<p>From a general academic (science and liberal arts) and social point of view does anyone have thoughts on why Stanford may be considered a better university than Columbia (I keep hearing that it is)?
Or why Columbia is competitive?
Which school would you choose, given the option?</p>
<p>From the social point of view the two are very different I’m guessing… </p>
<p>Stanford is in the middle of suburbia, so it has an actual campus, stadiums, athletic fields, parking lots, and such. Stanford also has very strong athletics, and football is a decently large part of student life in the fall (basketball used to be big, though it might be again next year). In general, Stanford students are very nice and relaxed. The outdoors are a big part of student life, given the open play fields, basketball courts, and nearby hiking trails. Pretty beaches are about an hour away, and world-class skiing is four hours away (not important for some, very important for others). In my opinion, Stanford is much more in line with the traditional image of college.</p>
<p>Columbia, from what I’ve heard, doesn’t have much of a campus, and the social scene revolves around Manhattan. So whereas at Stanford you have the Stanford bubble (attributable to the fact that our campus does offer so much and the immediately surrounding areas so little), Columbia is probably the opposite. Being in Manhattan, I would imagine Columbia is more fast-paced. Also being in Manhattan, I would imagine Columbia students to be more artsy. </p>
<p>So it’s a matter of personal preference really. </p>
<p>Academics they will be largely similar- both are top tier. If Stanford is considered a better university than Columbia in those fields you mentioned, that is probably due to things like faculty achievements, research (are they defining the field, for instance), institutional support, and notable alumni. That largely covers how a university gains academic prestige. Prestige is far from random, but it’s not the most objective quality.</p>