Columbia vs UChicago

[jamesbond1]

<p>The title says it all. Both are very good schools, and both are very similar.</p>

<p>Which is better? (please don't talk about NY vs. Chicago, the difference is minimal to me)</p>

[tk21769]

<p>“Better” for what?</p>

[RML]

<p>They are peers, but, except when I’ll be majoring in economics (or MBA), I’d go for Columbia. Columbia is still part of the Ivy League and has easier access to Wall Street.</p>

[Ivyt]

<p>What do you want to major in?</p>

[jamesbond1]

<p>@barrk123 i want to major in the social sciences, mainly econ, political science, and international relations
@RML What advantage does being part of the ivy league bring? And isn’t uchicago’s econ department supposed to be the most renowned in the world?
@tk21769 which provides a better undergrad experience in general…which is more undergrad focused?</p>

[tk21769]

<p>Which provides a better undergrad experience in general…which is more undergrad focused? Hard to say. I’d give the edge in undergraduate focus to Chicago (though I’m biased and not that familiar with Columbia).</p>

<p>Columbia is larger (28K to Chicago’s 15K). Columbia has professional divisions that Chicago doesn’t (engineering, architecture, dentistry, nursing, journalism). Chicago has a smaller ratio of big classes (<5% v. >7% >=50). Chicago’s undergraduate faculty are appointed to “The College” at large, not to departments responsible for both graduate and undergraduate needs. Chicago’s campus strikes me as more of a distinct enclave within Hyde Park and south side Chicago than Columbia’s is within Morningside Heights and Manhattan. Chicago has a residential “house” system. Chicago students are less likely to disappear into the city on weekends than Columbia students apparently are. </p>

<p>See if you are accepted to both and the net costs are comparable. If so, visit both schools to see for yourself, rather than put too much stock in the numbers or in generalities about student life.</p>

[marshallmeyer12]

<p>University of Chicago boasts the best Econ department in the country.</p>

<p>Frankly, the overall student body on average is more intelligent at U Chicago than and Columbia (this, however, can be a good thing or a bad thing.)</p>

<p>Columbia is more popular, because it’s ivy league. </p>

<p>Keep in mind that the motto of U Chicago is “Where fun comes to die.” (not the official motto of course.)</p>

[warblersrule]

<p>

@marshallmeyer12

University of Chicago boasts the best Econ department in the country.

Harvard, Chicago, and MIT all have claims to a #1 spot; Princeton and Stanford possibly do as well. Harvard undergraduates had the most Clark medals in the country, or at least they did two years ago when I last counted the medals. Regardless, Columbia is no slouch in econ. In the other fields the OP mentioned, Columbia is considered a bit stronger in political science, and Columbia’s five year BA/MIA program through Columbia College and SIPA trumps Chicago’s IR offerings. Academically the two are a wash.</p>

<p>

@marshallmeyer12

Frankly, the overall student body on average is more intelligent at U Chicago than and Columbia (this, however, can be a good thing or a bad thing.)

The two have virtually identical admissions standards. The primary difference is that Columbia’s admit rate is half Chicago’s.</p>

<p>

@marshallmeyer12

Columbia is more popular, because it’s ivy league.

Actually, the two have quite similar application numbers these days, largely due to Chicago’s enthusiastic and successful mailing campaigns in recent years. Last year Chicago and Columbia received ~25,300 and ~31,800 applicants, respectively. The 6500 applicant difference can easily be explained away as applicants to Fu; Chicago lacks engineering.</p>

<p>

@marshallmeyer12

Keep in mind that the motto of U Chicago is “Where fun comes to die.”

This has always been a somewhat trite phrase and has lost most if not all meaning. The Chicago of today is totally different from the Chicago of the 80s.</p>

<p>Columbia isn’t known for wild parties. Here’s a cartoon commenting on the social scenes at Columbia and Penn:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2009/10/12/columbia-its-discontents-0[/url]”>http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2009/10/12/columbia-its-discontents-0&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[warblersrule]

<p>

@jamesbond1

Which is better?

Good question. Both are highly rigorous universities in major cities with Core Curriculums. Here’s an excerpt from an article comparing the two curriculums:</p>

<p>

Curriculum is the defining feature of Columbia College’s intellectual identity. Undergraduates who chose Columbia specifically for its curriculum—seeking the “wide- ranging perspectives on classic works of literature, philosophy, history, music, art, and science” touted by Columbia brochures—very probably also considered the University of Chicago.</p>

<p>On the surface, the schools are similar: both undergraduate colleges are situated within a prominent research university in a major metropolis, and both boast a robust general education grounded in the Western canon. In addition, both venerable curricula are undergoing significant changes as they adapt to contemporary sentiments in education.</p>

<p>Still, for all they have in common, these two educations are far from identical. Chicago’s “Common Core” is not organized around cornerstone courses like Columbia’s Lit Hum and CC. Rather, their Common Core requires that students choose two or three “Hume” courses, three Social Science (“Sosc”) classes, two or three under Civilization, and one or two in Art, Music, or Drama. It’s not “Common” at all. Finally, students must take five to seven math and science courses (far more rigorous than Frontiers), in addition to fulfilling language and physical education requirements.</p>

<p>These various tracks provide a self-selective slant to Chicago’s Core: while some are less demanding, others offer a rigorous, traditional sequence in the Great Books. For instance, students on the Classics track engage deeply with the same thinkers taught in Lit Hum and CC. More zealous students major in “Foundations,” a deep and broad sequence in the traditional liberal arts, which spans all four years. Columbia, on the other hand, takes a more centralized approach: one track for all, Global Core and science requirements excepted.</p>

<p>Mark Lilla, a professor of humanities who has taught Core classes at both schools, believes Columbia’s unified curriculum is “far superior” to Chicago’s decentralized equivalent. Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilization follow a more traditional progression of texts, whereas Chicago’s flexible regimen has, Lilla says, reduced its Common Core to “just one more requirement to get through”—more akin to general education requirements at other colleges. Moreover, brief, quarter-long, courses fail to foster the kind of year-long bond that the right Lit Hum adjunct can form with the right class.</p>

<p>At Columbia, the popular perception is that institutionally, Chicagoans are more serious intellectually. Lilla disagrees: “To my surprise, Columbia students are more enthusiastic.” It would appear, however, that the enthusiasm Lilla identifies in Columbians may be relatively short-lived. He observes, “I find [the two student bodies] equally curious in their first two years, but after that, something happens to Columbia students when they are busy pursuing their majors. They lose the thread and become more professionally oriented.” He contends, “We don’t do a good job of connecting the Core experience to what happens after.” With the advent of junior year and graduation, students become more outwardly focused, looking to secure an internship and a future rather than cultivate a relationship with the Great Books.</p>

<p>Accordingly, the most important difference between the schools may not be curricular, but cultural…Nathan Tarcov, Professor of Political Science at Chicago since 1978, has taught Classics of Social and Political Thought, an analogue of CC, for many years. He finds that Chicago succeeds in nourishing and sustaining their students’ intellectual intensity. “My sense—as chair, I read the course evaluations for the whole course—is that most students are enthusiastic about the Core and, for some, it is life-changing.

[East</a> Coast or No Coast: How UChicago’s Core Stacks up Against Our Own | Bwog](<a href=“http://bwog.com/2012/04/29/east-coast-or-no-coast-uchicago-vs-columbia/]East”>http://bwog.com/2012/04/29/east-coast-or-no-coast-uchicago-vs-columbia/)</p>

<p>Aside from the differences in Core Curriculums, I think the quarter vs. semester difference is arguably the most defining academic difference. This results in pacing differences; semester courses cover more material and go more in depth; quarter systems allow you to take more courses and explore more subjects. The quarter system also affects summer internships; the quarter system means you’re a late starter when it comes to finding and starting internships. (I will admit my bias; I personally hate the quarter system, though I’m sure many love it.)</p>

<p>In terms of residential life, tk21769 is correct that Chicago has a house system, but only a little over half of all undergrads live on campus. (Many live very close to campus, of course.) Virtually all Columbia students live on campus, mostly due to the insanely high living costs in NYC.</p>

[BenFranklin0]

<p>This decision cannot be made without considering Columbia School of General Sturdies, which is about 25% of the undergraduate students at Columbia, taking the same classes and same professors as Columbia College undergraduates:</p>

<p>[Columbia</a> School of General Studies - College Confidential](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-school-general-studies/]Columbia”>Columbia School of General Studies - College Confidential Forums)</p>

[vienna_man]

<p>I would do what Milton Freidman did, which was to get the best of both schools. He got his Phd from Columbia and then taught at Chicago for years.</p>

[jamesbond1]

<p>@franklin, how might you take GS into consideration?
@vienna, i don’t see how that’s related to me…at all</p>

[invasion]

<p>

@jamesbond1

how might you take GS into consideration?

Someone said that Chicago and Columbia have similar admissions standards, and that Columbia is even more selective because of its lower admit rate. That’s only true because Columbia doesn’t report to US News its GS stats at all. If they did, Columbia would appear much, much less selective than it does now.</p>

<p>The comparison between GS students and normal Columbia College students is not entirely fair because most GS students have special circumstances (as many Columbians like to remind us, this includes veterans - however, I’m a bit skeptical as to how many veterans there actually are in GS). But, if you look at things on a purely academic level, it’s pretty clear that Chicago has a more intellectual student body.</p>

[jamesbond1]

<p>which is what im actually kind of scared of…being surrounded by a really smart and geeky student body…don’t get me wrong, i am willing to work hard. but if say i work for the same amount of time at both school, i will get a lower grade at uchicago (both number wise, since columbia has grade inflation, and relative to my peers, since students at uchicago are more hardworking). is my concern a valid one?</p>