Harvard vs. Duke

[elevenses]

---

Members don't see this ad.

It's all based on the assumptions. Applying them to your new hypo: if 1) he thinks he wouldn't be any more capable going to Duke than he would be if he went to Podunk College of Medicine; and 2) the only reason he would choose Duke was that the name recognition might make him get a job over other more capable people in the future; and 3) he believes in a meritocracy, then yes I think it would be morally wrong for him to go to Duke.

It's pretty easy to have any of these assumptions not be true, and that was the main point of my post. If he thinks the future name recognition of going to Harvard will not be deserved (i.e. he isn't any better for going to Harvard), then he should ignore name recognition in his decision making. I really was trying to be helpful, especially because that logic helped me make a similar decision in my past.

If the assumptions are true, then I think the argument is pretty straightforward (but that's a pretty big if).

I guess we can agree to disagree that having doors opened opened via anything other than you being the best person for the job is unfair or not. I don't see how that makes me have a sordid outlook on life though.

Finally, although a perfect meritocracy is probably not possible, there are varying degrees of meritocracy in the world, and I've observed a positive correlation between prosperity and degree of meritocracy. I believe moving towards a meritocracy is something that requires conscious effort, so it was kind of disconcerting to see how easily the poster dismissed the consideration, especially considering he has a high probability of influencing policy at some level in his lifetime.

I guess your position is disconcerting as well, but you have a much lower probability of influencing policy in your lifetime because you won't be going to Harvard. (Just to be clear, I'm totally joking in the last sentence - I think you're destined for great things Tots.)

I think you're misapplying logic to ethics. The only way to do so is to start with a premise that states some thing or class of things has a moral property, which you have not done. It's thus a leap to say that what the OP is considering is unethical. It seems like you're implying another assumption, but I can't quite figure out what it is, and I can't think of one on my own that makes your logic work out in my head.

How is merit supposed to be measured? In the end, merit is a construct which we use proxies to measure. All of those proxies are controversial to some degree, simply because merit cannot be measured directly. You might disagree with its validity, but educational history is a commonly used proxy for merit. Supposedly more pure measures, like GPA and standardized test scores, aren't so hot either in a lot of respects.

I think that you received a negative response because you talked about the morality of the situation as if it is clear cut and obvious, and with ethics, that is essentially never the case.

 

[hippocratic57]

.

 

[Laird]

I think you're misapplying logic to ethics. The only way to do so is to start with a premise that states some thing or class of things has a moral property, which you have not done. It's thus a leap to say that what the OP is considering is unethical. It seems like you're implying another assumption, but I can't quite figure out what it is, and I can't think of one on my own that makes your logic work out in my head.

How is merit supposed to be measured? In the end, merit is a construct which we use proxies to measure. All of those proxies are controversial to some degree, simply because merit cannot be measured directly. You might disagree with its validity, but educational history is a commonly used proxy for merit. Supposedly more pure measures, like GPA and standardized test scores, aren't so hot either in a lot of respects.

I think that you received a negative response because you talked about the morality of the situation as if it is clear cut and obvious, and with ethics, that is essentially never the case.

You're right that I never explicitly stated my assumption (it was alluded to in my first post) that it is morally wrong to knowingly act in a way that furthers (or causes you to participate in) something you think is bad/wrong.

To me it makes no difference how the original poster measures his merit, only that he personally thinks he will be no more capable if he goes to Harvard than if he goes to Duke. I might have misread his previous posts, but I thought he was alluding to this conclusion (which was why I posed it as a question to him in my original post). I just assumed that was true in my logic. I personally think whether he would actually be more capable coming out of Harvard vs. Duke is a critical issue, but I am completely ignorant about that aspect (which is why I assumed his conclusion was true).

If all of the assumptions are true then it does seem pretty simple to me, so I guess I communicated what I intended. I welcome negative responses; if I'm wrong I want to know about it. It's definitely more interesting to hear exactly why I'm wrong then to just hear that I'm wrong without explanation. (Tots, I would never feel like you are attacking me if you are just pointing out how my argument is substantively incorrect.)

Elevenses, it seems like you are challenging the assumption that he would be no more capable if he goes to Harvard than if he goes to Duke, and/or that you can't even measure someone's ability/skill. If that is true, then I totally agree with you that my logic doesn't hold up.

However I completely disagree with your position that there usually is not a clear-cut answer to ethical problems. Maybe we are defining "ethics" in different ways. I view ethics as the rationale for how one should act. Most things in your life have obvious ethical answers: you shouldn't cheat on your test, you shouldn't cut in line at the concert, you should return that $20 bill you just saw fall out of that man's pocket, you shouldn't shoot the idiot that cut you off on the way to work, etc. I would agree with you that there are lots of situations that have no clear-cut right way to act, but these are way less numerous than the clear-cut situations that you encounter every day and probably don't even think about (at least that has been my experience).

 

[Laird]

Bottom line is that my post was intended to be helpful, it obviously wasn't, so sorry TheKDizzle for hijacking your thread with all of this extra chatter.

 

[elevenses]

You're right that I never explicitly stated my assumption (it was alluded to in my first post) that it is morally wrong to knowingly act in a way that furthers (or causes you to participate in) something you think is bad/wrong.

To me it makes no difference how the original poster measures his merit, only that he personally thinks he will be no more capable if he goes to Harvard than if he goes to Duke. I might have misread his previous posts, but I thought he was alluding to this conclusion (which was why I posed it as a question to him in my original post). I just assumed that was true in my logic. I personally think whether he would actually be more capable coming out of Harvard vs. Duke is a critical issue, but I am completely ignorant about that aspect (which is why I assumed his conclusion was true).

If all of the assumptions are true then it does seem pretty simple to me, so I guess I communicated what I intended. I welcome negative responses; if I'm wrong I want to know about it. It's definitely more interesting to hear exactly why I'm wrong then to just hear that I'm wrong without explanation. (Tots, I would never feel like you are attacking me if you are just pointing out how my argument is substantively incorrect.)

Elevenses, it seems like you are challenging the assumption that he would be no more capable if he goes to Harvard than if he goes to Duke, and/or that you can't even measure someone's ability/skill. If that is true, then I totally agree with you that my logic doesn't hold up.

However I completely disagree with your position that there usually is not a clear-cut answer to ethical problems. Maybe we are defining "ethics" in different ways. I view ethics as the rationale for how one should act. Most things in your life have obvious ethical answers: you shouldn't cheat on your test, you shouldn't cut in line at the concert, you should return that $20 bill you just saw fall out of that man's pocket, you shouldn't shoot the idiot that cut you off on the way to work, etc. I would agree with you that there are lots of situations that have no clear-cut right way to act, but these are way less numerous than the clear-cut situations that you encounter every day and probably don't even think about (at least that has been my experience).

I agree that ethics can be clear-cut to an individual. It's arguing for a right course of action in general, or a set of guidelines that will always produce a right action, where there is often a lot of disagreement. I think it's important to be aware that other people may consider themselves ethical and have a framework that differs from your own significantly, with no rational way of reconciling the two. That is all.

 

[yellowfish]

Bottom line is that my post was intended to be helpful, it obviously wasn't, so sorry TheKDizzle for hijacking your thread with all of this extra chatter.

It certainly was a fresh perspective that I hadn't previously thought of and I appreciate you taking the time to explain. I understand what you're getting at but in this case I think we might be seeing things from different vantage points 🙂

 

[OhHey]

OP, just remember to take all the advice posted here with a grain of salt. People who read and reply to a thread as amazing as "Harvard vs. Duke" are not necessarily a representative sample of the general population. People may be saying things out of sheer curiosity, jealousy, and even a need to justify their own application cycle. Anonymity allows for flippant advice and opinions. None of these people are invested in your situation or even remotely care for you personally. Make sure to engage in a more thoughtful dialogue with people who love you (parents, relatives, mentors, faculty, gf.. if your relationship with her is serious.., and people who have lived longer than us pre-MS1's) and gain peace in that consensus. I do agree that you can't go wrong in what decision you make (congrats!). But I do not agree that both schools are the same. Good luckk.

 

[wangers5270]

.

 

[Mako555]

i wasn't going to bump the thread just for this, but, now that someone else has...

OP, you are a beast. You could get into your dream residency from any US MD school. You clearly have the recipe for success figured out. Don't think for a second that graduating from Duke will limit you in any way.

 

[dahassa]

I don't know how helpful this post will be since there have been so many other great posts but here is my 2 cents:

Both Duke and Harvard have an amazing medical program. They both have great facilities and research. The difference between the two truly is marginal. Perhaps, Harvard has slightly better research or affiliated hospitals but honestly it won't effect you as a medical student. Both are so amazing that even with that slight difference, Duke will have more research/clinical opportunities than you could ever take advantage of.

Having said that, Harvard has the better name. Do I think that means HMS grads automatically get a leg up over Duke grads during match? No, of course not. Medical school is so competitive that the difference between Duke and HMS students is negligible. Both have a highly capable student body and a phenomenal program. And residency directors know this. HMS vs Podunk perhaps HMS has an advantage. But against Duke I highly doubt name is really a factor.

However, Harvard has the wow factor. It just sounds more impressive. It is more impressive to the average layman. So, I honestly think it comes down to: Harvard name vs SO/Free ride. A lot of people go with the name so it is nothing to be ashamed of. It is something to consider.

A final point, from your mdapps it's says you went to UNC for undergrad (a great school!). I know a lot of pre-med Harvard undergrads and very few have had the success you have achieved. Even with the Harvard name, they didn't do nearly as well as you did. So clearly, while name is important, it isn't everything. You don't need the extra name boost to be successful and I think your own performance helps prove that.

 

[ialwayslose]

a

 

[tantacles]

If you haven't gotten tired of this thread yet, here's my response.

The full scholarship to Duke is huge. I actually know someone who was in your exact position (scholarship to Duke, in at Harvard). He chose Duke. Here's why:

1. Money
2. Abbreviated pre-clinical schedule meant he had a chance to get publications during his extra year while he studied for step I

For the record, this individual is now doing a general surgery residency at MGH and is on the fast track to their cardiothoracic fellowship (guaranteed based on his performance thus far).

Thus, I would strongly suggest that you choose Duke. It'll put you in the best possible position to do whatever you want in academic medicine, and if you decide to practice, even in family medicine, you won't be in debt.

 

[yellowfish]

Decided to matriculate at Harvard. Thanks for all the help guys, I really appreciate it. For people in the future reading this going through similar decisionmaking dilemmas, feel free to message me to see how I feel about my choice later on. Hopefully everything will work out!

 

[anguisette]

Decided to matriculate at Harvard. Thanks for all the help guys, I really appreciate it. For people in the future reading this going through similar decisionmaking dilemmas, feel free to message me to see how I feel about my choice later on. Hopefully everything will work out!

Congrats on deciding. 🙂