couldn’t even hear you all the way from your high horse…

The $100 that Bridgewater paid was for a focus group that sought to learn more about students not interested in Bridgewater. This is a common practice across the nation, compensating people to give their opinions. I participated in one of these groups and found it interesting to hear from others why they didn’t apply to Bridgewater. Why are so many of the D’s writers suddenly anti-Bridgewater? Equating employment at a successful hedge fund with pathetic ambitions is illustrative of Jim Kim’s Dartmouth.

Lohse, you absolutely nailed it.

And how will you pay for YOUR kids' Ivy League educations???? No cash? No problem: federal loan programs funded by that nasty top 2% who pay 70% of the taxes in this society. Cool. Look, if I and others like me did not waste my time “manipulating capital”, you, my friend, would not enjoy the luxuries of armchair criticism and intellectual pomposity because there would be no one to donate the buildings, fellowships and other cushions you enjoy there in Hanover. Without the pursuit of self-interest and wealth-generation, it all grinds to a halt. Just ask the Soviet Union. Get yourself successfully through Econ 26 and (re)read Locke’s Wealth of Nations, then we’ll talk.

i stumbled through darkness to look for the truth in this column, buried beneath all the lies.

Before writing articles for the D, you should consider doing research on the topic at hand, and expressing a tangible point.

<<Why has higher education bent away from its highest aims to pull its youth into what is essentially a vulgar and extortionate system of lending and predatory capitalism which is increasingly underwritten by what remains of the public’s coffers, as large banks and investment groups fail left and right?>>

What is this rhetorical question based on? The fact that Bridgewater paid your friend 100 dollars to do a survey? Other than the fact that you do not like Wall Street and empathize with poor people, what did this article tell/teach me? Nothing.

Dartmouth should do better; You should too.

To the author: do yourself a favor. Stop imagining how the world ideally should be, and start trying to figure out how to make the most of yourself within the system. A capitalist society rewards those who make the greatest contributions to society with money. Deal with it. Stop being such an overdramatic ascetic. -antagonized anti-intellectual

First let me start by saying that if you are attending Dartmouth (or any private liberal arts institution) it is costing approximately $200k for a 4 year education. If your parents are paying then they must work hard and make good money perhaps they even work in consulting or financial services industries. If you/they are not paying for your education then perhaps you earned a merit scholarship which is funded by the Dartmouth Endowment. Those billions of dollars that sit in endowments exist because wealthy, successful, hardworking people make sizable donations so people like you can get an education. Perhaps you are getting financial aid from the public sector which means on the tax payers dime. So while you deplore the capitalism it has served you very well by the virtue of your attending Dartmouth. Imagining a freer and more just world , as you say, doesn’t pay for your very expensive elite Ivy education! How much does “imagining a freer more just society” pay these days? As to your points about “a vulgar and extortionate system of lending and predatory capitalism”, that system also raises and distributes the capital so that alternative and renewable energies can be developed. That capital is used to research and discover new medicines and therapies that save lives of the rich and poor of all nations. That capital purifies water and discovers drought and disease resistant crops to feed the world. All of these create jobs! Without the capital the internet and website we are communicating on would not exist. So you go back to your classroom and study liberal arts and continue to critisize the world> I have to go to work and earn a living for my family and hopefully when my kids go to college they wont go to Dartmouth!

It’s an interesting question… and well expressed. I wonder, though, whether you’ve considered other factors contributing to the “intellectual rot” you describe. Like the students' high school backgrounds, or whether the professors are creating structures that discourage intellectual depth and curiosity.

Great column. And some of the whiny, snooty responses are telling. Must have made them think for a second. But just for a second.

I’d like to know: Are other industries not allowed to recruit at Dartmouth?; do entry-level jobs in other industries provide anything other than ‘basically menial work’?; given the developments in the UK, couldn’t one call the journalism industry a ‘vulgar and extortionate system’?; is it recruiting that isn’t ‘ethical and concomitant with a broader view of a just society’ or recruitment by the financial sector that isn’t?; is ‘imagining a freer and more just world’ exclusive to non-financial professions?

I loved this article. I find the same problem at Brown. It’s great that kids get these sweet opportunities after college, but it is hard for my fellow classmates to consider interesting careers in a variety of different sectors (small startups, graduate degrees that aren’t bull, etc) because the idea of leaving debt to make a bunch of money with a starting salary that is very high (although low when you consider hours worked (and wasted)) is too appealing.

Good work, Lucas

Wealth of Nations was written by Adam Smith, not Locke. And the fact that the author points out the ubiquitous over-concentration on how much a job will pay, as opposed to what purpose it fulfills and how it aligns with a student’s potential, does in no way suggest that he does not understand the tenets of a capitalist society. There is a lot to be said about taking things for granted and not even considering to give back to society at Dartmouth, so all the counterarguments about endowment etc. are pretty moot in all honesty, as those – as a rule – are not the people Andrew is referring to, but rather a handful of very successful individuals who did not fail to question the world during the ascend.

Some of the commenters here seem to be misunderstanding the motivation and argument of the article. This piece is not an vitriolic attack on capitalism or making money. The argument here is philosophical. What does it say about our society that the highest ideal of some of America’s brightest students is the accumulation of personal wealth? This editorial is not an indictment of all higher education, but a commentary on a situation that may or may not be unique to Dartmouth. I do not understand why the desire to foment a spirit of intellectual curiosity on campus is being met with such hostility. Dreaming of a better, brighter and more beautiful world is an American tradition; and there was a time when the students at our finest universities were able to fire the imagination of millions and inspire the people world to do great things. This tradition is in danger at Dartmouth, and we would all do well to consider what sort of society we want to live in: One that rewards buying into a system or one that rewards active reimagination and recreation of that system. That is, are we happy with the world the way it is now? Should we be content letting our finest students pursue personal wealth apropos of nothing? Or, should we challenge these students to use the vast resources of Dartmouth and corporate America to change the world for the better? Regardless your opinion on what a better world would look like, it seems far more noble to accept the challenge that to be complacent and wealthy.

Your concern is touching regarding the $100 given to the candidate that did not want the job. After you were done vomiting in your mouth as a result of “thinking about all those people who desperately need that hundred dollars” did you also think about the $250,000 DOLLARS it cost to get your Dartmouth education. If $100 makes you vomit I assume you have already jumped out of your air conditioned dormitory. And if we add the cot of your prep school education that mums and dad paid for you probably could have fed a third worls nation. You state that you came to Dartmouth to “probe big questions about why the world is the way it is” and “ imagining a freer and more just world”.How is that probing and imagining stuff going for you about now? How much does probing the big questions and imagining a freer more just world pay? Just think if your mommy and daddy probed and imagined for a living then they wouldnt have the money to send you to a private elitist Ivy College like Dartmouth.

What’s the matter? Got cut during first round? Thought so.

Hippie.

Is the only way to make money selling your soul to Wall Street?! It’s possible to be financially well-off in other fields, and Lohse is merely lamenting Dartmouth’s lack of support for undergrads seeking work in areas other than banking. Career Services brings hundreds of recruiters from Wall Street and so very few from anywhere else. I’m a Dartmouth graduate and i work in the renewable energy sector making plenty of money to support my family and give back to the college. I unfortunately didn’t get much help finding this job from the college, though.

“Get yourself successfully through Econ 26 and (re)read Locke’s Wealth of Nations, then we’ll talk.” WHOOPS YOU MEANT Adam Smith.

So should i still trust your argument that people like you (who have never, and will never make quality furniture) should be thanked for creating cosy armchairs. Personally I thank the Swedish they make great furniture.

Pointing to Communism is a boring as people invoking Hitler in political discussions.

The world is obsessed with big Finance for the time being, it will pass. Then you will be treaed like the American Farmer industry which was the driving force of the economy many years ago.

Universities need to interact with he private sector, but most of the advancements in the world come from public investments (usually because of the economic advantage). So Universities need to take the lead by selecting the direction or area of focus and letting the willing companies to join them.

Rather than the current system where we have corporations basically writing the courses and creating the curriculum.

A problem that is in flux (both directions are troubling), and needs reconfiguring to reach a balance

To Peter Stein- why do you assume commenters misunderstand the message? Why take such a holier than thou attitude. Who says that students at Dartmouth or any other university cant be intellectually curious and also seek out the financial rewards for doing so? Isnt that how many of our current millionaires and billionaires got started. I believe Bill Gates, Mark Zuckenberg, all the Google and Groupon gang were highly intellectual and highly curious. Accumulation of wealth is not a bad thing. It is a reward for innovation, curiosity, research, and hard work. The problem with the world is not that too many students are pursuing higher education for financial rewards. The problem is that not enough people are motivated to do the same thing. As long as we have a “hand-out” society too many people will be left behind. Don’t chastise those that seek higher education as a means to an end. Perhaps you should focus on those that don’t get educated, drop out, and live off of societies working class. I am not a Tea Party supporter but it seems to me that they are doing exactly what you encourage- changing the system through active reimagination and recreation. Be careful what you ask you for – you may get it!