<p>I got into Penn and Columbia! Waitlisted at Brown. I think I’m going to choose Penn, but if anyone has anything more they’d like to say, now is the time.</p>
<p>Congrats, thanks for hearing us out, and I see you posted on Brown and Penn board. As I mentioned, I understand leaving the city if you are a native new yorker. </p>
<p>If you get curious though, come up to campus sometime and meet with students and hear a bit from them. Realizing that usually when a student is set in what they want to do it is hard to dissuade them, but at the very least it might confirm something. In any case, once you select - say yes and never look back. Congrats on these great choices. Tear for Columbia because you would really love the language offerings here.</p>
<p>If you have any questions re: Penn, PM me. I laud your choice, by the way, but Columbia definitely has some perks.</p>
<p>
yeah, just one thing to say: attend both schools’ admitted-students weekend (Columbia’s is called Days on Campus) before really making up your mind. It’s the absolute best way to get a view on the schools you’ll be tying your life to and making best friends at.</p>
<p>How about Penn Vs. Brown…two very different schools! Which would be better for a bio/chem/theater/language guy?</p>
<p>We have no idea. We just say whatever it takes in order to get admitted students to attend Columbia :)</p>
<p>edit: Probably Penn, though.</p>
<p>theater is strongest at brown, and brown is also the easiest place to combine an interest in languages and theater with hard sciences (bio and chem) because of the open curriculum</p>
<p>The “open curriculum” is of no advantage when you are a person with such broad interests. Penn has a set of distribution requirements, the whole point of which is to make people who don’t naturally have broad interests go out and discover more. You’ll hit most, if not all of the distribution requirements automatically in the course of pursuing all your interests.</p>
<p>The only really “restrictive” curriculum is Columbia’s Core, but frankly I think it’s the right idea and I wish every college made their students do it.</p>
<p>Hey alvie,
I second what Denzera said- go to Days on Campus! The programs are extremely helpful in deciding between different places. Also, if you’re a linguistics major, you should really consider Columbia. Columbia has languages that are only offered at a handful of schools in the U.S. I’m currently taking Finnish, which is linguistically incredible, and there are only two other people in my class. My professor is amazing, and it’s one of the best classes I’ve taken here. So I would highly recommend reconsidering and coming to Days on Campus.</p>
<p>There was a good article in the Columbia Spectator (more specifically, in their “The Eye” supplement) on how Days on Campus bears little resemblance to on-campus life at Columbia as it actually exists (as in “hey, where’d the ‘campus community’ community go? Oh, right, the rest of Manhattan)”</p>
<p>I didn’t write it, Columbia students did. So by all means go to Days on Campus, but take it with a grain of salt.</p>
<p>ilove - the student who wrote that article ended up transferring.</p>
<p>a comment on days on campus - the reason to go is because it lets you meet future students and get a sense of whether or not you can live there or not, whether the vibe of the city, of the neighborhood and the other students feels good. it is entirely suspect and in fact down right absurd for someone to expect that life for 4 years would be the mirror of one or two nights on campus. </p>
<p>columbia, as has been said, is not a place for everyone. and the place it is least for are ogres. the few students that i have known who have transferred or were miserable were students that refused to give anyone or anything a fair shake. they always complained and never felt like compromising for the sake of moving on. you have to be open minded and flexible while you are at columbia, always willing to try something new, or put yourself out there to really take the most of it - whether it is at a club, with a professor or in meeting new friends. something that has been reiterated on here and elsewhere. </p>
<p>i can say with certainty that my senior year was a lot more fun than Days on Campus even though I remember less of it with specificity though i think the Heights was involved. what days on campus taught me was that columbia is at once part of the city and not, that it has its own campus environment and students hang out late at night by the library talking about various academic topics, and will then go home and dress up to go out downtown. it was about doing community work in the local area and then coming back to campus to dance at a culture show. it was a pretty awesome shift and movement. gave me the idea that columbia was about doing everything and anything and having a full on experience. something that going to columbia not only confirmed, but impressed me with the breadth of opportunities.</p>
<p>i completely disagree that an open curriculum is “of no advantage” for someone with broad interests. there is a big difference between taking a set of required distribution requirements and CHOOSING to pursue several disparate subjects at a high level.</p>
<p>at penn it is possible to take courses in theater and chemistry.</p>
<p>at brown it is possible to concentrate (major) in both and develop true expertise in both, because you are not nailed down to distributions. you can dial up the depth or breadth as you choose – that’s the whole point. they assume that if you have what it takes to get into brown, you have the majority to forge your own path.</p>
<p>thanks for the reply dcircle. when i read my own words, debating between great schools, it sounds absurd. but the thing is, it is because penn and brown are both great that choosing becomes a challenge. applying deeply due to the competitive nature of this process was a necessity. i could not have predicted what schools would agreed to allow me to attend. and, seeing as how the novelist in the heavens has a sence of humor, my top choice isn’t in the running. so i am in the lucky position of trying to sort through these lofty and fantastic programs now. if i may continue to try the patience of the minds in this thread, what are the thoughts of penn vs brown vs dartmouth vs (gulp) stanford keeping in mind that science is what i intend to do with my life, but adoring theater and wishing to pursue the multi-lingual thing. thanks to all for your tolerance.</p>
<p>the problem with ‘choosing’ is that the ideal of that education experience is entirely based on the subject area of study and not on what a college education is supposed to do (provide a space for students to affirm their own educational interests, expand their understanding of advanced subject matter, and be able to understand the broad connections between various concepts and ideas). when columbia students rail against brown it is because we believe that you can take as many courses as you want in theatre and chemistry and be ill-equipped to see the relationships between the two. </p>
<p>at columbia because of its curriculum it imbues a quality within a student of exploring other departments and finding commonalities between study across disciplines. neither chemistry nor theatre are life skills; traits that can be applied across disciplines and situations, that make you a more mature and educated individual. whereas the open curriculum as concept is appealing and liberating for your avg. 18 year old, i do not think there is a more personally revealing and therefore satisfying educational experience than columbia’s version of the core (particularly in concert with the experiences of the city). and if you fear that my bias may be dialed up a bit too high, i have done a fair amount of research on the topic of higher education and conclude it both with bias and research</p>
<p>and finally drcircle. expertise? are you serious? you need a few more years than 4 at the ugrad level to gain expertise. i think it is awfully pretentious to jump out of taking many courses in theatre and chemistry brings you sufficient mastery of a subject even if you could take every course in the chem catalogue. that is why students are required to attain advanced degrees or professional experience because no matter how much you think you know, there is always more in a subject you can grasp. </p>
<p>so the ultimate question is - if you are to spend 200k for an education, what would you prefer - to have a broadbased educational experience that improves the way you think about problems and encourages an intellectual ethic (regardless of initial personal background or social composure), or something you will replicate in grad school or have to be taught how to really do it in the work world?</p>
<p>^ Well said, admissionsgeek! I will be referring back to this next time i make a defense of the Core and requirements in general.</p>
<p>Penn>Columbia</p>
<p>Your responce was thoughtful and measured, admissionsgeek, and much appreciated. Penn or perhaps Stanford might seem, then, to bridge the gap you discuss. Columbia is not on the list, primarily because it was not a school this writer applied to because of its physical situation and lack of a campus. In anycase, one of the concerns with regard to say, Penn, is that it feels as if I will be launched into a graduate program as a frosh, so focused is the overarching science program, i.e. Vagelos. The concern here is a loss of the broader educational view including languages, philosophy, literature, as well as the hefty entree of chemistry, physics, biology. As a dedicated science/math guy, how quirky is it that I am all about the book talk, even when it strays from quarks. </p>
<p>So having said this, what say you thinkers out there? Stanford (far away for this Northeast guy, but hella cool) or Penn?</p>
<p>^Have you spent any meaningful time at both Penn and Stanford? The two four-year experiences are COMPLETELY different. One is not better than the other; just different. Too many young folks (I’m a dad of two kids, one a sophomore at an elite LAC, one Columbia-bound in the fall) ignore what the future four years will actually be like. Visit them both, and go with your gut. Given that they are both excellent schools, ignore everything else! (While your at it, picture yourself at Columbia and your other options for the next four years.)</p>
<p>Vagelos and the other interdisciplinary dual degree programs at Penn are very intense in their own discipline. That being said, you still do get to take classes beyond your field of study. My friend in M&T had time to take classes in subjects as far-removed from management and technology as Zen Buddhism. He also had time to run his own startup company (a real, legal entity with hired employees working with him) and maintain a blog that showed he could comment intelligently on matters well beyond M&T.</p>
<p>I think you could find a great niche at Penn. Heck the last alumni magazine had a cover story on some funky collaboration between molecular biologists and architecture students… Also check out Philomathean Society (the <em>older</em> sister of Columbia’s Philolexian Society). So much nerd-fun.</p>
<p>This should be transplanted to the Penn thread.</p>