<p>After three+ years of posting on CC, devoting my time and efforts towards this month in the history of my life, I find myself in a difficult situation. The very first post I made on CC was a chance thread for Columbia in my freshman year of high school...but now that I am so far removed from that first post, I'm confused. </p>
<p>I was admitted to both Columbia and Harvard, plus some awesome LACs...I was hoping that someone could provide some insight on the atmosphere of each school, and give some advice as to which of the schools I should choose (Harvard/Columbia)....</p>
<ul>
<li>I am from NYC</li>
<li>I want to study poli.sci </li>
<li>I was seriously considering some of the top LACs and so would want a setting more similar to an LAC. Unfortunately, the LAC finaid situation was dissapointing, and would place severe financial stress on my family...as you probably all know, the Ivy finaid situation is amazing. </li>
<li>I don't really see myself enjoying rigorous core requirements. I was relatively unaware of Columbia's core when I initially became obsessed with the school a few years ago...now I don't see myself appreciating the strict set of courses one must take. I know its wonderful to develop that foundation, and I know that every Columbia graduate must benefit from the plethora of knowledge they gather from the core, but I just find it a tad tedious. </li>
</ul>
<p>How is the atmosphere at Harvard, compared to Columbia? I know that they are very different... </p>
<p>My S made this choice a few years back and chose Columbia. He said recently that he's glad that he did. However, two big attractions for him were NYC and the core. You're from NYC and the core doesn't appeal to you. If I remember his other reasons: He found the atmosphere, based on a short visit, more intense and exciting at Columbia. Partly the city; partly the way Columbia students load themselves up with courses, activities, internships; partly the fact that the core curriculum means everybody's reading the same thing at the same time and therefore sharing a big chunk of the academic experience no matter what their eventual major is. Think intellectual boot camp.</p>
<p>At that time, Harvard made students declare a major at the end of the first rather than the second year, and I believe that may have changed. But in general, Harvard's fabulous resources are really set up for students who hit the ground running both in terms of knowing their academic and ec passions. As I recall, you even had to compete to get into the freshman seminars. Perhaps that, too, has changed. But my S didn't know exactly what he wanted to do and he meandered a bit, ending up in a quantitative field while still getting a good grounding in the humanities and arts. This is what he was looking for.</p>
<p>I'm sure he thought he'd have more fun at Columbia than Harvard, as well. He has had a lot of fun, but I suspect he would have also had a good time at Harvard.</p>
<p>Hope that helps some. Go with the place where you can imagine yourself best. Those who thrive and excel will end up with similar opportunities at the end, coming from either of these schools.</p>
<p>sac...thank you so much for the advice. It seems Harvard's policies at the time were a bit daunting! You explained exactly what I was looking for--that atmospheric difference between the two schools. </p>
<p>Any additional comments would be gladly appreciated!</p>
<p>"I don't really see myself enjoying rigorous core requirements. I was relatively unaware of Columbia's core when I initially became obsessed with the school a few years ago...now I don't see myself appreciating the strict set of courses one must take. I know its wonderful to develop that foundation, and I know that every Columbia graduate must benefit from the plethora of knowledge they gather from the core, but I just find it a tad tedious."</p>
<p>As fking embarrassing as this sounds I didn't know of the core until I walked onto campus at orientation. When the admissions officer came to my highschool to give her columbia presentation, I liked it, but I was so sleep-deprived that I fell asleep. When I read about columbia I palmed core requirements off as disribution requirements that all other colleges have. I got into seas, came to campus, and as someone who had studied economics thought to myself - "what a friggin waste of time, a one-size fits all curriculum detracting from the things i really want to study, what idiots, do they not see the huge opportunity cost"</p>
<p>Right now I'm considering doing the 4-1 program with columbia college and taking core classes for the rest of my time here. The conversion was simple: there was no competitive disadvantage to taking the classes, and the beauty rather than the idiocy lies in the requirements being one-size fits all. I realized that they don't expect us all to have the same interests and passions that the core focuses on. Rather they adapt the core to be valuable to students from any discipline. This means that in contemporary civilizations for example we read philosophy about pure math, evolution, artists, politics, ethics, religion, economics, physics, history etc. Not only were the people in my class not hardcore philosophy majors, the professor would make the material accessible to everyone. All we needed to enjoy and to do decently in the class was an appreciation for other disciplines. </p>
<p>The reason that the core makes life hard, is not the classes themselves. I never hear people saying "holy crap, i'm going to get raped on my lit hum exam next week"; the core is very doable. Taking core classes in addition to all else that you want to take makes the experience challenging. Another reason that the core is not so tedious is each class is very different. Music Humanities and Latin American civilization (possible major cultures requirement) have as much in common as music hum and calculus.</p>
<p>Well good luck with choosing, congrats on getting in.</p>
<p>Thanks confidentialcoll for your response. When I saw that you had quoted my post, I immediately thought you were going to yell at me for considering Columbia even though I am not drawn to the core…I was explaining my dilemma to a friend of mine that attended Columbia, and was told that I didn’t deserve to experience the “majestic opportunity that is Columbia University if I did not appreciate and understand the true beauty that is the core.” That’s a fanatic for you =) Your advice was extremely helpful—professors seem to understand that students have a diversity of interests, and then attempt to cater to the needs of such a diverse body of individuals.</p>
<p>
[quote]
thought to myself - "what a friggin waste of time, a one-size fits all curriculum detracting from the things i really want to study, what idiots, do they not see the huge opportunity cost"
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I laughed out loud at this. My S only recently explained the concept of opportunity cost to me.</p>
<p>want2bivy -- I'd suggest that you attend admit days both places and try to sit in on a core class at Columbia when you do. (Or, since you're in NYC, maybe you could even manage it outside admit days.) That sold my S, though I think he was already predisposed to like it. What people sometimes miss about the core is that it's not just a list of Great Books. It's goal is a common intellectual exploration -- small classes that are not necessarily taught by the world's expert on Plato or the Bible, but led by someone smart who guides a bunch of smart kids to think and talk about ideas. Of course that's the ideal, and your mileage will vary. But my S's experience with both LitHum and Contemporary Civilization was pretty much like that. He found it a bonding experience as well, because I remember him saying it gave him something to talk about even with other people waiting for the elevator in the first year dorm, or in the dining hall, even if it was only to complain. So that aspect is different from the distribution requirements you will find at Harvard. On the other hand, Harvard has a residential college system which a lot of students regard as the essence of the Harvard experience.</p>