<p>
<p>Did you forget that Columbia has 1/2 the undergraduate population as Penn?</p>
<p>45- check this out <a href="http://www.collegejournal.com/special/top50feeder.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegejournal.com/special/top50feeder.pdf</a></p>
<p>Both Penn and Columbia get its asses kicked by smaller LAC's and Duke tho.
</p>
<p>Not quite correct on the ugrad populations. Per US News, Penn has 9,841 undergrads, and Columbia has 7,319, making those HLS numbers a bit more proportional.</p>
<p>Also, Penn has long been known as a great pre-med school (having the oldest medical school in the US, which also happens to be one of the top 3, right on the same campus doesn't hurt). And I don't know if you noticed, but that survey has the following astonishing comment in its Penn entry: "Penn's medical school <a href="not%20one%20of%20our%20survey%20schools">b</a>** has the highest percentage of Penn undergrads in six years" [emphasis added]. Excluding a top-3 medical school from the survey, to the obvious disadvantage of Penn undergrads, kind of invalidates it a bit, don't you think?</p>
<p>And with respect to IBanking, well--find me a ranking anywhere in the world that doesn't put Wharton at #1 in Finance.</p>
<p>Bottom line, as you've indicated, is that both Penn and Columbia are terrific schools by any measure, and both provide equally valid top-notch undergraduate experiences, albeit different experiences. And both are clearly in the midst of dynamic changes and on upward trajectories. So it's sorta silly to start claiming that one is clearly superior to the other in general terms, or that one is more clearly bound for a level of glory and prestige above the other.</p>