Academic Institutions, Foci and Biases

Sorry Op, I guess this board's users are to incompetent for stuff like this.

Much easier to think in soundbites that could fit into a tweet rather than do something hard.

>>2374152

How do I get into Harvard if I never went to college after HS. Assuming I can do the work obviously. I'm 22.

>>2376400
Your best bet is to apply to a state/ apply to community then transfer to state, then apply for graduate school in harvard. You need very high gpa, very high GRE (sat for graduate level) score and a very spesific research topic that academics in harvard are also studying. Do not expect them to just hire you just because you have the highest gpa in the world, If your research interest is in maritime history and there is no one related to it in harvard whatsoever you will not get in
>>2374152
I did my undergrad in a mid level (50thish in world ranking) college, my masters in one of the top 5-10th colleges in the world and now doing my phd in a school that ranks around 200ish in the world, barely R1 (high research class)

For humanities I don't think there is much of a difference in 'sources' most journals can be accessed through proxies, most books have pdfs, there are interlibrary loans, etc. Maybe this is not the case for STEM where labs, funding etc are vital but I highly doubt someone in harvard knows better latin just because he has 'access to more material' its more or less the same. Of course it is better to have a broad library, but for most of the cases its just a nuisance, If you have to wait it with inter library loan for 1 week rather than having it today etc .

Lectures are also the same, mind you that professors are hired based on their research and not their teaching. Plenty of good teachers exists in community colleges and plenty of shit teachers are in ivies. Check out Kenneth Harl who teaches at Tulane and his mentor Kagan who tought in Yale, both have lectures posted online. I much prefer Harl over Kagan.

What differs I believe is the research, I would say the average grad student in harvard is more hardworking and more productive than the average state school grad student, but they are in harvard because they were productive beforehand, still I do believe elite schools work their grad students more. cont*

>>2376678
though not undergrads, as plenty of lazy/apathetic legacy kids are in ivy(this is one reason I believe ivies are more generous in grading than state schools) Of course there are excellent researchers and grad students in stateschools etc, after all spots in ivies are limited and many students have research interest that are not examined in ivies.

Moreover I believe the biggest impact is the prestige. Having an ivy level phd basically guarantees your employment. would say having a phd from a place that ranks above 20th place is a big alarm. Im deeply worried since my school is in 3 figures when it comes to ranking. I highly doubt I will ever find a job, at best it will be a community college thing.

This prestige is also bad in a way, a university might have a shit department (will not name them just in case) but it is more than likely you will be hired just because you have a phd from a prestigious institute.

Still, all in all I do believe there is not much difference in studying in a 1st or a 100rd place besides the prestige and job opportunities. The hardworking fuck at 100rd will outperform the lazy fuck at 1st, but most of the time only hardworking fucks are able to enter the 1st college. So there's that.

and do forgive my shit grammar, I'm an outlander.

>>2374152
I'm almost done my history degree at a decent-sized public uni in Western Canada

The courses are designated geographically: Canadian, American, British, European, World/Comparative - you have to do a set # of (upper level) courses in one region, though it's not a vast majority. I love the room that gives you to explore other topics/regions

Obviously, you can tell that this is rather limited to the Anglosphere/the West, but in terms of my interest I can't complain - I've also taken great courses on the Middle East, China, and Latin America, so not like there's no other choice.
Good # of comparative ones to choose from too. Several courses have rotating topics by semester/year: interesting stuff (i.e. visiting profs or profs with a specific interest getting to teach a course), but you can only take it once (despite diff. topics)

What I don't like is how most courses are on the modern period (late 18th century onward). There's a little early modern, but medieval/ancient usually requires venturing into other depts. (medieval studies, Greco-Roman studies). luckily, the degree allows for quite a bit of electives (you could argue it should be more focused on your major subject, but I like alot stuff in other departments so no problem for me)

my biggest gripe is the way courses are ranked. we have lower level (100/200) and upper level (300/400) courses: most you take have to be upper level. This is understandable for majoring, but their distinction of 'broad/survey courses' vs. more specific ones is ...wonky? (i.e. I can think of some 300 level that should be 200 level and vice versa)

plus, 400 level are seminar courses (i.e. small classes, specific topic, pretty intensive). You are required to take at least one seminar: I think this is good, but it significantly cuts down your choice of upper levels if you don't like seminars

>>2376750
as for my exploration of history...

I started off very interested in the field. This has not changed.
Studying it, taking various classes, having some fantastic professors, have all maintained or increased my love (depending on the topic)

What has hindered me from taking it further: I simply don't want to be an academic.
I love learning, but fuck do I dread spending the equivalent to a full time job doing nothing but research and writing theses

>I want to give a special shout-out to my department for not getting overrun by the sort of ideological bullshit that ruined studying politics and other social "sciences" (I am interested in some of those subjects). Even (almost all) profs who have revealed their feminist/socialist/academic Marxist power levels did not let it overtake the neutrality of teaching - for those who did, there have been non-leftist (even anti-leftist) profs to provide balance

>>2374152
bumping a potentially quality and thought-provoking (thought-forcing?) topic