spend hours organizing and putting together charitable initiatives, who create new community programs, who serve as election protection volunteers. Without this largely unpaid labor, local communities would not function. Choosing this path doesn’t mean staying at home and raising children in isolation and the skills acquired in post secondary education are quite useful.</p>
<p>“Your examples raise the question of whether our elite universities are American institutions that exist primarily to serve United States residents or global universities with an international mandate. Americans created them and continue to fund them, so I vote for the former.”</p>
<p>I could not have said it any better. I will go one step further and submit that our “giving away the store” will come back to haunt us in the not so distant future.</p>