Columbia USNWR 2008, #10

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
41

<p>
[quote=Lamp]
You mean like this?<a href="In%20reference%20to%20prancing%20etc">/quote</a></p>

<p>The whole point is that they do it in other people's college boards. I have every right to support my own college on my own board. Whereas you my friend, feel the need to come to our board and talk crap. Read people's statements in context. Learn to do that, before going to college.</p>

<p>NB: Sorry about the Caltech/CIT thing - innocent mistake... I hadn't heard of Caltech or CIT, and being Australian, thought they were two different colleges! Oops!</p>

42

<p>
[quote]
Although I don't really like the idea, it definitely makes <em>some</em> sense. Just curious, why do you consider Tech schools different enough from national universities to warrant a separate ranking? Also what's your definition of a national university?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>i completely agree that they should be done separately.
1) tech schools have a heck of a lot fewer majors than do universities. obtaining premier faculty is actually a lot harder because of this (since you only have maybe 10 majors to do this for as opposed to 50) [also note tech schools are typically smaller than univ.'s and therefore generate less money through all avenues except maybe patents]
2) student bodies are much more self selecting than universities, even if only in regards to applicants.</p>

<p>those 2 things heavily influence usnwr</p>

43

<p>
[quote]
yale shouldn't even be in the top 10. That school is SO overhyped.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>unfortunately because usnwr bases so much of its rankings on sat's, other people's opinions, etc a lot of people will say [x] school shouldnt be in the top [y]. many say it about columbia.</p>

<p>i do wish usnwr would take into account professors on teching vs. tenure tracks at schools. most everyone agrees that teaching suffers when professors are mainly worried about producing tenure inducing research (i know there are studies about this too, just way too lazy to find them)</p>

<p>yale, among others, has no teaching track and if you dont get tenure within 10 years, you're fired. i feel this hinders the undergrad education and while usnwr is really a measure of graduate education moreso than undergrad, i wish people would realize that and downplay it in the college selection process...</p>

<p>/end rant</p>

44

<p>People have said this before, though. If Harvard, Yale, and Princeton don't come out on top with some combination of the other Ivies not too far behind, people will not value the rankings. I don't remember the name of the rankings, but last year Harvard was ranked 28 for undergraduate education by that group, and other schools that typically don't even make the top 40s on USNews were ranked higher than it. We don't hear much about those rankings, so case and point.</p>

45

<p>no but then again, if some random of new chart of anything comes up as a challenge of an older, distinguished chart (survey), then no one really pays it attention. I think that survey that showed Harvard at rank 28 didn't get much attention due to that fact, and not because Harvard didn't come out on top.</p>

46

<p>
[QUOTE]

The whole point is that they do it in other people's college boards. I have every right to support my own college on my own board. Whereas you my friend, feel the need to come to our board and talk crap. Read people's statements in context. Learn to do that, before going to college.

[/quote]

I don't recall ever 'talking crap' on your board, and when have I taken someone's statement out of context? </p>

<p>
[quote]
NB: Sorry about the Caltech/CIT thing - innocent mistake... I hadn't heard of Caltech or CIT, and being Australian, thought they were two different colleges! Oops!

[/quote]

If you don't know anything about Caltech, how can you be so quick to imply that Caltech shouldn't be above Columbia in rankings.</p>

47

<p>
[quote]
how can you be so quick to imply that Caltech shouldn't be above Columbia in rankings.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Evidently a school sucks if you've never heard of it :rolleyes:</p>

48

<p>Does Caltech have a greater concentration of math/science oriented students? I'm sure they do (for the record though, two of my friends were accepted at CalTech/MIT and not Columbia College & Fu this year). But I concede that Caltech students, being self selective, will generally beat Columbia students in the math/sciences.</p>

<p>However... Columbia also has dozens if not a hundred more potential majors than CalTech does. I bet you'll find the better economist, political science student, writer, French speaker, future leader at Columbia. So in that since, yes, Columbia definitely trumps CalTech. </p>

<p>And I'll also make the argument that at the graduate level, Columbia fares as well as CalTech does in the sciences. Columbia is a leader in the medical sciences at least, and as a University has won the most (or second most) Nobel Prizes in the world. Caltech, doesn't come close. </p>

<p>But the original point isnt that CalTech with its academic reputation and academic caliber shouldn't be above Columbia--- it's just that how can you compare a school with a total undergraduate enrollment of ~900 in only a dozen or so majors with one that enrolls ~5000-6000 undergraduates and has an amalgamate of majors ranking from Yiddish to Physics?</p>

<p>Bottom line though: Yes CalTech trumps Columbia in some of the hard sciences. But Columbia wins hands down in many many other popular areas of study (i.e. PoliSci, Economics, History, etc)</p>

49

<p>


</p>

<p>Errr, you're imposing your own views about Columbia in comparison to small fries like Caltech (haha, okay I'm just trying to annoy you with that one) so therefore you are talking crap. </p>

<p>You have taken my statement out of context because we are talking about people from other colleges who somehow feel the urge to come and thrust their views into peoples' faces who would otherwise live a peaceable e-life. But instead, you wittingly take that out of context and imply that I am prancing around, trying to "validate" my own school... in my own forum?</p>

<p>Get a grip, kid.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
Thank God someone on this board has grasped basic logic.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Lmao. Well, whatever.</p>

51

<p>Lmao at cal tech being no.4. What type of crack-head made these rankings?</p>

52

<p>The purpose of my posts:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I can see how Columbia might rival Tech, but I don't see how Tech being ranked above Columbia is preposterous.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Truazn, I'm not arguing Caltech's superiority to Columbia. The schools can't really be compared as they are like apples and oranges (Unless of course you look at statistics such as S/F ratio, SAT Scores, acceptance rate etc that the USNews uses). Also I'm pretty sure Caltech has a higher Nobel Count if you standardize the #s for the size of the faculty at both schools. Regardless, both are fine schools.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Errr, you're imposing your own views about Columbia in comparison to small fries like Caltech (haha, okay I'm just trying to annoy you with that one) so therefore you are talking crap.

[/quote]

Alright, I admit I might have been imposing some of my own views about the schools but most of what I said was true. Caltech is more selective, has a smarter entering class(1470-1580 vs 1350-1560), and has a better Student/Faculty Ratio. Anyways the point of the last sentence isn't to engage in a contest to see whose **** is bigger, but just to show that Caltech being ranked above Columbia on the usnews ranking isn't as absurd as vesalvay makes it to be in his initial post.</p>

<p>I suspect brand_182 was joking, but I'm never been good with picking up humor online.</p>

53

<p>You have to be kidding me. Since when does the SAT serve as a good measure of smartness? All the SAT statistics show is that CalTech looks for people with similar scores rather than people with a broad range of scores like Columbia does. If your point were true then that should apply to a comparison between CalTech and any of the other Ivies? They all admit people with very broad scores. In that sense, I think Columbia is far more selective. They want diversity more than anything else. And, remember, even if you do get into Columbia with a lower score, it doesn't mean you're an idiot. It means that you have another quality that appealed to the reader, and I'm sure they are just as hard to please as CalTech readers.</p>

54

<p>Fair enough, I can't 'prove' that Caltech has a smarter student body than Columbia. I'm only resorting to the use of SAT data because there isn't really anything better. I think though that the large SAT difference at least lends credibility to the idea that the student body of Caltech is at least as academically capable as the one at Columbia. For a crude average (avging the ends of the IQR) we get 1455 (CC) vs 1525(CIT). That's a 70 point difference, hardly negligible.</p>

<p>Of course if a person has a 70 point higher SAT score than another, I wouldn't claim that the high scorer is smarter. But what I would claim is that if a student body comprised of hundreds of individuals has an SAT score on average of 70 points higher than than another student body, then that student body as a whole is more academically talented.</p>

55

<p>
[quote]
I suspect brand_182 was joking

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That is correct. To say a school does not deserve to be ranked above your own simply because you've never heard of it is ludicrous.</p>

56

<p>Lamp, there's no difference between what you just said, accept that now you've insinuated the same thing that you said before.</p>

57

<p>Hahaha, maybe sarcasm twice in a row doesn't quite work well online.</p>

<p>


</p>

<p>So you admit to being wrong and yet you bring something out of context again. I'm not saying whether your views about schools are true or not, in fact you can't even qualify what you say in the first place. </p>

<p>


</p>

<p>Again - "Alright, I admit...", "Fair enough..." I guess you're never just going to back down.</p>

<p>And of course, you can't prove it. </p>

<p>The fact is, the SAT qualifications of applicants who apply to both are similar but Columbia has the choice to pick and choose and create a diverse student body and stay away from an SAT-superinfluenced decision.</p>

58

<p>I changed my argument by not using the word smart but instead academically talented.</p>

<p>My argument is still essentially the same though.</p>

<p>Kids with higher SAT scores are generally more academically capable than kids with lower SAT scores. A 70ish point difference in the average SAT of two student bodies is significant. This difference in the absence of other data leads one to believe that Caltech kids are at least as academically qualified as kids at Columbia. Look, this thread is getting to be tiresome so I'll contribute this late post and be done with it.</p>

<p>Columbia and Tech are both great schools. The intent of my posts is not to say that any school is better than the other, but to just inform people who clearly do not know anything about Caltech (vesalvay) that the schools alleged 4th place in the upcoming USNEWS report isn't cause for weeping. Regardless of whether or not you consider Tech to be eligible for 'national university status' because of it's lack of academic diversity, Caltech is clearly one of the best unis along with Columbia. I'm merely trying to stop stupid posts like

[quote]
Lmao at cal tech being no.4. What type of crack-head made these rankings?

[/quote]

and inform people about the true quality of caltech. </p>

<p><strong>Edit</strong>
All I said concerning CIT vs Columbia was:

[quote]
Caltech is more selective, has a smarter entering class(1470-1580 vs 1350-1560), and has a better Student/Faculty Ratio

[/quote]

I later changed my position to say Caltech has a more academically talented class as evidenced by the large discrepancy in SAT scores, I choose to not continue to use the word smart because I can't argue that SAT=Intelligence and 'academically qualified' were the words I should have used. The main reasons why Columbia has a lower % rate when compared to Caltech is b/c 1)It's in NYC 2)It's an Ivy.

[quote]

The fact is, the SAT qualifications of applicants who apply to both are similar but Columbia has the choice to pick and choose and create a diverse student body and stay away from an SAT-superinfluenced decision.

[/quote]

I'd love to see the SAT qualifications of applicants who apply to each school if you have them. Do you have any sources for the bull**** that you're spewing? I don't understand why people automatically assume that caltech admissions is 'supeinfluenced' by the SAT whereas other comparable schools' admissions are not. Caltech's admissions aim is simply to get THE smartest kids possible.
Just so you know I don't go to either of the schools (I was accepted at both though).</p>

<p>Anyways, it was nice arguing. No hard feelings Vesalvy.</p>

59

<p>


</p>

<p>For some reason, that cracks me up.</p>

<p>I really don't think SATs once you're in the 2000s constitutes big differences in academic ability and capability.</p>

<p>I sat the SATs two days after knowing about them and I got 2000+. I guess that makes me dumber than the American kid who spent at least a few months preparing for it and taking similar style exams, who got above me.</p>

<p>I don't think that quite adds up, mate.</p>

<p>When are you going to throw in the towel? I can't make out your facial features any more.</p>

60

<p>Whoa whoa, there is no need to put down Caltech, that school is serious business. I have serious respect for anybody who gets in and manages to get through their undergraduate education there.</p>