Columbia vs Stanford?

Colleges & Universities A-Z Columbia University
1

<p>A long time lurker, finally registered so I can get feedback on my upcoming choice.</p>

<p>I have been admitted to several universities, but ultimately the choice has come down to Stanford vs Columbia College. As far as financial aid, they both will cost the same (I didn't apply for finaid), however I am part of the Science Research Fellowship Program at Columbia.</p>

<p>I'm not sure exactly what I want to do... I have a science background (tons of research and two publicatiosn in high school), but I either want to do soft science with a business focus (entrepreneurship) or possibly going into banking or prelaw. My lack of conviction is one of the reasons why I may be leaning towards Stanford.. for its increased versatility.</p>

<p>I wanted to get feedback on a few different points:
1) As a possible pre-law or prospective-banking major, it goes without saying that GPA is crucial. Which school gives me the opportunity to get the best GPA (considering grade inflation as well)?
2) Which school has better law school placement?
3) Which school is higher regarded on the street?
4) How significant of an asset is being a part of the Science Research Fellowship Program (CUSP)?
5) One of my worries about Stanford from a logistics perspective is getting internship in BB or big law firms. How substantiated should my concerns be? </p>

<p>Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated!</p>

2

<p>1) Columbia is very friendly from a GPA perspective, and core classes are a huge boost to the GPA, for me and most of my friends at least. You can get by just thinking about issues and not necessarily having to be so precise. There was a story in the Columbia Spectator about this.</p>

<p>2) As far as I know it is about even, but there are no firm statistics on this (even what I’m about to share the office insists is only based on data they can collect, which is nto everyone). Columbia, the Pre-Law Office has said, is only behind HYP when it comes to placement rates to east coast schools. I imagine Stanford does better at SLS. Columbia is the largest cohort at CLS, they have a big presence at HLS, NYU Law and the third largest cohort at YLS.</p>

<p>3) I think Columbia and Stanford are about even, with a slight nod to the homecourt advantage. But I will let someone like concoll confirm.</p>

<p>4) Being in CUSP is huge if you want to go back into scientific research, but also if you want to do the kind of ‘soft science’ for government agencies, think tanks, ngos, etc. Check out the people on the board of advisors, many do some kind of soft science as you mention. [CUSP</a> Board of Advisors | Student Affairs](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/scholars/admin/board]CUSP”>CUSP Connections | Columbia College and Columbia Engineering). But if you want to do more harder science research, the connection CUSP has with faculty really helps you get that done earlier and earlier.</p>

<p>5) Stanford has done quite a bit to try to alleviate those concerns with using some of its resources to send people out east, but having the homecourt advantage by being in NYC is hard to understate. When Columbia really only falls behind 3-4 schools in recruitment and is in that second layer with Stanford, the fact that you can intern doing the school year with some BBs, but also other realms of finance (PE, hedge funds, etc.) will fill your resume out very nicely. </p>

<p>One of your concerns is flexibility with your degree: that is pretty easy to find at a place like Columbia, you will take a lot of courses in different areas, you will find the chemist working on wall street, and the English major doing bio research. Ultimately your real difference is living on the Farm or living in the middle of the NYC. Resource wise (especially as a SRF) will be about the same, placement will be about the same. What fits better for you. I know folks that have made the choice to go to both places, and probably more so than any other choice, I feel folks that choose Stanford and folks that choose Columbia respect the other school still. I know I could have gone to Stanford and been happy, but I’m glad I went to Columbia where I was really happy. I have the hardest time telling people not to go to Stanford because I respect it a lot. Of course, though, I hope you come to Columbia.</p>

3

<p>CC Senior here, HLS admit, will work at one of GS/MS/JPM IBD next year (and worked at 2 other BB’s sophomore and junior years)</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Columbia grade inflation is pretty rampant. Maintaining something like a 3.8 - 3.9 in Econ is easy if you put in enough effort and are a good test taker.</p></li>
<li><p>Law School placement is a misnomer. Go to the school that will give you a higher GPA. It doesn’t matter what major you majored in or what the school is. Get the highest GPA and LSAT combo and you’ll get into HLS (but not the case for YLS and SLS).</p></li>
<li><p>This one is tricky. Stanford is more ‘prestigious’ than Columbia BUT with that said, having worked at 3 bulge-bracket investment banks, I have yet to encounter a single Stanford alumni. IBD recruiting in Stanford is essentially non-existent for east-coast locations. Alumni goes a long way in landing a Wall Street job, and in this instance, Columbia is hands down better. </p></li>
<li><p>Dont know</p></li>
<li><p>If you want BB / BIGLAW (stop hanging out on ********* / wso), go to Columbia. I’m not the greatest fan of the social experience here, but in terms of finding a high paying job / real life experience, you can’t beat Columbia.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>**** That said**** Choosing Columbia over Stanford because you want a job in investment banking is an incredibly short-sighted decision. The nature of IBD jobs is changing on a daily basis, and rife with volatility. Graduates in 2007 were making 150k right out of college, and graduates in 2008 were jobless. Bonuses are now lower across the board, and M&A/IPO margins are increasingly compressed due to competition across the street. Entering PE will no longer guarantee top B-schools, and many, many people wash out or simply realize life is too short to sit in the office 16 hours a day in the prime of their youth.</p>

<p>So again, in terms of versatility and a well-rounded experience… the answer is much less clear.</p>

4

<p>in columbia college, the grade inflation matches stanford’s, you’re fine.
in terms of law school placement they’re pretty even I’d say.</p>

<p>on the street, I would assume Stanford is well respected, everyone has heard of it, everyone knows it’s an exclusive place, but even after working at a BB (think GS, MS, CS) in New York, I haven’t come across any Stanford alumni, while I’ve seen significant numbers from dartmouth, duke, harvard, Penn even brown, Williams, holy cross and state schools like UNC and Penn State. Perhaps they are strongly recruited for west coast jobs. </p>

<p>I honestly think that whatever advantages Columbia offers you in these categories, are not as important as fit differences. you will have very different friends and environments at Columbia and Stanford, so do more research there. these are both choices where you can be hugely successful if you fit in. Truazn seems to be successful career and grad school wise even though he wasn’t a great fit, perhaps he is very intelligent.</p>

<p>I’ve found that both schools have quirky fun people, tend to be liberal and have quite a few people who don’t take themselves too seriously, which is refreshing.</p>

5

<p>The core may dampen your GPA if your more of a science guy and Stanford is a much more well rounded university (THE most well rounded), but being in the east coast is huge if you want to go into banking, but If you’re not sure what type of career in law and business you may want to look more at fit, since neither of these two universities will steer you wrong in that direction, although if your into sure if end up not pursing law or business you may want to look more at Stanford</p>

6

<p>if you were admitted to columbia, likelihood is you’ve taken a class where you had to write an essay before, it is not much different. however: if your english is poor, you’ll have difficulty anywhere.</p>

7

<p>I wouldn’t look to the Street as one of the main reasons to choose Columbia over Stanford. Stanford opens up many more doors when it comes to Silicon Valley, either in product development or the business side. Check out the PayPal mafia and the various entrepreneurial avenues that someone with a business or finance skill set can pursue. </p>

<p>Banking is more prevalent at Columbia, but that’s not to say that Stanford is not recruited by top investment banks. However, business development at Silicon Valley start-ups is definitely not an option available to Columbia students. I met a couple upperclassman who transitioned to start-ups in the Bay area through high school connections and friends at Stanford.</p>

8

<p>I’ll add that recently, NYC announced a call for proposals to build a top engineering school in New York. Of all the proposals submitted, Stanford’s was supposedly the most detailed, and it’s also the most prestigious school (with the best engineering) of those who are vying for the bid. I have a feeling that Stanford’s going to be chosen (though I really think that NYC should just give Columbia the money and they can beef up their engineering school). It’s supposed to be a place where undergrads can spend time too–and both schools of engineering and business would have a satellite home there on Roosevelt Island. Just something to think about.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In terms of street prestige, Columbia and Stanford are far apart. Even in the “homecourt” (the east), Stanford is more prestigious. And among college-educated people, Stanford and Harvard are equal in prestige.</p>

<p>[Harvard</a> Number One University in Eyes of Public](<a href=“http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard-number-one-university-eyes-public.aspx]Harvard”>http://www.gallup.com/poll/9109/harvard-number-one-university-eyes-public.aspx)</p>

<p>But as someone said, street prestige is not something to choose based on.</p>

<p>Finally, Stanford is ahead of Columbia as being a “feeder school” to professional programs (med, law, and business; someone else probably has the link to the WSJ study). I don’t know about Stanford’s placement for BB, but if there are few Stanford grads in New York that others are aware of, it’s more because of a lack of interest than any deficiency. I’m certain that if Stanford grads wanted to work more in NY, they wouldn’t have a problem, but the Bay Area and Silicon Valley are just more attractive. On the other hand, Stanford has a very strong advantage in Silicon Valley–it rules this place.</p>

<p>FWIW (probably not much), data released by Stanford’s admissions office show that fewer than 13 students choose Columbia over Stanford each year.</p>

9

<p>phatas: fine points all though data on stanford being a bigger feeder on the street, and the data about cross-admits (which i know usually how that data is collected, and it is not ‘complete’) would be appreciated for me to know for future reference.</p>

<p>clearly, also, stanford does incredibly well, and as i wrote above i think it is great when folks go to stanford, i have great appreciation, but i don’t see it as being far and away better. the one other thing to consider is that stanford does have a larger class size so absolute placement numbers should always be re-evaluated.</p>

10

<p>Here’s the data:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1118844-stanford-harvard-yale-princeton-mit-others.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/stanford-university/1118844-stanford-harvard-yale-princeton-mit-others.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I think it is generally pretty accurate, because the universities share the data they collect from the students who choose not to attend (you know, when they ask you where you’re attending).</p>

<p>Yes, Stanford does have a larger class. But Stanford was #4 in proportion of students who go on to professional programs (after HYP).</p>

11

<p>phantas: I actually don’t think the 13 student number is reliable. i will say for one reason, and that is because the standard (going back 5 years) of columbia stanford cross admit battles was 2/3 stanford, 1/3 columbia (in fact columbia holds similar percentages with mit and princeton, and only worse than that with harvard and yale). </p>

<p>so based on this ‘thought scenario’ let’s say columbia does only win 13 students to stanford, that means there would have only been ~40 cross admits by a similar percentage?</p>

<p>let’s assume columbia’s worst battle which is usually with harvard who is at 80:20. even that would only presume 65 students were cross admitted (13:52).</p>

<p>let’s say 100 students were cross-admitted, which to me still seems low, then you are at 87:13? let’s presume the cross-admit numbers are even higher, i don’t think stanford wins 90+% of the time.</p>

<p>i don’t doubt that Stanford wins the cross admit battle, but it doesn’t mean that the data is reliable that ewho is sharing. i would guess that cross admits are closer to 200, columbia wins about 60 and stanford wins about 140.</p>

<p>without seeing the actual Stanford Minutes Report, which is a ‘highly guarded secret,’ i think it is hard to tell. it doesn’t appear that ewho acts as rigorous in his analysis of columbia as he otherwise does for other schools.</p>

<p>and i can say for certain that universities do not share cross-admit data. if you can prove to me that they do, i’d be happy to learn something new. but all my knowledge of admissions statistics tells me this is bollocks. they don’t even share lists at places like COFHE when admission directors of top schools meet, but (for reasons below) only share broad statistics, and not the creation of a common data set.</p>

<p>in fact the only way stanford gets this data is they ask students who are not attending to tell them which school they are attending, but it is optional always to not have to tell the school, and they also ask to which other schools were you admitted and chose not to attend. that is as ‘scientific’ as this thing gets. doing anymore would be an invasion of FERPA on the school’s part, including sharing the student’s information without their consent with other schools. and that would be necessary for such an analysis as above to occur.</p>

12

<p>so i read the report. and it is interesting. all it states is that “only 4 of the 20 exceeded 2%,” which means 2% of the total of students who chose to attend elsewhere. and that is how ewho and you arrive at 13 students. </p>

<p>i think the data is still fishy. and dean shaw, well, he is a fishy guy too. </p>

<p>edit: this is the full report. it is interesting. <a href=“http://mathacle.blogspot.com/search/label/HYPSM%20Cross-Admit%20Data[/url]”>http://mathacle.blogspot.com/search/label/HYPSM%20Cross-Admit%20Data&lt;/a&gt;. as ewho notes in the other post he really needs to extrapolate a lot of data.</p>

13

<p>How is the dean of admissions fishy? Or the data for that matter? As he said, no school exceeded 2%, from which we can gather that Columbia represented at most 13 students (less if it’s one of those under 2%). Even if he were rounding down (and say, some got as high as 2.4%), it’d be a difference of 3 max.</p>