<p>corranged-- I'm in the same predicament.</p>
<p>xo. tri</p>
<p>From whence to you gain your impression that the "educational/intellectual atmosphere of a school like Columbia" is superior to the "educational/intellectual atmosphere" at Harvard College?</p>
<p>Only superior for me, Byerly. </p>
<p>I want to be educated, and I think that with a curriculum such as Columbia's I will be able to learn the foundations of knowledge in order to truly understand the other subjects I study. Other similarly fabulous institutions, such as Harvard, do not assure this type of education.</p>
<p>If you want to construct a curriculum founded in the types of things offered in the core, there is nothing preventing you from selecting the appropriate courses at Harvard. Furthermore, Harvard doesn't restrict you, should you decide that you don't want to have a full onslaught of 'core'</p>
<p>I sat in on some core courses when I visited Chicago and was distinctly underwhelmed--that's part of the reason that I chose Harvard instead. In retrospect, my underwhelmedness and the disengagement of the students probably had something to do with the fact that one of the courses I visited was at nine in the morning, but I did get the impression that the Chicago core just wasn't for me. And I still feel that way--I tend to prefer my lecture classes at Harvard to the seminars. Matter of personal preference, I suppose.</p>
<p>You can tell I'm tired when I re-read my post and realize I typed "assure" instead of "insure." It's too late to edit, but notice the word I meant to use, Tennis. It is possible to construct a curriculum that has a resemblence to that of Columbia's (or any other school's), but it would be quite difficult to work out, I imagine (around the requirements for your concentration and the distribution requirements). Further, it would be impossible to reproduce a particular core curriculum and everything that goes along with it at a school that did not intend to have one. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Matter of personal preference, I suppose.
[/quote]
Of course.</p>
<p>eatsleeprun: You have lots of time to make your decision. If you can visit both places again, you should. I think you'll know after spending a night or two on campus.</p>
<p>corranged: It is much easier (not to mention realistic) not to have a first choice, though it can make the final decision difficult. But it also means that you are probably the kind of student who will make the most of wherever you end up, since you can see the advantages to so many different places. Good luck with your applications!</p>
<p>Phoenixy-I had the same experience when I was visiting Chicago. The history core that I sat in on (also earlyish, 10 a.m.) was small, but dull. Lots of awkward lulls in the conversation (that made me want to jump in and say something, even though I knew nothing on the topic). People didn't seem very prepared or engaged.</p>
<p>I'm not saying Harvard sections are more intellectual (I've suffered through some awful ones in my first semester), but the UC one that I saw wasn't anything special.</p>
<p>SAC,</p>
<p>I wanted to either PM you or email you because this is getting off the point of the thread, but neither is possible.</p>
<p>My S, a junior, has Columbia and Chicago as top two choices. He has the qualifications to be accepted at either place (although I know that's not a lock by any means), so I really wanted to get your impressions. I was particularly interested because of your reference to jazz since S is a jazz pianist.</p>
<p>Should I start a new thread in the Chicago or Columbia boards?</p>
<p>Thanks so much.</p>
<p>Thank you, Sac.</p>
<p>I'm going to provide my S's idiosyncratic reason for choosing Harvard over Chicago. It's idosyncratic because it pertains to his own priorities, which may not be the same as other students'.</p>
<p>S is advanced in math and wanted to be be able to take advanced math classes early on in his undergraduate career. He was ambivalent about Chicago's core curriculum intrinsic value but was quite concerned that it would create scheduling conflicts that would affect his ability to take advanced classes. He talked to someone who graduated from Chicago in math. His acquaintance told him that, while he was able to take advanced classes, he had to argue his way into them every quarter despite getting As in the prerequisite classes. S is not the type to argue his way into classes. At Harvard, he is EXPECTED to take these advanced classes, so he won't have to make a case for taking them.</p>
<p>I was more enthusiastic about Chicago than S. While it is absolutely possible to duplicated Columbia and Chicago's core curriculum at Harvard (or Yale or Princeton, or...), the value of having a core curriculum is that all students read the same books at the same time; this is what enables them to discuss what they've read and lends Columbia and Chicago their aura of intellectualism. The kinds of discussions that seem more prevalent at Columbia and Chicago do occur in schools with more flexible or even non-existent core curricula, but they occur in small groups.
Harvard is currently reviewing its core curriculum and concentration requirements. From all accounts, it is going in the direction of distribution requirements and fewer requirements for concentration. There is also a push to get more students to study abroad (although that can mean going abroad in the summer).
As far as individual classes are concerned, it is hard to generalize on the basis of just a few. There are dull lecturers anywhere (and some great lecturers have their off days) and seminars have their ups and downs, too. I would not suggest deciding between Columbia, Chicago, Harvard or other similar schools on the basis on attending a class or two. It might be useful, however, picking up syllabi of similar courses for comparison.</p>
<p>Marite, a mathematician we know said that the difference he sees between Harvard and everywhere else in math is that the top math students he sees coming out of Harvard have been encouraged to take on the very most challenging problems.</p>
<p>go5878 -- I think a Columbia vs Chicago thread might be very interesting, as the schools have much in common. I'd be happy to communicate more personally with you about your jazz-playing son, as well. Or, maybe that should also be a thread? (I also PM'ed you)</p>
<p>The difference between Harvard and Chicago is that Chicago believes in every student receiving a solid background across the liberal arts and sciences in the first two years. Harvard doesn't do that and students can "concentrate" as early as the end of freshman year. </p>
<p>The Chicago math department and the courses are probably more rigorous than at Harvard. Also, due to the quarter system, one can take a greater variety of courses outside of the major's focus. </p>
<p>Chicago and Columbia have an intellectual atmosphere that Harvard does not.</p>
<p>I'm actually interested in the Harvard vs. Columbia discussion. A friend at Columbia said that when she posed the question there, Columbia freshmen thought it would be bizarre if not wrong-headed to turn down Harvard. </p>
<p>Even if they are only seduced by the name, does the fact that the students at Columbia would be seduced by the name speak badly of their school?</p>
<p>I know the big differences between the two schools would be the core and a Cambridge vs. NYC comparison - but I really don't get the impression that Columbia students are measurably more idea-focused (whereas U of C students are) or have any more fun than Harvard students.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The Chicago math department and the courses are probably more rigorous than at Harvard. Also, due to the quarter system, one can take a greater variety of courses outside of the major's focus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Students in Harvard's Math 55 would disagree with this statement. My S talked to two Chicago math graduates before deciding to apply to Harvard EA.</p>
<p>But, how many students actually take Math 55 as their freshman math course? And stay in it? I think that Zephyr was making a generalization. Only the most advanced students going into Harvard take Math 55; there are plenty of students who can and will become just as proficient who simply have not had the opportunity to gain that background in math before starting college. There is also no question that the quarter system allows for more classes.</p>
<p>I know a couple Chicago math graduates. Well, I actually know the father of one quite well. He has three or four kids who went to very high level schools, the best in the country, but he says that his son who went to Chicago received without a doubt the best education. He (the son) was the type of kid to concentrate on one subject and ignore the rest. At Chicago, the core forced him to study and learn a multitude of subjects that he would have simply ignored at another school.</p>
<p>Zephyr keeps making statements against Harvard without citing any basis for them.</p>
<p>Corranged:</p>
<p>The quarter system does allow for more classes, but the classes are shorter. In the end, the amount of materials covered is probably the same. The quarter system makes for more tests and exams, so it is harder for students to slack off. Many Harvard students spend lots of their time doing ECs and cram like mad during reading period (under review, like the rest of the curriculum), especially in the fall term as finals are held in mid to late January. </p>
<p>Math 55 currently has 26 students. Last year, there were 12. The point, however, is not how many students are in math 55, but the range of math offerings avaible to math undergraduates. There is a reason why the strongest prospective math majors are attracted to Harvard (not having to argue your way into advanced classes is one reason). But for the majority of prospective math majors, there are different freshman math classes (math 23 and math 25) that are pretty advanced by any standard.</p>
<p>
[quote]
He (the son) was the type of kid to concentrate on one subject and ignore the rest. At Chicago, the core forced him to study and learn a multitude of subjects that he would have simply ignored at another school.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is definitely an argument in Chicago's favor, but only if one 1. values a broad general education and 2. would remain too narrowly focused if not forced to take general education classes. A point that has been made by proponents of general education requirements is that at colleges that have no core curriculum, such as Amherst or Brown, 85% of the students take a broad range of classes; this is not significantly different from their peers at colleges that do have a core curriculum. I think the difference between Chicago and Columbia on the one hand and colleges that have distribution requirements on the other, is not about the value of a liberal arts education but the value of a single curriculum that is shared by all students (the single curriculum does, in fact, allow for some choice). </p>
<p>My S's concern was not about the value of a liberal arts education as such; he was afraid, rightly or wrongly, that the demands of the Core curriculum would make scheduling the more advanced classes he wished to take more difficult. He'd already taken some college math classes just because they fit his high school schedule rather than because he thought they were the best fit for him at that particular stage of his studies. He wanted to construct his schedule around his math interests rather than the other way around.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A friend at Columbia said that when she posed the question there, Columbia freshmen thought it would be bizarre if not wrong-headed to turn down Harvard. Even if they are only seduced by the name, does the fact that the students at Columbia would be seduced by the name speak badly of their school?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think this is the flip side of what happens when you ask Harvard freshmen why they chose Harvard and they answer "because it's Harvard." Does that mean they can't think of any other reason, and speak badly of their school? :) Most students choosing between Columbia and Harvard do choose Harvard. (Though I've encountered four or five others who made the decision my son made in his year, so I assume there are more than that.) However, there certainly are also students at Columbia who could conceivably get into Harvard but didn't apply there because it doesn't attract them for some reason.</p>
<p>As to whether Columbia students have more fun than Harvard students, I have no idea how that could be measured. Especially since individual ideas of what is fun are, well, individual. There is a NYC pace that some people find exhilerating and others simply find exhausting. Whether Columbia students are more idea-oriented is, again, too broad a generalization to attempt to measure. I would guess that students who choose Columbia because of the core, rather than in spite of it, are probably either humanities types or scientific types who also like humanities. So, they are people who like to kick around big ideas even thoogh those ideas are not directly related to how they will ultimately earn their livings. As Marite mentioned, because they are reading the same books at the same time as others in their year (an aspect of the core that people often overlook, but one of its definite attractions) this at least raises the odds that whether you are standing waiting for the elevator or sitting across from a stranger in the dining room, you might have some common grounds for discussion. This doesn't mean that everyone loves the core, just that it is an intellectual common grounding.</p>
<p>OK, I understand, Marite. I do not know about Chicago's math courses for freshman, so I can't really comment on that, anyway.
[quote]
That is definitely an argument in Chicago's favor, but only if one 1. values a broad general education and 2. would remain too narrowly focused if not forced to take general education classes.
[/quote]
I, of course, think that all students should have a broad general education, whether or not they value it at the time. But, that's just me. As for #2, the particular classes of the core curriculums were chosen for specific purposes. Even if a student takes a wide range of classes, he or she will not (except in some rare circumstances) get the benefit of a core curriculum, regardless of the learning community factor.
[quote]
A point that has been made by proponents of general education requirements is that at colleges that have no core curriculum, such as Amherst or Brown, 85% of the students take a broad range of classes; this is not significantly different from their peers at colleges that do have a core curriculum.
[/quote]
There is a difference between taking a broad range of classes and taking a particular broad range of classes that have been determined to be the best for educating students. </p>
<p>The broad range of classes at Brown may include an atronomy class and an archeology class. According to my views on what education should be (which are probably similar to those of Chicago and Columbia), these are the types of classes that should be taken after (or concurrently with, in some cases) a strong liberal arts background has been established.</p>