> Answer 1, 2, 3, and five other questions
Where’s 2 and 3? The question numbered 4 seems to be referred to as (2) in the question numbered 5
Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
11–20 of 73 posts
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#12Wow. Looks like Harvard's Class of 1906-ish was expected to understand and operate parts of the real-world economy. In America. How times have changed!
The snark is uncalled for, especially because Harvard does have a (fairly decent) engineering program at the undergrad level, as well as the fact that the 2 most popular concentrations are Econ and CS. Nor does this kind of snark actually add any value to the discussion in HN and clearly breaks multiple rules of HN [0] [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#13Wow. Looks like Harvard's Class of 1906-ish was expected to understand and operate parts of the real-world economy. In America. How times have changed!
> How times have changed!
Have they? What's changed, specifically, in Harvard's various programs in the last 118 years that lead you to your implied conclusion that their business and economics curricula have worsened?
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
The snark is uncalled for, especially because Harvard does have a (fairly decent) engineering program at the undergrad level, as well as the fact that the 2 most popular concentrations are Econ and CS. Nor does this kind of snark actually add any value to the discussion in HN and clearly breaks multiple rules of HN [0] [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
[deleted]
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
The snark is uncalled for, especially because Harvard does have a (fairly decent) engineering program at the undergrad level, as well as the fact that the 2 most popular concentrations are Econ and CS. Nor does this kind of snark actually add any value to the discussion in HN and clearly breaks multiple rules of HN [0] [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
> Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
Meta-question on the emphasis above: are you (uoaei) and bell-cot the same user?
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#16Wow. Looks like Harvard's Class of 1906-ish was expected to understand and operate parts of the real-world economy. In America. How times have changed!
> How times have changed! Have they? What's changed, specifically, in Harvard's various programs in the last 118 years that lead you to your implied conclusion that their business and economics curricula have worsened?
[deleted]
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
The snark is uncalled for, especially because Harvard does have a (fairly decent) engineering program at the undergrad level, as well as the fact that the 2 most popular concentrations are Econ and CS. Nor does this kind of snark actually add any value to the discussion in HN and clearly breaks multiple rules of HN [0] [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
> Do you disagree
Read the first paragraph
> about the intentions of those who push back in this way
Follow the HN guidelines (I myself have fallen foul of them on occasion).
Low quality snark is not the kind of discourse that has value on this forum.
And eaganist brings up a good point.
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#18> Answer 1, 2, 3, and five other questions Where’s 2 and 3? The question numbered 4 seems to be referred to as (2) in the question numbered 5
I have heard of at least one instance of an exam a while ago, where some questions – ones that need diagrams in their statement – would be written onto the blackboard in the exam room, due to limitations of the duplication techniques used for the exam paper.
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#19Based test. There is this mix of practical knowledge (different types or cars, terminals, etc), but also theory and history or how other country's rail system worked at the time and why they developed in that way. The last question is incredibly good:
> Compare the experience of France with state railroad operation with that of Germany. What, in each case were the causes which led to state operation, the extent of the lines operated, the results from state operation, and the reasons for those results?
Re: Harvard Railroad Economics Exam (1906)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
The snark is uncalled for, especially because Harvard does have a (fairly decent) engineering program at the undergrad level, as well as the fact that the 2 most popular concentrations are Econ and CS. Nor does this kind of snark actually add any value to the discussion in HN and clearly breaks multiple rules of HN [0] [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Do you disagree? I understand the scolding and you may consider it irrelevant to answer my question but I am curious about the intentions of those who push back in this way.
[deleted]