<p>[I realize there are similar threads out there, but my circumstances are different]</p>
<p>I was accepted at both of these schools, and I'm trying to choose between them. I am planning on majoring in physics and also studying math, computer science, and biology. I am not sure exactly what field I am interested in, but it could be anything from physics to biophysics to computational psychology. I know Caltech has stronger programs for these areas, and I know it is much easier to do research at Caltech, but Columbia has several factors over Caltech for me. For one, it is only a 2 hour drive (or train ride) from my house versus an expensive several hour plane ride. Also Caltech gave me very poor aid, so it would cost about $11k more to go to Caltech (although if I think I should go to Caltech over Columbia I could try to appeal my decision, and based on what I've read it sounds like I would probably be successful, especially considering 4 top private schools gave me aid that is $10k - $15k better than Caltech's). My main concern is whether Caltech would be much more beneficial to me in the long run, and whether at Columbia I would be lagging behind what I could have accomplished at Caltech.</p>
<p>I’d say you should go to Columbia, and for the following reasons</p>
<p>At Columbia you’ll have more time to try and see what’s what and what’s where (i.e. whether you like physics, bio, or Russian literature). Also, it would probably be not as hard (at least if you decide to do Physics). That means you’d probably end up with a higher GPA, which in turn means that you’ll have an easier time getting into grad schools. </p>
<p>In the long run, what matters is where [who] you got your PhD from and how much money you owe. If you do decide to go into academia/research (in Physics), be prepared to be living on ~40-50k per year for about 10-15 years after you get your PhD. Now, rent/mortgage + food + other things will eat up a considerable portion of that income. So, paying off your college loans could be a pain in the butt.</p>
<p>Sure, it won’t be as easy to do research at Columbia, but it’s definitely possible. You could apply for SURF here, you could apply for other government-funded internships. If worst comes to worst, you can find someone to do “volunteer” research for (i.e. not getting paid)</p>
<p>So…yeah…I would say go to Columbia and then come to Caltech for grad school to fully take advantage of what this place has to offer. Having said that, you should definitely consult more people before choosing where to go for undergrad. But ultimately, choose based on what feels right to you.</p>
<p>I don’t think this is really true at all. It is true for med schools, which are highly GPA dependent, but grad schools seem to take into account the difficulty of Caltech when assessing GPA. I can say this confidently as I watched plenty of people with higher GPAs than me get rejected at grad schools I got accepted at. I’m sure it helped too that all three of my recommenders were in the top ten in the world for their fields (as measured through citations), and that my research reflected this–this is the advantage of going to Caltech.</p>
<p>Caltech and Columbia are very different schools, the guy who responded to you in the Columbia forum said this about Columbia:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If that sounds appealing to you, go to Columbia. If you’re more interested in focusing on math, science, and engineering in incredible depth, go to Caltech.</p>
<p>I was at the prefrosh this past weekend, and I can tell you that Caltech is an amazing school. I’d choose Caltech over Columbia for the strenght of the departments of your interests and the research opportunities. It’s probably harder here than Columbia, though. If you throw in the variables on aid and geography, it then becomes a personal decision, and Columbia is a fine school, too.</p>