Columbia vs. Harvard

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
21

<p>Thanks tymanx2. Really the summer funding is one of the big things swinging this in Columbia’s favor. That’s not to say Harvard doesn’t have money enough to fund a lot of undergraduate research things and stuff like that, but the special consideration is nice.</p>

<p>I love both schools. So to see people bashing either of them is like… surprisingly annoying for me. Can we just focus on the positives instead of “X is better than Y because Y is crapblahnegative” ? </p>

<p>That being said, the rest of NYC has a lot of great things to offer, as does the rest of Boston. I’m mostly focused on the immediate neighborhood because that’s where I would be spending the majority of my 3 or 4 years. I visited on an absolutely gorgeous day (my host student said it was the first nice day in a while actually) I just happened to be on the Amsterdam Ave side since the admissions building is on that side, so once we left campus, we happened to be on that side of the street, and started our excursion from there.</p>

<p>I really don’t know how I feel about the Core. Everyone says they ended up loving it, but at my high school, we have something extremely similar and it frustrates me with its rigidity and lack of options when I want to study a bajillion other things. </p>

<p>That being said, I just got off the phone with a current Columbia student, and the fact that you CAN triple major, that it’s at least an option whereas at Harvard the comparable major/minor system is a bit more strict is also something to consider.</p>

<p>In terms of cost, I don’t get any financial aid either way. Columbia is $5000 more a year, and cost of living in NYC is higher than that in Cambridge/Boston, but that summer grant thing is still really tempting. At Harvard though, at least if I get lucky, I have the chance to graduate in 3 years and cut out an extra 57,000 that way, which I know isn’t the best way to cut costs, but you must admit it is an option at the least. Since after this, I’m looking at Med/Grad school which is another large debt.</p>

<p>Curriculum-wise, I don’t like Columbia’s neuro program as much as Harvard’s, but right now Harvard’s is… confusing because of their joint concentration policy. I wish I could talk with an adviser because I don’t even know if I’ll be able to study exactly what I want. The closest I’ve found to “fudging it” is a joint concentration in East Asian Studies and History & Science with a Mind, Brain, and Behavior track if I want both. Which is… I have no idea. It feels like a mess right now because I haven’t spoken with anyone who understands it. But with Columbia’s neuro program, the major at least doesn’t feel as strong to me as Harvard’s. Which I gotta give 'em credit, it seems like they’re trying to beef up but right now, 'tis what 'tis. </p>

<p>Facility-wise, I liked Harvard’s better. Apparently the floor in JJ I stayed in overnight had notoriously bad bathrooms, but overall, Columbia had a pretty exterior but the interior wasn’t what I had hoped. Whereas Harvard seemed to have its stuff together more.</p>

<p>Ah long post is long. But anyways, that’s where I am in this college decision see-saw. Like I said, a lot is going to ride on this Harvard visit, probably.</p>

22

<p>The dorms get a lot lot better. I’m in a converted apartment building this year (sophomore) and it has hardwood floors, a kitchen, and a few bathrooms shared by 8-9 people. So cool. Honestly, I don’t get downtown too often, but it’s nice to have the option. My favorite part about Columbia is the food around campus–NYC has a whole different level of quality. </p>

<p>From what it sounds like, you’re leaning toward the academics of Harvard, which is understandable. I will echo other people in saying our East Asian program is quite good, and the NYC museums are top notch. The core is more flexible than it gets credit for–you’ll probably be annoyed by Frontiers of Science, but you will likely enjoy LitHum, Contemporary Civ, and perhaps even University Writing (I did). In addition, you can fulfill your Global Core and Science Requirements with classes from your major. Columbia really encourages exploring–you don’t declare in the College until second semester sophomore year. I would consider the Core a benefit–it sounds rigid, but it really just serves as a guide.</p>

<p>Finally, I really want to emphasize how the scholars funding works. It is unlike most programs in the Ivy league–literally, if your idea has an academic credence to it whatsoever, you will be funded. I know plenty of people who have gotten 6-8 thousand dollars to fly to some obscure country to complete an independent study. As I said, you could go to Japan to complete a survey of historical sites or really anything. Some of the projects are quite bizarre–I remember one kid went to some South American country to work with a start up that sold low-cost glasses in small villages. From what I’ve read and heard, medical schools are looking more for these sort of experiences and education tracks than ever before–Columbia certainly espouses the nontraditional college experience. Anyway, good luck–I visited Harvard back in the day and loved how it looked and felt, but honestly I’m glad I wasn’t admitted. It’s not my style at all, much too of a traditional college experience. Good luck!</p>

23

<p>OP, if you think you’d prefer Harvard Square/Cambridge to New York, you’re not really into the Core, you want to crew, and you want to do pre-med, then go to Harvard. It’s clearly the better fit. I love Columbia, but it doesn’t sound like it’s the best fit for you. The John Jay Scholar distinction is nice, but I’m sure you’ll be able to get summer funding at Harvard. We do have a crew team (and I have friends on it), but crew is clearly less of a big deal at Columbia than it is at Harvard. </p>

<p>It sounds to me like you want more or a traditional college experience. That’s not what I (or, I suspect, most of the Columbia students posting on this thread) wanted, but it’s totally legitimate if it’s what you want. And Harvard will give you that traditional college feel to a much greater degree than Columbia will.</p>

<p>Whatever you end up choosing, though, pay no attention to JamieBrown. He’s just one of the anti-Columbia demagogic trolls on these boards.</p>

24

<p>I never really was into the traditional college experience (For a looooong time I wanted either BU or NYU simply because they had non-traditional, but then I got accepted at CC and H) but when you break it down that way, it does make more sense. Columbia was, for most of my junior/beginning of my senior year, my number 1 choice. And when I was applying, literally everything lined up perfectly from the best interview ever to the best overnight campus visit ever. When I was applying to Harvard, everything felt like it went totally wrong, so I was really surprised I got in, especially on the early action round of decisions. I’ll still mull over it for a bit, go to their campus things and meet other students. we’ll see.</p>

<p>but honestly pwoods, you kind of slapped everything into perspective for me with your post, and it didn’t even take you 5 paragraphs haha. I was in so much turmoil about this, but as weird as it sounds I feel calm now. pfft thanks. p: wow that was a weird way to explain my feels.</p>

25

<p>Go to Columbia. There you will enjoy going to school with part time 30 somethings who obtained 3.0 gpa’s and 1800 SAT’s in high school and which receive the same Columbia University undergraduate degree as the other students and which take EXACTLY the same courses with the same professors as the other undergraduates and which are a whole 25% of columbia’s undergraduate class.</p>

<p>Why does Columbia fail to include the stats, including the 33% acceptance rate of these undergraduate students?</p>

<p>Hey, its Columbia a and its non-transparent ways.</p>

26

<p>JamieBrown, I went to Columbia and did indeed take many a class with General Studies students, who tended not only to be much more interesting than the College students, who were nonetheless quite interesting, but to do at least as well academically, despite the lower scores. If you have a very narrow, conventional view of college, Columbia isn’t the place for you.</p>

27

<p>^^^dwharris, I am glad that you enjoyed your time studying next to the General Studies students at Columbia, which are part of the Columbia University undergraduate system.</p>

<p>Any thoughts on why Columbia, when reporting to outside agencies, fails to include the stats of these students, which are a full 25% of the Columbia University undergraduate school and attend the same classes with the same professors and receive the same Columbia University degree?</p>

28

<p>Columbia doesn’t hide anything. Go to its website under admissions and you are routed directly to the School of General Studies. It is not like General Studies is a secret back door entity. Chill out.</p>

<p>Its post baccalaureate medical program produced Presidential candidate Howard Dean among other notables.</p>

29

<p><a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/content/statistics-facts.html[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/content/statistics-facts.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>You’re welcome</p>

30

<p>Lol jamie take a chill pill. Do your homework first before you start trashing on any school…</p>

31

<p>JamieBrown, as you undoubtedly know, there are four undergraduate schools at Columbia: the College, Engineering, Barnard, and General Studies. They can, to some extent, even to a large extent, take courses together. But that doesn’t mean they receive the same degree or face the same admissions standards (for ‘better’ or ‘worse’); or, for that matter, should. Now, one difference between the College and General Studies, if I recall correctly, is that you can’t apply to General Studies until you’re 21, so the College has every right to exclude General Studies from its admission statistics – as it does, for different reasons, Barnard. Second, if I recall correctly again, General Studies students cannot take Core classes with Columbia students, and remember that the Core is, well, the core of the College experience. The Engineering school admits a higher percentage of students than the College, but in fact has higher SAT scores. Barnard is now the most selective women’s college in the United States. But to me, apart from all of these distinctions and arguments about admissions and statistics, the real point is that Columbia is a New York City school, serving the needs of the city as well as of the country and world, and its students, in all senses, tend to reflect that broadness and diversity. As I well learned at Columbia, thanks in large part to General Studies, not everyone who has imperfect SAT, grades, and a checkered past is a poor or worthless student, and conversely, not everyone who had great SATs, stellar grades, and did everything right from day one is a good or interesting student (especially in the humanities, where perspective really enlivens and enlightens conversation). Columbia really is, in my experience, a school that defies and destroys stereotypes and sacred cows. You can go in with one set of assumptions and leave with quite another. Some people like that sort of thing; others do not. There’s no arguing with tastes and preferences. But if you’re extremely worried about having a controlled, conventional, narrow, and ‘undisturbing’ educational experience – if you don’t want to be ‘polluted’ and ‘diluted’ by students unlike you – then think twice about a place like Columbia.</p>

32

<p>Lol @ jamiebrown deleting own faulty post. Gj.</p>

33

<p>I’d put it this way regarding the College and GS. Let’s say you’re an 18-year-old who wants to go to Columbia and your scores and grades aren’t up to snuff. Are you willing to postpone college for three years to try to get in to GS? Most people aren’t, and hence the College may legitimately exclude GS from its admission statistics. (The average age at GS is 29, suggesting the students there go or return to college for reasons other than to avoid rigorous admissions requirements at age 18.) Honestly, there are no back doors to a Columbia College or Columbia Engineering School education.</p>

34

<p>@dwharris: Get your facts right! You don’t need to be 21 for GS. You just need to have been out of school for more than a year. That’s it!</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.gs.columbia.edu/transfers-within-columbia[/url]”>http://www.gs.columbia.edu/transfers-within-columbia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>

</p>

<p>With 2000 students in GS, and 4000 in CC, Columbia is outright lying by not including GS in the admissions tally.</p>

35

<p>Guys, JamieBrown is japanoko from last year. I have no doubt he’s affiliated with Princeton undergraduate admissions (as some CC members from various admissions offices are). He is a ■■■■■, but what he has posted is not untrue. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I was enrolled at Columbia from May to June 2011 before realizing that I didn’t want the experience outlined above.</p>

36

<p>There’s a huge problem with the number of cash cow programs that Columbia runs meant to generate quick revenue. My friend in the UK commented how worthless a Masters degree in the US is. I replied that it’s due to the number of random Masters programs that borrow the university name but do little to screen for intelligent candidates or provide a worthwhile education. Financial services companies do not hire from most Masters programs in the US, because the admissions committees does not perform it’s function as a screening mechanism for talent.</p>

<p>Columbia has been using this method to generate tuition dollars with the GS and 3-2 combined plan programs. These programs have little-to-no financial aid and do not provide guaranteed housing for their years at Columbia. Without the need to provide grants or housing, the only limit on how much these programs can expand is the classroom space available, which incidentally has been maxed out.</p>

<p>Columbia has been trading its undergraduate reputation for quick cash, something that comparable institutions have not been willing or foolhardy enough to do, at least to the extent that Columbia has. Sure, Yale has its program but it accepts 10-15 students each year, whereas Columbia accepts 100 Combined Students along with 1,000 GS students.</p>

<p>The debate becomes framed as one of whether potential can be truly measured by GPA, SAT scores, or other quantitative indicators. True, the financial services industry is an example of a line of work where raw intelligence does not necessarily lead to success. The bar to break in for most banks is much higher than is required to do the job. However, it’s a bit asinine to debate whether quantitative indicators are a true indicator for success in college. These are the best measures that anyone can work off of and are they highly correlated with academic success. I’m sure that the admissions committee even has a chart whereby they can predict a freshman’s GPA by imputing SAT score and HS GPA. </p>

<p>Regardless, there’s nothing like good old hard work to get through university, something that an 18 year old may be lacking but an 28 year old veteran has in abundance. However, does this mean that we shouldn’t start accepting all students who’ve shown tremendous commitment in HS, who have perfect attendance, played an instrument for 10 years, and ran track for all 4 years in HS? </p>

<p>Let’s not try to find excuses and just realize that GS and Combined Plan are easy money, hence the explosive growth of these programs in the last 2-3 years.</p>

37

<p>^ I wish someone could explain to me why Columbia is so hell-bent on just throwing its undergrad reputation away. It surely can’t be for $ alone. Dartmouth, Duke, Princeton, Amherst, etc etc all do extremely well in endowments without having random, cash-cow programs.</p>

38

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d say its because all those schools probably have a large amount of alumni who are more than happy to make donations. I mean if you go to a school where you are unhappy for 4 years, how likely is it that you are going to make a donation after you graduate?</p>

39

<p>Columbia is second for undergraduate neuroscience (and Harvard is NOT #1. Whoever mentioned that earlier definitely needs to do further research). The neuroscience club has noble peace prize winners come speak for them and one of the professors is EXTREMELY accomplished in the field (he’s the one who explained the connection between neurons and dreams!) I’m also majoring in neuroscience, and Columbia is and has been my dream school. Can’t go wrong with Harvard, though.</p>

40

<p>Most universities don’t have undergrad neuroscience; it’s considered to be more of a graduate discipline, and as such most top universities regard it as they do business school. Neuroscience is a very broad field with many interdisciplinary bents, so it really depends on what you’re interested in - biological/molecular? Computational? Cognitive? Linguistic? Engineering? The diversity of the field is partly why it’s difficult to put together an undergrad program in it. AFAIK Harvard is definitely ahead of Columbia in neuroscience, but that’s mostly in its medical school, which for undergrads isn’t ideal since it’s a few miles away. But even then, certain subfields of neuroscience are definitely strong at Harvard or Columbia, so you might look at the undergrad offerings at each and get an idea of which is more up your alley.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’ll add that Stanford and Harvard, among others, are guilty of this as well with some their master’s programs. Harvard also has the extension school, which is even more of a cop-out program than GS (though not as large).</p>