Princeton vs. Columbia: Engineering

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
21

<p>Shrugging:</p>

<p>I have written on the reason for the barrier before, but to summarize the reasons, they are many, vast, institutional.</p>

<p>Political Issues

  1. SEAS Identity. The fear that SEAS loses its identity if it loses control of its undergraduates. A lot of undergrads, and SEAS itself pride themselves on being SEAS students specifically.
  2. SEAS fundraising. The fear that folks would either a) not give to SEAS specifically, b) not give to Columbia at all for a sense of betrayal that would happen. Folks within the SEAS BOV have said as much. This would hurt SEAS in the long run.
  3. SEAS momentum. Fear that changing the order now could damage the momentum SEAS has built over the last decade in becoming a better engineering school.
  4. CC Superiority. a) they would accept SEAS ugrads into CC, but probably not some kind of merger of equals. b) older alums remember SEAS as the evil step-child and are less kind.
  5. The university itself is balkanized. A legacy from the Butler regime and continued basically until the late Sovern/Rupp era, the university is still trying to move away from identity of schools being so distinct.</p>

<p>Practical Issues

  1. How do you keep the engineering population stable? Money goes to departments based on people in the department, if you open up the floodgates between schools you would have to adjust. In fact you might need to admit far more potential engineers just to maintain the numbers we have now. So the barrier as the necessary evil.
  2. Most schools with small, non-autonomous engineering schools have them as divisions subservient to larger units. Columbia like PENN and other schools chose a different model. So when folks praise Princeton, they also should know that most Princeton eng. faculty members hate the fact that the school doesn’t have full autonomy. What is good for the school, is not always what students want.</p>

<hr>

<p>So what has happened, and what can/will happen:</p>

<p>Has Happened:

  1. Greater interaction between the schools, including sharing resources, single student affairs office, single admissions. This is only 18 years old, and a lot of the divisions are newly brought down.
  2. Establishment of the office of the Vice President for Undergraduate Education. Creating a more defined hierarchy in Dean Moody-Adams to oversee the development of all undergraduate ventures. Also this further brings to the head how central undergraduates are to the university now.</p>

<p>What will/can happen next?

  1. I have argued for some time that the greatest impetus for change would be something simple, but also symbolic. Merge the councils in a way that tries to allow for SEAS identity, while also recognizing that undergraduate lives of all students are integrated. This would create a culture of future alums that recognize having ‘dual identities’ as being part of a whole and part.
  2. I think that would lead to a lot of other mergers worth having. Instead of two undergraduate funds, what about one fund, but folks can give specifically to SEAS causes.
  3. I also think a lot of the small changes that have happened over the past two decades are slowly beginning to rear their head. Folks go to school now with almost no division between the schools, and they are coming to be people in positions of influence to push these changes. In fact I believe it is only a matter of time.</p>

<p>Ultimately this is one of my biggest alum issues, and I talk about it a lot, and work on it a lot. I think though it is VERY complicated. Sure looking back on the 1910s it would have been nice if Columbia was set up a different way, but now you have issues that are very real and could seriously damage SEAS in the short term if changes are made. As someone very partial to Columbia’s engineering, I think seeing it falter in the name of having higher student yield is a problem. The goal is to develop a win-win. SEAS wins, Columbia wins, Students win. For that to happen, however, students have to feel more invested in SEAS, so that when the floodgates open there is only a trickle out. I think in a way this is Dean F-M’s goal. Raising the strength and profile of the engineering school would allow for a smooth transition. I don’t know if he would admit publicly that it would be for some kind of merger (or even if that is in his mind), but that goal is what will make the barrier doors open.</p>

22

<p>@re: transferring from SEAS to College.</p>

<p>Just FYI –> there is no “internal” transfer. All students (including those at SEAS), must submit the full transfer application like every other transfer student. Yes, that means the recommendations, the essays, the transcript, the “Why College” and everything else. And there’s no evidence to suggest that it’s easier for SEAS –> Columbia transfer. </p>

<p>@admissionsgeek,</p>

<p>You are potentially the most insecure Columbia alum I’ve ever met. What you can’t seem to recognize is that people are going up to their necks in debt in hopes of ascertaining a great college experience + meaningful things to do upon graduation. And yes, it is contingent upon the individual, but with that said, in what world can Columbia meangingfully be compared to Princeton at the undergraduate level?</p>

<p>Stop peddling my school like a $20 Gucci bag. You don’t need to “spin” things to make people come here.</p>

23

<p>I will also reiterate. It is not impossible to transfer if you have a good reason. Indeed it is very possible to transfer if you have a compelling reason to not study engineering (hint: I don’t want to doesn’t work with your parents, it doesn’t work for transferring either). Also I think people overestimate how many students submit transfer requests. It is a few people each year, not hundreds.</p>

24

<p>Also, what does this say about SEAS?</p>

<p>Unlike engineering counterparts at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or even MIT, Columbia SEAS students are <em>not eligible</em> for Phi Beta Kappa honors (one of the most distinguished recognitions) upon graduation. Why you may ask? </p>

<p>Simple. Because Phi Beta Kappa feels Columbia’s engineering education does not meet the humanities exposure that other schools’ engineers are receive, precisely because CC and SEAS are so stubbornly differentiated.</p>

25

<p>Really? I am not the person peddling self-loathing. And really, you’re calling Columbia a knock-off? Credibility hit.</p>

<p>I can compare Princeton and Columbia on planet earth. I can compare it historically, I can compare it statistically. I can compare it on almost every measure. Even if we presume that Princeton is better, any measure would say as well that it is not that much better than Columbia. </p>

<p>The transfer process is called the ‘internal transfer’ process. It is separate from the rest of the transfer process and performed differently. Did you know that?</p>

<p>And let’s make one thing clear: we’ve never met.</p>

26

<p>Tau Beta Pi National Engineering Society is not good enough for you?</p>

27

<p>BUT THAT’S PRECISELY THE POINT.</p>

<p>The OP, and 18-19 year olds in general SHOULD have the right and freedom to WHIMSICALLY change their minds! Kids from Princeton can do a semester of engineering, realize they just hate it because its too much work, and switch without a hassle to something else. This is also true for virtually every other school out there. Except Columbia. Geezes, I’m not even a SEAS kid and I feel ****ed-o about this.</p>

28

<p>Tau Beta Pi?.. no it’s not. </p>

<p>Because few have heard of it and the Phi Beta Kappa engineering student from Harvard, Princeton, or Stanford is going to get more nods from its alums across the school (engineering or humanities) because its something they all commonly recognize and respect.</p>

29

<p>Truazn- what do you propose? I am serious, how do you get around the quandary I laid out? How do you appease everyone without screwing over SEAS in the near term? The vast majority of its revenues come from student tuition dollars. Are you saying that someone who is admitted to SEAS, but then chooses to major in film, should continue paying money to SEAS? Shouldn’t the film department then have more money to accommodate their larger potential class sizes?</p>

30

<p>admissionsgeek, I think you hit the nail on its head with your use of the word “revenue”. Columbia at the end of the day, is just looking to make $.</p>

<p>For Columbia, at the end of the day, it treats its undergrads like paying customers. Which we are. We pay $50,000 all said and done every year for the privilege of attending Columbia. but Columbia insists in rubbing that fact in our faces with the red tape, the bureaucracy, etc. etc. So after all is said and done, people are content with getting that piece of paper, but many are discontent with the process of obtaining it.</p>

<p>Compare this with other schools like Princeton. People go into debt for Princeton as they do for Columbia, but Princeton and other schools are able to make the experience so appealing that Princeton alums continue giving for the rest of their lives. I think alum giving rate in this sense is the <em>best</em> proxy for undergraduate experience. Few people have the attachment to Columbia as Princeton alums to Princeton (or Dartmouth, Yale, Brown, Duke etc.)</p>

31

<p>Anyway whatever, the OP is attending Princeton it seems anyway. Someone sticky this thread for all future COlumbia/Pton cross admits.</p>

32

<p>Don’t kid yourself and think that Princeton doesn’t treat its people like customers either. I think you say a lot of things that obviously I have and many other people contradict.</p>

<p>There is discord. In the end we are but two possible viewpoints of the school. Of course folks should be wary, but the difference between you and I is very much about attitude. Imagine if you ‘tried’ to like Columbia. For all its quirks, its problems, its beauties. Imagine how good your experience might be? I don’t have to imagine being bitter, I was at times at Columbia, and usually over dumb things that were not under my control, let alone the control of any one person at the university.</p>

<p>I can’t hate Columbia because New Yorkers can be jerks, I can’t hate the CSA advisor because he spends 10 hours talking with students, and then is on call every night in case some student decides to go into a drinking coma. </p>

<p>Though I choose and I have been very honest about my selective memory, to appreciate how much I learned going to Columbia, how the perfect balance of the city and campus was soothing, how I felt liberated going to Columbia, and I felt appreciated because the same villains in your story were my friends - I knew my CSA advisor very well, I joked with the people at HAPPY so much that they knew to have my key ready before I even showed up. My experience was joyful, convivial and without question amazing. It is hard to remember the bitter moments when you have so many more good moments to cover it up.</p>

<p>I do hope that you go on and be amazing and forget about Columbia. Obviously it was a tragic experience for you, and like any trauma, sometimes it is good to forget. But while you are making money or feeling sorry for yourself for not having attended Princeton, I will still care about Columbia. You see, truazn, as I’ve written to you before. Well after you’ve forgotten about college, there will be folks like me and my friends still engaged with Columbia and thinking about how to make it better.</p>

<p>I gave you the chance to ‘propose’ something. Obviously thinking or working to improve your alma mater is the least of your desires. The only thing I hope the people who read this forum take note is that it says a lot about where you are coming from, how hard you’re willing to work to fix things and where you stand. From there, they can surmise many things about your character.</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you for acknowledging that there is a problem which needs to be addressed. What I don’t get is why Columbia can’t just open the floodgates right now and swallow the bitter pill, instead of dragging out the pain over an undetermined number of years to come. This is like the budget - do you want to cut spending and raise taxes right now, or just kick the can further down the road? I know you already answered that in your earlier post (it comes down to money), but it is frustrating nonetheless.</p>

<p>In contrast to Columbia, HYP all have a “free market” system when it comes to academics. They know that people who came into college thinking they wanted to study engineering are going to drop out for one reason or another, and they’re OK with that. In fact, my Yale tour guide told us they were trying to build up their fledgling engineering program, but even so, they didn’t institute a barrier between liberal arts and engineering just for short term success. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>So yeah, in principle I very much identify with this statement of truazn’s, but I acknowledge the practical considerations which you have raised. It is indeed caveat emptor, and though I can’t complain too much since I knew that about SEAS before matriculating, I simply want to ensure that every one who has to make this decision knows what they are signing up for BEFORE they get here.</p>

34

<p>I don’t know the Columbia that truazn8948532 is talking about. If I did not know Columbia I might have believed some of the things he is writing about!</p>

35

<p>Shrugging-</p>

<p>My only suggestion is to talk to administrators at SEAS and staunch pro-SEAS alumni. You will gain a greater appreciation for the problem. The bitter pill of losing SEAS to SEAS people and also to a university trying to invest massively in major biotech and engineering efforts is very bitter. </p>

<p>Is it worth perhaps having a lower yield for more years? Is it worth upsetting 10-15 students a year that want to transfer? I don’t know. Personally I would from a branding standpoint like Columbia to have one undergraduate college and one undergraduate experience, with different academic choices governed by a confederation of academic units. I would love that to be the reality. </p>

<p>But until this conversation is actually front and table over other parochial issues (ROTC, global centers), you will see it is mostly a worry of people who post on college confidential, and I can promise you this is the case trying to bring it up, it is not a critical issue debated by alumni groups or by students. If students really care about this issue- it should be more important than gender-neutral housing. There is a reason why it is not raised: namely because most people do not believe the reality of the barrier truly impacts their lives. If it did, we would see things otherwise.</p>

36

<p>As a recent Columbia alum, I also wholeheartedly agree with truazn.</p>

37

<p>White Flag: Honestly I think the trouble I have with flamers from Columbia is that we have to already contend enough with egotistical Princetonians that come onto our board and bash things. I admit I take this stuff personally mostly because I love Columbia. I wish that those of you that hate on Columbia perhaps would consider that a bit, but no. Anyhow, I enjoy posting, I enjoy talking about Columbia, but this **** is exhausting and painful to read. </p>

<p>I think I despise it mostly because it lacks the kind of imagination and forward-thinking. It pretends things are static, and in fact reinforces present circumstances on a world that is changing. The number one complaint is the lack of pride at Columbia, but imagine what it does to that pride? It slices it, cuts it, and instead of rendering us stronger, makes us broken.</p>

<p>Imagine what would happen if all you Columbians spent time trying to figure out how to make Columbia better instead of bashing it? I know Shrugging has some great ideas. Why not operationalize them? Because on here it only appears as if you believe there is no opportunity for change. No Chance Columbia can ever be a peer of those other schools. Let me just remind you that when I was in school, that certainly was the case, now things are so different. I do wish you all would join us. Not only could we use your criticisms, we could use the anger you have to make the necessary changes.</p>

38

<p>First, the Columbia administration doesn’t care at all what students think. Remember when undergraduates got into an uproar over the timing of the academic calendar. We were fully united that school should start one week earlier so that our finals could end well before Christmas. Committees were formed, petitions were signed, and the Facebook appeal had thousands of undergraduates. What did the administration do? They gave us one extra reading day and then allowed professors to negotiate with students to move the final to an earlier day if the final was the last day of exam week, essentially 1-2 days before Christmas. Ultimate success. admissionsgeek, it’s not that students don’t care. It’s just the fact that the structural issues that we care about are never going to be resolved and CCSC and ESC struggle all year long to get the most paltry pittances from the school. </p>

<p>We can barely reform booking outdoor space, we can’t get the lawns be open for more than 3 weeks out of the school year, we can’t book Lerner before 5 PM. These small things that irk students can’t even be changed without a fight let alone huge issues like money and integrating SEAS and CC. I call your bluff that students in SEAS don’t care about the issue. I complain to my CSA advisor and she tells me its an extremely common complaint among students about the lack of academic freedom among engineers. Its a common trend among Columbia Psychological Services as well. </p>

<p>Nice rebuff though. “You can transfer only if you really want to study humanities. Why should you be able to study economics in CC if that’s your only reason? You can do it in SEAS”. How about the fact that many students are genuine interested in economics or think that engineering is too difficult to be enjoyable, that it grates on their social life and destroys their GPA, hindering them from success later in life? This two school solution along with a myriad of other issues shows that truazn’s comments are quite dead on. Columbia’s about the money and the revenue. Once you’re in, the administration’s view is “Gotcha for 4 years. Now **** off and don’t bother us unless you’re extremely depressed or near suicidal.” The administration and the school don’t give a rat’s ass about the students. It shows in housing, teaching quality, advising, career services, and the student center. What other student center on Earth is rented out to outside companies for most of the day, where the top dollar will offset any student need for space. </p>

<p>Done with my rant. Just read this thread and had to know let this out. Thanks for your perspective admissionsgeek, but it’s not what many current students or alumni see.</p>

39

<p>I think my perspective is colored in three ways. 1) I was close with
administrators and worked with them on projects specifically around
changing the culture. 2) My friends had similar experiences as mine,
in part because they also dealt with administrators but most of them
were non-affiliated and not involved. 3) I have a lot of appreciation
for the complexity of Columbia, it is a behemoth, but that also means
it’s impact is large and also the stakeholders are vast. It is why
improving Columbia is important! It can impact thousands of students
but also New York and the world over.</p>

<p>I dont like your use of many mostly because it is vague. I have ‘many’
alums and student friends that disagree. I will instead cite a bit of
hearsay that you can verify by asking Dean Shollenberger. Every year
Columbia surveys seniors and looks at problems. From this list they
make long and short term goals. Part of the survey, I believe, is
published. I think knowing how important administrators take this
survey is illustrative of the fact they do care. I know they do. But
one thing that Dean Shollenberger will say is that despite some
grumblings, the reviews are not just positive now, but exceptionally
positive. It means either folks like you are not filling out the
survey, or your voice is marginal.</p>

<p>I guess you could just choose not to believe me. But I guess the
difficulty I have believing the perspective you offer is rampant, is the
fact that it is challenged by my own knowledge. I dont discount it as
real, and I too share your concerns, but I guess I approach them from a place of
intrigue. That is to say they didn’t ruin my experience, but they were
peripheral to how I felt.</p>

<p>I mean the brute fact is this: I got an amazing education, had an
amazing experience and both have led me to not just speak about my
past but energize me to help Columbia improve and attract the best.</p>

40

<p>Even from a SEAS perspective, I generally will agree with admissionsgeek in terms of my holistic view on Columbia. I do not think the apparent structural issues with Columbia have detracted from my experience whatsoever. Anyway, the specific problems beardtax cites seem somewhat irrational…the lawns are almost always open when its nice. But Columbia is in a city, NYC nonethelesss! And there are plenty of parks nearby. It seems to me in coming to Columbia, one should expect an absence of green space. Also, why would student organizations need to access Lerner space before 5 PM? Most classes are before 5 PM, so from purely a rational perspective, there seems no significant reason to open Lerner before 5 other than discrete student complaints. But this points seem silly considering the subject of the original post. What does this have to do with Columbia versus Princeton? </p>

<p>Regardless, this entire argument sensationalizes one component of the OP’s decision making process. Why aren’t we focusing on aiding the OP in making a decision by providing relevant information instead of arguing about Columbia’s policies on SEAS to CC transferring? We can establish that often such a transfer is difficult, and then move on. My opinion on a lack of freedom in exploring the humanities as a SEAS student is the following: the half-core curriculum SEAS utilizes is absolutely sufficient for satiating humanities-based intellectual curiosity. This is my opinion and my opinion alone. Secondly, a Columbia Engineering degree allows graduates to access such a vast variety of fields (medicine, law, business, hell even history) so it retains more personal value to me than a higher quality engineering intensive degree (to some, Princeton). I am not sure I want to be a career engineer, so I chose a school where I could access many fields while having the safety of a BS in Engineering coming out of college. </p>

<p>Perhaps the rest of y’all can comment more on specific components of the OP’s pros/cons list rather than arguing about an emotionally charged and circuitous issue?</p>