<p>But how is its journalism undergrad program?</p>
<p>Any professional journalist will tell you that you cannot study journalism in a classroom. And if you simply MUST have someone dictate how to write a lede, a nutgraf, etc. then do a grad degree with a specialization in political or cultural or whatever kind of reporting you want.</p>
<p>You learn journalism by practice. Join your daily newspaper at any school and you'll be set. Add in summer internships. </p>
<p>Get a liberal arts education in majors that interest you. Be well-rounded in your world-view and an analytical thinker.</p>
<p>I'm thinking about majoring in communications, hopefully at UPenn, then going to the Columbia School of Journalism.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sorry to burst your bubble atnyu, but those are dealing with graduate programs. completely different from undergrad quality.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly. NYU is an excellent school, but not the best choice for undergrads, though I must admit I am applying anyways.</p>
<p>MR YANKEE:</p>
<p>Read the biographies of journalists you admire. You'll see that hardly ANY study communications/journalism as undergrads (unless you admire TV journalists in which case, well, ... ). Study Political Science/IR/History if you think you'd like to write about politics; study Art History and English if you think you want to be a cultural reporter; or just study whatever suits your fancy as long as you're expanding your intellectual horizons -- you can do this studying philosophy, art, literature, politics, language, in short -- Anything!</p>
<p>Columbia School of Journalism offers two programs. One 1-year program which you can get into without journalism experience -- and which most people do -- which is a joke. Don't do it. You won't learn anything you can't learn writing for student publications & interning at professional publications; and you'll throw away $50K. The only journalism grad program that's worth it is the one CJS offers for seasoned journalists (10 years or so in the field), which is 2-year program that culminates in a thesis.</p>
<p>lolabelle: What is the name of the 2-year program at Columbia that you consider worthwhile?</p>
<p>I don't consider any journalism program truly worthwhile. But the two-year program at CJS is a little more worthwhile than the other programs (MS) offered. However, note that you have to be a seasoned journalist by the time you do it -- it requires significant professional experience for admission. It is the MA program. </p>
<p>Again, I think you should do your undergrad and grad degrees in subjects that interest you. For example, I studied international relations, English, art history as an undergrad, because I was interested in both political and cultural reporting.</p>
<p>I think NYU is prestigious. However, it's mostly prestigious for its professional programs such as Law.</p>
<p>Is not NYU's Math/Applied Math Undergraduate Program top notch? I read somewhere that this undergraduate program was only behind Harvard, Stanford, and Princeton. That sounds pretty prestigious to me.</p>
<p>Lolabelle & Huskem55,</p>
<p>I am impressed by the confidence with which you make this statement, which makes no sense whatsover. The same outstanding faculty that is involved in the evidently excellent graduate programs and research also teach the undergraduate students; even the best known, most accomplished scientists teach at least one undergraduate course per year, at NYU and other research universities.</p>
<p>However, you both claim that the quality of the undergraduate education and of the overall undergraduate experience is somehow unrelated to the caliber, the stature, and the quality of the faculty with whom the students interact, in the lecture rooms and outside, labs, offices, etc. That is quite amazing. I always thought that one way to get excellent (the best?) education is by exposure to the leading minds, those who create new knowledge, push the frontiers, and who transmit their excitement and passion to the undergraduates.</p>
<p>Moreover, if you think that the quality of graduate programs and research at NYU has no bearing on the quality of the undergraduate studies, then you have to judge all other leading universities in the same way. The problem is that the great and the most prestigious universities in this country are without exception research universities, just like NYU. They all owe their national and world-wide reputation and prestige to the academic excellence of their faculty and strength of their research and graduate programs, not their undergraduate studies. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, MIT, Caltech and the likes did not rise to the top of the academic ladder because they offer the best undergraduate education, but because they have the best, most creative minds in the sciences, humanities, and arts, who lead the strongest graduate programs in the world.</p>
<p>But, since you state that in the case of NYU the strength of the graduate programs is irrelevant for how good the undergraduate studies are, then surely you must apply the same reasoning to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Columbia, MIT, Caltech, etc., etc. By your logic, people shouldn't go to top research universities to get excellent undergraduate education. You must wonder then why so many try so hard to get accepted by such places.</p>
<p>
[quote]
However, you both claim that the quality of the undergraduate education and of the overall undergraduate experience is somehow unrelated to the caliber, the stature, and the quality of the faculty with whom the students interact, in the lecture rooms and outside, labs, offices, etc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I didn't read lolabelle or the other poster's post, but to clarify my position, part of what does attract me to NYU is the presence of great faculty that will teach undergrad courses. This is certainly a benefit, but the fact that one is competing with over 20,000 undergraduate students for their attention is a bit disheartening.</p>
<p>brand_182 - You are never competing with that many students for the attention of the faculty. At most you are only competing with the other students in any given class, because all the Profs that I had made a significant effort to make sure they had time for their students. I don't know about other majors, but the largest classes I took (Econ intro courses) only had about 100 people.</p>
<p>i know for a fact that in my field, psychology, the faculty in the top departments devote themselves to research and working with their grad students. they might teach a large lecture, but it is the graduate student TAs that have the vast majority of contact with undergrads.</p>
<p>how many large universities do you see listed on the princeton review list of 'professors get high marks?'</p>
<p>(and yes, i know its not based on any statistical analysis, but these lists do show tendencies/'feels' of diffeerent schools'</p>
<p>New York University, NYU, is very highly regarded in business and the arts due to the quality of students, faculty, resources and location. Prestige= general opinion of others= is high due to location and name recognition worldwide.</p>
<p>Honestly, the reason I rejected NYU last year over Chicago was solely because it was ranked much, much lower.</p>
<p>Is NYU an Ivy? No. Does this mean it is a second-rate university? Just the opposite. </p>
<p>For some reason, today’s youth seem to only view prestige as a result of elitism. Therefore, if it’s not an ivy… it’s not the best, and must be lacking. This is an extremely incorrect assumption. NYU is a historic, well-known, leading university in the heart of the greatest city in the world, NYC. </p>
<p>To qualify NYU as a school lacking in prestige because it’s most popular factor lies in it’s location, is preposterous. NYU is a part of the city, which is exactly why it is so attractive; it is the only school like it. You cannot divide NYU from NYC, the two go hand in hand. I could very well say, Harvard, without it’s name-recognition, would be just another college. However, once you remove an integral aspect of such an institution, it is no longer that same institution. As is the case, with NYU. </p>
<p>Furthermore, NYU has perhaps, the best location of any university in the world. It is surrounded by all aspects of government, history, business, and culture. It allows students to learn through living, and not inaction. Knowledge obtained through books and lectures is static, and frankly, constant no matter where you study. Therefore, a prestigious university is one that can promote active knowledge, one which embraces reality over the abstract. NYU is the only school where such a marriage of the theoretical and practical is possible; where not only is it possible, but it is a success. </p>
<p>NYU’s location, which is as much a part of NYU as any ivy’s “selectivity,” makes it one of the best places to learn and grow. Whatever NYU lacks in so-called ivy-like “prestige,” it makes up for in sheer reality. NYU is NYU. There is no other. </p>
<p>NYU is of a league unto it’s own.</p>
<p>^^you do realize that you are picking up a 4-year-old thread? :)</p>
<p>but, your post just reinforces the point that many of us make (and not what you really intended): NYU’s attractiveness is primarily New York City. (Nothing wrong with that, btw.)</p>
<p>haha, yes bluebayou</p>
<p>Yes, and I agree, NYC is a huge factor in it’s attractiveness, but I’m also saying, most people find that such a fact somehow lessens the caliber of NYU, while I happen to think it increases it. Location is just as much a part of a university’s atmosphere, mission, and influence, as reputation, faculty, and “prestige.” </p>
<p>I think I’ll go revive some more threads now! (just kidding of course!)</p>
<p>I understand and agree with snoopy dog about the attractiveness of NYC’s location – not just for its appeal as an exciting place to live, but because NYU takes advantage of it for learning opportunities for its students, and on that basis, NYC really can’t be beat!!</p>