<p>question as posted. ill be applying seas next year, this is just a question im wondering about.</p>
<p>nope, the self-selection for seas outweighs the higher ratio of applicants that the college gets. more seas accepts are in the top 10% of their class, seas has a higher average accepted sat score (nearly comparable to MIT's). Anecdotally, seas and CC kids have been equally smart on average, with CC having more variation, more idiots and more super geniuses. Ask anyone on here who attends or has attended columbia they will generally agree with this. There is little to no difference in job placement results, grad school acceptance etc, it is unclear which school has the edge if either.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Anecdotally, seas and CC kids have been equally smart on average, with CC having more variation, more idiots and more super geniuses.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>CC has way more idiots because barely qualified people who get in on the basis of athletics, diversity, being a celeb, etc. don't apply to SEAS. Not convinced that CC has more supergeniuses... there are probably a very small number in each school.</p>
<p>i didnt mean smart though, i mean, average intelligence is probably the same.</p>
<p>i meant in terms of just getting in though. based on what i saw, it seemed like people with less ec involvement and stuff were getting into seas at a higher rate than cc people.</p>
<p>OP: different school expectations and populations. if you want to be an engineer...apply to seas. if you want to be an artist, scientist or other...apply to cc. </p>
<p>when you apply to the school that is best for you, you stand the best chance of getting in.</p>
<p>and what the other comments were trying to hint at - no it is not easier to get into one school or the either. it is incredibly selective at both places and without an understanding of what you want to study and why you would not be competitive. there are some students who are generally science interested and do not know what to do, they feel they can flip a coin. please note admission to seas is not just about being science inclined, but having a desire to study the application of science and having indicators of such. because of the size of the cc pool like concoll said it seems more competitive numbers why, but i would say that the 'burden of proof' that you are right for seas is higher than cc.</p>
<p>i know it is probably not the answer you were looking for, but to reiterate the idea that it is easier to get into seas isn't true.</p>
<p>Applicants to Engineering are generally more qualified, thus the SEAS has a more competitive admissions pool, leading to a higher acceptance rate.</p>
<p>Also, compare average SAT scores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
OP: different school expectations and populations. if you want to be an engineer...apply to seas. if you want to be an artist, scientist or other...apply to cc. </p>
<p>when you apply to the school that is best for you, you stand the best chance of getting in.</p>
<p>and what the other comments were trying to hint at - no it is not easier to get into one school or the either. it is incredibly selective at both places and without an understanding of what you want to study and why you would not be competitive. there are some students who are generally science interested and do not know what to do, they feel they can flip a coin. please note admission to seas is not just about being science inclined, but having a desire to study the application of science and having indicators of such. because of the size of the cc pool like concoll said it seems more competitive numbers why, but i would say that the 'burden of proof' that you are right for seas is higher than cc.</p>
<p>i know it is probably not the answer you were looking for, but to reiterate the idea that it is easier to get into seas isn't true.
[/quote]
Are you sure that SEAS kids want to be engineers? I don't want to be an engineer in the strictest sense of the word but I'll be going to SEAS. Indeed, I chose to apply ED to Columbia SEAS precisely because of its liberal arts offerings, namely the core (in conjunction with the opportunities available at a traditional engineering school). :)</p>
<p>seas trains physicists, quants and mathematicians explicitly as well as engineers. if anything, it's notable for being an engineering school which DOES NOT require you to be an engineer.</p>
<p>in my year, it seems like the number of super geniuses (in math/physics sense) in seas and cc is about even.</p>
<p>like i said though, i ask if its easier to get in and not whether the intelligence levels are comparable (which id assume they are naturally)</p>
<p>but from looking over things such as the ed stast profiles from a couple months ago, it seems like people in seas dont need to be as involved in extracurriculars and stuff to get in. or is this natural for math and sci applicants?</p>
<p>"it seems like people in seas dont need to be as involved in extracurriculars and stuff to get in. or is this natural for math and sci applicants?"</p>
<p>according to whom? you are looking at a very small sample and using your own (possibly flawed or biased) judgment. Moreover, how can you judge someone's extra-curricular involvement by looking at a position and club? have you read people's essays?</p>
<p>If you look at hard metrics seas is probably more difficult to get into.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but from looking over things such as the ed stast profiles from a couple months ago, it seems like people in seas dont need to be as involved in extracurriculars and stuff to get in. or is this natural for math and sci applicants?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're using a sample of people based on who posts their stats on collcon? I hope you see the error of this...</p>
<p>Personally I was involved with 3 EC's where I had a leadership role and a bunch more where I was just involved. That's not counting the varsity sport I was in. Most of the people I know in SEAS were very similar (a varsity sport, a few leadership roles and some less important ones)</p>
<p>you are right language wise - i shouldn't have been so dogmatic and said "be an engineer" so much as "want an engineering education." apologies. but sentiment is the same: you don't have to want to be an engineer in the MIT sense doesn't mean that you have to have no engineering desire or at least explain how engineering education will help you. (engineering is the new liberal art.) but i know many people who tought of seas as the backdoor and got disappointed. if you have no interest in engineering beyond math/sci vague inclinations then it is not sufficient. i assume you had something a bit more there.</p>