<p>what the heck?</p>
<p>wow, you really want to go off on columbia on here and to me? </p>
<p>1) i was emphasizing the differences between neuroscience and neurology, which are important to note because they do note equate.</p>
<p>2) i too was interested in neuroscience when i was looking for colleges, and i got a list made up with help from professors at my nearby uni. this is a solid program at harvard - [Harvard</a> Mind/Brain/Behavior - Undergraduate Tracks - Neurobiology](<a href=“http://mbb.harvard.edu/undergrad/neurotrack.php]Harvard”>http://mbb.harvard.edu/undergrad/neurotrack.php). and this is one too at columbia - [Neuroscience</a> and Behavior Major Requirements](<a href=“Undergraduates | Biology”>Undergraduates | Biology). both are related to top grad programs in neuroscience that are cross-disciplinary, but highly lab science oriented.</p>
<p>3) there is life after HYP. i chose columbia because i believe undoubtedly it is the best collegiate option out there. i was chiding yalerocks for not mentioning columbia, i think it appears he didn’t look at Columbia more closely earlier on. it was in good fun, i suppose you couldn’t read the subtext. i said so because i do love columbia. beyond the fact that in the sciences it has a premier reputation, it offers an incredibly rich and diverse undergraduate life and an overall transformative experience. i’m sorry i bucked the trend and went for a middle ivy, but i don’t have any regrets. i believe i picked the best place.</p>
<p>so here’s the lesson: if you want to use rather absurd notions such as HYP or the big three as your basis of reality then that will be your reality, but it certainly is not an informed position. first HYP doesn’t mean they are the top universities, rather, they are the most popular. within each are great programs, great aspects to all, but so too you can say about columbia and the ‘lower ivies’ as if you could distinguish between apples and oranges. in fact, historically, columbia has a stronger reputation for its academics than either yale or princeton. entire intellectual movements emanated from columbia. mostly this is because columbia and harvard emerged as research universities far more comprehensively than yale or princeton. </p>
<p>there are genetic descriptions that can explain our own perceptions of society - universities since they began to expand to more and more students have always privileged exclusivity, something that columbia was less about. columbia has always been a leader in allowing in underprivileged students, and it was primarily a commuter school throughout most of the 20th Century; columbia thought that an urban university didn’t need to be residential, that its goal was to serve the populations that surrounded it. i guess that you are jewish and go to a dual-curriculum school? perhaps you didn’t know, but from the 1950s until 1980s many of the leading jewish high schools sent students to Columbia and Penn because they were still being excluded from the likes of yale and princeton (most ivies from the 1910s onward practiced some form of discrimination). the irony now being that since the HYP schools have lifted their own levels of discrimination they have quickly obscured our own understanding of history. the university has changed and now we favor things like fully residential experiences, the need for resources, and other things that govern what we choose. columbia’s gamble at being a full commuter school lost out and maybe in retrospective it wasn’t a great idea - but it was what landed columbia the likes of jack kerouac and eric holder from queens, jerrold nadler and joel moses from brooklyn, michael mukasey and lou gehrig from manhattan. and history has become what it is - but it doesn’t discount the steps that columbia went along the way. a narrow reading of history looks at HYP as supreme, a more nuanced perspective understands that 1) all these unis are great, 2) there is life after HYP.</p>
<p>i don’t deny your own individual opinions, please hold them. but whereas i was being playful with yalerocks, and informational with you, i definitely do not think your retort was warranted. in fact, i gather you didn’t even read what i wrote, you just gathered i was being negative. guess what, i wasn’t. jeez.</p>