<p>Particularly the Computer Engineering. Is it solid? How is it compared to MIT's and Stanford's?
Please consider the same for Applied Physics.</p>
<p>Yes, it's "solid." You'll get a good education, have a respectable degree, and will be attractive to employers or grad schools. But it doesn't have the "reputation" of MIT or Stanford, which are traditionally known for being top engineering schools.</p>
<p>i've considered applied physics, it's a good program, interdisciplinary, broad, and flexible enough to specialize in a certain feild, like physics applied to medcine. Comp sci is as c2002 put it. comp sci doesn't have the big name professors, or reputation of stanford or mit, or the fondness of the comp sci industry to employ grads that stan and MIT enjoys. </p>
<p>applied physics is different, because MIT and stan are not neccessarily leaders in those fields, cornell is exceptional, cal tech is awesome, i'm unfamiliar with stan and MIT applied physics. Columbia has a great physics dept.</p>
<p>pretty much an echo - the applied physics dept at columbia has a great history (manhattan project, I.I. Rabi, etc.), and the applied physics dept has a nobel winner (Horst Stormer) in it right now. But it doesn't have the cachet of MIT or Stanford, and possibly deservedly so.</p>
<p>you still won't be at much of a disadvantage for fellow student intellect, resources, or employers. it's just not as popularly known.</p>
<p>Hmmm. The Manhattan Project as a great history.</p>
<p>"Hmmm. The Manhattan Project as a great history."</p>
<ul>
<li>i assume the above is sarcastic, and if so, i would hope that posters here understand that the manhattan project happening at columbia is a massive achievement. there's no need to be political when assessing the magnitude of a scientific achievement. I'm not saying the two are unrelated, but to use a political oucome to judge the value of a scienific discovery and feat is incorrect.</li>
</ul>