Columbia vs. Harvard

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
41

<p>@tyrmanx</p>

<p>You mentioned “In addition, you can fulfill your Global Core and Science Requirements with classes from your major.” - Can you please explain how it works? Upon browsing, these are the possible global core courses and they dont seem to pertain to any specific major. </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.college.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/Global%20Core%20Courses%2011-12.pdf[/url]”>http://www.college.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/Global%20Core%20Courses%2011-12.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>How do you all rate Columbia for Physics Majors? How good is their Physics dept - how is the reputation overall?</p>

42

<p>Fair enough; I stand corrected on the age requirement (which may have been in place when I was there).</p>

<p>But you need to have at least a year off and the average age is 29 ([Program</a> Overview | General Studies](<a href=“http://www.gs.columbia.edu/program-overview]Program”>Statistics and Facts | School of General Studies)). This sufficiently distinguishes GS from the College for the College to disregard GS numbers in its statistics. I’d be interested to see, if it could be seen, the number of 18-year-olds who wait a year to apply to Columbia and try to ‘sneak in’ through GS. I’m sure the number is miniscule, and I’m equally sure GS admissions can ferret these students out.</p>

<p>Furthermore, the GS students apparently do have the highest GPA of all the undergraduate students ([Columbia</a> University School of General Studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_University_School_of_General_Studies]Columbia”>Columbia University School of General Studies - Wikipedia)). So whatever Columbia’s formula for assessing these students, it seems to be working.</p>

43

<p>@abscalc</p>

<p>For example, if you’re a biology major, you fulfill your science requirement by taking biology courses. If you’re a Middle Eastern Studies major, and you need to take Islam (which I took for my Global Core), that fulfills both a major and global core requirement. These are very specific examples, and generally you’ll find a lot more combinations that work this way. Also, you can apply for classes to fulfill your global core requirement. So long as the class isn’t focused on European (which sometimes includes Russia for some reason) or American issues, there is a good chance you can apply for Global Core eligibility and receive it. </p>

<p>The point I was tying to get across is that the Core isn’t as rigid as it might seem–University Writing, Literary Humanities (2 semesters), Contemporary Civilization (2 semesters) and Frontiers of Science are the only hard requirements that you won’t be able to tailor. The other aspects of the Core give you ample opportunity to explore.</p>

44

<p>Beard tax, don’t underestimate the number of “cash cow” programs at universities other than Columbia. When I was a graduate student at Harvard, where I later taught, I was somewhat surprised by the number of curricular revenue-generators there were, such as the Extension School, various summer certificate programs and, sorry to say, but the Harvard School of Education’s Master degree programs. They allow persons to pay a very hefty price tag for the privilege of saying they, either, got a Harvard degree (Ext., and Ed School), or studied at Harvard (various certificate programs). Anything with a Harvard name is money in the bank for the university. I was somewhat appalled as the rigor, esp,. for the Ed. School Masters programs, was non-existent. To be fair to Extension School students, some of them did do stellar academic work, got an Extension School “BA” (forget the exact degree), and leveraged their own talents into Harvard Ph.D. programs and, as I snidely thought, “real” degrees. In my own experience, no one “sells” its name for more gobs of cash than does Harvard. And people buy the right to display that name, even if a truly serious education doesn’t come with the sale. There is a real cynicism on Harvard’s part that the public will buy WHATEVER access to the university that Harvard sells, no matter how tenuous the connection or shoddy the educational “product” being marketed.</p>

<p>Re: Columbia School of General Studies. As a social equalitarian, I see GS in somewhat of a different light. Whereas all the folks referred to above paid thousands of dollars for the privilege of saying they went to Harvard, their programs were in many ways academically and intellectually second-rate; certainly those programs were separated from the academic mainstream of Harvard. That was always the stereotype those students faced. Columbia, on the other hand, allows smart people with vastly different life experiences (many older, or minority and international students) to play on the same field as Columbia College students and makes of them the same intellectual and largely the same curricular demands. Columbia is telling these folks: the high quality of our education will not be withheld from you just because your path and/or circumstances are non-traditional. Many of these students do extraordinarily well, and their access to your curriculum in no ways devalues your status as a “real” Ivy League Columbia college student. That Columbia grants a certain amount of intellectual legitimacy to these students speaks well of Columbia, which does not segregate them into a cash cow adjunct with easy classes, and under-qualified teaching personnel just to get money out of them. They work! And they do many wonderful things with the rigorous education they receive. For many of them also, dorm access is meaningless, given their circumstances as parents, or job holders…The integrity of the Columbia name is not, in other words, undermined by the existence of GS. Columbia may shill, but the persons who pay more than get their money’s worth in curricular rigor, and in pride of academic achiievement when all is said and done. As I say, I am a social equalitarian, and I see GS as an attempt to level the intellectual playing field. In integrity, intention, requirements, and results (social and intellectual), it is head and shoulders above the kind of cash cow programs at Harvard that I described above.</p>

45

<p>Phantasmagoric, Harvard Extension is indeed a cop-out. It is also MUCH larger than Columbia General Studies. It is also its own, separate entity, completely segregated from Harvard College and with no real admissions standards to speak of. It is almost, but not quite, open enrollment. This is in complete contrast to Columbia’s GS, where there are reasonably stringent admissions standards. It is also integrated into Columbia, as GS students take courses in Columbia proper. Harvard Extension is definitely a back-door, cop-out program. As a Harvard Extension student you will be allowed on campus, but you WILL have to knock on Harvard’s back door, or the “servant’s entrance.” You will be separate at Harvard Extension. You WILL NOT be equal. And you will pay dearly for the privilege of saying “I went to Harvard,” though you really DID NOT. You will pay for the dubious privilege of being at, but not of, Harvard! At GS, by contrast, you will work hard for the privilege of taking Columbia’s rigorous courses, and earn by dint of hard work the satisfaction of actual academic achievement if you succeed in your coursework.</p>

<p>All of these top tier schools have “cash cows.” I love Harvard, but no school is more shameless in picking the pockets of the desperate who want a piece of paper affirming their attendance there, at any cost, and without much significant educational benefit. That is, UNLESS one is extraordinarily talented and tenacious, anyway, in which case all Extension did was provide an opportunity that they would have ultimately seized successfully no matter where they were. In short, Columbia is not unique in having “cash cows.” But all “cash cows” are not created equal.</p>

46

<p>Apparently, the Harvard Extension School enrolls approximately 500-600 students. General Studies on the other hand currently enrolls 2,038 undergraduates (<a href=“Columbia OPIR”>Columbia OPIR).</p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that Harvard Extension School restricts what students in that school can do. Furthermore, the program is separated enough from the primary undergraduate body that its existence does not jeopardize the reputation and aura of selectivity associated with Harvard College. </p>

<p>However, Columbia both fails to restrict the size and the scope of General Studies. Employers and graduate schools are likely unaware of the differences between GS, Combined Plan, 3-2, Barnard, SEAS, and CC, much the same way that they are about Harvard’s Extension School. Even the name “Extension School” connotes that the program is supplemental in nature, not really meant to replace an undergraduate degree.</p>

<p>Harvard may be monetizing its reputation through cash-cow programs, but it is still protecting the bulk of its undergraduates from the reputational debasement that results from accepting a large percentage of students from primarily non-academic backgrounds. Business schools also accept students from military backgrounds, but these institutions are cognizant that employers are watching and recruit students with 90 percentile GMAT scores and good undergraduate GPA’s. </p>

<p>Columbia, through its labyrinth of departments and administrations, has ultimately devalued what elite universities are supposed to do: select and screen the undergraduates with the most academic firepower and potential. Finally, if Columbia University is so proud of GS, why not include those students into the admissions statistics for SEAS and CC? Is it because that doing so would jeopardize the University’s reputation and prestige? </p>

<p>While I also believe in the egalitarian aspects of GS, I cannot in good faith, as an undergraduate, promote the expansion of this program. A Northwestern University Kellog Business School research paper on elite institutions cited the fact that most of the top schools in the US are mere selection mechanisms, signals to graduate schools and employers that they’ve found the cream of the crop. Even with rampant grade inflation, Yale and Harvard are still able to place their graduates, many of whom probably did less work than their peers at comparable institutions, into top-tier Investment Banking jobs as well as Law schools. The fact remains that the toughest part of attending an elite institution is gaining an acceptance letter. Once a “servant’s entrance” or “back door” is instituted, it’s up to the school to ensure that it does not kill the goose that lays the golden egg, i.e. the aura of selectivity and the reputation which draw students to the institution in the first place.</p>

47

<p>“However, Columbia both fails to restrict the size and the scope of General Studies.”</p>

<p>I think that’s the point of General Studies. It’s a point of pride for Columbia. I suppose some may see it as a disadvantage, but it’s certainly seen as a strength by those familiar with the program. But again, you may disagree. Morality is relative. </p>

<p>Many people support charity because they support helping others, but a good number of people oppose it because they believe it breeds dependency and weakens society by allowing the weak to survive. Personally, I find such views abhorrent, just as I find abhorrent the suggestion that it is not only justified but recommended to treat non-traditional students as pariahs in order to protect some mythical aura of selectivity and prestige. </p>

<p>I’m not trying to rhetorically equate your views with social Darwinism or hyperbolically suggest that you support killing the poor, which would be absurd. But I honestly see both your argument and the argument against charity as incredibly selfish and despicable social injustices.</p>

48

<p>Columbia not only has General Studies but it also has an Extension School of its own – called the School of Continuing Studies, so that’s perhaps a total of 3000 undergraduates not admitted by its “Office of Undergraduate Admissions”.</p>

49

<p>pwoods, are you framing General Studies now as charity? I’m not saying we treat them as pariahs, merely to distinguish and bring transparency to the issue. In the absence of true transparency regarding the different undergraduate schools, there exists a situation where employers and graduate schools fail to distinguish between the various schools and majors within this university. </p>

<p>It’s akin to the point that GPA’s in Columbia College don’t mean very much to financial services employers and don’t serve as a guidepost for resume selection. Because the average is not disclosed, employers screening resumes look at extraneous factors to influence their decision, which makes excellent A/A- performance in your difficult statistics classes almost laughably irrelevant. </p>

<p>First, I implore you to ask yourself what the value of Columbia University is, say over that of your state college. The access to resources and faculty, for one, is much better at the former than the latter, due in part to the number of students relative to the amount of resources, a condition that is strained with the admission of more non-traditional students. Also, a brand name university provides an education that should, in theory, be superior to other universities. I’ll say that my experience in engineering has left me woefully underwhelmed. Furthermore, the students that you live and study with should theoretically influence your outlook on life.</p>

<p>Beyond these tangible positives, ask yourself what else a university provides? Do you want to find a job, go to graduate school, or go off to a Teach for America or Peace Corps program? In each of these cases, I guarantee that the reputation of the university has played a role in determining success and failure. Please read Lauren Riviera’s research paper on the topic, from an employer’s perspective that can easily be generalized to what an admissions office for graduate school looks for [ScienceDirect.com</a> - Research in Social Stratification and Mobility - Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers? use of educational credentials](<a href=“http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027656241000065X]ScienceDirect.com”>Ivies, extracurriculars, and exclusion: Elite employers’ use of educational credentials - ScienceDirect)</p>

<p>I’m completely fine with the idea of extending an Ivy League education to those individuals willing and able to handle it. However, we all know that the number of students who can handle an Ivy League education far outnumbers the number of students who actually get in. As the admissions committee always says, “This year’s applicant pool has been the most competitive yet…while we feel that the majority of students would be able to succeed at Columbia/Harvard/Yale, we are limited by the number of spots available.” </p>

<p>General Studies is great, and I’ve met a number of successful and capable students. I’d just wish that with such “unique” admissions standards, (<strong>cough</strong> can fork over tuition dollars <strong>cough</strong>) the university or at least the career center would make a point of distinguishing between the different schools. At this juncture, General Studies, Combined Plan, and even Barnard have varying degrees of admission standards yet are all aggregated into the pool of Columbia undergrads, a situation I find woefully inadequate for students trying to distinguish themselves for competitive positions.</p>

<p>However, I understand that you probably have different views on education. I don’t disagree with you, but at the same time, why Columbia GS for these non-traditional students? Why not someplace cheaper or why not a Masters program at Columbia?</p>

50

<p>pwoods, by the way, apologies for sounding so irritated at you (I’m not!). It’s just a point that I feel that the administration tends to gloss over, especially for the relationship between Barnard and Columbia. I’m in no way blaming the students, it’s an administrative matter that has yet to be defined more clearly. The presence of non-CC/SEAS students improves environment on a day-to-day base. I just feel that it disadvantages CC/SEAS students after graduation (also GS isn’t exactly the best deal for students who don’t receive outside scholarships).</p>

51

<p>Beard tax, Harvard Extension may have a limit on the number of admits to its undergraduate “degree” program (ahem!), but it also functions as a community college with open access, especially for Harvard employees. There are MANY MORE taking Extension School classes at any time than the 500-600 you have posited. Again, that number may reflect enrollment in its undergraduate “degree” program, as opposed to its entire student body. The problem with Extension, despite the laudable opportunities that it offers to those continuing or supplementing their educations one class at a time, is that it CANNOT BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY for ANYONE as an “undergraduate program.” It is a rip off for any traditionally college-aged student seeking an undergraduate education. It is not, in ANY SENSE OF THE WORD, a Harvard education. Therefore, my problem is with Harvard for duping the gullible and the desperate, who would be better served getting legitimate undergraduate degrees at real colleges in the area (such as Northeastern). NO ONE is fooled by an undergraduate degree from Harvard Extension. But for those admitted to Columbia’s GS, there is a legitimate educational opportunity presented, which some of those admitted students master, and at which some excel, to their great credit.</p>

<p>I believe you are overstating the inability of corporations and graduate schools to distinguish the difference between a Columbia College graduate and a graduate of General Studies; that you are underestimating their capacities for discernment. And that seems to be the major issue for you: that by proximity to these seeming “lesser intellects,” your ultimate achievement – as an admit and as a graduate – is devalued.</p>

<p>Outside of the “Columbia bubble,” which is my own vantage point as an academic, Columbia remains an extremely prestigious, world-renowned and world-class institution, the cachet of which in the real world is in no way diminished by, what seems to me, Columbia’s laudable efforts to offer their world-renowned, world-class education to people who, perhaps unlike yourself, were disadvantaged in having to take an alternative path in life.</p>

<p>I understand and respect your perspective. Though I do not, as a social equalitarian, agree with you. I do understand, however, that you are speaking from your own perspective. From the perspective of a student (let me suggest) – and the actual value added of the education – there is NO QUESTION that Columbia GS offers a serious academic experience, whereas a Harvard Extension undergraduate degree is worth MUCH LESS than the value of the paper used to print the “diploma.” Speaking for the students, there is no value to the Extension diploma, where for GS grads there is a value to that Columbia diploma. And for you, perhaps, that is the REAL rub. </p>

<p>Again, I understand and respect your perspective as a Columbia undergraduate. However, as a Harvard graduate, I must speak to the utter fraudulence of Extension School degrees, as compared with the at least academic legitimacy (despite the “social” costs) of a General Studies education.</p>

52

<p>Schadelbrecher, hi.
I’ve been reading through this thread and see that sadly your questions about Columbia and the neighborhood have turned into a huge discussion that is filled with negative connotations about the School of General Studies. As a GS student that is graduating in May, please feel free to send me a personal message through this forum. I would be more than happy to provide you with information about Columbia University, my experiences as a student, the professors, and the classes. </p>

<p>Additionally, I would like to take this opportunity to address a few issues that have been mentioned in such a pejorative fashion. The following includes a bit of my personal story as well. First, several folks on this forum have mentioned the age of GS students and that we are “part-timers”. Yes, the average age is 29 although that also includes someone like me who is 56 years old. I already have a master’s degree and have experienced a tremendous career making quite a bit of money along the way. When deciding to return to school for a bachelor’s degree in a totally different discipline, my goal was to be involved in an academic community that not only recognized my strengths and expertise but that also would really challenge me. At Columbia, I’ve learned two languages (French and Latin), read amazing literature, and researched all types of topics including biodiversity and performance art. Thank goodness that GS allowed me to attend part-time given that I’m also working full time and taking care of an ill family member. It also gave me some flexibility to participate in school activities and clubs. Attending part time does not equate to someone attending a class and then running home.</p>

<p>Second, attendance at any university is expensive; it’s absolutely necessary to figure out your income and expenses prior to stepping foot on campus. For anyone to think that a goal of GS is to generate a lot of additional income for the university seems rather far-fetched. When GS provides tours to perspective students, they also provide a financial information session so that participants understand not only the personal commitment but the financial aspect as well. Anyone in GS financial services will tell you prior to your application to the university that if you cannot afford to pay the tuition you should not be placing yourself into any type of debt. The GS scholarships have been generous, and I found that I could supplement payment through the use of Stafford loans.
Lastly, I pull the highest grades in my courses. You will always find the GS students sitting in the front of the class; we are very serious about our education. GS students are investment traders, former ballerinas, military men and women; each one had a calling to do something else first. It doesn’t mean that we couldn’t handle an Ivy League education when we were 18 years old; we could but chose to do something else equally important. Individuals don’t often follow a cookie cutter trajectory in their lives.</p>

53

<p>swingtime,</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you are a ‘social equalitarian,’ then do you advocate for consolidating GS with the rest of the school? In other words, giving them the same kind of financial aid, housing to ensure their ability to attend, etc. and making their degrees indistinguishable from the rest (you indicated that employers are able to distinguish)? That’s the only way that this ‘noble mission’ of equality would make sense. And what about Barnard? </p>

<p>While you criticize Harvard for its extension school (which makes sense), what about Columbia’s School of Continuing Education, which is much larger than Harvard’s extension school? All told, Columbia enrollment total (including all schools, GS, CE, and Barnard) is over 31,000, roughly on par with most large public schools, but it charges private-school prices to most, so it’s not following the mission of public schools. It’s just for cash. Last year Columbia granted ~7,600 master’s, first professional, and certificate degrees, compared to only 568 doctorates and 1,843 bachelor’s. For Harvard, that’s under 5,000 (closer to 4,000 depending on what you count), compared to 1,400 doctorates and 1,674 bachelor’s. And Harvard’s financial aid budget is nearly 2x Columbia’s, so its undergrad division brings in even less cash from students.</p>

<p>The numbers make it clear: however much Harvard is guilty of cash-cow programs, Columbia is even more guilty. I’m not saying this to rail against Columbia, just pointing out that if you’re going to rail on Harvard for it, then Columbia deserves criticism as well.</p>

54

<p>phantasmagoric, not saying that Columbia is above or beyond criticism. Only pointing out that it is not unique in the Ivy League in having “cash cow” programs. Also, adding that the INTENTION behind GS – granting non-traditional students access to a truly quality education, despite their “non-traditionality” – seems morally laudable to me, and as such places it in a different category than the “undergraduate degree” programs at Harvard Extension, which are a bit of an educational fraud that some buy into and get nothing academically legitimate out of (as is perceived by others). The moral and structural problems that this may cause for Columbia College students is beyond my ken and I don’t pretend to have the experience necessary to debate them further. Just was making a judgment on the actual value of the respective undergraduate educations from the possible perspectives of Extension undergrads v GS undergrads. And as an outsider to Columbia, suggesting my “comfort level” with what I perceived to be Columbia’s original “intentions” for GS. Clearly this is a sore subject for Columbians, and I will drop it as I am not qualified to discuss its clear complexities.</p>

55

<p>Let me clarify my self-description as “outsider.” A very close relative was recently accepted for the class of '16 and, with her, I have been reading the threads to glean information that might be helpful to her in making a final college decision. So, I have a legitimate “stake” in these discussions. They got so unpleasant several days ago, however, with a poster who seems to have “disappeared,” that I advised my relative to stop reading the CC Columbia College site because there was clear “disinformation” being spread by someone with NO Columbia connection whatsoever, as the poster eventually admitted. It had become utterly counterproductive for her. The insights shared by actual Columbia students, however, either positive or negative, DO have value. I have found them illuminating, now that the purveyor of “disinformation” has taken a break from the relentless Columbia bashing which could not have been of any help to prospective students and families trying to make informed college choices.</p>

56

<p>Since I’ve made my final decision (more or less, still have to withdraw a couple more applications) and I have exams coming up, I haven’t exactly been checking this thread. (I actually am on my way out the door as I write this) Also, as previously stated, this thread stopped answering my questions.
If I had an issue with GS, I wouldn’t have applied to Columbia University in the first place. I applied to Columbia College because that is the co-ed, traditional student undergraduate college. If I didn’t like the idea of taking classes with Barnard and GS students, I wouldn’t have bothered to visit and apply. Simple as that. And if you have such an issue with it, then maybe Columbia University isn’t the place for you and you should leave it at that.
I love Columbia, it’s a great school, and it’s near and dear to my heart, but I have picked Harvard. I could list out my reasons, but really, GS is absolutely not one of them.
So, if you guys want to continue debating this issue back and forth in this thread, feel free. But my questions are answered. Thank you to the nice people in this thread, I’ll be honest I don’t have the time to read out all the responses there have been right now, but I will when I get home in a couple hours. Like I said, my questions are pretty much all answered.</p>

57

<p>With either school you would get a fine education. I was a grad student at Harvard (Ph.D.) and later taught there. You will love it, as I did. But Columbia is a superb school, as well. It is where my relative is leaning, as it was always his/her first choice (but is taking all acceptances seriously so as to make the right choice). You just needed to find YOUR FIT, and hopefully the most recent visit to Harvard confirmed for you that Harvard is, indeed, your fit. Congratulations! And, good luck!</p>

58

<p>JamieBrown, which school did you attend undergrad? I’m curious as to why you dislike Columbia … did they turn you down? As an aside, you need to improve your grammar. “swingtime” was right about you, btw. ;+)</p>

59

<p>Bravo and best wishes!</p>

60

<p>@swingtime - Thank you. Your responses have been more insightful and eye-opening for me than anyone else’s responses on this thread.</p>