<p>Hi all,</p>
<p>I've been accepted to both Columbia and Amherst, and I'm having a hard time deciding. The biggest differences are the location, networking, and the nature of the two colleges. </p>
<p>Now, I've already weighed NYC vs. Amherst, MA (which is close to Boston, I guess), and have come to the conclusion that both in terms of opportunities (for both jobs and things to do) as well as post-graduation networking (due to the larger class size), Columbia is better, but what I'm wondering now is the issue of a research-oriented university vs. a LAC.</p>
<p>Are professors at research-oriented schools, such as the Ivies, more motivated by research than teaching? I mean, this will obviously depend on the professor, but I've generally heard that the most appealing trait of a LAC is that professors are actually teachers rather than research-oriented professionals who have been hired by universities not only to research and earn lots of money as well as to teach, which might become a second-hand objective. Is this observation true? If so, why do so many students go to research universities rather than LACs?</p>
<p>So, help? Any inputs on this thought will be greatly appreciated.</p>
<p>Random thoughts because I don’t feel like making it coherent:
-Not all professors are tenure-track. Those that aren’t tend to spend more time teaching than anything else.
-The research/funding rat race is really only a concern for science/engineering profs.
-Even in the science/eng worlds, not all professors are the same. Some of the best profs I’ve ever had are tenured/on-track. Pretty much every prof I’ve had has made time for students with questions.</p>
<p>Bottom line: I’m sure the profs who don’t teach well exist but I’ve never had one for a class that mattered. My worst was probably my calc2 prof who was a newly minted PhD from China but that’s a different can of worms entirely.</p>
<p>okay just gonna copy paste my other post here ha. i really am concerned by this woeful misunderstanding of what it is like to be a student at columbia. and one thing - amherst is NOWHERE near boston:</p>
<p>no columbia is not horrible for ugrads. it is the opposite.</p>
<p>profs i would say probably consider dealing with ugrads over grads their primary responsability, especially among profs that select to teach in the core. plus even the times you face a grad student, i have enjoyed every interaction, and count them as some of my greatest mentors while at columbia.</p>
<p>as for only caring about research - it is fascinating thing, a lot of profs will use their class as a means to test out their own research hypotheses, and so they will openly be like, i’m working through this idea, and presenting it to you, what do you think. as a prof at columbia once called it, he considers students his ‘co-investigators’ in his research helping challenge your presumptions (it also tells you in what kind of esteem they hold their ugrads). it also means that you are always aware and involved in current debates in the subject matter (which actually is more interesting, considering i’ve visited a few LACs where they are still text-booking issues).</p>
<p>i was a research asst for a prof just by asking. i grab coffee with him anytime i’m back in nyc, he’s acknowledged me in a handful of books. i actually have a close relationship with one of the Deans at the uni (he wrote my grad school recommendation, and same thing, i just give him a call when i’m in town). and i always formed good relationships with profs it made life easier (so when i would invariably need an extension, or was late for class they were okay with it).</p>
<p>i might have an exceptionally rosy picture for you, but i feel like i really maximized my time there, and if you make the effort columbia really is easy to harness all of its potential.</p>