<p>Is Columbia similar to Harvard in that many of the applicants have done all these prodigal things in their life or are doing standard ECs just fine?</p>
<p>There are plenty of ordinary/average people at Columbia who have done little "amazing" in the course of their lives. You won't hear many comments about the extraordinary talents/abilities/experiences of the student body as you would at Harvard. That said, I doubt the majority of Harvard students are all THAT exceptional either; much of what one hears about Harvard boils down to exaggeration, extrapolation, or hype. </p>
<p>In any case, I presume your question is meant to assess whether you will be able to apply to/get into Columbia without having done something like trekked through the Guatemalan jungle to build a hospital, written a book, or helped draft Congressional legislation. The answer is yes.</p>
<p>ok good lol. thnx</p>
<p>If you can afford to not worry about comparing financial aid packages - e.g., you are poor or rich - then consider ED to Columbia. It is one of the schools where it makes the biggest difference.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You won't hear many comments about the extraordinary talents/abilities/experiences of the student body as you would at Harvard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most of the students at all of the Ivies (Harvard or otherwise) are "ordinary/average." Most Ivy students are smart kids who did really well in high school and showed talent / distinguished themselves in a couple ECs. 99% of the students at Columbia or Harvard are accepted despite the fact that they didn't do anything absolutely extraordinary, like write, or--ahem--plagiarize, a bestselling novel.</p>
<p>Columbia has it's handful of "extraordinary" people too, and you certainly hear about them. Not sure where you're getting the impression that there are so many extraordinary people at Harvard.</p>
<p>I never claimed Harvard had such people, I merely noted it has the reputation for containing these students. If I had a nickel for every time someone said "everyone at Harvard has done something amazing"...</p>
<p>And I'm not sure why, but those who are extraordinary people at Columbia tend to be rather demure. Perhaps Columbians are simply less braggartish than their Harvard peers?</p>
<p>Evidence of the "Harvard people are amazing" mentality:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Evidence of the "Harvard people are amazing" mentality:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seems like there are three types of people who express the "Harvard people are amazing" mentality:</p>
<p>1) Laypeople who will never get near any top college and/or who don't regularly deal with people from top colleges, and like to romanticize about something that doesn't exist; and</p>
<p>2) The real dummies at Harvard, since their idiocy is more easily rationalized by gloating about their peers than realizing that their acceptance was due to blind luck.</p>
<p>3) Harvard trolls who really don't believe it.</p>
<p>Most people who actually go to Harvard refrain from the "Harvard people are amazing" mentality. I know tons of Harvard people, and none of them pull that crap.</p>
<p>Lets put it this way...</p>
<p>Is there a letter C in HYPS?</p>
<p>Even with CC users extend the HYPS to HYPSMC, the C refers to the technical school in Pasadena NOT Columbia.</p>
<p>Though in the Ivy League, Columbia is clearly on a slightly lower tier than Harvard. Any one with half a brain can tell you this.</p>
<p>Best.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Though in the Ivy League, Columbia is clearly on a slightly lower tier than Harvard. Any one with half a brain can tell you this.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In terms of prestige, I would agree (and most would agree) that Harvard is more prestigious institution than Columbia. The rest of your illogical post doesn't follow.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is there a letter C in HYPS?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Is there an S in HYP? Is there a S in HYPC? Is there a P in HY? Isn't an arbitrary game of alphabet soup fun?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even with CC users extend the HYPS to HYPSMC, the C refers to the technical school in Pasadena NOT Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh yes, when 15 year olds on a message board formulate some alphabet soup, that's compelling.</p>
<p>"In terms of prestige, I would agree (and most would agree) that Harvard is more prestigious institution than Columbia. The rest of your illogical post doesn't follow."</p>
<p>Indeed. </p>
<p>"Is there an S in HYP? Is there a S in HYPC? Is there a P in HY? Isn't an arbitrary game of alphabet soup fun?"</p>
<p>Well it may seem arbitrary to you as you hold bias as a Columbia student but one has to wonder why these particular universities (Stanford, Yale, Princeton, and Harvard) are chosen for this acronym. From an objective standpoint, these universities are clearly the flagships of American higher education on par with Cambridge, University of Tokyo and Oxford among others. Though a great university, few people would put Columbia in that elite class of world reknowned universities.</p>
<p>"Oh yes, when 15 year olds on a message board formulate some alphabet soup, that's compelling."</p>
<p>A bit of a generalization. I believe I see everyone using this Acronym from parents in the parents forum, to transfers and yes the high schoolers as well. No, need for unecessary stereotypes.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well it may seem arbitrary to you as you hold bias as a Columbia student but one has to wonder why these particular universities (Stanford, Yale, Princeton, and Harvard) are chosen for this acronym.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>First of all, these acronyms are probably only as old as internet message boards (and trolling therein). The conventional wisdom's always been about "HYP," the "holy trinity," etc., none of which have anything to do with Stanford. For you to say that Stanford was "chosen for this acronym" is a pretty meaningless comment. Likewise, "though a great university, few people would put [Stanford] in that elite class of world reknowned[sic] universities."</p>
<p>The fact that these acronyms keep evolving at the whim of the internet message board trolls illustrates how meaningless they are. HYP vs. HYPS vs. HYPSCM --- is Caltech/MIT on par with Stanford? Is Caltech, a great technical school but nonetheless hardly well rounded, "clearly the flagships of American higher education on par with Cambridge, University of Tokyo and Oxford"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I believe I see everyone using this Acronym from parents in the parents forum, to transfers and yes the high schoolers as well. No, need for unecessary stereotypes.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So the extent of your experience with HYPSCM is on message boards? I assure you that nobody in the real world uses "HYPSCM" or thinks of them as you've described.</p>
<p>"First of all, these acronyms are probably only as old as internet message boards (and tolling therein). The conventional wisdom's always been about "HYP," the "holy trinity," etc., none of which have anything to do with Stanford. For you to say that Stanford was "chosen for this acronym" is a pretty meaningless comment. Likewise, "though a great university, few people would put [Stanford] in that elite class of world reknowned[sic] universities."</p>
<p>The fact that these acronyms keep evolving at the whim of the internet message board trolls how meaningless they are. HYP vs. HYPS vs. HYPSCM --- is Caltech/MIT on par with Stanford? Is Caltech, a great technical school but nonetheless hardly well rounded, "clearly the flagships of American higher education on par with Cambridge, University of Tokyo and Oxford"?"</p>
<p>Does the age/ semantic origins of a phrase determine its current meaning? I think not. Therefore, the term HYPS still refers to the best universities in present times regardless of where, when and how this phrase originated. Arguing such is just plain meaningless. Stanford/Caltech/MIT (Which has a great business school mind you) clearly belong with HYP. Including Columbia in that phrase is so much of a stretch its not even funny. </p>
<p>"So the extent of your experience with HYPSCM is on message boards? I assure you that nobody in the real world uses "HYPSCM" or thinks of them as you've described."</p>
<p>Nobody thinks Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech and MIT are the pinnacles of education in the US? Just because they don't refer to the actual acronym, does not change the fact they regard these schools in as high esteem as possible =]</p>
<p>Have you heard of circular reasoning, conclusory statements, and non sequiturs? Reread what you posted and try to figure out why you're clearly talking out of your you know what:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Therefore, the term HYPS still refers to the best universities in present times regardless of where, when and how this phrase originated. Arguing such is just plain meaningless. Stanford/Caltech/MIT (Which has a great business school mind you) clearly belong with HYP. Including Columbia in that phrase is so much of a stretch its not even funny.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>the pretentiousness that is ubiquitous at harvard is pretty much non-existent at columbia (based on first-hand experience: i got my masters from columbia, and have spent significant time at harvard/harvard related functions)</p>
<p>"the pretentiousness that is ubiquitous at harvard is pretty much non-existent at columbia (based on first-hand experience: i got my masters from columbia, and have spent significant time at harvard/harvard related functions)"</p>
<p>Every student at Harvard is pretentious while every student at Columbia is a meek student who will inherit the earth with his quiet brilliance.</p>
<p>Hurray for generalizations.</p>
<p>Someone needs to take a Rhetoric class. Badly.</p>
<p>well, how else do you describe colleges except in generalizations?????</p>
<p>In the past few years, it seems that Columbia has become pretty equal to Harvard in terms of prestige among employers (except those who had attended Harvard and still have that desperate need to feel extraordinary.)</p>
<p>The two students who were accepted in the past two years from my school to Harvard have certainly not been extraordinary students, or people. They maintained high averages and involved themselves in a large (but not unusual) number of extracurricular activities. But they never devoted themselves to any class or any activity in itself; their minds never seemed to waver from the goal or the prize. They were terrible club leaders because they always had somewhere to go, and often didn't show up at club meetings.</p>
<p>Now, of course there are people like this at Columbia too. But the point is that Harvard as some people describe it is a purely fantastical notion. I wish such a place existed, but those students that I know who had gone to Harvard were not brilliant- just motivated, like most of the other kids at the other name brand institutions.</p>
<p>However, the fact that there are such passions against Columbia as there are in this thread shows some sort of insecurity and backlash against the ascendance of this school. Petty people think about petty things I suppose.</p>
<p>Interesting.</p>
<p>I also think that Harvard gets a certain type of person you might see less of at Columbia: a person who already knows what he or she wants to do in life (and may have known practically from birth), has already made a commitment to it and achieved something in the way of research, prizes, publication, performance, etc.</p>
<p>Not only does Harvard look for these people (that is, the people they think will be leaders in a field, not just smart kids), but these applicants are self-selecting because they are the type of students who can make best use of Harvard and its resources. As far as I know, it's the only college that makes students declare a major at the end of freshman year. Harvard has until recently not encouraged students to pursue education abroad since it holds the Harvard experience in such high regard; but it does encourage admitted students to take a year off before entering. Harvard wants students to hit the ground running, and I suspect that it's those who are ready to do so -- who may know what professors they want to study with, or an extra-curricular activity they intend to spend four years at, or have ideas for undergraduate projects Harvard is willing to fund -- who get the most out of it. Others can get lost there.</p>
<p>This is not a measure of intelligence or statistics, or a judgment. Just an observation.</p>
<p>On the other hand, I believe places like Brown and Columbia attract those who are still unsure and exploring. Brown, because of its open curriculum encourages exploration. Columbia, because it's core curriculum viturally requires it. At Columbia, you can graduate without a major, just with a concentration. Yet, with the core, odds are you still will have gotten a real education. Now, you can debate the value of specializing versus general education, and the relevance of the core; and there are plenty of students of Harvard who change their minds about majors once they get there. But I do believe this is a difference between Harvard and Columbia.</p>
<p>Pretentiousness: In my experience, it's higher on an "intellectual" level at Columbia, at least among a certain set who like to reference works of artistic or scholarly merit frequently. See past editions of the Blue & White (undergraduate magazine, somewhat like the Harper's of Columbia, sadly becoming more technocratically journalistic). There may be more social hauteur at Harvard; I have yet to witness any among Harvardians. The ones I know are generally very forthright and collegial, even those with stupendous amounts of knowledge (and many seriously considered Columbia before turning it down due to the city factor, which I suppose may or may not click, though Harvard Square is certainly not the embodiment of the pastoral).</p>
<p>Knowing What One Wants to Do in Life: Amazingly, the Core is not a real determinant in many people's decisions to attend Columbia (which tends to drag the classes down with unwilling participants, admittedly). Most would probably cite the fact that it is an "Ivy in New York" that drew them here; when many tell me they hate the Core and I hit them with the "then why did you attend Columbia?" question, their response was either along those lines or that they never knew the Core existed (seems hard to believe). In any case, there are many who complain that it severely interferes with their "true" ambitions. The departments also exhibit strong centrifugal tendencies on Columbia College students. There's very little major-switching or graduating with just one concentration. Of course, the premed and engineering types are all dead-set on their goals and rarely reevaluate them, and there is a very strong contingent of econ people who march straight from receiving their diplomas into the arms of a waiting investment bank. These are people who all generally began working in their respective tracks freshman year, whether or not they "adored the Core".</p>