<p>Pros and Cons on each of the schools in general; each in terms of academics (engineering), social life, campus environment, people, professors, etc. Go</p>
<p>I faced that exact predicament this past year, so I'll put down my thoughts:</p>
<p>Academics:
-Stanford engineering blows Columbia out of the water. The department at Columbia is much smaller than Stanford's, and the Columbia administration generally doesn't care about it too much. Silicon Valley offers many, many more opportunities than NYC for engineering (but only engineering, except for entrepreneurship side of things)
-Columbia humanities are good, but not significantly better than Stanford's. (if they're better at all, which I think is not the case)
-If you're thinking of crossing over into business after doing engineering, than Columbia is better suited for hedge funds and such while stanford is ideal for entrepreneurship.
-This may be my personal experience, but all the engineers @Columbia whom I know well (~5 of them) are unhappy. With the core curriculum and heavy engineering curriculum, they feel pigeonholed and they don't feel the environment is well suited for engineering.</p>
<p>Campus Environment:
-The core curriculum breeds somewhat of an intellectual environment, but it leans heavily to the left. Yes, there are campus republicans, and Columbia was one of the heaviest donaters to Bush's campaign, but all of the students I spoke to said that writing with a liberal stance improved their grades, although, once again, this could be a biased sample. (although for this statement, ~30 or so people agreed) Nevertheless, more people read the economist, new yorker, and wall street journal and such at Columbia.
-Don't be fooled into thinking Stanford isn't intellectual. Stanford students don't seem intellectual, but if you get in a long conversation, you will find them just as interested, engaged, and informed as Columbia students. I will say that pre-professionals are more widespread at Stanford though.
-Columbia's environment has a deep East-Coast feel, in that students are somewhat friendly at first, but don't open up until you get to know them. However, don't think they are cold like most from the West/South believe. If you're on a metro, but you have no clue what to do, and the help desk is rude or abrupt, then ask a person next to you. NYCers are nice and will help you out if you need it.
-Stanford's environment, not surprisingly, has a West-Coast feel, in that the students are generally relaxed, and are friendly and open at first. However, don't be fooled into thinking that they live stress-free. Every student is dealing with challenging classes just like others on the East Coast.</p>
<p>social life:
-Columbia students are very independent, and will go off on NYC with their usual groups. On weekends, the campus can seem empty as everyone enjoys NYC's nightlife.
-Stanford students spend most of their time on campus. Of course, the campus is big enough and diverse enough to provide plenty to do. I have never heard of a single student being bored at Stanford.
-Columbia has more options for social life than any school I've ever seen. I went there every saturday for 3 years for SHP, and every single week, there was a tent up for some cultural event or festive occasion. More goes on campus at Columbia than at other schools that are isolated, and Columbia has all of NYC to boot.
-The drawback of Columbia is that, since everyone runs around NYC, it's harder to meet new people. Sure, there are plenty of people in Manhatten to meet, but there are more occasions to meet people at campus-centered social environments.</p>
<p>Administration: (this is what ultimately made my decision)
-Columbia administration sucks. Seriously. They simply do not care about undergrads in the slightest. Granted, all big research universities are more focused on graduates, but Columbia takes it farther than all of the others. You have to fight tooth and nail with the administration, when you shouldn't have to at a school with as much money and as many resources as Columbia. There are far fewer research opportunities for undergrads at Columbia than any other top university. The school is extremely bureaucratic, and you can expect to be brushed off by most offices. The student council officers complained to us at admit weekend that the administration totally ignored them with planning the weekend, and, lo and behold, it was a disaster. (anyone else who was at the SEAS weekend will know how bad it was. All planned social events broke down, and everyone was set loose in NYC) After dealing with an annoying administration in high school, there was no way I was dealing with this. Even though I don't have any definite figures to base this on, I talked to a great many Columbia students about it - probably around 60-70 students, most at admit weekend. Other than that, I can say that I was brushed off by every office I called in the admission/selection process, except when Columbia was calling me to increase their yield. Definitely look into this.
-Stanford administration is awesome. They got rated top 5 "School runs like butter" on PR for a year or two before, if I recall. They don't enforce prerequisites; you can essentially do what you want. Want something done? It's ready by the next day. I'm not going to say you'll be getting all the attention you need, but if you have initiative, Stanford administration won't provide resistance.</p>
<p>Financial Aid:
-Stanford gave me an awesome package.
-Columbia did not.
-From what I've heard, Columbia FA sucks, which sucks for ED people.</p>
<p>Thanks for the insight. </p>
<p>I am actually at Stanford right now, doing research @ the med school. The campus itself is probably the most beautiful, resort-like, learning environment I have ever seen. The people do in fact seem laid back, which is nice because I like to consider my self a "chill" kinda of person. I like to call it the "duck approach". It appears as if the students are smooth sailing above the water, when in reality they are kicking their legs viciously underneath, but you just can't see it.</p>
<p>I'm not a big fan of a competitive academic seen, and that is one thing I am worried about at Stanford's engineering school vs. Columbia's. The location of Stanford in the epicenter of the Silicon Valley does in fact breed collaboration and opportunity for engineering students. I am seeing this first hand; the project I am working on is the basis for the development of new technology for a silicon valley start-up tech Co. Because of this facet, Stanford may probably draw the more "hard-core" ultra-competitive undergrad engineers, and deservedly so. Columbia SEAS, while equally challenging, is a little smaller (I think). It is a self selective applicant pool and probably isn't as competitive as Stanford; please correct me if I'm wrong. Though the engineering school may not be as highly ranked, in the business world (something I am considering if not graduate/med school) a Columbia degree may prove to be just as strong. Firms like McKinsey have strong representation from both schools regardless of the major.</p>
<p>Columbia SEAS is smaller. SEAS undergrad is 1200 students total and each yr only has ~300 (this includes majors such as CS, Applied Math, Applied Physics). So if I would want to do BME, EE, or Applied Physics, then the numbers for a specific major would be even less. I'm not really sure what it is at Stanford. I would hope that Columbia's smaller engineering program is indicative of greater teacher accessibility. But if the admin really doesn't care about the undergrads, then Stanford seems more attractive in that sense. Stanford lacks an undergrad bioengineering major or biophysics program. Columbia has biomedical engineering and has specific undergrad courses in biophysics too. Its location may not be as saturated with opportunity as say Palo Alto, but its proximity to NASA (goddard) and other NYC companies can create opportunities if they are gone about the right way.</p>
<p>As far as the campus environment, I hope Stanford is considered dead over the summer. From my experience thus far ( a few weeks), I can't really form a generalization (hence the purpose of this post). Columbia students did seem to be somewhat elitest when I went, and they all seemed to be prep-school kids. I am attracted to the closely-knit undergrad environment as opposed to Columbia's scattered NYC scene.</p>
<p>Pros-and-cons....</p>
<p>I know overall, Stanford is considered more "prestigious" and is higher ranked. It does have a nice co-term option for its undergrads, as well as flexible academics. To most the decision would be easy, but I am just trying to figure out what would be a good fit.</p>
<p>I am at a standstill....</p>
<p>Got anymore?</p>
<p>Do either experience grade inflation?</p>
<p>I guess it would be nice to know how Stanford grads fare in application to grad/med schools and jobs vs. Columbia SEAS grads....</p>
<p>Most East Coast schools are very good in Bio-Eng space, becuase they have great Med Schools and NIH grants. JHU, PENN and Columbia are ahead of UCB and SF in this area. So if you want to EE/Software etc then UCB and Stanford are ok. But for Med/Eng, go east young man.</p>
<p>Thanks for the advice. </p>
<p>I probably should inform you all that this is in regard to potential transfer (reference to the "young man" comment). I have finished 2 yrs of undergrad already. This means I will benefit from not having to deal with Columbia's core classes unrelated to my field of study, or large undergrad engineering intro classes.</p>
<p>I don't really want to get into the EE thing, and am possibly wanting to use my engineering for a business career (MBA) or med school. Stanford has a pretty good med school (I am doing research here right now), and Columbia P&S is very respected as well. I think being a part of research at both might be equally advantageous.</p>
<p>So in BioE (specifically biomedical imaging), would you say Columbia is better? I know Stanford is well represented at national imaging/medical physics conferences, whereas Columbia is not as much. I think it probably because the gradaute program at Stanford in the sciences is much better, and Stanford is more overall a bigger research environment. Columbia seems more linked with industry.</p>
<p>But as far as undergrad, in fields like BME (which Stanford doesn't have), or Applied Physics, who wins?</p>
<p>Key thing is to get a good undergrad from good school. Research and grades alongwith recommendation get you there for MD or MBA. </p>
<p>Let us say your a BS from Stanford.
Say your majoring in App Physics: MD track: Need to do reach in app phy is medical related projects Imaging, Devices,Instruments, genomics,bio-nano, materials. BS app phy is equivalent a engineering. Key thing is what courses you taken area of focus in sub track. You can create a BME type course work then have a decent research. You do not have to go to any East program for that. JHU and Penn are great because they allow engineering/med school to work to gether. As long as you create a focus which suggests that you enjoy doing inter disiplinary research. med schools would take you seriously. East coast med schools like to get good kids from West( Harvard, JHU, PENN)</p>
<p>MBA: you will have to work 2 yrs before trying MBA. A Stanford BS or Columbia BS with good work can get you in any top 5 MBA programs.</p>
<p>Good to know. My work right now is actually in imaging. The field is deemed "Applied Medical Physics" but is pretty much an integration of applied physics, applied math, and EE.</p>
<p>I do think that the flexibility to synthesize a specific plan of study @ Stanford, rather than going along a prescribed route at Columbia has its advantages. I mean, this is how graduate degree plans are developed. So to create a "BME" courseload at Stanford in applied physics degree plan (with the specific emphasis that you mention) seems appealing both personally and professionally.</p>
<p>My intentions are to be competitive at Wharton, Sloan, HBS, and Stanford for business school.</p>
<p>If MD is my path, Schools like HMS, Yale, Duke, Stanford, UCSF, UPenn, Yale, UChicago, and Baylor seem appealing, maybe in route to MD/PhD.</p>
<p>As far as working for a few years, I am actually thinking about taking time off (a yr) before I transfer. What would be good things to do? I'm also not too sure because it is experience pre-bachelors and may not matter when applying to business schools.
Do Business programs want professional/corporate experience? My plan in this yr (if I do decide to take off) is to do some heavy research at a few Universities or Cancer Research/Imaging Centers, and/or intern at some companies (GE, Siemens, Lucent, Varian or TI) for a short period of time as well.</p>
<p>What's the best plan of attack?</p>
<p>Jacobian, I would take baba's comments with a pinch of salt as they are extremely biased: </p>
<p>Any more insight?</p>
<p>New York: Amazing, endless amount of things to do/people to meet.</p>
<p>Palo Alto: Boring. Don't get me wrong, the campus is one of the best I've ever seen, but the city itself is like one giant strip mall.</p>
<p>I am in Palo Alto Right now. It is indeed more beautiful and luxurious compared to the streets of New York. I think it is like a different crowd. There is a lot of money floating around here, and the silicon valley has proven to be a lucrative asset to the American economy and its reputation in technical fields with respect to other countries. NYC has a lot of money and industry and opportunities. Its hard to choose if you're into science.</p>