<p>one last thing
do you think a columbia education would pay off the extra money i would have to pay to get there?</p>
<p>basiclaly- would i make more money than berk that this extra 60-80k investment is worth it?</p>
<p>Go to the school that will give you the best education. The average person is going to be working for the next 40 years after college, and 60K of loans is nothing when you look at the big picture. If you like Columbia but you decide to go to Berkley just because it's cheaper and you end up not liking it there, then it'll cost you more than your loans.</p>
<p>Speaking as someone who went to Columbia undergrad, and who now lives in California I would say:</p>
<p>(a) If you are paying for college yourself, go to Berkeley; </p>
<p>(b) If someone else is paying for college, go to the school you liked the most, or the one located on the coast you most want to live on. </p>
<p>In terms of prestige, I would say Berkeley is more well known abroad, and in the US they are comparable. However high school students make too much of the rankings. Except for certain particular fields (such as law firms, I-banks, etc. who are very sensitive to school rankings) in the outside world most people view "good" schools such as Berkeley, Columbia, Stanford, Penn, etc. roughly the same. This is because very few people are lucky enough to go to top 25 schools such as these, and so the comparison really isn't with other top 25 schools, but with other less prestigious state schools or small unknown private schools. </p>
<p>If you do well at either school, you will have options. If you are interested in getting a JD or an MBA, Columbia is more of a feeder into top grad programs, but that might just be because there are more top flight JD and MBA programs out East(in terms of sheer numbers). </p>
<p>That said, if you are paying for school on your own, the extra debt you are taking on by going to a Columbia or other private school can be crushing, and may limit your options -- you may feel compelled to pursue a lucrative field, or start working straight away, rather than having more flexibility to try things that are not so lucrative. To me, that would have a much more immediate impact on your life than any supposed "prestige" advantage that one school may have over the other.</p>
<p>Please don't consider my posts as an attempt to convince you one way or the other. I don't know you and, as I said, part of the decision has to do with your personality, your learning style, your career goals, your family. I'm just trying to help you frame the questions. I really commend you for thinking this through and for the consideration you're showing for your parents finances!</p>
<p>
[quote]
another thing. i thought study abroad would be a big columbia plus over berk. sac mentioned something to the ctonrary. more info?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Take a look at UC's EAP site and Columbia's study abroad site. Columbia has few of its own programs. You can apply to programs run by other universities and consortiums. But you still have to pay Columbia tuition, no matter how much less the foreign university tuition might be, and you have to deal with which credits Columbia will accept on your return. You cannot substitute for the core curriculum classes at a different institution. Therefore, going abroad requires careful planning, especially for some majors with a lot of sequential requirements on top of the core curriculum. It's hard to do a whole year abroad, vs a semester, and I believe a year abroad provides a very different and wonderful experience.</p>
<p>In the age of the dinosaurs, I spent a year in England on UC's EAP, and more recently, my daughter spent a year in Italy. EAP, as I mentioned, offers some 30 or so countries. In both cases, these were not mini-UC campuses abroad, but real immersion experiences. UC provides orientation, and a support system in-country, but you enroll in foreign universities and live with local students. My daughter's year in Italy cost us less than a year at UCLA, since the dollar was high then and living expenses were low. </p>
<p>None of this matters, of course, if study abroad is not high on your list. But if it is, I'd recommend a careful comparison.</p>
<p>By the way, if you do get as far as law school Boalt Hall, last time I looked, was not doing too shabbily in the rankings. They also have some kind of visiting program with Harvard Law School. </p>
<p>*</p>
<p>
[quote]
There will be a broader range of students at Cal than at Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Isn't the student body like 45% Asian?</p>
<p>I meant a broader academic range.</p>
<p>About UCLA, I forgot that was also on your list. Unlike Berkeley, UCLA has an honors program. You might look at that if you qualify, as I believe it includes smaller classes.</p>
<p>Hey guys thanks again for the great responses, esp sac, nogardder, and jynewf</p>
<p>I think something thats creating a huge bias in my mind is that Berkeley at my school (San Jose, CA. decent public school) is considered the IVY-Stanford reject school. Its honestly a surprise that Berkeley and Columbia are considered equally prestigious (or berk even more prestigous internationally) to me.</p>
<p>sac: Did you happen to see any T-Rex?
for your daughter, how did the study abroad influence her credits and such?
What's Boalt HAll?
an interesting thing is that i always thought that paying columbia's tuition for study abraod would be a plus, because i expected it to be cheaper. I never even considered the other way around</p>
<p>nogardder: this may be oversimplifying things, but regardless of cost, which school do you think offers me teh "better education"?</p>
<p>jynewf: you said you went to columbia and you live now in Cali, did you go to grad school? if yes, in CA? I'm wondering because teh whoel networking thing, about building network where u go to grad school.</p>
<p>all others + jynewf: "Except for certain particular fields (such as law firms, I-banks, etc. who are very sensitive to school rankings) in the outside world " Would Law schools be one of those ppl who would care about Berk vs. Columbia?</p>
<p>In my opinion, Berkeley and Columbia arent equally prestigious...but I clearly seem to be in the minority. :shrug:</p>
<p>My kid went to Cal, and we live in Berkeley -- talk about close -- but he felt that he was away from home and that his experience of Berkeley was entirely different as a student. He is now in graduate school at Columbia -- he thinks the experience here in Berkeley was less stressful and equally good academically; students at Columbia routinely take loads of courses and the experience is hectic, though many love it. The core has its downsides: lots of required classes, taught by graduate students who sometimes are not specialists in the subject, and of varying competence. You could easily put together your own "core" at Cal, taught by professors. If you want access to professors, you can go to office hours and chat to your heart's content. You can find small classes at Cal and big ones at Columbia. As to lifestyle, Berkeley is a haven compared to Columbia -- good weather, relaxing surroundings, but access to world-class culture (though the museums are a lot better in NY). The schools are equally prestigious, though in California, Cal is better known and probably more prestigious to most, if that is what you are concerned by. Boalt is the law school at UC Berkeley -- it is on the same campus.</p>
<p>I would take some of the stuff here with a grain of salt. Nodoby can really claim to be 100% objective. Tbh, I don't think that you should make your decision based on what a few ppl on an internet forum say. It helps tremendously to actually visit a school. At this level, I wouldn't worry that much about prestige, it's not as though going to either of these schools would disadvantage you later in life. Personally, I visited a few schools in the UK and believe me, you get a good feel for the places! A year ago, when I couldn't decide on whether to apply to Cam or Ox, I knew right away when I visited the schools, which one was the better fit for me.
Check out TheU.com and you'll get a decent depiction what life will be like at Berk or CU. These schools are quite different and it just kinda depends on your personality.
Also, I don't really think that going to either of these schools will give you a significant advantage over the other when it comes to law schools. You'll probably end up at similar places no matter whether you choose CU over Berk, or vice versa. I for instance choose to attend a crappy public school instead of a boarding school, but I still made it into CU. Don't worry that much about little details, go with what you want!</p>
<p>Some observations from recent tours of both schools:</p>
<p>One of the things that seems quite different are the respective undergraduate student populations. Berkeley pulls 91% from California (a diverse state granted), 8% out of state and 1 % international. It has almost twice the number of undergrads as Columbia. Columbia seems to make geographic and cultural diversity one of its priorities. It would seem to me to make a difference to be living down the hall from people from all over the world and the country as opposed to people primarily from one state, no matter how varied and huge it might be. Sports/school spirit is huge at Berkeley--more of an afterthought at Columbia. The Berkeley campus is gorgeous--both in a beautiful location and pristine--with some of the feel of a private university in terms of the libraries and class dedications and gardens. The Columbia dorms are right there for undergrads and almost everyone lives in campus housing. The Berkeley dorms are mostly on the fringe and most students live off campus after the first year. Berkeley is building a bunch of beautiful new facilities that seem especially good if you are a science/engineering person. It seems like a great place for grad school (impressive resources), a great option for in-state, and a great place if you want to be in Northern CA. The schools are really different and, if you really examine what you are interested in in terms of an undergraduate experience (and ignore the prestige blah blah), the choice should really be obvious for you. Columbia is, well, Columbia. And I don't mean that in terms of reputation or anything like that--I mean it in term of how it fits. When Columbia fits you, you know it. I think that there's more room for error at Berkeley.</p>
<p>Yes, take all the advice here with a grain of salt. Visit both schools. Don't let false ideas about prestige cloud your thinking. The schools have different feels. NY is an exciting city, with restaurants and clubs open into the wee hours, lots of people on the streets, all the art and culture you could ever want; it is edgy. Berkeley is dull by comparison; it closes up at night. But it is pleasant and near lovely getaways -- if you like to mountain bike, hike, be in a natural environment, it is a far better choice. Life would also be cheaper -- it costs lots to get a hamburger in NY. And money is definitely something to consider if you are going to go to law school. These days law school tuition is steep, even at state law schools, and the aid money is not generous. Going into it with a big debt would limit your choices both about law schools (where it matters much more where you go than it does for undergraduate school) and future career. It could take years to pay off loans, and you might find yourself in a job you can't afford to leave. It could work out well if you love working in a big corporate firm, but many do not love it. Forget the beamer -- you will need the money to pay for law school!</p>
<p>
[quote]
sac: for your daughter, how did the study abroad influence her credits and such?
[/quote]
She got credit for her year abroad, and she walked with her class. I think I remember she then took one or two summer classes to finish some requirement that she hadn't attended to earlier when she'd chosen classes for a second major that she then dropped. Even if she had attended an extra year, it would have been much less than a private university. At that time, anyway, her four years of tuitition cost us what one year at Columbia costs for our son. She had money left over for grad school, and is entirely debt free.</p>
<p>The law school point is a significant one, and a reason why I am glad you are considering this carefully. We advised our son to give heavy weight to a UC if: he thought he might like to take five years to graduate; thought there was a good chance he might choose to go on to medical or law school; knew he really wanted to spend a year studying abroad. None of those applied to him, and we let him choose his East Coast adventure, though we would have been happy if he had chosen otherwise. An added factor we never considered was the cost of summers. Columbia opens up a lot of opportunities in NYC, of course, but some are unpaid or low paid internships... so, summer housing on top of everything else. Food is also expensive there.</p>
<p>Someone in my family graduated Columbia, then went to law school at Berkeley (Boalt Hall), largely because of costs. Though she got into Columbia law school, by that time she had so much debt from high school and college, that she didn't want to accumulate a lot more. She was happy to be in California, but stepping back and looking at that picture, it might have made more sense for her to do undergrad at Cal and then go to Columbia law, since law school rankings are more important career-wise than undergrad rankings. (High school students tend to equate rankings with selectivity, and certainly Columbia is more selective than Berkeley. But academics look at faculty strength, and Berkeley's is among the best in the world across the board, as measured by how many of its graduate departments are ranked number one or two. That is why students who do well at Berkeley are competitive to get into top grad programs. And, though not as selective, it still attracts a lot of excellent students because it makes so much financial sense or because they want to stay in California, which has relatively few private options compared to the Northeast. My daughter, for example, had no interest in applying anywhere but UCs.)</p>
<p>thanks again for the amazing posts. </p>
<p>sac you said that "High school students tend to equate rankings with selectivity, and certainly Columbia is more selective than Berkeley. But academics look at faculty strength, and Berkeley's is among the best in the world across the board, as measured by how many of its graduate departments are ranked number one or two. That is why students who do well at Berkeley are competitive to get into top grad programs."</p>
<p>how does UCLA rank in that perspective?</p>
<p>p.s. im really hoping columbia2002 says something</p>
<p>I think selectivity is all relative. For example, Berkeley only allows high school students to apply for admission in November (one month only) and got more than 43000 applications from more than 100 countries. As a public school funded by the state and tax payers, Berkeley has commitment to public education, especially to those students from California and it has to accept many CA students who meet their requirements (there are just too many smart CA students). The relatively high acceptance rate, however, doesn't necessarily mean that the school is not as good as other small and private programs. I wonder how many applicants it could get and what the acceptance rate would be if Berkeley took all the applications from September to January like most private schools do. You would have to analyze selectivity and individual situation carefully.</p>
<p>Stingy, </p>
<p>Probably too late, as you've likely made up your mind by now. </p>
<p>Re: your question, yes I went to grad school (law school) -- not in California but on the East Coast. I never intended to live in California, but given some the work opportunities, ended up here anyways, even though I prefer the East Coast. I don't think its hurt me that I didn't go to a California school, although I may have less of a network of friends in California than I imagine someone coming from Berkeley. </p>
<p>If you intend on working for an I-bank straight out of College, then they do care about your undergraduate education, and are very aware of the rankings since many of the I-banks are "prestige -wh-res." Most major I-banks are in New York, and given Columbia's location in New York City, this would obviously give an edge to Columbia. </p>
<p>Law firms don't care about undergrad -- they care about the law school you went to, your rank at your law school, whether you were on law review, whether you clerked, etc. In this case, Berkeley vs. Columbia for undergrad is largely irrelevant. Columbia is more of a feeder to prestigious East Coast law schools, but Columbia is arguably more competitive, so its hard to say which would give you a better chance to get into a good law school program. </p>
<p>However, Columbia Law School is notably superior and more prestigious than Boalt (Berkeley Law School). One might argue that going to Columbia as an undergrad would give you an advantage in getting into Columbia Law (I in fact was admitted to Columbia Law after I graduated from Columbia undergrad but didn't go), but I don't know if there is any truth to that.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Columbia Law School is notably superior and more prestigious than Boalt (Berkeley Law School).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>USNWR puts Columbia Law School at fifth and Boalt at eighth. Does that count as "notably"? It depends on what you want to do after law school. For those who want to practice in California, perhaps the Boalt alumni network throughout the state counts as much as those three places within the top ten.</p>
<p>
[quote]
USNWR puts Columbia Law School at fifth and Boalt at eighth. Does that count as "notably"? It depends on what you want to do after law school. For those who want to practice in California, perhaps the Boalt alumni network throughout the state counts as much as those three places within the top ten.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I believe Boalt is anywhere from high single digits to the low double digits on any given year. It's not a matter of three spots; Columbia is a tier above Boalt in both CA and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Columbia Law is def a tier above Boalt...I do see the arguement for ALumni Netwrok in Cali favoring Boalt, but I would STILL take my chances with the COlumbia Law network in Cali...the law school at COlumbia is really just below Stanford, Harvard, and Yale Law schools for clerkships, but for Corporate law etc. they are the same.</p>
<p>As an attorney who has practiced at firms in California, New York and Boston, and has been directly involved with recruiting, I again stand by my statement that Columbia Law is notably superior and more prestigious than Boalt. </p>
<p>Per one of the earlier posts, in the cloistered world of the legal profession, Stanford, Harvard and Yale are perceived as top tier; NYU, Chicago and Columbia are just a smidgeon less prestigious. All of the six schools enumerated above are considered "top 5" (and yes, I know it doesn't make sense for 6 schools to be top 5). </p>
<p>After that, there are a number of programs that could rightfully claim to be top 10-15, Boalt being one of them, but these law schools are a definite notch or two down from the "top 5". This is as much the case at California firms as it is with East Coast firms. </p>
<p>The above statements are obviously off-topic, and doesn't change my earlier post where I state that I've found that most people in the U.S. consider Berkeley undergrad roughly as "prestigious" as Columbia undergrad, and outside the U.S. Berkeley undergrad is arguably MORE reknown than Columbia undergrad, especially given the large number of international students that study at Berkeley (and this is coming from someone who went to Columbia as an undergrad). </p>
<p>Ultimately, I think stingy should ignore the rankings and the supposed "prestige" factor. Per my earlier advice, if I were personally paying for college, I would probably go to Berkeley and not take on so much debt. If not, I would go to the school I liked the most.</p>