<p>^I never said Columbia’s athletes are comparable to stanford’s, my point was that you can’t take athletes out of the sat equation for stanford and not for columbia, because removing athletes from columbia’s sat calculation would also increase sat scores considerably. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>actually I’m not sure Stanford could sustain a yeild anywhere near 72% if they took kids with better scores, why, do you have a study to prove otherwise? And I’m not sure columbia’s yield would drop so drastically if they admitted higher scores, why, do you have a study to prove otherwise</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While not guaranteed to be scientific I think I’ve given ample evidence to support the claim that many people, especially in the north east, consider Columbia more prestigious than Stanford. If you polled the entire American public, I’m sure Stanford would come out on top, but that wasn’t the initial statement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>whatever the revealed preferences study revealed might not be relevant anymore, things change and Yale could very well be beating Harvard for cross-admits this year.</p>
<p>Anyway good to see Columbia paling in comparison to Stanford.</p>
<p>I can’t help it. I only have Stanford-quality SATs. I am not nearly as “quick” as you Columbia high scorers, so you have to forgive me. I’ll try my very best to keep up though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not just my opinion; it’s FACT.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’ll try just for your sake because your advice means sooo much to me.</p>
<p>The higher the quality of athlete, the smaller the recruiting pool of high scorers. Since (unlike the Ivies) Stanford is not bound by the AI, some Stanford athletes (especially in the revenue sports such as football and men’s basketball) have a disproportionate impact on average SAT scores. This implies that if we took Stanford athletes out of the equation, Stanford’s average SAT scores would rise (considerably) more than Columbia’s average SAT scores would if we took Columbia athletes out of the equation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My point is that Stanford would still have a more than respectable yield if it only went after the highest scorers; for Columbia, not so much especially because the tip-toppy scorers are probably less likely to commit themselves to any particular school by Early Decision. They’d probably prefer to be “free agents” because they have their pick of schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We have extremely different standards for what counts as “evidence.” The CC polpulation is a neither random nor representative sample.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Who needs the Revealed Preferences study to figure out that Harvard clearly beats every other school (including Yale) for cross-admits? Harvard has the highest yield among top universities, the best FA, and by far the most prestige and name recognition, etc. Not to mention, Cambridge/Boston >>> New Haven. Do you have any evidence whatsoever other than some silly CC poll that Harvard does NOT beat Yale for cross-admits?</p>
<p>I find these my-school-is-better discussions amusing, although destructive. My children both thought other opportunities were “better” than Stanford, and didn’t apply.</p>
<p>In high school, I thought Stanford was the “best,” although my dad didn’t let me apply; he took time off from work to come to my high school to meet with the Stanford admissions officer with me (and only two other kids–those were the days!). Dad blew right past the fluff and asked, “What kind of scholarships [read: financial aid] are available?” The admissions officer smirked and said, “Unless you’re the next Jim Plunkett, there are no scholarships.” (Given objobs familiarity with Stanford sports, he will be able to approximate my age.) My dad walked out, and my Stanford hopes were dashed.</p>
<p>My older child believed an elite LAC was the “best college” for him, and my younger believed Columbia was the “best college” for him. I believe each was correct.</p>
<p>My younger spent a lot of time on the Stanford campus, but ultimately decided it felt too much like “a country club where people go to classes.” I translate that as “a suburban campus filled with people like me that feels too much like my high school.” Columbia, on the other hand, had all the academics he sought (even if it is a step below Stanford, as many apparently believe), while in a vibrant, energizing, far-away environment. Notwithstanding my stale, yet unwavering, support of Stanford, he applied ED to Columbia and is ecstatic with his choice.</p>
<p>My simple point is that, above a certain level, the “best” college experience for any high school student is the one that is right for him or her. I know this concept is not novel, but in light of the discourse on this thread, I humbly believe it is time to re-introduce the concept.</p>
<p>I never implied better necessarily means better “fit.” Plently of people, for whatever subjective reasons (aka personal “fit”), choose CUNYs or SUNYs over Columbia. But that doesn’t mean Columbia isn’t (objectively) better than CUNYs or SUNYs.</p>
Pointless comparison. One does not apply to Stanford or Columbia’s graduate school; one applies to a program. It is not even worth comparing programs, as the selection process is highly individualized. At the graduate level, fit is the same as quality. Only ignorant high schoolers and undergraduates think graduate rankings are worth looking at.</p>
<p>I can count on my fingers the number of programs in any field that are absolutely and definitively the best in their field beyond all competition, and none of those programs are at Stanford, or Columbia for that matter.</p>
<p>
Accurately and succinctly stated. That should have ended the thread.</p>
<p>That poster said that Columbia was more prestigious than Stanford to some east coast people, not that it was better. It’s rather pointless to argue it, as I know people who do believe Columbia is more prestigious, though I personally do not. Not everyone on the east coast, especially people on the street, considers Stanford on par with Yale or Princeton. What does it matter what such people think, though? Is it necessary to enlighten people so they may grovel before the might of Stanford?</p>
<p>@objobs: I don’t need to read your mind, objobs. Your actions tell me a lot more about you than whatever sort of mind that inhabits your skull ever could.</p>
<p>You respond to the mildest barb against your institution and jump in with guns blazing, gung ho about defending it from the cruel posters of this forum. Yet the post which you identify as the originator of the Stanford vs. Columbia argument does not even take away from the qualities of Stanford in any shape or form - it merely makes a passing note on how a certain part of the population might view the relative prestige of these two institutions. Should I type that again, or in a simpler form, seeing as your skills of comprehension seem to leave a lot to be desired? Or could you understand what the poster meant perfectly well but felt that even the mere supposition that Stanford might not be <em>gasp</em> the penultimate institute of higher learning that exists is such blasphemy that you must quell such notions immediately? After behaving such I can’t believe you have the temerity to call other posters insecure. You can add hypocrisy to the already towering (I imagine) list of your shortcomings.</p>
<p>How did Stanford even admit a student as narrow-minded, intolerant, insecure and inconsiderate as you anyways?</p>
<p>@suzaliscious: Why the redundancy? suzaliscious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wasn’t the post to which I was responding. You asked: “how did the question of Stanford even come up?” So I gave you the answer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, I only have Stanford-quality SAT scores. So please try to use as many mono-syllabic words as possible. Thanks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So many big words, so many syllables. What to do?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Hypocrisy > Self-Righteousness. That said, I never confirmed or denied my security (or lack thereof). So your claims of “hypocrisy” are unfounded.</p>
<p>@suzaliscious: If and when you’re done nagging me, why don’t you offer some of your valuable lessons re: insecurity to your fellow Cornellians? If I see another “why we’re a real ivy/not the worst ivy” thread again in the Cornell sub-forum, I’m gonna gag.</p>
<p>You’re right. It wasn’t cool. I overreacted when I thought you insulted one of my future classmates. Then the argument escalated out of hand. My bad. No hard feelings. Good luck to you at Columbia!</p>
<p>@objobs: Me too, actually. I’m proud of my college and see no need to defend it from people whose judgement is irrational to begin with and thus whose minds will not change even if the truth hits them in the face. I think my school is great, and a great fit for me as well. So I’m happy.</p>
<p>Acceptance rate is lower for undergrad than for grad. However, it’s hard to say that Columbia undergrad programs are more pretigeous. Almost everybody who graduates from high school with good GPA and test scores (that make them a hopeful candidate) would apply to schools like Columbia. Everyone of them applies for not fewer than 10 schools. They just give it a shot since it’s their first experience and an undergrad degree is almost a must in today’s job market. Thus, the number of applicants is much higher. Given the number of available seats, undergrad acceptance rates are always lower. For grad school, there are many more “unseen” steps you have to go through before applying, making the number of applicants much lower. For example, first you have to maintain good grades in undergrad, which is more difficult to do than in high school. So not all good students in high school will do well in college. Then you have to face this question “should I go to grad school or work?” More than half will drop at this stage. Then some grad schools require professional and personal experience, so more than half drop at this stage, leaving very few people feeling they’re qualified for consideration. Also most grad school applicants apply for fewer than 5 schools. Again, this doesn’t mean grad school is more prestigeous either, because some very intellectually capable people never apply for grad schools. But that doesn’t mean people who attended ok undergrad schools but good grad schools is less intelligent than those who attended good undergrad schools. There are many reasons why people choose to go to less prestigeous undergrad schools. For example, some people choose to go to a community college instead of Columbia because they don’t have money. But it’s difference for grad schools, since there’s more financial aid available to grad students and these students tend to be more financially stable or qualified for loans, so they could go to expensive schools. That’s why I said it’s hard to tell wether undergrad or grad is more prestigeous.</p>
<p>The original question was about Columbia grads vs. Columbia undergrads. Why are people arguing over Columbia vs. Stanford. I go to Columbia School of International and Public Affairs. For my program, Stanford is not even a competitor for Columbia and can’t even compete with GW and American. But I’m sure there are other programs that Stanford is better than Columbia.</p>
<p>Acceptance rate isn’t necessarily lower for undergrad than grad. It completely depends on the department and graduate program. For example, in the History department “Our entering class of 20–25 students is drawn from a pool that typically contains over 400 applications.” This looks like an acceptance rate between 5%-10% depending upon yield. And the average calibre of applicants for graduate programs is way higher than undergrad, making it that much more selective.</p>
<p>Most grad school applicants apply to around 5 schools. People who apply for grad schools tend to know what they want to do and where they want to go. That’s why they don’t just apply to a million schools like undergrad applicants. </p>
<p>Most schools have their acceptance rates listed on their website. So far, I haven’t seen any school that has an undergrad acceptance rate that’s higher than grad acceptance rate. Maybe there are, it’s just not common.</p>
<p>Grad school acceptance rates will vary very widely across department and program, so looking for a single number is pretty meaningless. For example, masters programs will have <em>much</em> higher acceptance rates than phd programs. Columbia’s medical school and phd programs generally have under 10% acceptance rates.</p>
you too at stanford!</p>