<p>Hello, I am new to CC.
My name is Robert and I am a junior in high school. </p>
<p>I just have a few questions regarding Columbia and MIT. I will be valedictorian of my highschool and I have solid academic accomplishments (this being why I am looking at schools such as these).</p>
<p>The major problem that I am facing is: I am attracted to MIT due to its awesome Physics program (this is what I plan to major in), but I am also attracted to Columbia due to its location and the overall fact of it being a well rounded school. (I am not automatically assuming that I will be accepted to these schools- I am aware of the admittance statistics).</p>
<p>Athletics at Columbia are obviously better, but how do the social aspect of these schools compare?</p>
<p>How does Columbia's physics program stack up?</p>
<p>MIT becomes a well-rounded school when one considers the possibility of cross-registration with Harvard. It has a handful of outstanding departments in the humanities too, you know?</p>
<p>Boston isn’t New York City (and NYC isn’t B), but it’s a great city with enough social and cultural distractions.</p>
<p>“Athletics at Columbia are obviously better…”</p>
<p>Because it’s an Ivy League school, mirite? =D</p>
<p>“How does Columbia’s physics program stack up?”</p>
<p>Top school for Physics, but third rate relative to MIT… still a top school.</p>
<p>I’m attending Columbia and my sister attended MIT so I know a bit about both schools. Cross-registering at Harvard is definitely a possibility, but people rarely do that. MIT also has pretty good humanities departments (although not comparable to Columbia’s) and star professors (Steven Pinker, Noam Chomsky just to name a few) in those fields. But it’s not classes at MIT that make it an unwell-rounded school; it’s the atmosphere. All students have strong nerd-pride and most of them only have passions for intense science/engineering. That makes the school really biased towards the sciences/engineering fields. Admissions officers make sure every student they admit is on the nerdy side since non-nerdy students generally have a really hard time at MIT.</p>
<p>Columbia’s athletic teams are definitely better than MIT’s (except maybe pistol?). Why does this matter again?</p>
<p>I have to disagree with the post above me saying Columbia’s physics is third rate to MIT. You can find most things you need to know about Columbia’s physics program in the link above. In addition, if you’re really smart and into research. Columbia has a prestigious Rabi Scholar program for around 20 incoming students a year where you’re guaranteed research opportunities and summer housing. The physics program at Columbia is also pretty intense if you’re worried about that. Freshman accelerated physics treats you like a grad student from what I hear.</p>
<p>Also, if you’re wondering, Brian Greene teaches in the math department.</p>
<p>Robert, both are tremendous schools. If you are 100% certain that you want to immerse yourself in physics for four years, and have no need to experience classmates that are totally into drama, or art, or philosophy, or English, or Portugese, or political science, or …, then MIT is a fine choice. If you have any doubt whatsoever about your academic interests, or want to surround yourself with classmates who have passions for fields other than math/science/engineering/econometrics, Columbia is perhaps the better choice.</p>
<p>Among 2008 undergraduate degree recipients at MIT, ONLY 43 out of 1,217 undergraduates received degrees in the School of Humanities, Arts and Social Science (not including the 35 economics majors). It appears that NO ONE received a degree in a foreign language that year. MIT defenders will say that this data (from the MIT website) does not include double majors, because MIT only lists the “primary” major (which in all cases apparently, according to MIT culture, is the science, math or engineering major, as the humanities, arts or social science major is considered “secondary”).</p>
<p>As a parent, I would not want either of my sons to attend MIT (although, of course, I would allow it). I believe a student body with diverse, intense academic interests is the true benchmark of the extraordinary college experience. My college children, one at an elite LAC and one at Columbia, are enjoying extraordinary college experiences.</p>
<p>Not much a difference if you are still undergrad, since most advance research opportunities are only for phds…</p>
<p>Columbia might be better because there are much less physics majors than in MIT, thus you will have more opportunities for research, special seminar…etc. But the difference is trivial. </p>
<p>You may just choose the one with more FA.
or the one you are accepted if not both</p>
<p>not really. There are good D-1 schools that spend money on sports (think Ohio State, Texas… etc), and there are terrible D-1 schools who don’t. Ivy League schools, in general, while not terribly bad in sports, don’t spend that much money on sports (there is reason why Ivy League is known for academics, but not sports.)</p>
They still spend much more than MIT. And you’d be surprised; I recently visited Ivy schools to look at their athletic facilities, and some of them were as nice as those I saw at big-time D1 schools.</p>
<p>Of course I know Columbia and Ivys spend more than MIT. It’s pretty much a given that D-3 school doesn’t spend much money on sports. Columbia is in D-1, of course they spend money on their sports. (They recently hired a new basketball coach from St Marys College from est Coast). </p>
<p>I’ve been to UPenn’s Palestra, and it is one of the most historical basketball building in the country. Princeton upset UCLA in NCAA tournament in mid-90. Cornell got to Sweet 16 just this past season. Of course they put in budget in sports.</p>