<p>Anyone know how the Undergrad Chem program is? I know the grad school program is very prestigious, but I dunno about undergraduate..</p>
<p>It's one of the university's strengths. Good research labs, prestigious professors, connections to med school, etc. One of my roommates for two years was an absolute chemistry nut, was TA'ing intro classes by sophomore year, etc... He went on to grad school at caltech for chem.</p>
<p>Sorry I don't have anything more than anecdotal evidence. In the interests of balance, our Psych and Sociology departments suck.</p>
<p>I hear it's wonderful.</p>
<p>It's the reason I'm applying there.</p>
<p>Not the only reason. But it is a key reason. (I also like the Core a lot. And the city. And isn't it logical that a girl named Ivy belongs in the Ivy League? Ok, not serious about the last one.)</p>
<p>How would you guys rate the physics, bio, and math departments over at Columbia? Excellent or mediocre?</p>
<p>All of them are excellent from what I understand. Consider the following:</p>
<p>Physics: Brian Greene, probably the world's foremost proponent of string theory
Math: Peter Woit, probably the world's foremost opponent of string theory
Biology: Don Melnick, advisor to Kofi Annan and Chair of the UN Millennium task Force on Environmental Sustainability</p>
<p>Those are just some luminaries in each field here...off the top of my head. All of them teach undergrads.</p>
<p>Brian Greene is actually in the math department but spends most of his time with physicists. There are probably a dozen other professors in the math dept that i would rate as "Excellent" by math-teacher standards. We've got about a half dozen nobel laureates teaching science at columbia right now, I think, and Horst Stormer teaches a seminar for all Applied Physics juniors which is apparently one of the most fun classes ever.</p>
<p>I can't speak to bio, but there's sure a ton of premed students at columbia.</p>
<p>From my experience:</p>
<p>Physics: abysmal at the lower levels, cant say very much about the upper levels but i hear it gets alot better
Math: Mediocre at the lower levels and excellent at the upper levels
Biology: Excellent all around</p>
<p>Prestige isnt everything, a person can be brilliant and cant teach for ***** and you are in college to learn not to brag about the professors at your school.</p>
<p>Yes Shraf, but I'm highly conscious of the fact that soon I'll be out of school and towing the Columbia line by complaining about everything and everyone doesn't exactly help make the case that I (or the rest of us, for that matter), have been well-educated, despite the fact that we generally are. Nothing I've said was an exaggeration; the above are extraordinary scholars and good teachers as well; just because Brian Greene's Nova special sucked doesn't mean there aren't physics majors here who are ecstatic to be personally working with him (I'll introduce you). Not to mention the fact that good scholarship filters down. Grad students and other professors are attracted to such people, and can wind up enhancing teaching faculties as well. And keep in mind that Columbia is a more teaching-centric university than some others; when Jeremy Waldon left the law faculty for NYU because the school was demanding he teach more, the attitude among many of the trustees and university senate members I talked to about it was "good riddance; Columbia [and they ment the university overall, not just the law school] values good teaching". At not every university will professors like Gayarti Spivak or Sir Simon Schama interrupt research projects abroad by flying back every week to teach undergrads. </p>
<p>Of course there are notorious examples of lumnaries failing to teach courses well. Jeffrey Sachs' and Joe Stiglitz' classes come to mind, but that's to be expected when such people are forced to convey introductory material to hundreds of freshmen. Most of these major scholars who profess a desire to teach but fail to teach well do so because they're mismatched.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Prestige isnt everything, a person can be brilliant and cant teach for ***** and you are in college to learn not to brag about the professors at your school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree with this. And there are lots of good points by c2007. But y'all are missing the mark in a way. It's not just the 2-3 Nobel laureates / famous people in every department who define a department. Those people certainly help, but more important is the overall quality of the faculty. In addition to the Nobel guys, is everyone else a bunch of hacks, or are they all at the top of their field? Are the junior faculty rising stars? You've got to look at how good the department is by looking at more than the headline profs.</p>