Columbia grads are more likely to be working in New York City, where salaries are high, than in the lower-paying Midwest.
1 Like
Much2learn, salary surveys are never accurate. For one, they seldom adjust for cost of living. As you can see from the link you provided, most of the universities at the top are concentrated in California and the East Coast, where the cost of living is significantly higher than the cost of living in the Midwest and the South.
Besides, the figures are suspect to begin with. For example, the average starting salary for CS majors at Michigan is close to $100k, so I am not sure how it is possible for the âearly career payâ to be $75k. Like I said above, last year, roughly one third of Michiganâs CS majors landed jobs with Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon. Thatâs tangible evidence of the programâs status as one of the better CS departments in the country. Columbia will likely have similar placement success, but at a fraction of the cost, the OP is probably better off foregoing Columbia and sticking to his in-state option.
1 Like
moooop, your uncle is Stephen Smale? Thatâs really cool!
You can see Michiganâs placement here:
http://career.engin.umich.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2016/03/annualreport1415.pdf
Average CS starting salary was $91,000 with top salary of $160,000.
If you think you will be happy at Michigan (and it is a great school to be happy at) go for Michigan. Both are terrific schools that will, for the most part, open up the same doors (especially for a CS major).
And congrats on being able to make an amazing choice!
âFor one, they seldom adjust for cost of living. As you can see from the link you provided, most of the universities at the top are concentrated in California and the East Coast, where the cost of living is significantly higher than the cost of living in the Midwest and the South.â
The problem with that is that the top tech jobs are in SF, Seattle, and NYC. Students competing for top jobs are not going to the midwest and south.
I believe the Michigan places 1/3 at those 4 firms. There is nowhere you canât reach from Michigan. I just think that Columbia students are probably placed at higher rates in top positions, and also may be likely to be recruited for other options. Finally, all job at Apple, for example, are not the same. A lot of the people working at the Apple store were CS majors. If the student was imagining being a SWE or a PM, that is a lot different. CS salaries seem to be very sensitive to technical skills and I think Columbia pushes students harder to learn more, and starts with stronger students who probably had more CS experience to start.
Additionally, it is likely that Columbia students are more likely to have internships and job opportunities at companies right in NYC, where Google owns an entire building, Bloomberg hires many, IBM, Palantir, Jane Street etc.
There are also certain positions where a Columbia student would seem to have an advantage of getting included as a candidate. I was talking to a current CS candidate who had a second round tech interview in NYC last week. The person said that there were 6 candidates being interviewed that day, and they were from MIT, Penn, Princeton, Berkeley, and Duke. That has a strong appearance of being a position where the name of the school matters. I do think a Michigan grad can get into that group, but I suspect it would be easier for a Columbia grad. They are both strong brands, but the Columbia brand is very strong in NYC.
I am not saying that Columbia is a clear choice, I just think that it depends on where the student wants to end up. If they want to be in the midwest, I would lean toward Michigan. If they want to be on the east coast, I would lean toward Columbia. If they want to be in Seattle or SF, I think it depends on what the student values.
âI believe the Michigan places 1/3 at those 4 firms. There is nowhere you canât reach from Michigan. I just think that Columbia students are probably placed at higher rates in top positions, and also may be likely to be recruited for other options.â
I donât see why that would be the case since Michigan and Columbia are considered peer institutions by the firms recruiting their graduates.
âAdditionally, it is likely that Columbia students are more likely to have internships and job opportunities at companies right in NYC, where Google owns an entire building, Bloomberg hires many, IBM, Palantir, Jane Street etc.â
I donât think finding great internships is a challenge for Michigan students. When you have thousands of gifted undergraduate students, companies come to you.
âThe person said that there were 6 candidates being interviewed that day, and they were from MIT, Penn, Princeton, Berkeley, and Duke. That has a strong appearance of being a position where the name of the school matters. I do think a Michigan grad can get into that group, but I suspect it would be easier for a Columbia grad. They are both strong brands, but the Columbia brand is very strong in NYC.â
This is so random it is not even worth discussing. But yes, in NYC, Columbiaâs brand exceeds that of Michigan. Then again, it exceeds that of virtually every university in the world save perhaps Harvard, and even that is debatable. But the OP has not indicated that his goal is to live in NYC. In other parts of the country, Columbiaâs corporate reputation does not exceed that of Michigan.
When it comes to graduate school or professional placement, Columbia offers no advantage over Michigan. Like I said earlier, when choosing between Michigan and Columbia, one need not concern himself with the quality of those universities since they are roughly equal. If cost is a concern, and one is cheaper than the other, then the cheaper option is the way to go. If cost is not a concern, going for fit is the way to go.
I donât see why that would be the case since Michigan and Columbia are considered peer institutions by the firms recruiting their graduates.
@Alexandre these are opinions not facts. UMich is not even he best public US university out there UCB is widely recognized as the best public.
^^^^Columbia isnât considered the best private school either. What is your point? Your views are based on your perceptions as well. You donât think than any public school is worthy of being considered a peer of Columbia. That is your misfortune.
@CU123 This is for CS. UIUC is better than Columbia for CS. But for an expert opinion. @PengsPhils
Thanks for making clear my opinion @rjkofnovi. Yes I do not believe that the top public universities are peers of the top private universities in the area of undergraduate studies. It is different in graduate studies where public universities operate much more like private universities albeit still at a slight disadvantage. You only have to look at the historical slide of public universities compared to private universities (in undergraduate studies) to see it. BTW Iâm not disparaging UMich by itself, I am disparaging all public unis and its not their fault. It is the fault of the state legislatures by putting these unis in impossible situations by limiting there ability to raise in state tuition, and then cutting their funding. This inevitably leads to ever increasing enrollments and class sizes without the appropriate increase in professors and resources which leads to publics falling further behind privates as the privates simply donât have these constraints. So in the end, I am advocating for more support for public universities or simply letting them become private (which will never happen for state flagships).
I wish for once a debate on here would center over specifics to a kidâs insterests rather than who will be more impressed by what alma mater at the old folks homeâŠ
Columbia: Morningside, Core, subway, high cost of living but probably cheapest an adult will ever live in NYC
UMich: Ann Arbor, excellent engineering tradition and alumni network, football, north campus, driverless buses
I donât know enough about teachers, programs etc. but either will be awesome.
@gearmom Ref post #11 where I recommend to the OP to go to UMich over Columbia for CS.
^Oâk Donât know how this conversation has gotten sidetracked.
But itâs always great to have @PengsPhils 's opinion anyway.
âthese are opinions not facts. UMich is not even he best public US university out there UCB is widely recognized as the best public.â
Your logic is flawed. I never claimed that Michigan is the best public university, and I would agree that that honor goes to Cal. Michigan is a close second, along with UCLA and UVa. But so what if Michigan is not considered the best public university in the nation? Columbia is not even recognized as one of the top 5 private universities. That distinction goes to Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale.
You are again insinuating that private universities are better than public universities, which is a prejudiced and elitist point of view.
And I am not stating opinion when I say that Columbia and Michigan are peer institutions. Our opinions hardly matter. I am stating fact. All legitimate academic reputation ratings published by academe that I have seen suggest that Columbia and Michigan are peer institutions. All industry placement reports I have seen also suggest that Michigan and Columbia are equally respected. If you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share.
@alexandre âWhen it comes to graduate school or professional placement, Columbia offers no advantage over Michigan.â
I am not sure what you are basing that on.
U of M receives limited state money and has to take most of its undergrads from the state of Michigan. Making matters worse, the State of Michiganâs public education is in a death spiral which is making qualified in-state candidates scarce (see link below).
Historically, U of Mâs advantages are their strong alumni base, its large endowment, and sports. However, sports seems to be sliding with the football team losing 12 out of the last 13 games to Ohio State and 8 out of the last 10 games to Michigan State.
Given their situation, I donât see how they can improve their undergrad situation significantly unless the State allows them to go private, which I think is unlikely.
âYou only have to look at the historical slide of public universities compared to private universities (in undergraduate studies) to see it.â
Actually CU, the slide has a lot more to do with data reporting and a terribly flawed methodology than with actual drop in quality. Private universities are making up numbers to help their rankings while public universities cannot because their data are audited for accuracy. Columbia claims to have a 6:1 student to faculty ratio. LOL! 
Someone must have forgotten to include the 6,500 thousand graduate students enrolled at Fu and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. in that calculation. That Fu. There are 190 professors. If you just include the 1,600 undergraduate students in the student to faculty ratio calculation, you get a very respectable 8:1 ratio. Now add the 3,100 graduate students enrolled at Fu to the equation, which Columbia conveniently omits, and the ratio swells to 25:1. Columbia also conveniently omits 3,300 graduate students enrolled in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. Overall, Columbiaâs student to faculty is well over 12:1, and yet it reports a 6:1 ratio.
Those rankings consider faculty salaries in their rankings. Columbia professors (as well as professors in most urban universities) obviously earn significantly more than Michigan professors (and professors in most college towns and rural areas) since the cost of living in NYC far exceeds the cost of living in Ann Arbor. I am not sure how that is a fair comparison.
There are many more inconsistencies and methodology flaws that benefit private universities and hurt public universities. That does not make private universities better than public universities.
âBTW Iâm not disparaging UMich by itself, I am disparaging all public unis and its not their fault. It is the fault of the state legislatures by putting these unis in impossible situations by limiting there ability to raise in state tuition, and then cutting their funding.â
Michiganâs financial status is not common for a public university. Michiganâs endowment stands at $9.6 billion, 8th largest in the nation. With 50% of its undergraduate students coming from OOS, most of which pay full tuition, Michigan has a very healthy tuition income stream.
âThis inevitably leads to ever increasing enrollments and class sizes without the appropriate increase in professors and resources which leads to publics falling further behind privates as the privates simply donât have these constraints.â
Private universities do not have financial constraints? With the exception of Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Stanford, I would say most private universities have financial constraints. Columbiaâs financial position is no better than Michiganâs.
âHistorically, U of Mâs advantages are their strong alumni base, its large endowment, and sports.â
Gee, nothing academically at all? Like I said before, cluelessâŠ
âYou only have to look at the historical slide of public universities compared to private universities (in undergraduate studies) to see it.â
You mean the biased USNWR rankings that cater to elitist coasties and their private or bust delusions? Probably the only people who actually pay to see the site.
Conspiracy theories abound when your college is under siege, however the reasons for the slide have not changed and will not change in the near future. This is fact, not opinion, state colleges are woefully underfunded by states and not allowed to raise in-state tuition, so they increase the student body size. Doesnât matter what any ranking says, this is a deteriorating situation.
@Alexandre do you deny this?