<p>There may be just as many conversations, my point is only that there certainly isn't the same campus atmosphere.</p>
<p>The difference between an ill-informed versus an informed understanding of campus life at Columbia is this: the ill-informed perspective will assert there is a zero-sum difference between these atmospheric extremes (campus v city). The informed perspective will understand that one can sit on the Low Steps enjoying 40s with friends and watching the hijinks of Columbian passersby for hours as well as wine and dine downtown - on alternate nights, on the same night, whatever one wishes. </p>
<p>The point is that Columbia provides the second option in addition to the first, whereas most colleges and universities, located in dull towns and cities as they are, can barely aspire to it. Sure, this means that on any given weekend night, maybe half the student body may be outside Morningside Heights. If one's choice is to stay on campus, this really doesn't affect you, provided you have enough friends to ensure at least one or two are also around that night. It's not as if you need the entire student body to be on campus to make your night. Plus, one can rely on such novel inventions on the cell phone to coordinate one's plans, and have no need to rely on haphazard encounters with shenanigans spilling out of dorms.</p>
<p>I think the ill-informed perspective doesn't recognize that 90+% of any student's time, at Columbia or elsewhere, is spent within a few blocks of their dormitory room. If that area is dead, it makes a big difference when compared to some area that may be busier but that lies several miles away. It's not a zero-sum game, but it's not simple math either: it's more a matter of balance, which is why my original assertion was that <strong>you need to visit each campus for a significant period of time (2-3 days) and see if there is a student vibrancy that you would enjoy, or if the place is dead.</strong> </p>
<p>But speaking from my experience, which is to say from someone who does not go out to party, shop and spend big buck$$ 7 days per week, 24 hours a day like some people I know do, campus life and "college town" life is a much more important consideration because that's where you'll be most of the time. Yes, Columbia is within a longer-than-you-might-think subway ride of Greenwich Village and other things that NYC has to offer, but (partly as a result of that) its college town in the immediate area is not even a tenth as vibrant as ones surrounding many other top universities. And the campus life is what you can observe of it.</p>
<p>Yes, you point out that there are cell phones, which is true at every campus, but when such networks are relied on exclusively that's where people start to develop small cliques of friends who are in their own cell phone networks (a big criticism of Steve Johnson's work, i.e., the current trend towards more GPS, open-source Google map and cell phone systems in the urban environment actually decreasing sociability and interaction, not increasing it). The things that suffer from private cell-phone type networks like the ones relied on among Columbia students, as opposed to actual, truly "urban" serendipitous encounters on a regular basis are somewhat intangible measures such as: </p>
<p>1) diversity (because of people not interacting with other people like them - diversity means nothing unless students from all different backgrounds actually interact on an everyday basis, which includes weekends, breakfast, evenings out, lunch, classrooms, and who you run into while walking to your dorm -- not just who you live with), </p>
<p>2) class mixing (because of upperclassmen leaving campus in greater proportion and sticking with their own friends, making it impossible for younger students to learn from them), </p>
<p>3) income mixing (because rich students "go out" more often and to vastly different destinations than their classmates who don't have enormous sums of disposable dollars)</p>
<p>4) social opportunities for more introverted people (because introverts are not going to leave their little dorm cubicle rooms if they don't know that they are going to run into 10-20 people they know as soon as they step outside, even on a Saturday night)</p>
<p>
[quote]
But speaking from my experience,
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What experience? You didn't frigging go to Columbia!!</p>
<p>I'm glad you know so much about the sociology of cell phone use and think that gives you some intricate knowledge of social life at Columbia. You do realize that your post is entirely BS, don't you?</p>
<p>It's not from sociology, it's from spending a lot of time with students there, hanging out on the campus and going to parties with and talking to them. Honestly, I'm glad you feel differently though. It just goes even farther to prove my point that you shouldn't rely on what you read or what others have told you, you should visit a few campuses (for 2-3 days each, including one weekend day) and make an honest comparison. As I've pointed out above, campuses operate in vastly different ways.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think the ill-informed perspective doesn't recognize that 90+% of any student's time, at Columbia or elsewhere, is spent within a few blocks of their dormitory room. If that area is dead, it makes a big difference when compared to some area that may be busier but that lies several miles away.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>and</p>
<p>
[quote]
But speaking from my experience, which is to say from someone who does not go out to party, shop and spend big buck$$ 7 days per week, 24 hours a day like some people I know do, campus life and "college town" life is a much more important consideration because that's where you'll be most of the time. Yes, Columbia is within a longer-than-you-might-think subway ride of Greenwich Village and other things that NYC has to offer, but (partly as a result of that) its college town in the immediate area is not even a tenth as vibrant as ones surrounding many other top universities. And the campus life is what you can observe of it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>lets start with the radical assumption that kids go to top schools to do well. ok? good. now, remembering that columbia is, in fact, a top school we can infer (and listen to testimonies from current students and alum) that the course work is, in fact, time consuming. going out 24/7 as you say is simply not possible to do while fulfilling the main reason to go to college. the lovely part about morningside heights is that there really isnt much to distract a student at any given moment. however, it is important to note that the bar scene is still fairly vibrant (even if they are getting tighter about fakes) so there is in fact fun to be had a few blocks away.</p>
<p>going out into the city once or twice a week is a welcome escape for all columbia students. we love to get away from butler and go clubbing or drinking in some bar that isnt nachos/lions head/cannons/etc...however, we all still love coming home to alma mater and her loving embrace.</p>
<p>
[quote]
1) diversity (because of people not interacting with other people like them - diversity means nothing unless students from all different backgrounds actually interact on an everyday basis, which includes weekends, breakfast, evenings out, lunch, classrooms, and who you run into while walking to your dorm -- not just who you live with),</p>
<p>2) class mixing (because of upperclassmen leaving campus in greater proportion and sticking with their own friends, making it impossible for younger students to learn from them),</p>
<p>3) income mixing (because rich students "go out" more often and to vastly different destinations than their classmates who don't have enormous sums of disposable dollars)</p>
<p>4) social opportunities for more introverted people (because introverts are not going to leave their little dorm cubicle rooms if they don't know that they are going to run into 10-20 people they know as soon as they step outside, even on a Saturday night)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>1) you cant force people to interact. there is nothing any college anywhere can do to make the son of a manhattan ibanker WANT to hang out and meet poor kids from detroit or mississippi. you wont find this at any campus anywhere so dont try to make it into some stupid point. really, columbia has it better than any other school because of the core. since most of the core is based on small class discussions, you are afforded the opportunity to meet new people from different backgrounds. many friends and relationships start in lit.hum or whatnot.</p>
<p>2)personally (speaking as a former freshman) i would be freaked out if parties had a broad class representation. you want to meet upperclassmen? join a club/frat/etc. again, you cant say this exists more at other colleges since classes tend to their own and only rarely branch up or downwards.</p>
<p>3)<em>sigh</em> again you bring up things that are true at every college everywhere.</p>
<p>4)i dont understand what you are even trying to say. introverts will either meet people or they wont. again, you cant force people to interact.</p>
<p>so....yea, i fail to see what point you are trying to make. you have only said things that are true at all colleges, nothing specific to columbia.</p>
<p>so thanks, your consolation prize is the knowledge that you are wrong, please dont try again</p>
<p>
[quote]
you shouldn't rely on what you read or what others have told you, you should visit a few campuses (for 2-3 days each, including one weekend day) and make an honest comparison.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Then why are being an other who tells?</p>
<p>Thanks for adding your opinions, Skraylor. Just remember these are not black or white issues, there are shades - and lots of shades.</p>
<p>I will pick New York over New Haven 100% of the time.</p>
<p>Tega, the richest and most educated people in the U.S. don't agree with your pick. Also, New York is a pretty big place. People (like me) who have lived in wealthy Manhattan enclaves like Greenwich Village wouldn't think of living in out-of-the-way areas such as Harlem with long subway rides to anything exciting.</p>
<hr>
<p>Per Capita Incomes in 2001 - U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of
Economic Analysis</p>
<p>United States Average $30,413</p>
<p>Top Five wealthiest urban areas in the U.S. and $$$:</p>
<ol>
<li>San Francisco, CA 57,714</li>
<li>San Jose, CA 51,579 (Silicon Valley)</li>
<li>New Haven, CT 48,453</li>
<li>Bergen-Passaic, NJ 43,856</li>
<li>West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL 43,626</li>
</ol>
<p>Other major Northeastern urban areas above the U.S. Average:</p>
<p>Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV 41,754
New York City, NY 40,949
Boston, MA 39,873
Hartford, CT 37,819
Philadelphia, PA 33,750</p>
<p>Other Northeastern urban areas that are poorer than the U.S. Average:</p>
<p>Providence, RI 29,824
Springfield, MA 28,705
Syracuse, NY 27,021
Utica, NY 24,452</p>
<p>These figures are definately not from the BEA website.</p>
<p>According to this OFFICIAL website, NEW HAVEN is one of the POOREST city in the COUNTRY.</p>
<p>This is for the census in 1999, New Haven has a per capita of 17,000. For New Haven to have the per capita income you reported its growth rate would have to be about 25% for the past 6 years, which is very UNLIKELY.</p>
<p>Wrong, my numbers are from the BEA website at <a href="http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/lapi/2003/mpi0503.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/regional/lapi/2003/mpi0503.htm</a>. You are making the mistake of confusing the municipality of New Haven (a very small central area consisting of many students, who report no income, and young people) with the wider city/urban area. The numbers I cite are for the urban area as a whole. When comparing cities, you have to either use urban area figures like the ones I have cited, or conduct some kind of radius calculation, because municipality (town/city) boundaries can vary so much and are completely artificial in nature. Some municipal boundaries are drawn within a mile of the city center, especially if the town/city is very old, while others extend out for dozens of miles.</p>
<p>If you want to compare just the central municipality, too, New Haven is not among the poorest ones. The ten poorest municipalities in the country are Brownsville, Laredo, Providence, Hartford, Miami, Newark, Athens, New orleans, San bernardino, CA and Syracuse. <a href="http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-19.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-19.pdf</a> But as I said above, for various reasons (such as the size of student populations) these "municipality" figures are pretty much meaningless. </p>
<p>Not so incidentally, municipality total population figures are also somewhat meaningless because they are dependent on where the boundaries are drawn. That's why populations are almost always reported and compared for the urban area, example <a href="http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_2006_1.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/urban_2006_1.html</a> , not the municipality. If you go by municipal figures, cities in the West always seem huge in population because they cover such a large area of 100s of square miles that includes the city center, all the suburbs, and even farmland around it, versus cities in New England which have municipal boundaries covering only a few square miles. Nobody uses municipal figures. I hope I've made my point as to why your numbers are invalid.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Thanks for adding your opinions, Skraylor. Just remember these are not black or white issues, there are shades - and lots of shades.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm going to assume that what you mean to say is that I am wrong because there are schools out there that do have these intangible measures of diversity. </p>
<p>Well ok, prove it. </p>
<p>Also,
[quote]
Tega, the richest and most educated people in the U.S. don't agree with your pick. Also, New York is a pretty big place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>you are ignorant if you assume that being rich automatically makes the people in new haven the "most educated"</p>
<p>Why wouldn't you assume that? These are the average salaries for adults at each level of educational attainment: </p>
<p>Graduate or professional degree, $74,602
Bachelor's degree, $51,206
Associate degree, $35,958
Attended college without earning a degree, $29,533
High school graduate, $27,915
High school dropout, $18,734 </p>
<p>Also, according to American City Business Journals, there are 22 "brainpower centers" in the United States:</p>
<p>"These centers of brainpower can be divided into five groups, as follows:</p>
<p>College towns: Boulder; Madison; Raleigh-Durham; Ann Arbor; Lincoln, Nebr.; Provo, Utah; New Haven, Conn. </p>
<p>Technology centers: San Jose, Colorado Springs, Seattle </p>
<p>Other large cities: San Francisco, Boston, Oakland, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Denver </p>
<p>National and state capitals: Washington, Tallahassee, Fla. (and six repeaters from the groups above: Madison, Raleigh, Lincoln, Boston, St. Paul and Denver) </p>
<p>Affluent suburbs: Stamford, CT; Middlesex, N.J.; Nassau-Suffolk (Long Island), N.Y.; Santa Cruz, Calif.; Portsmouth, N.H."</p>
<p>Bizjournals 5/16/05</p>
<p>You have to compare New York City to New Haven County. </p>
<p>To get an ACCURATE per capita income of New Haven County you have to exclude Bridgeport, Stamford, and Danbury which are not in New Haven County. These towns have high per capita income because of the hedge funds.</p>
<p>Tega: Bridgeport, Stamford and Danbury are not even located in New Haven County in the first place, so there's no reason to exclude them. Besides, there are hedge funds in New Haven, too. They might explain why there are so many million-dollar homes and urban condos being built in downtown New Haven and why there are 120+ restaurants and a couple dozen theaters located within just a few blocks of the town green, next to Yale. The figures from Bizjournals above include only the immediate urban area (city) of New Haven. As you can see, Stamford is a separate city in that study, one that, like New Haven, also happens to rank among the top "brainpower" hotspots.</p>
<p>The NYC urban area figures do not just include the five boroughs. So I don't see what your problem with the official Census-defined comparison is, other than that the results don't seem to meet your prejudiced expectations.</p>
<p>Now you're claiming that New Haven is wealthier and better than New York City? hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.
aaaaa hahahahahahahaha.
I don't even know where to begin.
But posterx does have a point, Donald Trump does live in New Haven, in fact he even built Trump Tower in New Haven.</p>
<p>Additionally, posterx claims that upper class and the wealthiest and most influential new yorkers stay far far away from mean scary (sarcasm) Harlem. Now, where exactly is it that the last PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (most educated, he's a Rhodes scholar) has his office? Oh right, New Haven. Sure posterx, sureeeee. I could continue listing off wealthy people who live in "New Haven," but I actually have a life lol. Grow up and stop whining, you probably couldn't get into Columbia and have an inferiority complex.</p>
<p>Metsfan, the facts are facts. Also, as you know, cities are not "monolithic entities." As I said above, there are places like downtown Ann Arbor, New Haven, Madison or Charlottesville with tons of things to do within a radius of a few blocks, and then there are places like outer Harlem or suburban NJ wasteland that are honestly pretty dead, even though there might be exciting areas 30 or 40 minutes away. There are parts of almost any city I would choose over parts of New York City and vice versa. In other words, you can't base your opinions on some preconception of a place or what you read in a brochure or hear from a friend who hasn't lived somewhere in 10 years, which may have no basis in reality. You have to think about where you'll actually be living 90% of the time.</p>
<p>Another measure that might reveal your prejudices: The top two cities in the United States in patents (inventions) per capita each year are San Jose, CA (Silicon Valley), with 20 per capita, and New Haven, CT, with 16 per capita. New York City is very far down the list, below Houston and Seattle, with just 2 patents per capita annually. <a href="http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/econp-4-00/ep-4-00.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.metrocouncil.org/metroarea/econp-4-00/ep-4-00.htm</a> Based on those figures, it's no wonder that the New Haven urban area is so much wealthier on average -- $7,500 per person per year -- than the NYC one. And the gap is even wider once you consider the % of incomes spent on housing costs.</p>
<p>Oh, and that President you mentioned -- he actually lives much closer to Connecticut than he does to Manhattan. And Trump is poor compared to a lot of the people who live in CT.</p>
<p>What are you talking about? Bill Clinton lives in Manhattan. Columbia <em>is</em> on Manhattan Island.</p>
<p>"Bill Clinton lives in Manhattan."</p>
<p>It would be no shock to me to learn that this was in fact the the case, but FWIW Hillary's nominal residence is in Chappaqua.
(Presumably some actual real resident of NY State has explained to them where that is by now, so they know it's not in Manhattan)</p>