<p>
[quote]
New York City > Philadelphia, 'nuff said.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree entirely. However that to me is why Philadelphia is a better choice for undergrad than NYC. (that's right, I just took the strength of your point and channeled it into mine! intellectual jujitsu!!!)</p>
<p>Penn has a significantly stronger sense of campus community/"school spirit" than does Columbia, in no small part because Philadelphia has a LOT of things to do, but isn't SO big and SO amazing as to drain the campus of its vital energy.</p>
<p>I will agree that Columbia's campus is more aesthetically pleasing than Penn's--the fruits of having a master-plan campus instead of haphazard organic growth (on the plus side, the haphazard organic style makes it much easier for Penn to expand and integrate its disparate campus assets, and Penn's campus expansion into the postal lands is definitely going to go better than Columbia's Manhattanville adventures...it's contiguous and there are no existing communities we have to destroy)</p>
<p>But both are amongst the finest academic institutions in the nation and in the world, and a very select lucky few will ever be in the position of having to choose from admissions offers from both of them.</p>
<p>I'd choose Penn for undergrad and Columbia for grad (except for professional grad--MBA, MD, JD etc--in which case I'd go back to Penn)</p>
<p>Schools change, especially over 10-15 years. While Columbia is similar over time with the Core, the quality of the faculty and research, and a proud tradition of student engagement and activism, the undergraduate experience at Columbia is quite different than it was 15 years ago based on a number of indicators. </p>
<p>*Student selectivity (35% admitted v. 10% admitted).
*Geography of student body (truly national and international).
*Diversity of student body (half students of color, high first-gen populations, socioeconomically diverse, diverse major interests).
*Support for undergraduate students (much expanded Student Affairs division with a new two-tiered advising system and several new and expanded offices like Career Education, Prestigious Fellowships, and Multicultural Affairs).
*Columbia Engineering (check out the NY Times article).
*99% of first-year students return for sophomore yr tied with Yale as the highest percentage in the Ivy League (08-09 data on College Board website).
*Major campus improvements.
*NYC has changed (for the better for those who don't love cities).
*Morningside Heights has changed (for the better for those who don't love cities).
*Winning athletic teams.</p>
<p>"*Columbia Engineering (check out the NY Times article)"</p>
<p>wait, where? post link</p>
<p>But yeah, from what I've heard, read and seen for a few years, and heard from C'02 on this board. Columbia has evolved for the better over the last decade. 15 years ago there's no way I would have come to Columbia over other top 10-15 schools.</p>
<p>I attended in 1999, so things haven't changed that much. When I got in the acceptance rate was 14.3%. Also I was around lots of undergrads in 2004-2006 when I was in grad school there. Definitely did my fair share of West End nights. Honestly while I agree some aspects of the campus were nicer, alot of the negatives in my mind remained.</p>
<p>This is so random, but why not choose Brown over Upenn and Columbia?</p>
<p>All I know, is I definitely would. No Hesitation. </p>
<p>Providence is an excellent city. </p>
<p>Happiest Students at College--> why? Brown focuses on creating happy students through an innovative learning environment with the open curriculum. </p>
<p>By far best tour/atmosphere derived from students on campus.</p>
<p>If you're into the frat parties, beer pong lifestyle, and professionalism then Penn might be a good choice. I'd choose Columbia over Penn simply because I can't stand the Penn social scene. Although I find both too professionalism based rather than intellectual exploration for undergrad.</p>
<p>I think Columbia is a great school, different than Penn. Its more intellectual overall, more cosmopolitan, and more intense in many respects. Its definitely more social than many other schools in NYC. But its still an urban school.</p>
um... have you BEEN there? Spent much time there?</p>
<p>New York is an excellent city. Philadelphia is an excellent city in its own right. And there are plenty of good reasons to go to Brown. But Providence is simply not one of them. (although the neighborhood around Thayer St is at least a little less dangerous than the areas half a mile away)</p>
<p>And that's just the downside. What's the upside to Providence, exactly? Public corruption? The Pawsox? Being only 30 mins from Newport?</p>
<p>There is PLENTY to do in Providence.
Providence just underwent a Renaissance project, which cleaned through many parts of the city.</p>
<p>There is night life, culture, restaurants (proximity to Johnson & Wales), art galleries, museums, huge Providence Mall, Thayer street, close distance to Newport/beaches. </p>
<p>Providence has the second highest number of artists per capita in any city in the world after Paris. </p>
<p>Not to mention Brown is also right next to RISD signifying there are plenty or art opportunities available. </p>
<p>Trust me I would take Brown's curriculum, happier students, and Providence any day over Penn's professionalism, one-track students (law, med, business only), beer pong/frat lifestyle even if it meant I got Philly with it. </p>
<p>I never said Providence was better than Philly and New York. It's not, I'm not denying that at all. But tied with Brown--it personally makes a more attractive package than Philly and Penn. Columbia and New York are a close second. </p>
<p>Students at Brown are known for their innovative ways of experiencing college. Every day there are shows, discussions, galleries, costume parties, coffee gatherings, comedy stand ups JUST on campus itself. That's without even venturing into Providence much.</p>
<p>I think Providence, particularly East Providence, is the IDEAL college town. Its young, active, with lots of coffeeshops, bars, restaurants, quick food (east side pockets and antonio's are my favorites). Personally Brown has a great combo of a nice campus community combined with a great college town. But its my taste. IMO NYC can be overwhelming, but personally I like running into people I know all the time.</p>
<p>I question the basis of pablo's notion that Columbia's English program is better if you want to focus on "theory," since theory classes (I should say "class") are not often available to undergraduates, which is fitting given the assumptions behind Literature Humanities. Spivak, Derrida's renowned translator, is obviously a professor here, but she teaches sporadically and, to be honest, not very well. Scholarly reputation says nothing about whether someone can teach.</p>
<p>I can't compare the departments of Columbia and Penn so I won't pretend to. I can, however, speak to our department's quality. We have a number of reputable professors who also teach well. Late-nineteenth century novel (Dames, for the British kind; Claybaugh & Delbanco for the American). Poetry (Golston, postmodern; Gray, romantic). Shakespeare (Shapiro; Kastan unfortunately left). African-American (O'Meally, Griffin). There are others obviously. Suffice it to say, you won't be intellectually disappointed.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Providence has the second highest number of artists per capita in any city in the world after Paris.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Amazing what you can accomplish with an art school and a teeny tiny denominator!</p>
<p>
[quote]
Trust me I would take Brown's curriculum, happier students, and Providence any day over Penn's professionalism, one-track students (law, med, business only), beer pong/frat lifestyle even if it meant I got Philly with it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Funny you'd accuse a school with the most dual-degrees and multi-majors to be "one-track." You really need to meet more Penn students. Seriously. Because, you know, nothing says one-track preprofessionalism quite like Rhodes Scholars! Moreover, "business" in itself is an extraordinarily broad field (and one that employs the vast majority of ANY graduating class in one fashion or another). Are my Penn friends who graduate and become entrepreneurs, CREATING businesses big enough to hire other people one-track "business" students? Methinks you're conflating "business" with "banking"</p>
<p>Prominent blogger journalist Andrew Sullivan just published a letter I wrote on working in India. Does this make ME and my other American coworkers "one-track?" (I hope not, because we got a whole lot of applicants from Columbia and Brown...)</p>
<p>ilovebagels: haha, so you were the name-dropping reader ("ink on my Ivy League diploma not yet dry") that Sullivan quoted? I was wondering who wrote that obnoxious and self-congratulatory letter!</p>
<p>Obviously I'm not a Penn student, therefore you may have a different take then what I've heard. </p>
<p>I do have a father who was a professor at Penn, however, several years back. </p>
<p>In addition I have one relative, plus a couple of students from my school who attended Penn in the past years. </p>
<p>I have also visited/toured the campus. </p>
<p>This is MY take, MY impression, and MY understanding based on what I've heard/learnt. Personally, I just don't think it'd be the right school for me. </p>
<p>Dude just go to UPenn, its got better parties, or so I have heard.......</p>
<p>My dad used to work for Columbia, and he did say he didn't think there was much of a college community feel to it. I think they are pretty close academically...Visit both schools and see which one is a better fit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
ilovebagels: haha, so you were the name-dropping reader ("ink on my Ivy League diploma not yet dry") that Sullivan quoted? I was wondering who wrote that obnoxious and self-congratulatory letter!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ad hominem for the win! Did you actually read the whole letter? It makes a very serious (and very true) point that apparently Andrew Sullivan thought was interesting enough to publish. I'll trust his judgment.</p>
<p>^ I wasn't making an ad hominem argument. As you no doubt know, an ad hominem argument attempts to discredit an argument by attacking the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. Your point was an obvious one--I was not arguing against it. I was instead pointing out the self-satisfied way in which you made it. It's hardly surprising, given the smugness of your letter, that you've proceeded to brag about it on--but where else for someone so status-conscious?--College Confidential!</p>
<p>"Penn's english dept. is a mite stronger than Columbia's. They have more lecturers and field luminaries, and their undergrad creative writing program is fantastic. "</p>
<p>If any of you Columbians feel you need more resources in this area, you should check whether you can also take some relevant courses at Barnard. The level of scholarly publication by faculty may not be identical, but from a more pedestrian standpoint of an undergraduate taking courses, people there think that department is pretty good. If that helps you any. The</a> New York Times > Log In</p>
<p>In the fall I had to buy a recent work, "The Glass Castle" for my son's HS class, and it looked familiar. When I read the back I realized it was the same book, by a recent Barnard author, that my daughter read at Barnard orientation. (wish I'd realized it before I bought it again!). I bet she developed that work while at Barnard. As the article indicates, she would not be alone.</p>
<p>^I have many english and history major friends, no-one complains about the strength or depth of the departments. That simply isn't an issue at Columbia, I have yet to meet some who complains about the caliber of their department. They are either un-concerned or duly content, undergrads never exhaust difficult courses in their areas of interest, and departments almost all tend to have great professors and resources, bar new ones like say ethnic studies. But demand doesn't outstrip supply here. That's a great thing about columbia you are never peer-pressured or inclined into pursuing a certain discipline because they are all strong. But sticking on point the "strength of department" should not be a concern at Columbia and probably not a concern at Penn either.</p>
<p>What people tend to complain about in the academic sphere: one off shtty profs, half the profs in the math department because they either can't speak english or can't teach without some long winded proof. Class grading curves, annoying students at the front of the class who ask too many students, annoying students at the back of the class who walk in late. Annoying students in the middle who keep chatting. Getting into good sections of a course. None of these are weaknesses unique to Columbia, nor are they more pronounced here.</p>
I agree entirely. However that to me is why Philadelphia is a better choice for undergrad than NYC. (that's right, I just took the strength of your point and channeled it into mine! intellectual jujitsu!!!)
</p>
<p>This should have been the thread closer. My head just exploded and reincarnated itself at the severe pwnage of this statement. TYFT.</p>
<p>ilovebagels didn't say you made an ad hominem argument, but rather that your statement itself was ad hominem, which is
[quote]
attacking the person making a claim rather than the claim itself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is, I think we can agree, exactly what you did. I'm not saying that you were wrong to call out ilovebagels for what was demonstrably kind of arrogant, but simply that you are wrong in your latter response.</p>