The seminars offered police officers some useful tips on seizing property from suspected criminals. Don’t bother with jewelry (too hard to dispose of) and computers (“everybody’s got one already”), the experts counseled. Do go after flat screen TVs, cash and cars. Especially nice cars.

In one seminar, captured on video in September, Harry S. Connelly Jr., the city attorney of Las Cruces, N.M., called them “little goodies.” And then Mr. Connelly described how officers in his jurisdiction could not wait to seize one man’s “exotic vehicle” outside a local bar.

“A guy drives up in a 2008 Mercedes, brand new,” he explained. “Just so beautiful, I mean, the cops were undercover and they were just like ‘Ahhhh.’ And he gets out and he’s just reeking of alcohol. And it’s like, ‘Oh, my goodness, we can hardly wait.’ ”

Mr. Connelly was talking about a practice known as civil asset forfeiture, which allows the government, without ever securing a conviction or even filing a criminal charge, to seize property suspected of having ties to crime. The practice, expanded during the war on drugs in the 1980s, has become a staple of law enforcement agencies because it helps finance their work. It is difficult to tell how much has been seized by state and local law enforcement, but under a Justice Department program, the value of assets seized has ballooned to $4.3 billion in the 2012 fiscal year from $407 million in 2001. Much of that money is shared with local police forces.

WHEN Elaine and Merlin Toffel, a retired couple in their 70s, needed help with their investments, they went to their local U.S. Bank branch. The tellers knew them by their first names. They were comfortable there.

So when a teller suggested that they meet with the bank’s investment brokers, the Toffels made an appointment. After discussions and an evaluation, the bank sold them variable annuities, in which they invested more than $650,000. The annuities promised to generate lifetime income payments.

“We wanted to make the most amount of interest we could so if we needed it to live on, we could use it,” said Ms. Toffel, 74, of Lindenhurst, Ill.

What she says they didn’t fully understand was that the variable annuities came with a hefty annual charge: about 4 percent of the amount invested. That’s more than $26,000, annually — enough to buy a new Honda sedan every year. What’s more, if they needed to tap the money right away, there would be a 7 percent surrender charge, or more than $45,000.

Ragy Thomas, founder and chief executive of New York-based startup Sprinklr Inc., which helps brands manage their social-media presence, recently raised a round of venture funding that valued his company at more than $500 million. In the past, a firm like his would be charting an IPO path, but he has no such plans. “I don’t want to deal with roadshows and compliance and regulatory stuff, and all the other overhead [of being a public company],” he said.

When asked whether “Letting car services such as Uber or Lyft compete with taxi firms on equal footing regarding genuine safety and insurance requirements, but without restrictions on prices or routes, raises consumer welfare,” the responses varied only in the intensity with which they agreed. Of the 40 economists who responded, 60 percent “strongly agree,” 40 percent “agree,” and while zero responded that they were “uncertain,” none “disagree” nor did any “strongly disagree.” On this issue at least, it’s time to retire the caricature of the two-handed economist.

At the admissions end, it’s common knowledge that Harvard selects at most 10 percent (some say 5 percent) of its students on the basis of academic merit. At an orientation session for new faculty, we were told that Harvard “wants to train the future leaders of the world, not the future academics of the world,” and that “We want to read about our student in Newsweek 20 years hence” (prompting the woman next to me to mutter, “Like the Unabomber”). The rest are selected “holistically,” based also on participation in athletics, the arts, charity, activism, travel, and, we inferred (Not in front of the children!), race, donations, and legacy status (since anything can be hidden behind the holistic fig leaf). 

The lucky students who squeeze through this murky bottleneck find themselves in an institution that is single-mindedly and expensively dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. It has an astonishing library system that pays through the nose for rare manuscripts, obscure tomes, and extortionately priced journals; exotic laboratories at the frontiers of neuroscience, regenerative medicine, cosmology, and other thrilling pursuits; and a professoriate with erudition in an astonishing range of topics, including many celebrity teachers and academic rock stars. The benefits of matching this intellectual empyrean with the world’s smartest students are obvious. So why should an ability to play the bassoon or chuck a lacrosse ball be given any weight in the selection process?

I had a brief stint as a financial planner. It was dreadful, 100% sales, 0% advising. Based on the advice provided by the managers, it was an unethical (yet legal) business, so I returned to my previous profession. Since there are plenty of sales opportunities selling products that don't steal from the client, why would young, honest professionals who are adept at sales join the industry? [Daniel, Portland OR]

Financial advisors are not necessarily fiduciaries and do not have their client's best interests at heart. The average middle class investor should put their money in low-fee index funds which they can manage themselves. A few good books checked out from the library are a much less expensive way to learn about investing than paying 1% of your assets under management to an advisor. Also, the "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" guy, Richard Kiyosaki is still giving expensive investment seminars even though he declared bankruptcy in 2012, according to Forbes magazine. Steer clear of those types of advisors and you will be better off. Remember that his book costs, 4.00 (including shipping), if purchased used on Amazon. The seminars with the same information cost hundreds of dollars. [ms muppet, california]

Almost no one has any real need for a professional financial adviser. And if they do, their chances of finding one that will help are pretty slim. If they lack the interest, time and skill to manage their own finances, they also lack the ability to find an appropriate financial adviser to help them.

My understanding is that the average cost of financial fees is about 2% of their customer's wealth every year. That makes it one of the most expensive services around. And there is plenty of evidence that their net financial benefit to their customers is actually negative even before they collect their fees.

In short, the finance industry needs to shrink dramatically. That may be bad for New York city, but it would be good for the rest of the country.[Ross Williams, Grand Rapids, MN]

I don't understand why the next generation will need a financial adviser any more than a travel agent (12% decline in employment over the next 10 years), or the video store clerk (are they extinct yet?)

Given a range of better financial products, especially low-cost index funds and target date funds, as well as a number of excellent online financial tools like retirement calculators and portfolio analyzers, I fail to see why I should give 1% of my market returns to an adviser. The move to fee-based is a good trend, but I suspect Gen Y and the Millennials will be comfortable with an online self-help approach. [Tom Stolz, Detroit]

"Advisors" or "sales force"? Why does the NYT repeat and give credence to the industry propoganda? [Ken, Smith]

Armed with science and a bit of logic, the Eagles have quietly scoured the college ranks for something that has little to do with 40-yard dash times or bench-press abilities. They want players who have earned college degrees.

"When you look at people who are successful in any profession, it always goes back to college graduates," said Eagles general manager Howie Roseman. "We found NFL players are no different."

Kelly said a degree is more than proof of intelligence. "It's also, what is their commitment?" he said. "They set goals out for themselves and can they follow through for it? A lot of people can tell you they want to do this, this and this. But look at their accomplishments."

The Eagles say they want players who are prepared, and a degree confirms that. Take wide receiver Jordan Matthews, a Vanderbilt economics major whose study habits translated perfectly to the NFL.

Before meeting with the Eagles ahead of the draft, Matthews slipped into Vanderbilt's film room and watched a few Eagles games from last season—which he did with every team he met. Matthews was able to have an informed conversation with Kelly about the intricacies of his offense, something seldom done in the slog of pre-draft interviews, where some players meet with dozens of teams. The study habits paid off: The Eagles took Matthews in the second round.

... [Let] me ask you to look at the most recent (September 2013) Forbes list of the 400 wealthiest Americans.  From Bill Gates at the top to Nicholas Woodman at the bottom, all are billionaires.  Yet 261 of these people are self-made.

That is, nearly two-thirds earned their fortunes through creative entrepreneurial effort and risk-taking - people such as Amazon.com’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, eBay’s Pierre Omidyar, and entertainer Oprah Winfrey.  These people’s efforts enrich not only themselves but also you, me, and hundreds of millions of other people.  I’m aware that Piketty dismisses such claims as being crude apologetics, but I challenge you – and him – to explain how, say, Chick-fil-A founder S. Truett Cathy amassed a large fortune if the countless people who voluntarily dine at his restaurants do not benefit from doing so.