Columbia or Cal?

College Search & Selection
21

<p>
[quote]
Bigtwix, ever hear of the Manhattan Project? Well, it wasn't named that because it was ever housed or researched or developed in Berkeley, CA.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sorry, Lake Washington, your facts are incomplete. Berkeley was known to have revolving door of atomic scientists during the duration of the Manhattan Project, and the reason was largely though not entirely 'cause its project head Robert Oppenheimer was a Berkeley prof. Anyway, certainly though Los Alamos housed the project (as did some other sites) a lot of thinking and research and development occurred in Berkeley.</p>

<p>Though I credit you for informing me what I had always wondered: why was it called the Manhattan Project?</p>

<p>Involvement in NYC:</p>

<p>The project originally was headquartered in an office at the federal building at 90 Church Street in Manhattan. That is how it became known as the Manhattan Project, even though the project was based only briefly on Manhattan island.[5] Though it involved over thirty different research and production sites, the Manhattan Project was largely carried out in three secret scientific cities and one public site that were established by power of eminent domain: Los Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and Hanford, Washington.</p>

<p>Involvement in Berkeley, under the direction of UC Berkeley Professor Robert Oppenheimer:</p>

<p>Having begun to wrest control of the uranium research from the National Bureau of Standards, the project heads began to accelerate the bomb project under the OSRD. Arthur Compton organized the University of Chicago Metallurgical Laboratory in early 1942 to study plutonium and fission piles (primitive nuclear reactors), and asked theoretical physicist Robert Oppenheimer of the University of California, Berkeley to take over research on fast neutron calculations, key to calculations about critical mass and weapon detonation, from Gregory Breit. John Manley, a physicist at the Metallurgical Laboratory, was assigned to help Oppenheimer find answers by coordinating and contacting several experimental physics groups scattered across the country.</p>

<p>Oppenheimer convened a summer study at the University of California, Berkeley in June 1942. Theorists Hans Bethe, John Van Vleck, Edward Teller, Felix Bloch, Emil Konopinski, Robert Serber, Stanley S. Frankel, and Eldred C. Nelson (the latter three all former students of Oppenheimer) quickly confirmed that a fission bomb was feasible. There were still many unknown factors in the development of a nuclear bomb, however, even though it was considered to be theoretically possible. The properties of pure uranium-235 were still relatively unknown, as were the properties of plutonium, a new element which had only been discovered in February 1941 by Glenn Seaborg and his team. Plutonium was the product of uranium-238 absorbing a neutron which had been emitted from a fissioning uranium-235 atom, and was thus able to be created in a nuclear reactor.</p>

22

<p>don't forget that Seaborg was a professor at Cal as well</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
don't forget that Seaborg was a professor at Cal as well

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The big brains came from many places -- and often they were coming to Berkeley. And Berkeley was primary as a supplier of the brains too; Nobelist Glenn Seaborg was but one.</p>

<p>J. Robert Oppenheimer<a href="April%2022,%201904%20–%20February%2018,%201967">1</a> was an American theoretical physicist, best known for his role as the director of the Manhattan Project, the World War II effort to develop the first nuclear weapons, at the secret Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico. Known as "the father of the atomic bomb," Oppenheimer lamented the weapon's killing power after it was used to destroy the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. After the war, he was a chief advisor to the newly created United States Atomic Energy Commission and used that position to lobby for international control of atomic energy and to avert the nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union. After invoking the ire of many politicians and scientists with his outspoken political opinions during the Red Scare, he had his security clearance revoked in a much-publicized and politicized hearing in 1954. Though stripped of his direct political influence, Oppenheimer continued to lecture, write, and work in physics. A decade later, President John F. Kennedy awarded him the Enrico Fermi Award as a gesture of political rehabilitation. As a scientist, Oppenheimer is remembered most for being the chief founder of the American school of theoretical physics while at the University of California, Berkeley.</p>

24

<p>this is getting a little off topic</p>

25

<p>sac, thank you for the very comprehensive answer! i really appreciate everyone's input.</p>

26

<p>I'm an English major and writing student at CU, so I thought I'd add my two cents, although I don't have any experience dealing with the UC's. I really like the English Dept. at Columbia; the teachers are great, and all the courses I've taken have been really good. One thing to consider, the only downside I've found, is that a major in English at Columbia is a major in English and American lit--readings in translation from other countries do not count, so it can feel a bit limited at times. That's not to say that there aren't tons of interesting classes, but sometimes you may just want to get out of England. There is a small comparative lit requirement for the major that does address it a bit, and you can apply a limited number of literature courses taught in foreign languages. That's the only problem I've run across, but all in all, it's a great program. If you think this might be a problem, Columbia's Comp. Lit major is really extensive, but it's really top notch. You'd have to really start Comp. Lit freshman year, because you need to speak two foreign languages (two years of college-level language courses) for the major. It's a great program if you start early enough.</p>

<p>The writing program is also awesome--although it's somewhat in a state of flux in switching to the new major--major overhaul of staff and curriculum, so really any info you find about availability of classes and such will be outdated. The students applied to the new classes for the first time this spring, so selectivity, availability, and such is still unknown.</p>

<p>I don't know how to really describe the campus culture--if I knew anything about Berkeley's culture, I could compare, but I don't, so I'll try to hit a few points. It's been said before, liberal, liberal, liberal. Because it's in NYC, students go off campus and downtown a lot--this may not be the case as much with a suburban school--but it's not like NYU, for example. Columbia has a nice campus, and people hang around on campus too. I think most are pleased with Columbia. I know my friends and I certainly are. I don't know if you have any more specific questions, but if you do, I'd be happy to help (I'm suffering from NYC withdrawal now that I'm back home in the boonies, so I've got a good deal of spare time...)</p>

27

<p>yeah, if you want to go into journalism or something, then go to columbia.</p>

<p>Viva sweet love, i know columbia has a top poli sci program (so does Berkeley, though i think the winner goes to columbia by a bit) , but as for EAS, i would assume that they have a great department considering SIPA is one of the best IR grad programs for EAS, but for undergrad, many UCs have top programs, especially Berkeley. I think one of the reasons why is because the bay area in itself has a huge asian population, as well of one of the largest chinatowns in the US (probably either SF china town or seattle are the biggest).<br>
That being said, i have read from many different sites that even Cal EAS graduate studies are the or some of the best.</p>

<p>UCSD is great too, but mainly with IR focus on asia.</p>

28

<p>That's very interesting to know about the EAS program! I think both schools have such great programs to offer that at this point it just comes down to a matter of personal preference. This is the part where a student's preference for nonacademic parts is most important, because that will dictate whether he or she is more successful, not necessarily X about one program or Y about another. I definitely think we are on the same page that a hair of difference in one program or the other shouldn't dictate a college decision, especially at this level of academics.</p>

29

<p>
[quote]
I think one of the reasons why is because the bay area in itself has a huge asian population, as well of one of the largest chinatowns in the US (probably either SF china town or seattle are the biggest).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Berkeley established Asian Studies as a focus close to the time of its founding, and in turn, it became a center. This may have had to do with the West Coast's Asian population, I don't know. </p>

<p>I do know that it became a destination for those who needed or wanted to study Asia. And is perenially among the top programs because the involvement is so broad-based. There was a Caucasian art historian who was considered by the most celebrated art conniseurs of Asia to be without peer in his recognition of value in Japanese and Chinese works. The US govt. sent a lot of folks there to learn languages and the like. And so on.</p>

<p>The poster has a couple of great options. I personally wish I had lived in NYC.</p>

30

<p>You got off the Columbia waitlist yesterday? How did they notify you? Was it for CC or SEAS? Because I haven't heard of anyone getting off the CC waitlist so far...</p>

31

<p>I think it mostly has to do with area since west coast is a greater immigration center for asians (seattle and san francisco mainly).
Although i honestly think in most cases for humanities, you cannot go wrong picking either schools. Unless you are doing engineering, science, or business, it is really just a preference thing. What do you like better, NYC or San Francisco/bay area.</p>

<p>I would actually personally choose Columbia just because i love NYC, and the internships will probably be better for many/most things. </p>

<p>But as for debating which school is better overall, i would argue Cal...but that is just me and i have my reasons.</p>

32

<p>Borrowed from Wiki..</p>

<p>Columbia has the most Nobel Prize affiliations of any institution in the USA. It is home to the prestigious Pulitzer Prize, which, for over a century, has rewarded outstanding achievement in journalism, literature and music. It has been the birthplace of FM radio, the first American university to offer anthropology and political science as academic disciplines, and where the foundation of modern genetics was discovered. Its Morningside Heights campus was the first North American site where the uranium atom was split. Literary and artistic movements as varied as the Harlem Renaissance, the Beat movement and post-colonialism all took shape within Columbia's gates in the 20th century....btw the first to give out the MD...</p>

33

<p>Although I love Cal, its fans really are delusional. It doesn't have the reputation it used to (well, neither does Columbia). Actually, as of 50 years ago, the three most academically prestigious school's in the country were without a doubt Harvard, Columbia and Cal. However, Columbia fell with NYC, and is now on the rebound, and Cal could never maintain it's reputation with it's size. Sure, Cal has some of the smartest kids in the country, but because of it's size and the fact that it's a state school, and therefore the much easier admissions than at the Ivies, the average student at Cal will be academically inferior to the average Ivy student, especially at Columbia, which, although it's not HYP, it's the next most prestigious out of the Ivies.
Cal is certainly well known, but it cannot match Ivy prestige. And arguably not the quality of education either.</p>

34

<p>I'd go ahead and argue Dartmouth and Brown (as well as Penn and non-Ivies like Duke and Chicago) are right up there with Columbia...thats an argument for another day</p>

<p>Nobel prize affiliations are less important than how strong the undergrad program is today, right now.</p>

35

<p>Although Nobels are not always a good indicator of college education, these are "recent wins, e.g. current faculty wins.... Anyway, I will argue for Columbia over any of the Ivies you named academic-wise. Although all are clearly great schools. Cal, is still seen as ulmost unmatched for its Arts & Science graduate school, but A&S and Professional schools= Columbia overall (small margin) , but perhaps a wash. Besides, for any industry outside of Tech (we are second) and Hollyweird (we are second), NYC is first in the USA..period. WHat does that mean for a college student? Less campus life (still there), but truely unmatched internship opportunities during college which can and will give you a leg up on the competition for top jobs in any field against any other school...sadly you must compete against your CU peers ;)</p>

36

<p>
[quote]
Although I love Cal

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Really?</p>

<p>
[quote]
It doesn't have the reputation it used to (well, neither does Columbia)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Graduate school (Cal) as good and prestigious as ever, undergrad its repuation has gone down mostly because of the way rankings are now parsed. (Which is not to say that they are inaccurate now; the focus was different -- more on the academic prestige as a whole.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
and therefore the much easier admissions than at the Ivies, the average student at Cal will be academically inferior to the average Ivy student

[/quote]
</p>

<p>True about the average, but true for example that Cal has the greatest number of N. Merit scholars last time I saw the numbers.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Cal is certainly well known, but it cannot match Ivy prestige.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Who cares? It's got its own mission, is par excellence and is a better choice for many people. </p>

<p>
[quote]
its fans really are delusional.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Oh really? Blow it out your a$$. And don't come crying back this board when Cal rejects you either for undergrad or grad. ; )</p>

37

<p>Bed Head,</p>

<p>"Cal has the greatest number of N. Merit scholars last time I saw the numbers."</p>

<p>Schools with the most National Merit Scholars:</p>

<p>Harvard - 300
Yale - 190
Princeton - 150
Stanford - 150
MIT - 140
Duke - 120
UPenn - 100
Brown - 90
Dartmouth - 70
UC Berkeley - 70
Columbia - 60
Cornell - 60</p>

<p>Per Capita its pretty much the same ranking, except Berkeley would be farther down</p>

38

<p>^^^^</p>

<p>Well, I am eating my words, though I had actually meant National Merit Finalists. I've searched for a ranking on this and this is all I've found from the Berkeley website. Still finding to try the numbers I saw that had Berkeley with the most. But mea culpa; it doesn't have the most NMS, just perhaps the most -- or high up there -- NMF:</p>

<p>"Among each entering freshman class are over 200 National Merit Finalists and scores of other students who have already distinguished themselves in their academic and extracurricular careers.</p>

39

<p>Well, BedHead, since Cal is such a large school, it only makes sense that it would have more....so I'm not sure what your point is there. I just read an article that said that University of Florida was second only behind Harvard and the top public school..."UF has wooed so many students like Jacobsen that it attracted more national merit scholars to its freshman class this year than any public university in the nation."</p>

40

<p>BedHead - I think you are right about the National Merit Finalists - plus Berkeley has 70 actual scholars, which is still one of the highest in the nation and really impressive for any school.</p>