<p>I was leaning toward Columbia because I want to be challenged by the city and the intellectual culture associated with the core but then I started doing a lot of research and Stanford and MIT are rated better, especially in Biology.</p>
<p>I want an intense intellectual culture, but I'm not sure about the isolation factor that seems to happen after freshman and softmore years at Columbia.
I want to do some entrepruerial projects which makes Stanford and MIT stand out but I also want a well rounded and worldly education (and eventually plan on the peace corps) which makes Columbia stand out.</p>
<p>I'm a science and political science guy, but I don't want to specialize too much as an undergrad....
Any help? What would you do?</p>
<p>PS. I'm waitlisted at Harvard, how would it change things if I got in there?</p>
<p>Stanford is the clear choice; it’s the most well-rounded university in the world. If you get into Harvard, then Stanford and Harvard would be the top two choices.</p>
<p>hahaha “softmore”.
Congrats on your acceptances! I’m just a junior, and I really hope I’ll have that option soon. </p>
<p>If it helps:
My friend got into Stanford, Harvard, MIT, Princeton and Columbia (she’s amazing and the next Steve Jobs) and chose Stanford. I really love both schools, and though I’m thinking of applying to Columbia ED, I have no idea what I’d pick.</p>
<p>Congrats and good luck!</p>
<p>Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of people say Stanford right off the bat.
What makes me hesitate is the “anti-intellectual” approach that some students supposedly take there to their education (some faculty are even concerned by this)</p>
<p>And then of course Columbia has their popular Core curriculum which addresses the oldest ideas in Western literature and thought and apparently makes the university anything but anti-intellectual.</p>
<p>I mean, is having an intellectual student body worth a slightly worse education in the sciences if thats what I’m looking for?</p>
<p>I can try to address the level of intellectualism at Columbia. I’d say that it’s much higher than that of my high school, though that’s not really saying much. I’ve met engineers at Columbia who seem to fit the anti-intellectual mold that you discuss. These students excel in their classes and they’re great people: smart, funny, and driven. However, I do get this sense that, outside of the classes they need to complete, they’d rather not be thinking about school or other academic matters.</p>
<p>I’d say that Columbia has a fair number of students who keep a pulse on other academic areas, whether that be politics, history, cosmology, and economics. However, these exists this preconceived notion of what is cool in New York City, i.e. hipster. Proust = cool. Apples and Macs = cool. Obscure music that must not be mainstream = cool. Democrats = cool. Beer gardens = cool. Post-racial relations = cool. Micro-financing and development aid in the 21st century = cool. A discourse in the sciences, mathematics, or even economic theory, unless it touches the boundaries of philosophy is deemed unworldly. Quantum computing != cool. Epigenetics != cool. Cryptography != cool. Monetary policy != cool. World Bank and IMF != cool.</p>
<p>I don’t feel as if the majority of students are more intellectual or more open-minded. Rather, they are attempting to fit the mold of a yuppie cosmopolitan intellectual who shifts seamlessly from cocktail party to cocktail party. “Debating” about hot-button political issues or scientific achievements engenders condemnation driven by a pseudo-religious fervency or blank stares mixed with patronizing scorn.</p>
<p>That’s not to say I haven’t had great debates that have changed my perspective on a multitude of subjects. However, I feel as if most people are just waiting for their turn to speak on issues they are interested in or just unwilling to learn new subjects that are deemed un-cosmopolitan.</p>