<p>I know other people here talked about it. A friend of mine decided she'd apply to both next year, and she thought of doing EA to Chicago and ED to Columbia. She said she'd like to know more about the differences between the two before she decides on that though. What do you guys have to say?</p>
<p>On paper, the schools are very much alike, and both are really excellent options. I know a Harvard undergrad who is now pursuing a PhD at Columbia in political science and he thinks Columbia offers the best undergraduate education you can get anywhere.*</p>
<p>Columbians perceive themselves as more pre-professional than Chicago; Chicagoans perceive themselves as more intellectual than Columbia. These perceptions are not necessarily accurate, but that's what they are. (This is at least what I hear when I hear Chicagoans who were accepted to both schools say when they talk about why they chose Chicago or didn't apply to Columbia; this is also what I hear my friends at Columbia when they talk about why they didn't apply to Chicago or chose Columbia over Chicago).</p>
<p>Columbia attracts more people than Chicago, so there are more students at Chicago who in some way overlap with Columbia than there are students at Columbia who in some way overlap with Chicago. I think this has a lot to do with the way Columbia advertises and sells itself: New York City and Ivy League seemed to be the recurring theme on tours, info sessions, and its own literature. Chicago, on the other hand, didn't give me anything that was eye-catching. I seemed to remember it had a lot of words and pictures of ugly students. I liked that.</p>
<p>Another similarity between the two schools that really comes off as a difference is the core. Not only does Columbia have its students complete core in a different way, but even though both schools offer opportunities to read similar books, the Columbia core is a "highlights" approach to the Intellectual Canon, while Chicago's much more about refining your reading, writing, and question-asking skills.</p>
<p>For example, reading the Iliad for Lit Hum at Columbia is unavoidable; reading the Iliad for hum core at Chicago is almost unavoidable. Columbia covers the book in a week; Chicago takes anywhere from 2-6 weeks, depending on how sinister the professor feels. Columbia's Lit Hum course focuses more on plot, characters, setting (I mean, even if you're a super genius, sufficiently covering the Iliad four hours of class is IMPOSSIBLE), while Chicago's focuses much more on reading, writing, discussing, critical thinking. You'll be doing the Iliad till you'll want to gouge your eyes out.</p>
<p>I've also heard that Columbia curves its pre-med courses to an A-, as a sort of "everybody wins" situation. If that's the case, that would explain why Columbia might be a great place to go if you want that sort of GPA boost, but I haven't confirmed that. That said, the average Chicago GPA is a 3.26, and I don't care what you have to say, but a B+ average is NOT low.</p>
<p>*by "anywhere," he meant to say "Ivy League."</p>
<p>thanks for that post amykins- that was really helpful!</p>
<p>Couple q's for someone with a similar question:</p>
<p>1) Are UChi students hurt by the 3.26 GPA for grad school (specifically the humanities/law school)??? It seems like a 3.4 or even 3.7 at Chicago is worse than a 3.8 or .9 at Columbia when it comes down to grad school game, or even employment...</p>
<p>2) Is math avoidable in the Uchi core? I detest mathematics and would prefer to never do it again. </p>
<p>3) How long do the 2 respective cores last? Can you complete it all during freshman year, half of freshman year, etc...?</p>
<p>1) This has been covered many, many times. The short answer is no-- Chicago sends many, many, many students on to graduate and professional schools, and they know that the students, by and large, are top quality and prepared to do the work. Chicago students can also redeem a GPA disparity with standardized tests, and what admissions offices for graduate school look for more than anything (so I've read elsewhere on these forums) is that students challenge themselves. Chicago has that challenge built-in.</p>
<p>Another note: I know that Harvard gets knocked quite often for grade inflation, but Harvard is the kind of school that runs hot and cold depending on department. Even so, their average GPA is only about 3.4... so either way, you're not seeing many 3.8's and 3.9's. According to my friend who is pursuing a linguistics PhD at Chicago and was at Harvard for undergrad, the first time she EVER got straight A's was her first quarter.... as a PhD student at Chicago.</p>
<p>2) Math is not avoidable; calculus is. You can take stats, computer science, or "studies in math."</p>
<p>3) About 1/3 of the classes you take in college will be core classes. You can decide if you want to take your sosc core (Columbianese: Contemporary Civ) first or second year; you can decide if you want to study abroad for Civ third year or take it second year; you can decide how long you want to go before you take Core Bio or your Art/Music/Drama.</p>
<p>Wow Amykins, that was really very helpful. Compare it to what people said on the Columbia forum when asked the same question...anyways, thanks.</p>
<p>hahaha I just read your other thread. It doesn't seem like you got too much help over there. Your friend should visit each school. If she hasn't, in my opinion, she shouldn't apply ED. She can ask each Admissions office about the comparison--that's their job.</p>
<p>hmm that's an interesting idea, I'll tell her to speak to both offices.</p>
<p>Wait; I don't think it's possible to apply ED to Columbia and EA to Chicago, is it?</p>
<p>daenerys, i didnt think so, but in a thread in the Columbia forum, someone said you can b/c Columbia is ED and Chicago is Ea; you are only prohibited from applying to Columbia ED and the other acronym (Scea?) that yale/stanford use. Don't know if it's true, but just what I read.</p>
<p>Yep, I think you're right. According to Columbia's website: "While Columbia does not necessarily encourage the filing of both Early Decision (binding) and Early Action (non-binding) applications, we do not prohibit candidates from doing so. However, candidates should be aware that Columbia’s Early Decision program is a binding agreement and a candidate will be expected to enroll, regardless of any pending applications (early or otherwise)."</p>
<p>That's odd. Is this policy unique only for Columbia? I was always under the impression that ED prohibits you from applying EA to any other college...</p>
<p>Sorry for the reaction on the Columbia forum -- a lot of the same questions get asked repeatedly, so some of the regular posters get tired of answering them. I'm the parent of a S at Columbia who also really liked U of C, and liked them both more than Harvard. :) Based on his process a few years back, and his experience at Columbia, I'd first like to correct a few things that have been said. Pre-med courses at Columbia are most definitely not curved to an A-, just look at the thread from the student who complained he got a C in chemistry, though his score on the final was the class average. That said, Columbia gpas are probably higher than U of Cs. Also, the Columbia core, like Chicago's (which modeled theirs on Columbia), most definitely aims to teach critical thinking and writing, not just plot summaries. The methodology is somewhat different at Columbia: everyone takes the same core classes and basically does the same reading. The classes are taught in small groups by professors and advanced grad students from a whole range of departments, so the idea is not that an expert on the classics teaches you the Illiad. It's that groups of smart students, led by smart teachers, are all exploring the same texts at the same time and relating them to questions that are still pertinent. (Things like what is justice, what does it mean to be a citizen, etc., in the case of Contemporary Civilization, which the sophomore class takes for a whole year.) The added dimension is that everyone has a common grounding in the same books, musical works, artworks, that form the core curriculum, and is going through most of it at the same time. A shared experience sort of like boot camp, but probably more fun.</p>
<p>I'd also dispute that Columbia students think of themselves as more pre-professional. It's not Wharton. My impression is that Columbia students think of themselves as intellectual, even though many will go on to med school, law school, or into finance. They may think they are cooler than Chicago students, and be less likely to think of themselves as quirky. Maybe they're more arrogant. They become New Yorkers pretty quickly, intense, a little combative -- intellectually or otherwise. Wow, I'm making broad generalizations.</p>
<p>To me the most significant distinction between the two for undergrads is that Chicago will give undergrads the kind of attention that graduate students get elsewhere. This is great if you are ready to focus and work that hard. Depending on the department at Columbia, you can get that attention, but you have to reach out for it. Advising is not great. I also get the feeling that Columbia students spend more time getting around and about NYC than U of C students do in Chicago. It's very easy to get places on the subway from Columbia and it's really part of its surrounding neighborhood in a way I didn't sense at Chicago. </p>
<p>I think they are both wonderful institutions in great cities and have a lot in common. Your friend should visit both.</p>
<p>daenerys, I think that case is unique to Columbia, and it really doesn't make sense. What's the point of applying early to another college if your mind is set on Columbia. Why not apply to the other college (Chicago) regular decision? </p>
<p>amykins: how was your financial aid situation following your acceptance to Chicago? I ask because have read numerous posts about the stinginess of the aid office at Chicago.</p>
<p>Thanks for the Columbia input, sac. A trivia question for you:</p>
<p>Did Chicago real model its core on Columbia's? I'd thought it was the other way around, and a quick google search indicated that Chicago adopted a core in 1931, while Columbia adopted one in 1937. </p>
<p>Does anyone know the history?</p>
<p>I heard that Notre Dame's Program for Liberal Studies (a four-year great books-type program/major) was based off of Chicago's core.</p>
<p>The heart of the Columbia core -- Contemporary Civilization -- was introduced shortly after, and in reaction to, WWI. Around 1919. There's more history than most people would probably want to read about the core curriculum on Columbia's website, including a timeline:<a href="http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/oasis/chronology.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/oasis/chronology.php</a></p>
<p>Oh, I thought Columbia adopted Chicago's core as well... a Columbia grad from the 1940s told me that!</p>
<p>Great post Sac! Thanks for the insight in to the differences between the two colleges and for info about the history of the core.</p>
<p>Thanks sac also-- a lot of what I hear comes from my friends at respective colleges, and it's not always correct. The A- curve, I heard, for example, from a student who was accepted, but hadn't even gone to the school! That's like me spouting information I obtained from prospective students :-)</p>
<p>I, too, refuse to believe that the school is pre-professional-- when I talk to Columbians about why they didn't choose Chicago, they often cite that Columbia was more professionally oriented. I found that ironic, especially considering that Chicago's most famous major is econ, but I figured that if they chose Columbia for their career first and academic quality second, maybe other students do the same. Chicago is best for students who are academics first and career second. In order to be happy here, you're going to have to like school and want to be in it.</p>
<p>I'm also happy to hear that Columbia's core does more than just plot summary, too-- that one came from one of my very intense friends, who is quick to criticize anything and everything. I will hold, however, that reading the Iliad in a week versus reading it over six weeks will create a very different experience. I don't know if one is better than the other, but certainly there were lots of insights, moments, etc., that came from our intense excavation of the book. This isn't about one school being intellectually superior to another-- it's just about there's only so much you can do with a book when you only have four hours to discuss it.</p>
<p>Somebody earlier asked about my fin. aid situation: my parents, while stingy in almost every other regard, told me that I could go to school wherever I wanted and they would find a way to pay for it. They are keeping me in the dark in terms of how it's being paid for, and I'm eternally grateful to them for the chance to go to school here. That said, there are at least ten or eleven other schools that I would also love to go to and that I would (possibly?) get merit money at. They include:</p>
<p>SUNY Binghamton (state school! yay!), U. Rochester, Oberlin (gave some merit money to a bunch of my friends), Clark U, Ursinus, Bard, Smith, Mount Holyoke, Bryn Mawr, Goucher, Case Western, Carnegie Mellon, William and Mary</p>
<p>Columbia/UC:</p>
<p>Similarities: Overall academic quality, breadth of offerings, depth of core requirements, research opportunities, extended city opportunities, prof/grad school and job placement, total disinterest in campus collegiate sports.</p>
<p>Major differences:</p>
<p>Quirkier students at Chicago, more likely to wear their intellectualism on their sleeves.</p>
<p>Hyde Park is not Morningside Heights/Upper West Side - more isolated
physically, fewer peri-campus offerings. </p>
<p>Chicago offers a closer to LAC-type interaction with faculty, especially as underclassman, with generally better advising.</p>
<p>Chicago more PhD prone, relatively less pre-prof (PhD rankings 1991-2000 of colleges, Chicago 8th vs Columbia 49th, weighted).</p>
<p>Overall vibe very different, generally more NY/east coast "hip" at Columbia. Less campus-centric than at Chicago.</p>
<p>Ideally need to see for yourself.</p>
<p>I did my undergrad at UChicago years back and grad school at Columbia not so many years ago and the difference between the two schools was eye-opening, to say the least. </p>
<p>Columbia Univ. is run much like the NYC Dep't of Motor Vehicles; it is a vast bureaucracy filled with separate academic fiefdoms and academically detached students. I taught and t/a'd undergrad classes at Columbia and was generally underwhelmed by the quality and attitude of the students in my classes. They were mostly pre-professional types with little true interest in the subject matter at hand. They dressed well and spoke quite charmingly, but the college felt more like an extension of an east coast prep school than an academic institution of higher learning. The atmosphere at the school reminded me eerily of a John Hughes movie set and I was sorely disappointed at the lack of academic seriousness among the students. From the early library closing hours (11 pm!) to the attitude among my students and undergraduate friends, there was a palpable anti-intellectual feeling in the campus that literally shocked me. Needless to say, I was not impressed by the college and especially disappointed by the attitude of the administration towards its undergraduates.</p>