I enjoyed this article, thank you. While in Boston recently and passing the scores of colleges and universities across the city, I found myself thinking about two neighboring institutions that once occupied very different positions in higher education: Harvard University and Northeastern University.
Today, both appear on many “hardest to get into” lists, yet over the past twenty years the public perception of the two schools has shifted in notably different directions. Harvard, despite remaining one of the world’s most prestigious universities, increasingly faces criticism that it has become disconnected from the practical realities facing students and employers. Meanwhile, Northeastern — once viewed as a far less prominent regional institution — is thriving, expanding strategically, and gaining momentum nationally.
How did this happen?
In many ways, Northeastern built a business model centered on delivering something employers increasingly value: graduates with meaningful real-world experience and a higher likelihood of workplace readiness and success. Its cooperative education model, employer partnerships, and emphasis on experiential learning anticipated where higher education and the labor market were heading. Students graduate not only with academic credentials, but often with a résumé that already includes substantial professional experience.
My impression is that Harvard, by contrast, long viewed itself as above this more “working class” or vocational orientation. For generations, the institution could rely on prestige alone. The Harvard name itself opened doors, regardless of whether students graduated with direct workplace experience or applied skills. But in a changing world — where tuition costs have exploded, technology is reshaping industries, and families increasingly demand measurable returns on investment — prestige alone may no longer feel sufficient.
The result is an interesting reversal in perception. One institution protected tradition and elite intellectual status; the other embraced evolution, market demand, and practical preparation. Increasingly, students and parents appear to value a combination of academic quality and tangible career readiness — and universities like Northeastern recognized that shift earlier than many of their more established peers.
My father graduated from Northeastern as an electrical engineer - my daughter graduated from Harvard and works for a hedge fund….so much could be written about their differing contributions to society. She clearly makes tons more money, but my father developed radar systems for NATO in Spain and Italy for defense contractors and worked on camera systems for NASA.
Loved this one! Resonates very strongly! Great Piece!
The irony of the whole "woke thing" is that the "woke" are not awake at all. A better word would be "deadened." They are "deadened" by the straight jacket of the Planners.
This may be why it is called the "Zombie Apocalypse." The half dead Zombies, straight-jacketed by the Planners, go completely crazy and start killing people!
I recently read Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions, which addresses the difference between the constrained and unconstrained visions of the world. The former is typified by recognizing the imperfectability of human beings, both individually and societally, as well as the overwhelming complexity of societies and economies. Thus they conclude with humility that the best way to try to address problems and improve things is to empower individuals each to operate in their own interests with their own insights, tweaking incentives rather than attempting to implement desirable results directly. The unconstrained vision, in contrast, predicts the best outcomes derive from empowering intelligent, moral elites to design and implement solutions to directly achieve the desired results. Again and again the unconstrained vision reveals a failure to consider all of the responses by individuals to the policy enacted, with their myriad unintended consequences. Their models over-simplify.
Elite educational institutions incline toward the unconstrained vision, given their confidence in elite intelligence and analytical ability. This inclines them as well to a hubris and a governing model that relies on power to enforce the solutions of the elite. It is no surprise that Harvard and it's students favor this vision.
The work of Iain McGilchrist (The Master and His Emissary, The Matter with Things) further elucidates the modern Western over-reliance on the analytical re-presentation of reality by the left brain hemisphere (the focus of which is instrumental), with its over-simplification of reality, over against the direct encounter and apprehension of the world that the right hemisphere perceives. The ability of the left hemisphere to grasp and articulate its understanding gives it an advantage in our secular, tech and language centric society. But it is in fact the right hemisphere that apprehends uniqueness and relationships and connections that holds the complexity of wisdom and intuition. The right hemisphere is the intended master, not the left.
I enjoyed this article, thank you. While in Boston recently and passing the scores of colleges and universities across the city, I found myself thinking about two neighboring institutions that once occupied very different positions in higher education: Harvard University and Northeastern University.
Today, both appear on many “hardest to get into” lists, yet over the past twenty years the public perception of the two schools has shifted in notably different directions. Harvard, despite remaining one of the world’s most prestigious universities, increasingly faces criticism that it has become disconnected from the practical realities facing students and employers. Meanwhile, Northeastern — once viewed as a far less prominent regional institution — is thriving, expanding strategically, and gaining momentum nationally.
How did this happen?
In many ways, Northeastern built a business model centered on delivering something employers increasingly value: graduates with meaningful real-world experience and a higher likelihood of workplace readiness and success. Its cooperative education model, employer partnerships, and emphasis on experiential learning anticipated where higher education and the labor market were heading. Students graduate not only with academic credentials, but often with a résumé that already includes substantial professional experience.
My impression is that Harvard, by contrast, long viewed itself as above this more “working class” or vocational orientation. For generations, the institution could rely on prestige alone. The Harvard name itself opened doors, regardless of whether students graduated with direct workplace experience or applied skills. But in a changing world — where tuition costs have exploded, technology is reshaping industries, and families increasingly demand measurable returns on investment — prestige alone may no longer feel sufficient.
The result is an interesting reversal in perception. One institution protected tradition and elite intellectual status; the other embraced evolution, market demand, and practical preparation. Increasingly, students and parents appear to value a combination of academic quality and tangible career readiness — and universities like Northeastern recognized that shift earlier than many of their more established peers.
My father graduated from Northeastern as an electrical engineer - my daughter graduated from Harvard and works for a hedge fund….so much could be written about their differing contributions to society. She clearly makes tons more money, but my father developed radar systems for NATO in Spain and Italy for defense contractors and worked on camera systems for NASA.
Loved this one! Resonates very strongly! Great Piece!
The irony of the whole "woke thing" is that the "woke" are not awake at all. A better word would be "deadened." They are "deadened" by the straight jacket of the Planners.
This may be why it is called the "Zombie Apocalypse." The half dead Zombies, straight-jacketed by the Planners, go completely crazy and start killing people!
I recently read Thomas Sowell's Conflict of Visions, which addresses the difference between the constrained and unconstrained visions of the world. The former is typified by recognizing the imperfectability of human beings, both individually and societally, as well as the overwhelming complexity of societies and economies. Thus they conclude with humility that the best way to try to address problems and improve things is to empower individuals each to operate in their own interests with their own insights, tweaking incentives rather than attempting to implement desirable results directly. The unconstrained vision, in contrast, predicts the best outcomes derive from empowering intelligent, moral elites to design and implement solutions to directly achieve the desired results. Again and again the unconstrained vision reveals a failure to consider all of the responses by individuals to the policy enacted, with their myriad unintended consequences. Their models over-simplify.
Elite educational institutions incline toward the unconstrained vision, given their confidence in elite intelligence and analytical ability. This inclines them as well to a hubris and a governing model that relies on power to enforce the solutions of the elite. It is no surprise that Harvard and it's students favor this vision.
The work of Iain McGilchrist (The Master and His Emissary, The Matter with Things) further elucidates the modern Western over-reliance on the analytical re-presentation of reality by the left brain hemisphere (the focus of which is instrumental), with its over-simplification of reality, over against the direct encounter and apprehension of the world that the right hemisphere perceives. The ability of the left hemisphere to grasp and articulate its understanding gives it an advantage in our secular, tech and language centric society. But it is in fact the right hemisphere that apprehends uniqueness and relationships and connections that holds the complexity of wisdom and intuition. The right hemisphere is the intended master, not the left.