Columbia USNWR 2008, #10

<p>Angry midgets attack!</p>

<p>"lol why are you all so worked up over this? Those are not even the confirmed rankings..."</p>

<p>boredome, what else? These funny arguments are the only thing keeping me on CC. I wish I could see a live debate between skraylor and rama, lol...</p>

<p>pearfire, why don't you hire the Coloseum for the debate and we will feed the loser to the lions. Note the "we".</p>

<p>I think the Coloseum, the lions and the money we'll need to get out of this without going to prison will cost too much, ^^... </p>

<p>Btw, how exactly are you affiliated with Columbia?</p>

<p>"I'm not saying Columbia didn't have a good year, I'm asking why it's a problem that Cornell might soon rank just below your school. The impression I get from mrsopresident's post is that he doesn't believe Cornell deserves to be ranked alongside mighty Columbia -- whether the two schools are ranked 1st and 2nd, 10th and 11th, or 100th and 101st."</p>

<p>sorry, let me clarify this. i wrote that post as a way of laughing in the face of those who glorify columbia's prestige due to its high usnews ranking, but shun cornell. i was pointing out that it was interesting that with all the cheap shots taken at cornell, that columbia is apparently going to get a rank only a one spot difference from cornell.</p>

<p>pearfire, my S will be going to Columbia this fall, next month, that is my only affiliation. I have some Columbia School of Social Work social workers working for me and they are so ignorant, I hope undergrad educ is not that bad.</p>

<p>Oh it definitely is that bad.</p>

<p>someone call me when ramaswami takes out the ad in the NY Times proclaiming how awful Columbia is for his long list of petty reasons. until then, i'm hitting the snooze button on him.</p>

<p>Well, he takes pride in his son (who got 2350 or something first time?) who's going to Columbia, so go figure. </p>

<p>Columbia DOES suck. Sucky suck suck!</p>

<p>I have never said Columbia is awful or it sucks. I have never put down Columbia either. My S is going to Columbia and I am pretty proud of him and of Columbia. However, we can all engage in a critical appraisal of all the schools whether we go there or not or whether a loved one goes there or not. Having said this, C was not my S's first choice or mine. Wake up, Denzera.</p>

<p>Being a SEAS incoming student, in the college selection process, there was only one school (save the farming of deep springs, which is more an experience than a school), where the academic curriculum scared me, and this school was caltech. The curriculum just seems so fast paced, as they take the same amount of classes in a quarters system that columbia takes in a semister. I have a friend at caltech, who is able to grasp mathematical concepts at a faster rate than me, who told me he passed, but struggled, as I expect the great majority of techers do. He told me his chemistry professor taught at stanford, and said they must go at 3 times the pace of the stanford kids. </p>

<p>I doubt that there is any school with a more overbearing workload than caltech.</p>

<p>I am happy to be going to Columbia.</p>

<p>ramswami I think the problem is you seem to base off you and your son's college choices (preferences) based on ranking/prestige. </p>

<p>For example, your son applied to all 8 Ivy League schools? That's very revealing... and shallow as some of the Ivies differ from each other like night and day--- the only common thread being in their names.</p>

<p>Ramswami, I think you will be inevitably disappointed at how many dumbasses there are at HYPMS, Columbia, etc, and how that you really can't tell the difference between one student body and another for these top schools. </p>

<p>Furthermore, i think you will be disappointed because you seem to have some expectation that an Ivy League degree will inevitably precipitate into a successful career---- which it sure as hell doesn't. I assume you're from India? I know that in China and India, how well you do in life is largely dependant on how well of an education you receive, and the name on that diploma. In the United States, no one cares about where you went to school beyond the fact that you received a good education. Much more important is your personality, character, and work experience.</p>

<p>"In the United States, no one cares about where you went to school beyond the fact that you received a good education. Much more important is your personality, character, and work experience."</p>

<p>Um... I don't know who told you this but it's not true. The network opportunities you get at top colleges will put you ahead compared to a no-name college which still offers good education. Most firms tell you how open-minded they are, but try to get into MS or ML with a diploma from OSU.</p>

<p>All the Ivies, with the exception of Cornell (.. JOKES!), are excellent, and have the best reputations, with the exception of Stanford and MIT. So what's wrong with applying to all eight?</p>

<p>truazn, I may agree with you almost in toto except for the "shallow" bit. Yes, the 8 schools are all different in location, size, etc. These things do not matter to my son. Yes, we are Indian-Americans (but do not use the term). He applied to schools which, based on USNews, had the highest SAT scores among incoming freshmen. Since we were not savvy at the beginning of the process USNews may have misguided him. He thought, and thinks, that what you get out of college will depend on yourself, that your drive and personality matter, but having said all this, it is better to be with bright kids and also kids with drive, personality etc and we were hoping the Ivies, yes, all 8, did the screening for us. </p>

<p>What is wrong with this? Yes, in India the school's reputation does matter and affect your career and it does in the US also. For grad school, law school, MBA etc etc I do think school's prestige does matter. Even if it has not mattered so far, we are moving toward a competitive society where aspects of the India/China model may being to carry a little more weight.</p>

<p>Finally, the marketplace has spoken: we may disagree with the rankings, that X school must be 3 places higher or lower, but overall, within broad categories USNew has quantified, imperfectly, as have THES and the Shanghai rankings, which are the better schools. So, nothing wrong in applying to all top 15 since one does not know whether one will be accepted to the absolutely preferred one.</p>

<p>That said and done, I think you have a terrific point, thinking this is some kind of Asian meritocracy, my S may end up being disappointed. And me, too.</p>

<p>Maybe, I am shallow. It takes a generation or two for new immigrants to overcome the vestiges of colonial rule and to cease aspiring for the outward symbols of belongingness. In line with our shallowness, Princeton with its eating clubs was his first choice even though as a vegetarian he would have been gastronomically challenged.</p>

<p>good point but bad example, pearfire. there are many graduates of top state schools who make it on wall street or in other highly competitive industries. The point is that the standards are higher and the burden of proof is harder to meet, not that it can't be done.</p>

<p>there are a bunch of other reasons why a top education is worth the money and competition. one quick example since I don't have time for a full litany: my dad went to MIT. He busted his arse there, had to put basically 100% of his waking hours into just barely making it through with a B average. He took 10 semesters to graduate. And ever since then, everything he has ever done has been easy by comparison - getting through MIT was the hardest thing he has ever done. It not only helps him avoid stress in challenging situations, it also gives him the confidence that he is up to any task.</p>

<p>This leaves aside the networking, the practice in a top competitive environment and the confidence that results from success there, the certification of your worth by a perceived authority, the chance to learn from top researchers and teachers in their fields, and so on. No need to go over all that here. And the same is all true for all top schools.</p>

<p>ramaswami, that might be your first post on this board that approaches being somewhat humble. You get a few points in your "pro" column.</p>

<p>Most people on these boards are typically horrified when someone applies to schools on the basis of rankings or prestige only, because that formula tends to result in either (1) students hating the experience because they are poorly matched to the school, and/or (2) other students on campus feeling like their school is populated by a bunch of "grinds" who never leave the library or see daylight.</p>

<p>You plead ignorance of the process, and say you relied on the only metrics and guides you had available to you. In my view, that should be a valid excuse. Not everyone grew up in a wealthy suburb where this process was all neatly laid out for everyone and the 'right' approaches were emphasized. Shallowness in the approach to college admissions is not equivalent to shallowness of character, merely shallowness of information. I think everyone here would do well to respect that a little, and seek to inform rather than criticize.</p>

<p>And the same goes for you, ramaswami. Our comments, perhaps phrased undiplomatically sometimes, are nevertheless intended to be helpful. I'm not doing this for public acclaim, I'm doing it because I love my school and also because I want to help those who are going through what was one of the more stressful experiences in my life. Others are in similar situations. Let's all not be so quick to judge.</p>

<p>My son grew up in a wealthy suburb in CT. I did have some access to information, not approaching what some in CC have but more than enough to make a thoughtful choice. Prestige mattered to him and to me, in this sense we will have to plead shallowness of character in your definition although I disagree with you on just one point: it is not shallowness of character to choose schools based on rankings.</p>

<p>The idea of fit in college admissions puzzles me. College is just 4 years, who cares about location, weather, college life, etc, emphasis should be on strong academics, and that is a purely Indian attitude. We assumed strong academics or access to academics and quality of student body went with the rankings.</p>

<p>I commend your father's efforts. But my Indian friends who did undergrad at the IITs think MIT (at grad level) is easy by comparison.</p>

<p>In terms of absolute terms I'm sure IIT by virtue of its practices of screening out millions of people for a few selective spots will be more "competitive" to gain admitance than MIT ever will. </p>

<p>My uncle went to Tsinghua University in China, the equivalent of China's MIT/Harvard. In his province where ~6 million kids applied (in China you are offered college acceptances based solely on your score--- you don't even need to apply, they just tell you where you got in), only 7 kids gained admittance. Needless to say, these are truly daunting odds and make 1,600 out of 21,000 seem like a joke.</p>

<p>But at the same time, while there may indeed MORE IIT students who are of the top caliber, IIT and MIT certainly have the same amount of TOP TOP students. And it's not just about the difficulty--- it's about the resources, faculty, environment, and yes, prestige that MIT has and that IIT/Tsinghua will never have. </p>

<p>I forgot my original point but I think it's probably something like, you can't base how hard an undergraduate curriculum is based solely on how hard it is to gain entrance. And last time I checked, the United States wins a LOT more Nobel Prizes, IMO's, USChO's (chemistry), USABO gold medals than India does. Of course the US is second to China though ;) (where admittedly they select kids and tortur- i mean, "train" them since they are 10). haha...</p>

<p>I propose a new thread: 101 reasons to choose Columbia. </p>

<p>Rule: No mention of USNWR rankings. </p>

<p>As the parent of a student who chose Columbia over many great opportunities, and knowing about plenty of other students who did the same, I can't tell you how annoyed I get by the constant references to a three or eight spot difference in a notoriously poorly designed magazine poll. I get sad thinking that there are students going off to Columbia with a sense of disappointment, feeling that they received a consolation prize for not getting into Harvard or Princeton or Stanford. I don't care about many of the measures USNWR uses. I care about quality. If USNWR were ranked against other magazines based on quality, there is no way it would make even the top twenty.</p>

<p>Ok, here's a reason to choose Columbia: I think its core curriculum delivers one of the best basic liberal arts education in the country.</p>