Risks of SEAS

<p>1) Why are some schools integrated and others not -
It has to do with how they developed as universities. What seems as if there was a method to the madness, but not necessarily so. Harvard for instance only became the School of Engineering and Applied Science in 2006, and it is still under the auspices of the Faculty of Arts and Science, it used to just be called a Division beforehand. </p>

<p>In Columbia’s case, admissions for the two schools was the same up until the 50s, and then President Kirk, as far as i can tell, did a funny thing and encouraged balkanization, this came about the time the Business School got rid of its undergraduate majors. SEAS has since then developed on its own, found its own donors and it was not until 1992 that the two schools began to interact more with each other - begin with housing being the same, then Division of Student Affairs, and now most things are similar. But over the course of 40+ years, SEAS began to rely on undergraduate tuition going directly into its coffers, and also the question of developing its own identity. So now you have financial reasons there is no integration, but also cultural/social ones that make it a harder bridge to break. SEAS wants to maintain a number of students under its auspices to pay its own professors, its space, and to pursue its own trajectory. Any kind of open enrollment plan would necessarily challenge that.</p>

<p>2) I think Beard is spot on in some parts here - it is important for students to know what engineering is before they apply. Just applying because it is ‘easier’ to get into, or ‘i could do that’ or ‘i like math and science,’ is downright stupid. But I know tons of students who do that, get admitted and wonder why they can’t stand engineering. </p>

<p>Not to say this is beard’s experience, I just know students for whom that was the case. When you apply - apply knowing you will be an engineering student for 4 years. Does this mean you can’t be whatever you want in life? No. And Columbia’s brand of engineering certainly is more openminded than most other engineering programs; it will also link you up with career services and alums that are doing nothing remotely close to engineering. </p>

<p>The biggest impact though is in what you study in the classroom and some of those limitations it puts on you. It means you should really like doing problem sets. That your weekly schedule will be less predictable mostly because you could spend anywhere from 3 hrs to 20 hrs on a problem set, and on the other hand your academic schedule will be more structured as you complete requirements that are already prescribed. This can seem a bit mindnumbing, and does allow less academic freedom. Beard’s comments are very real here.</p>

<p>So why do it? You are more employable. As C02 notes, you have actual skills that companies want. I have difficulty getting jobs because I didn’t spend my entire undergraduate time programming or using excel. Beard once said he thought economics might be better for him, but not even econ kids program all that much; and in the end if you don’t have the computer literacy you are at a disadvantage in the job market.</p>

<p>Why do it at Columbia? Because despite the wonderful picture that we have given you here of all the work, it is still better at Columbia than it is at other places, at lot more free, and working with professors and within a culture at SEAS that is highly innovative. I have said this before - I’d take the mindless problem set world for all the advantages it has, and the fact that SEAS is far more open to curricular changes and innovations than arts and science.</p>

<p>3) If you apply and know what you’re getting yourself into, then you’ll be fine. It still doesn’t mean that your experience wont turn out bad - you might have a come to jesus moment where you decide you really can’t deal with engineering and just want freedom. You have some options then - though limited of course. You could transfer to CC (which is hard unless you are transferring into a humanities major), you could transfer out of Columbia, you could take on one of the less intense SEAS majors. Lastly, you could decide to screw it and just enjoy yourself and do poorly in your classes - Beard isn’t fond of this option, but I will just put it out there with friends from SEAS: you’ll still be highly employable coming with a Columbia degree. Does that mean you wont work for a BB bank? Probably not, but there are many folks in finance, business, engineering, IT, etc. that would take you. If you attend Columbia, likelihood is that you have grand plans for yourself and that may not involve working for a regional company in the south or southwest. But let’s be frank here you can get a job coming out of Columbia, it just might involve deciding what you want, how bad you want it, and what you’re willing to do in the short term to fulfill your long term dreams, or what you’re willing to sacrifice.</p>

<p>Is SEAS easier to get into AdmissionsGeek? You seem to have a wealth of information.</p>

<p>Yes it is.For RD, SEAS is 13% while CC is 7%. They average them together giving you Columbia Universities acceptance rate…10%</p>

<p>it was 9% last year silence, 9%. they are different schools with different applicant pools. seas is more self-selecting, but based on most metrics it is harder to stand out in the seas pool if your academics aren’t near perfect. plus if you don’t know engineering, it is hard to get in.</p>

<p>columbia’s engineering school division by itself would be considered the second most selective engineering program in the country, more so than caltech and only behind mit.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This seems like a logical explanation. But I wonder if it’s also a curriculum-related thing, too.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Are you sure? It’s news to me that SEAS and CC students lived separately 20 years ago. I swear I’ve met middle-aged SEAS alums who have lived in JJ et al.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>These numbers are abysmal. Is this a one-off year, or is it trending this way? This certainly wasn’t the case when I was there. As a SEAS kid, I certainly interacted with a good number of quantitative-oriented CC kids who majored in the sciences.</p>

<p>Yea it seems to be the case check out:
<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202009-2010.htm[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202009-2010.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202008-2009.htm[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202008-2009.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202007-2008.htm[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202007-2008.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202005-2006.htm[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202005-2006.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p><a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202004-2005.htm[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/cc%20undergraduate%20degrees%20by%20program%20of%20study%202004-2005.htm&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Only biology has substantial number. I would guess a lot of those people are premed.</p>

<p>c02 - you mean because of the core? and the need for columbia to know how many students they need to make sections for? i have thought about this, and i think this is a barrier particular to columbia too. </p>

<p>–i haven’t gotten confirmations that students lived together or apart, but that housing was handled separately until the early 90s. at least that is what folks who worked in the dean of students office under lehecka (cc office) have relayed to me about that time. and that was especially related to students that would have guaranteed housing as most students were not guaranteed.</p>

<p>The real question is whether high school students understand what they’re getting into. I’m thinking back to freshman year and how little I knew about engineering and the curriculum, even after taking an entire year of classes. What does a 3.7 in Chemical Engineering mean and where does that rank you within your major? How difficult is it to graduate one semester early majoring in Financial Engineering? What is stochastic processes, industrial economics, and asset allocation? How difficult is it to take 2 programming classes concurrently with mathematics? If I drop this class, is it offered next semester and how will this affect my completion of other courses?</p>

<p>My point is that you won’t truly understand the engineering curriculum until you begin it. Reading College Confidential, talking with current students, and learning quantitative classes in high school only gives you information and an idea of what engineering actually is. You really won’t know what you like until you do it. This is the reason why students complete internships. SEAS forces students to stick with engineering throughout their college careers. This is the risk of SEAS, finding out that you dislike engineering without palatable alternatives. One of the easiest alternatives, to study another major, is fairly closed off to students.</p>

<p>High school students and alumni board members can doubt my posts and call out the various inconsistencies/non-truths. I’ve spoken to a lot of engineers and my advisors who voice a common notion that a significant number of engineers feel trapped. Know what you’re getting yourself into and know the risks. Moreover, why not avoid the risk in the first place? Choose a school that gives more academic freedom so that in case you don’t like engineering, you can study something else. These are my thoughts and I honestly have the best intentions for high school students. I’m sure I’ll catch plenty of flak for my comments, but I guarantee you that dissatisfaction in SEAS is not uncommon. If 70% of Harvard SEAS students transfer, then imagine the number of students in Columbia SEAS who are struggling but have no comparable outlet.</p>

<p>^there also self selection, harvard engineering applicant are applying knowing that they can change majors, Columbia seas applicants would be more sure of engineering, but even if not 70% who want to do something else, there is a sizable portion who want to, after 2 to 3 years I wish I had had the opportunity to either double major in a Columbia college major or perhaps only minor in engineering.</p>

<p>It’s harder to transfer from CC to SEAS than from SEAS to CC. For some reason people outside of Columbia like to assume SEAS kids can’t transfer into CC because CC’s acceptance rate is lower, which doesn’t make much sense considering Columbia administrators are more concerned with (completion of) the Core than acceptance rates from your class. SEAS actually has more Core requirements completed in its first few years, making it a relatively smooth switch. CC kids, however, would be hard pressed to complete all the SEAS requirements if they start in CC.</p>

<p>In reference to the question of how valuable an engineering degree can be, consider this: Columbia is ranked first in financial engineering and second in operations research. After I was admitted to Columbia, I was flown out to New York from Chicago for a quasi-recruiting trip. In a site visit to Goldman Sachs, I talked with former Columbia grads about financial engineering, and they simply loved hiring Columbia financial engineers. Wall Street does not look upon a high-end engineering degree lightly–if anything, they prefer the skill set in many cases. This isn’t to say Wharton grads don’t have a similar advantage, it’s just something to consider.</p>

<p>The fact is that transferring from SEAS into CC is difficult. I was warned of this by my advisor and was even recommended to fill out transfer applications to other schools. Furthermore, students in CC don’t want to study engineering. There are stereotypes about SEAS: the work is hard, the curve is terrible, and students have no social life. Also, CC students have the option of studying a quantitative major if they want to. Given the pre-professional nature of the Ivy League, I just don’t think studying Chemistry in CC versus Chemical Engineering in SEAS disadvantages you for medical school, law school, or finance. You might not be able to work in Proctor & Gamble for their Chemical Engineering roles, but you’ll probably have a higher GPA and more time in school to pursue other activities.</p>

<p>Financial Engineering is a self-selecting pool of top students in SEAS who’ve achieved 3.7 - 3.8+ GPA’s. My remark is that engineering’s average GPA is lower than that of CC. A 3.8 Economics major looks better than a 3.4 Chemical Engineering major (though if I looked at resumes, I’d cut engineers a lot more slack). I’ve spoken to EMS and FE students who work in financial services in investment banking, and they’ve told me that they don’t use the technical skills they’ve gained. That’s not to say that their inherent quantitative abilities or their ability to do grueling work haven’t helped them succeed on the job, but nothing they’ve learned in school really helped them. Of course, this depends on what role you perform in the bank. Quantitative traders would benefit from the financial engineering degree.</p>

<p>If you know that you want to become an engineer, then go pursue an engineering degree. Just keep in mind that people change and that you don’t really know what engineering classes are like. Pick an option that balances academic freedom with what else you are looking for in an education. However, if you know that you’re pre-professional, then reconsider an application to SEAS. Balancing pre-med requirements with an engineering degree isn’t easy, especially when many medical schools initially screen applicants with a 3.5 GPA cutoff. Law school isn’t any easier when admissions is essentially a function of GPA and LSAT scores. Financial services recruitment is more random and depends on whose reading your resume and how well you networked with first year analysts. However, keep in mind whose reading your resume and the fact that many students in the financial services majored in economics and only have so much knowledge of the difficulty of engineering.</p>

<p>I hope that this thread has given more perspective to students on SEAS. Talking to the admissions office and first year students isn’t that helpful. Best of luck.</p>

<p>Beard Tax, you get more radical with every comment. At first, I could see your point, but now I get the feeling that you probably had a bad experience with engineering, which is your personal case. Please don’t make this generalization that engineering degree is so disadvantageous. You are contriving an obvious falsehood. Everybody knows that engineering degrees are advantageous. Admittedly, it is not easy, but VERY advantageous. If you are so afraid of challenges, then it is your fault. And truly, I disagree with you that the technical skills you acquire are useless. You are basically saying that any college major that tries to teach you something in the end has no impact on your self-improvement. Please, stop complaining. For you to say that advice from admissions and current students are not valuable. Your comments are. Please, I am more convinced that you have an agenda behind this thread.</p>

<p>i think jacobian and beard have good points here to note. i think the best takeaway is that college is weird, it sometimes feels useful, sometimes feels useless, it will be hard, it will be confusing. and columbia is not unique, seas is not unique in this. being afraid of the utility of the time you are spending is a normal emotion to have about college.</p>

<p>i think that beard perhaps makes it unnecessarily pointed toward seas, though i think his warning that you should know what you’re getting yourself into matters. i don’t think that beard has an agenda, i think he/she rightfully is facing some kind of confusion at the usefulness of his/her time spent learning engineering. i will say - the more you concentrate on the bad stuff, and get into a negative space, the harder it is to get out of it. the best part about college is rarely academic - helfand was partly right that the major has taken too central a role in our imagination of college - and it is finding that balance, the talent in managing time, and creating your own idea of success that is supposed to be the point of college overall (not unique to columbia or seas). </p>

<p>but where i disagree with beard and others on the board is that i believe the sheer impressiveness of what is available at columbia - from curricular options, to leadership opportunities, the confluence of ‘school’ problems and ‘real world’ problems, internships and innovations - is what makes going to columbia, and going to seas, that much more of a liberating enterprise. you truly can establish your own idea of success without feeling as if you have to borrow or copy someone else’s definition.</p>

<p>Yes, I agree with you admissionsgeek. It is confusing to choose what you should study, but whether you major in engineering or not should be dependent on your own passion, where you want to be, and even if you change your mind in the future, you can rest assured that you have accomplished great things already and taken excellent opportunities to build yourself. In the end, it is not what but how you do it that matters professionally and personally. If you are truly passionate about engineering, don’t speculate that you would hate it later or opt out to other options that you probably are never interested in. Who knows, you may be that transformative engineer. On the other hand, don’t go into engineering purely for jobs or skills that would prepare you professionally. If you do, you will be unsuccessful and regretful of your decision. Ater all, there are successful, fabulous individuals in every profession.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>You don’t know what you’re talking about. Most departments, especially chem.eng., keep track of where their students go. Disregarding the past couple of years (sucky economy sucks), you can look at the rates of employment at big banks/consulting firms for chem vs. chem.e. and I guarantee chem.e. will win every time.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Again you don’t know what you’re talking about. This is an incredibly hard generalization to make mostly due to the fact that landing a job is more dependent on the soft skills than the hard ones. People in HR (those who initially look at resumes/apps) will automatically have more respect for a chem.e. than an econ major. Being a chem.e. major I can tell you this with the utmost confidence. Heck, even just with random people if they ask my major the next response is invariably “Wow! That sounds hard!” Anecdotal but it’s more evidence than you offered for your general statement. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>What is a technical skill? Surely it’s being able to solve ODE’s but who’s to say that it’s not being able to boil down the technical work that you’ve done into a 5 minute presentation for non-technical people (managers)? Yes a technical skill would be being able to solve thermodynamics problems but isn’t it also the logical critical thinking involved in any high level work? </p>

<p>The fact of the matter is that THIS IS TRUE OF ANY ENGINEERING DISCIPLINE. 95% of all professional engineers will say their first day of education was when they first started their jobs. Most will say only the most basic of tools learned in school will they use on a daily basis. Then again, this is still dependent on where you work. Are you working for a bank or a firm that has all of its, say heat exchangers, designed or a new startup where you may very well be expected to solve that thermo problem?</p>

<p>I agree with whoever said it first that Beard Tax seems disgruntled with his/her choice of engineering (my guess is chem.e. since it was mentioned a few times). My personal advice to you Beard is don’t get suckered into the mentality that you are now put on some path of no return. The key to getting any job is convincing the company that THEY need YOU, not the other way around. Go take seminars on how to interview and present yourself for a job. Then go out and see what happens. You want to work for a museum? Apply! You want to study literature? Go work in eng for a few years and then go back to school! Most likely you’re barely 20 years old, this is far from the end of your life. </p>

<p>If you are chem.e. (this applies to anyone reading this) and you would like a little perspective and/or advice from a chem.e. alum, shoot me a PM.</p>

<p>beard i believe has stated he is financial engineering, am i off beard?</p>

<p>but it is always helpful to have some eng. alums on here, as much as i know, it is good to hear it from the horses mouth. </p>

<p>keep your spirits up beard.</p>

<p>This is all well and good, but what do you guys have to say about 3-2 with CC and SEAS. Is this not a solution to the so called “Risks of SEAS”???</p>

<p>hold up, what’s the “one avenue” that you can switch from SEAS to the college?</p>

<p>he is referring to the fact that few students from CC transfer into SEAS, though 1-2 students each year do do this. thus it is seen as a one-avenue / one-lane kind of system.</p>

<p>If you plan on going into finance you better get used to sacrificing your social life.</p>

<p>Jease I absolutely don’t agree with any of the original post or anything beard is saying. Especially the skill set part. It’s true there are a lot of engineers that are pre-med or interested in financial services, but the reason they are all in engineering over CC is because of that skill set… “However, I’ve felt that I can better tackle academic challenges and I will come out of school with a concrete skill set.”
That is exactly what employers (especially in finance) are looking for! People in CC can read a book…good for them. People are looking for smart Columbia students that can problem solve, think analytically, and actually prove that they are smart through demanding course work. These are all things a SEAS education provides.</p>

<p>To be clear, I am not even in SEAS. I’m in the college in a major that is both in SEAS and CC, which I personally think is the best solution (I liked all the humanities and I like the quantitative nature of my major that already got me an internship in finance for next summer). I just wanted to post because I completely disagree with these so-called “risks of seas.” The decision of SEAS vs. CC is simple, as someone already said–if you like engineering then apply to SEAS and don’t worry about it. Otherwise apply to CC. </p>

<p>One last thing, in my anecdotal evidence–all the people I know that tried to transfer from SEAS to CC were able to (and that’s 8 people)</p>