[Final Choice]Columbia, Brown, Amherst, or...?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
1

<p>I'm an international student from Beijing, China, interested in literature, language, anthropology, philosophy, cinema, writing, art history, etc. What I look for the most from college, i guess, are the possibilities and freedom of study. I have no intention to get down to the job market very soon (very likely that I'll go to grad school), nor do I desire to pursue a specific academic/career path. I'm not too aggressive or ambitious, though I do feed on challenges and fresh ideas, and search for intellectual growth and artistic exploration. My problem is that I'm not committed enough, have no strict, set goals, constantly swinging. </p>

<p>The schools I'm considering attending are Columbia, Brown, Amherst. (The artistic vibe at Vassar and Wesleyan also attracts me so much, and the oh-so-beautiful Middlebury!) Given my nationality and my parents' lack of recognition for LACs, I'm almost bound to choose an Ivy, but I'm not sure they are the best for me. So here I list some of the pros and cons I can find or think of, and sincerely ask for alum or peer advice. And please correct me if any of the following is false.</p>

<p>COLUMBIA
pro:
1. Prestige
2. NYC: the city that stirs and inspires me. Resources, fun, stimulation.
3. Core: solid basis of “Western Canon”
con:
1. NYC: $$, major distraction
2. Core: time-consuming, not very flexible, leaves little freedom for self-exploration, everyone takes the same courses
3. More aggressive, competitive, over-achieving, pre-professional</p>

<p>Brown
pro:
1. Open Curriculum: much freedom in course selection, less pressure, pass/fail classes that allow me to venture into unfamiliar disciplines.
2. More laid-back, family-like, nurturing, happy
con:
1. Providence is not NYC, though it's a nice place
2. From what I heard, Brown's academic reputation is slightly less celebrated (do correct me if it's not true)</p>

<p>Amherst
pro:
1. Open Curriculum: much freedom in course selection, less pressure, pass/fail classes that allow me to venture into unfamiliar disciplines.
2. Small, serious, tight-knit, class interaction, personal attention
3. Beautiful nature & peaceful, quiet lifestyle, which I've never tasted in my 18 years of life
con:
1. Lack of proximity to a major city
2. Lack of name recognition in general public or in China, not that I care a lot, but my parents do consider it a problem.
3. Cliquish, preppy, more homogeneous (please correct me)</p>

<p>I think it's also worth mentioning that I haven't yet gave up my UChicago WL. To me, UChicago is like a secluded ivory tower in Chicago, another great city. The Chicago core is also demanding but a lot more flexible, and the students are more nerdy than preppy, which is fine for me. The drawback, I guess, should be the terribly long winter and academic pressure, since I've suffered from depression and anxiety for quite a long period of time. Should I stay on WL?</p>

<p>BTW, I didn't get any FA from either school, but odds are that I could receive some from need-blind Amherst, due to family financial changes next year. But I don't think it's possible with other colleges. </p>

<p>This decision is one of the most important so far in my life, and considering that I'm going abroad into a totally different culture and way of living, I must be very prudent.
Appreciate every comment and suggestion.</p>

2

<p>Hi Connie</p>

<p>Congrats on great number of admissions. I hope in the end that Columbia wins out - you keyed in on a few pros, but I think there are a lot more worth adding.</p>

<p>1) An engaged intellectual community, because everyone takes the core, you can discuss things with just about everyone.
2) More academic majors/courses than any of your other options, it is truly exceptional, which means more ways to express and explore.
3) Strong arts life - For someone interested in cinema studies, Columbia and NYC are a great place to be.
4) Great connections with China, especially with the new China center in Beijing
5) Top faculty in every area you want - columbia basically invented modern anthropology, acclaimed philosophy, Eng, writing and other faculties.
6) A rather intimate ugrad environment considering it is part of a research university and in nyc. Most kids live on campus, class sizes are very small, neighborhood caters to students with dozens of restaurants, grocery stores, places for late night snacking and conversation.
7) Strong international population, second largest in the country overall, and over 10% of the student body is international.</p>

<p>Some things to consider regarding your cons.</p>

<p>1) Most students stay on campus the vast majority of time and so the city rarely becomes a distraction, but more of a huge enhancement to your experience. And NYC is not as expensive as one might think. There are great resources that Columbia provides (free tickets, entrance to things), the city itself is full of free and cheap things that are still incredible. And part of the allure is to get by on little in the city, which means you have to get creative (oh boy do I have stories).</p>

<p>2) The core is actually all about self-exploration. You see often we confuse tasting different things as the only means of exploration, but the core is really about having you expand yourself as much as possible within the confines of small discussion courses. It is where you come to see not just how you think about a problem, but how you react to other people. In the courses you’ll also come across some of the most important theoretical and aesthetic reference points in society - reading plato for the first time was eye-opening because it became so clear how often he is cited/plagerized/referenced in literature, movies, life. And these fundamental ideas become part of your own intellectual stack of cards, ideas that you can use in almost any situation to improve your argument, to show cross-disciplinarity. Lastly, the courses introduce you to students that see things in different ways, which in itself challenges your own understanding, especially of something that you might think you know very well. It will push you away from just the humanities to consider the sciences and other disciplines as ways to understand questions. In the end I took classes in some 12 different departments, and a lot of had to do with the professors I had in the core that encouraged me to try something new and different. It jumpstarted my intellectual side.</p>

<p>3) I think Columbia students are more intense and direct in a New York way, but I wouldn’t quite call them competitive. So in New York it is always about answers, there is some impatience that develops, but it is never really competitive or aggressive. In part because so many students are doing so many different things that it becomes hard to really find someone you’re competing with, and also because despite characterizations, most Columbia students actually care a lot about each other and each other’s development. If someone is pushing you it is not because they want you to fail, but rather succeed. It is very collegial. And I don’t know where I would be if I didn’t have friends that refused to accept my lazy first answer, but asked me to dig deeper and to examine the situation harder.</p>

<p>Re: Brown and Amherst
Though comparatively Brown is not the academic powerhouse as Columbia, it does have some brilliant folks and some great departments, so I mean if you compare it to Columbia it wont be as celebrated intellectually, but in the pantheon of universities it is very good.</p>

<p>Amherst is not quite homogenous, it is actually one of the most diverse liberal arts colleges, but in the end it is kind of small so it means that there are never quite the raw numbers to really create subcommunities. Which means though percentages of diversity are high, the actual sense of diversity is not.</p>

3

<p>since you didn’t list any Cons for Brown, I’m assuming you’re subconsciously leaning towards Brown. go with it!</p>

4

<p>Well, if you’re really into the LAC, artsy thing, and want to be in a city the choice is quite simple. Brown. You’ll get all the advantages of a LAC and all the prestige of an ivy league school. The academics at brown are not sub par by a long shot. It depends on you. If you want it to be more competitive you can take all graded classes if you want it to be a little more laid back you can take all pass/fail classes. </p>

<p>From what you’ve said (including the stuff about vassar) it seems as though your heart is set on brown but you’re scared about the prestige factor. </p>

<p>Brown and columbia are both excellent well respected schools. The difference in prestige is minimal. I think you should go with your heart on this one. Ultimately YOU have to spend those 4 years in college so don’t make a decision based on what you think others might find appealing.</p>

5

<p>^ yeah I agree with the above, sounds like your reasons for not choosing Brown are entirely superficial. Your #1 reason for choosing Columbia was prestige, which in a battle between Amherst, Columbia and Brown, could not be more irrelevant, seems like you want to go to Brown and seems like you’ll prefer it as well.</p>