> It is possible but unlikely that Harvard has Secret Math

Here is an entire undergraduate course in abstract algebra, taught by retired Harvard professor Benedict Gross.

http://matterhorn.dce.harvard.edu/engage/ui/index.html#/1999...

I know Gross personally, and have heard him lecture several times; although I haven't watched these lectures in particular, I'm guessing that that they're just about as good as it gets.

You can also find online lecture courses in a variety of subjects offered by MIT, Yale, etc. It's telling that these universities feel confident in giving away this material, to anyone, for free.

lol i don't understand your point "harvard doesn't have secret math - the proof is all of these publicly available math lectures from world renowned mathematicians"

the value of harvard math profs isn't reaped by the undergrads, it's reaped by the grad students that work closely/directly with these profs. i'm not 100% sure of this but benedict gross probably isn't holding several hours of office hours every week for his undergrad algebra classes (although he might for the grad sections).

now the knock-on effect, obviously, is that the very good math phd students that pursue and are admitted to harvard do provide a lot of value for the undergrads (since they're TAing/holding office hours for those undergrads). but those same harvard phd students then go get tenure track positions at mediocre schools where office hours are held by profs. so it all evens out as far as undergrads go :)

As somebody who's studied some advanced maths, I think that their point is that abstract algebra is effectively a sort of secret maths techniques, sitting in plain sight but somehow sprayed with repellent or maybe equipped with a Somebody Else's Problem field.

I have had more than one afternoon where I learned a concept wholly from this sort of lecture. The ability to ask the professor questions can be useful, but almost all of my questions are actually answered by being more careful about listening to what they are saying the first time.

>abstract algebra is effectively a sort of secret maths techniques

abstract algebra (rings, groups, fields) is taught in absolutely every undergrad math program in the country (in the world?). there's nothing unique to harvard in this aspect.

Harvard teaches a lot more than the average undergrad program.

A Harvard undergrad degree covers a depth of knowledge that matches a master's degree at an average program.

You can read the definitions of algebra in 1 day. That's not what a class is about.

> Harvard online education is worth not much You're typically paying for three things:

1. The education 2. The network 3. The brand

Even if 1 is not many times greater at Harvard than another institution, 2 and 3 are. Even without 2, a Harvard degree will send a signal that will open doors that might otherwise be closed.

Well I mean they sell their same courses for like 20 bucks on coursera.

You can't get a Harvard degree on Coursera though. To get the degree you have to be accepted to a degree program, and being accepted to a Harvard degree program is much of what the degree signals.

Well actually you can. The degree is listed as from harvard along with the program. Getting accepted is a joke all you need is a undergraduate gpa of a 3.0.

I can't seem to find this. Is it Harvard Extension School or actual Harvard?

(Not to diminish the extension school; I have a credit from it and I was satisfied at the quality of instruction, but the admissions is definitely not the same as Harvard admission)

The point is that HES is a degree "from Harvard".

No employer treats those two things the same.

Are you saying that all you need to get accepted to Harvard is to have a B highschool GPA? That ... doesn't sound right.

Its the same with other mooc programs undergraduate gpa of a 3.0 gets you in.

edX. But also they really are not the same courses, at least the MIT courses on edX are not the same as "real" MIT courses (or what they put on OCW). Video lectures are separately planned/recorded to be shorter duration "modules", which decreases the depth and sometimes also results in entire topics being cut out. Assignments are heavily simplified. There is no proper replacement for recitations/office hours. And so on.

Also, there are sites like HMX which is more in the realm of $1000 per class, and still not "the real thing". These classes are solid but they are just not comparable to actual classes at Harvard Medical School. My experience with taking classes versus trying out mass online learning has repeatedly resulted in "this is a nice amenity to have, but it is not a substitute for a proper course".

Does Harvard have a monopoly on undergraduate math, philosophy, etc. materials? No. But there is a huge difference between doing challenging problem sets/having complicated debates with a high quality peer group (+ access to top profs), and doing the most basic "understanding checks" with a random sampling of college students. I think it is silly to pretend the only value top schools provide beyond random U is the value of building up a network/credentials. That is part of it, but it is also actually much easier to get a better education at these schools.

I think there are two main problems with higher ed: 1) the top schools do not do a good enough job of admitting talented students across socioeconomic lines and 2) students are taking out debt to go to mid tier schools at unsustainable levels [especially because some of these students do not actually have a plan for college but feel pressured to rush into it]. There are also probably a bunch of lower tier private schools that should not exist.

Anyway, for some reason I get the sense HN takes these 2 problems and somehow comes to the complaint that "elite schools are a waste of money". Given the generous financial aid, the greater availability of classes and rigor of coursework, the career building resources, etc. I don't think you will find better value per dollar at any US schools than from the HYPSM+ cohort.

Students for whom it is at all feasible should just take a gap year this year IMO.

> Video lectures are separately planned/recorded to be shorter duration "modules", which decreases the depth and sometimes also results in entire topics being cut out

I think it depends on the course. I’m currently following "Fundamentals of Statistics" (https://courses.edx.org/courses/course-v1:MITx+18.6501x+2T20...), and it’s clearly a recording of an IRL course. Same with "Introduction to Biology", and the whole Quantum Mechanics serie.

Interesting, thanks for letting me know! It does seem there is more variance in the courses than I realized. Might be related to whether courses are part of a MicroMasters or not.

I didn't realize either that some amount of course credit could transfer from that program to a traditional Masters. However it also appears to require an in person exam in that case and the "semester equivalent tuition" is like $1500.

MicroMasters sounds like a good way to test the waters for those considering a Masters to me, especially if possibly switching fields. I am still skeptical that one could realistically get a full education via these resources though. [Noting of course that depending on use case you may not need a full education].

Even for OCW which in some cases is a carbon copy of the course materials, it takes a lot of self discipline and regular access to a good study group (or an expert you can ask questions) to get the same value out of one of those classes.

> You must be enrolled in the course to see course content

It is a fact that edX courses are developed separately and with a different target audience in mind. The material is demonstrably different. They are a nice resource, but they are not an argument that Harvard classes are "worth $20"

I would argue that a large part of the value proposition of Harvard is it's brand name. Its a sort of veblen good that is intrinsically tied to a person when they attain it.

But yes, most technical knowledge is not very valuable in and of itself, especially in the information age.

It's trendy to say that college eduction does not matter or these elite educations are not worth the price. Or that what you learn in these institutions is the same as what you could learn anywhere. And I have to disagree. Your course work will be significantly more challenging at MIT than some other lower ranked school. You are going to go through MIT and every thing is going to seem a lot easier later on. It's a great workout for your brain.

But anyone can download the coursework and do it at home.

The tricky bit is finding tutors, but the Internet had lots of helpful forums.

Living in the area I've had pockets of Harvard grads in my life over the years. It's been eye opening in this regard. The opportunities provided to them for having "Harvard graduate" on their resume and/or the connections they made while they were there gave them a leg up in so many ways. Sometimes profound, sometimes subtle, but always there. As an example, I had an ex-gf who had been an undergrad there but moved to NYC to pursue a career in theatre. Instead of the usual waiter/bartender type side gig she was able to do SAT tutoring through a service which only hired Harvard grads, and as it turned out that was their only required qualification. Turns out rich New Yorkers would pay a huge amount per hour to have their children tutored by "Harvard grads". She was making more money than I was as a software developer while working far fewer hours. Granted, software wasn't the sort of wages we see today but the effect was real.

I've taken classes at Harvard Extension out of convenience, but even in cases where it's "the same class" at no point did I tell myself it was the same experience.

> The whole value proposition of Harvard is that you socialise and bond with the sort of people who get in to Harvard.

I wouldn’t say the whole value proposition is networking. There’s also the brand. Even if you lived like a hermit the whole time at Harvard and never spoke to anyone, you still come out with a degree that will immediately put you on the fast track at most of the S&P500

I think this is a very good development. The price of education should be inflated as much as possible so everyone can receive high quality education.

While it is good to have like minded people come together, nepotism is not desirable. Having direct contacts to mentors is worth a lot, but I doubt it can justify the price.

The focus on the best of the best has become focus on the richest of the rich.

> Harvard online education is worth not much.

> The whole value proposition of Harvard is that you socialise and bond with the sort of people who get in to Harvard. You probably have the phone number of whoever runs Goldman Sachs [0] and you know the President of Whereveristan's daughter because she was in your class

You sound like you're contradicting yourself.