Columbia v. Stanford

College Search & Selection
21

<p>I'm not an insider because, although I have visited both campuses, I have studied at neither of the two. However, I would like to elaborate a little on sac's comments, which I find sound, yet potentially misleading.</p>

<p>"Stanford is a great school with some brilliant students, obviously, and some excellent humanities departments."</p>

<p>The 2005 USNews ranking places Stanford 3rd, 4th, 4th, 2nd and 6th in Economics, English, History, Political Science, and Sociology, respectively, which are more or less the representitive humanities/social sciences disciplines. Columbia, on the other hand, is ranked 11th, 8th, 7th, 10th, and 11th. If Columbia is good, then Stanford is top. The only Classics ranking we have is from 1993 (NRC), which places Columbia at 10th, Stanford at 16th. Now this ranking means NOTHING, because the fate of an entire department can change in a decade. In fact, Stanford's Classics has undergone remarkable developments since then that the people in this field regard it as one of the best, yet still growing.</p>

<p>"However, it is a science/engineering powerhouse that draws many students who might otherwise go to a place like MIT, and who merely endure the required humanities requirements."</p>

<p>This, too, may be true, I think, to a certain extent. I studied at Berkeley (also better known as a "science/engineering powerhouse") as an undergrad and studied Computer Science initially. People in this major didn't give crap about humanities and I was one of them. Yet in my third year, I changed my major to History and bagan taking courses in History and Classics. I was surprised to discover a wholly different world. World-class faculty, fantastic library and research resouces, and some (not a lot) very bright and talented students who were serious about the people study. And would you find more people serious about academics if you goto Columbia? First, you will find anywhere plenty non-science students "enduring" humanities not simply to fulfill requirements but in preparation of going into law or medicine or business, for example. Second, Kant is a awfully geeky subject to see so many students getting together to read and discuss about anywhere. I would do it myself, but not many will:)</p>

<p>Finally, my concern would be that as much as you may be annoyed by science and engineering at Stanford, you will be annoyed by the students go because of New York at Columbia.</p>

22

<p>Thanks, that objective data helps a lot. Where did you get the 2005 US News figures? If online, could you post a link?</p>

<p>Much appreciated.</p>

23

<p>blukorea -- I'm glad you had a good experience at Cal! I spent a year on a fellowship at Stanford not so long ago, sat in on many classes, and had discussions with many Stanford profs about the differences between Berkeley and Stanford students. Several of them commented on the more active intellectual atmosphere at Berkeley compared to Stanford. Berkeley, as you implied, has a much wider range of students, yet it also has a tradition of students who question authority, and even question professors.:)</p>

<p>I was only attempting to address the question of "intellectual atmosphere." Obviously, Stanford students are serious about academics. </p>

<p>As I said, I can't comment on departments. The NRC rankings are due out again soon. As you said, ten year old statistics don't mean much. I think it's probably safe to say that classics at both Columbia and Stanford are good enough that an excellent student at either college will go on to an excellent graduate school program. So, the question really does come down to undergraduate experience. The core curriculum at Columbia does make for an undergraduate experience that focuses on discussing ideas from literature and philosophy, art and music. That doesn't mean, of course, that every Columbia student chooses Columbia because of the core as opposed to the fact that Columbia is in NYC. But I'd also see some advantages to being in NYC rather than Palo Alto for a classics major.</p>

<p>My advice is, again, to visit and -- if you know any students or have friends who know any students at either school -- sit in on the classes that are not necessarily pre-arranged. My son made this choice a few years back and it was sitting in on a core class at Columbia that sealed the deal, though he loved many aspects of Stanford as well. They just have a very different feel.</p>

24

<p>Browsing on the internet I found the following article: <a href="http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVIII/Issue_1/News/news3.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVIII/Issue_1/News/news3.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>It seems like this new dean, himself a scholar of ancient history, may strengthen the classics department at Stanford as well as contribute to a slightly different atmosphere. The article indicates that not many Stanford graduates go into graduate school, which I believe may be beneficial because I understand that many graduate schools have a sort of affirmative action program where they give more spaces to underrepresented schools, of which it appears Stanford is one.</p>

25

<p>fascinating. he's certainly honest. I agree with him completely about the value of the humanities and wish him the best of luck.

[quote]
Despite his general approval of Stanford?s past choices, Saller?s appointment likely represents a new direction for the School of Humanities and Sciences. Not since the 1950?s has the H&S been led by a humanist. In the decades since then, Stanford?s academic culture has grown to emphasize the hard sciences, technology, and pre-professionalism, often at the expense of the liberal arts. But the Stanford administration?s hiring of Saller ? an experienced advocate for the humanities ? demonstrates a desire to break from this development by strengthening the position of humanities on campus. For his part, Saller appears aware of the challenges that Stanford presents, particularly in terms of the ?techie? and ?fuzzy? divide.</p>

<p>During a phone interview with The Stanford Review from his Chicago office, Saller discussed the issues that he will face as the H&S dean, and his vision for addressing these issues.
?Humanities ought to play a bigger role on campus . . . And I hope to be a leader in research that cuts across academic boundaries . . . I do believe that add credibility as a humanist.?
Saller affirmed a plan to raise the profile of humanities through multi-disciplinary outreach and general campus awareness. Noting, for instance, ?the irony? that Stanford?s humanities departments are some of the most highly ranked in the country, yet tend not to be given much attention. Everything from Stanford?s American History program to the pre-1845 English literature program is ranked in the top 10 of their respective fields by US News and World Report. Yet many or most Stanford students remain unaware of the breadth and quality of such humanities departments.</p>

<p>Saller was quick to point out that this dynamic is not unique to Stanford: </p>

<p>?Humanities don?t have big, expensive labs like the sciences, this is true. But they do have big, expensive libraries. And this debate is a national phenomenon; humanists at the University of Chicago have the same problem.? </p>

<p>Even more than the standard fuzzy/techie divide, Saller acknowledged the sometimes negative impact of pre-professionalism on the spirit of a liberal education, nothing that ?the faculty has certainly seen this pre-professional attitude.? </p>

<p>Going on to cite a recent report, he pointed out that the percentage of undergraduates entering PhD programs from Stanford is negligible to nonexistent when compared to the percentage coming out of liberal arts schools: ?Reed, Pomona, Amherst and similar schools produce the most . . . University of Chicago was in the top fifteen, while Harvard was sixteenth, and Stanford did not even make the list.? </p>

<p>But Saller was clear to note that there is nothing wrong with taking a professional route in life, as long as universities are also fulfilling their duty in the liberal arts as well.</p>

<p>?I have absolutely no problem with investment bankers,? he notes, ?but Stanford should be interested in a two-pronged goal. First, it should want to attract students with a great breadth of interests. Second, to have investment bankers also go away with intellectual interests . . . And also trying to avoid this: students who regard humanities as just a nuisance to get through.?

[/quote]
</p>

26

<p>wow i'm with you... i'm stuck between columbia and stanford... : / i've been stuck for 4 years. no other schools compare...</p>

27

<p>"kyledavid80, out of curiousity, where does your knowledge of Stanford come from? Are you a student there?"</p>

<p>I'm not a student there; my knowledge comes from CollegeConfidential and other Stanford communities on the internet.</p>

<p>I don't see how anyone can say that Columbia is more intellectual for two reasons: 1) he/she probably hasn't attended both, and 2) every student I've talked to stresses the intellectual atmosphere that pervades Stanford. Really, Columbia may have a lower acceptance rate, but you have to realize: it's Stanford, and the adcoms there look for the most intellectual students. I'm not saying that Columbia wouldn't seem as intellectual; I'm guessing, reasonably, that they're the same, but I would hardly think that Columbia seems more intellectual than Stanford, or vice versa.</p>

28

<p>^The Stanford Adcomm is certainly not looking for the most intellectual students. No Adcomm is. Stanford, perhaps more than others, but from what I've seen, definitely not as much as Columbia's.</p>

<p>The relative prestige factor between the two schools is miniscule, and pretty much non-existent. As for USNews rankings, the graduate program rankings are not held in the same importance as the Undergrad rankings; the most accurate rankings on grad programs are done from within that area of interest. (ex: Business schools by Business Weekly). </p>

<p>Now to my opinion between the two: You're going to get a top notch education in Classics at either of the schools, but Columbia's campus and atmosphere are pervaded by the influence of the classics, just look at the library and the main quad.</p>

29

<p><a href="http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archiv...ws/news3.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archiv...ws/news3.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>That is incredible news for Stanford. I know Richard Saller (not in person, but in paper)--he is one of the leading Roman historians. Josiah Ober, who was recently wooed from Princeton, is another top ancient historian. Add to that Ian Morris, a very eminent Greek historian, and what you really have at Stnaford is arguably "the world's best ancient history faculty." I don't know if even Cambridge or Oxford can match that. Well, that about summarizes the agressive hires that the Stanford Classics have been making in the recent decade.</p>

30

<p>"Stanford, perhaps more than others, but from what I've seen, definitely not as much as Columbia's."</p>

<p>Er, I don't see how you can make such an assessment with such precision, unless you're an adcom at Columbia. No, it's obvious that Stanford is looking for intellectualism. Their site even says they look for "intellectual vitality."</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/applying/1_2h_appeval.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.stanford.edu/dept/uga/applying/1_2h_appeval.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>"The relative prestige factor between the two schools is miniscule, and pretty much non-existent."</p>

<p>Oh it's existent. Here at CC, everyone knows about the two. In the real world, Stanford is more well-known and thus more prestigious. Go ask the average person whether they've heard of both, and it's likely they'll say Stanford, but not Columbia (which many hear of because of the country "Colombia," and the other average uses of the word "Columbia"). "Columbia University" is less heard than Stanford. This isn't to say that Columbia isn't prestigious; it's simply that, to the general population, Stanford would have more prestige. (I don't have any statistics to back this up -- just general knowledge and experience.)</p>

31

<p>^But employers DO know.</p>

32

<p>"I don't have any statistics to back this up -- just general knowledge and experience."</p>

<p>My experience agrees with yours, although I see you are a Californian, as I am, and I have heard that on the East Coast Columbia is more prestigious than it is out west. But as far as the person on the street goes--let me emphasize that I am not talking about a college expert--Stanford has a greater prestige factor than Columbia. I suspect that if you were to ask random Americans to place all of the colleges in the country in order in terms of estimated prestige, Stanford would probably fall just after the big three Ivies, whereas Columbia, because it is not as well-known, would be signifigantly further down the list.</p>

<p>"But employers DO know."</p>

<p>As do the graduate schools I one day hope to be attending.</p>

<p>I do not plan to make my decision based solely, or even largely, on prestige, but it is certainly a factor.</p>

33

<p>Kyledavid, I think you're wrong about that...particularly on the east coast. I think that prestige between the school is a moot point. It's pretty much a toss-up.</p>

<p>At Stanford, there is a techie/fuzzy divide. And the humanities classes ARE something that a lot of the students there dread having to go through. I've heard PWR and IHUM both referred to as the bane of people's existences. I don't believe there is that same issue at Columbia, which to me, is more humanities oriented. People who go there are very well aware that they have to do the Core, a series of courses including music humanities, art humanities, western literature, political and social thought, etc classes and I think that this draws another type of student. Examine how you feel about the Core before you go any further in your deliberations...it's a huge part of the Columbia education.</p>

<p>I'm not sure where people get this laid-back thing about Stanford. In my experience, it's more of a forced "I do less work than you" attitude so that students appear chill on the surface despite the amounts of stress the student may be experiencing. Don't let the palm trees fool you, Stanford is just as intense as any other school of its caliber. You should also take into consideration the quarter system and how you feel about that. It's suitable for some but not for others.</p>

<p>As far as Columbia's personality, I'd say its very individualistic. There are tons of opportunities beckoning you, it's just a matter of taking the initiative to find them. And you can't get any more politically correct than Columbia...just look at it's protest history!</p>

<p>p.s. I love both of the schools, Columbia and Stanford were both in my top three choices...it just came down to a matter of what was right for me and Columbia fit the bill.</p>

34

<p>viva: I agree with you, but just wanted to clarify that Columbia isn't completely humanities oriented, or anywhere near that. It's engineering school is arguable the 2nd most selective in the country, and the hard sciences are great as well, it's just that, at Columbia, no matter what your foremost interest is, you still have to have some desire to study the humanities. Even it's engineering kids have to do a significant amount of the humanities core.
This is a sweeping generalization, but I'd say Columbia has 2 broad academic types:
Those who want the best education possible in the humanities, and those who want a pretty damn good scientific education without abandoning the humanities.
For me, a Columbia SEAS student, I chose Columbia over, for example Caltech and MIT because I didn't want to leave the humanities behind.</p>

35

<p>viva<em>sweet</em>love:</p>

<p>"And the humanities classes ARE something that a lot of the students there dread having to go through."</p>

<p>I don't think so. See <a href="http://fountainhoppers.livejournal.com%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://fountainhoppers.livejournal.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p>

<p>"In my experience, it's more of a forced "I do less work than you" attitude so that students appear chill on the surface despite the amounts of stress the student may be experiencing."</p>

<p>Yes, Stanford is famous for Duck Syndrome. However, I've heard many Stanford students say that at Stanford, everyone's extremely bright and intelligent, and intellectual conversations are very casual and offhanded, supposedly.</p>

<p>jmiller1026: I agree that on the East Coast, Columbia would be more well known than it is elsewhere (though I'd guess that Stanford would give it a run for its money even there). But how many people do you know who can name the eight Ivy League schools? Most will say, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford. I've heard it dozens of times. The general population has heard "Ivy League" many times, but most probably don't know that it actually refers to a sports conference and includes a total of eight colleges that are all in New England, but none from the West Coast. I didn't even know that Columbia's part of the Ivy League until I started researching colleges. </p>

<p>The point is: the mere fact that many people think Stanford's in the Ivy League (the epitome of elite education) and yet are unaware that Columbia is shows, I think, that Stanford is generally more prestigious.</p>

36

<p>I think it's been conceded that Stanford's certainly more prestigious to the general public than is Columbia, but in terms of Grad School/Employers' opinions, the difference is basically nonexistent, which is what the OP seems to be more concerned with.</p>

37

<p>viva<em>sweet</em>love was disagreeing.</p>

38

<p>Okay, I know a bunch of Stanford students personally who hate the IHUM requirements...I'm not saying all of them do, just saying that yes there are people who dread the courses and the general consensus is in some of the classes, at least the people I know, particularly engineers or other hardcore science majors, that it's something to get out of the way. I certainly understand that that may not be what the majority of students feel, just saying what I've collected from my personal experience. </p>

<p>I DO feel that Stanford certainly encourages interdepartmental studies not only with their policies but with the classes themselves...they offer some really cool stuff, I wish I could remember the names of some courses that were particularly interesting. There's a lot of integration with the sciences and other subjects.</p>

39

<p>Stanford is more prestigous to the genral public?.so what?.lol?so is Notre Dame, Flordia (National Basketball champs), USC etc., As far as prestige in classics go Columbia?s was the best from 1900-1950 and I argue a top 10 program still, probably towards the top. NYC museums and internships with various think tanks, companies, magazines, media is the best in the US?bar none. Standford, however, is by no means superior?prestige wise?in NYC vs Columbia, that comment is boardline foolish. As far as which school is more prestigous to academics (read grad school) look at my following post in response to Columbia bashing on the Penn board:</p>

<p>?Columbia University Faculty have won many Nobel prizes in the last 10 years, e. g. Horst Stormer (Physics) Richard Axel (Medicine), Edmund Phelps (Economics), Joseph Stiglitz (economics-although he just came to Columbia), Orhan Pamuk (literature-new Faculty addition in SIPA), Eric Kandel (Medicine), William Vickrey (Economics-awarded 1996 now deceased), RObert Merton (SEAS grade-Economics 1997/I know this is not fair, but it's a recent one), RObert Mundell (Economics-1999), Richard Hamilton (foundation for Poincare Proof-over 40, but would have received Fields Medal otherwise with Pearlman), wow....Columbia University is def slipping...lol. What is wrong with playing of the fact that Columbia is located in NYC (the greatest city by an objective measure in the US and maybe, just maybe the world)? Part of the college experience is gaining real-world (read internship) knowledge while in college to apply to various fields. While it is true any IVY will allow one to be competitive for a Wall-Street position, most other industries require work experience prior to the entry level job, e.g. Journalism, TV, Marketing, Fashion, etc. Perhaps all students want to go to Wall Street? Also, the Columbia area has improved (due to gentrification) by leaps and bounds. The endowment investment returns have finally started growing competitive to Columbia's peer schools, e.g. 18% last year. Renovations to labs and facilities throughout campus etc.?</p>

<p>Clearly, if you want to take initative and study with some of the best now is the time to come to Columbia. I do realize, however, that the OP wants to study Classics, but that has and will always be AMONGST the best in the world at Columbia.</p>

40

<p>I can't vouch for Stanford because I'm not familiar, but Columbia has an excellent Classics department, as does Barnard College (you'll definitely be taking classes at both schools). What makes the experience unique is that in (the Core classes) Literature Humanities you'll be reading Virgil and Homer, and in Contemporary Civilization you'll be reading other ancient writers ranging from Aristotle to Cicero to Descartes. It definitely will enrich your classics experience as, for example, you'll get exposure both to Cicero's rhetoric from the Classics and his philosophy in CC. </p>

<p>I would also say that Columbia has a very traditional background...I mean, etched in the main library are the names of Cicero, Virgil, Herodotus...etc. <a href="http://www.nassaulibrary.org/ncla/RASD_files/03.jpg%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nassaulibrary.org/ncla/RASD_files/03.jpg&lt;/a> </p>

<p>Yea... but people mainly choose Columbia because of the Core and NYC, so it really should be those two motivating factors.</p>