<p>I've heard and read a lot about Columbia and I really like the fact that it's set in the heart of a big city and everything, but I'm not sure which majors are the strongest there (they all seem quite strong lol) - any ideas?</p>
<p>(I'm thinking of a writing-related major, by the way)</p>
<p>I would like to know this too.</p>
<p>everything--history, economics, philosophy, any humanity pretty much, Columbia is reallly strong in all areas except engineering.</p>
<p>I wouldn't go as far as saying that Columbia isn't strong in engineering. It may not be Columbia's distinguishing factor, but several depts at Fu rank highly and beat out its ivy counterparts (HYP etc), BME to name one. I will agree that it is no MIT or Stanford, but nonetheless engineering at Columbia is still strong and respected, and many grads from Columbia SEAS go on to top grad programs including those afore mentioned schools (MIT, Stanford, Caltech etc).</p>
<p>I think you all significantly underrate Columbia Engineering. Its main limitations are its size and its "obscurity" in a large, broadly excellent school. It is one of the hardest engineering schools to get into and its graduates do very well. It also has, in many departments, a very distinguished faculty. Best of all, for those engineers who want to range beyond pure engineering, it emphasizes the humanities -- meaning that engineers there learn not only how to do something, but why they should do it. In a world of limited resources and difficult choices, that's not a bad combination to have.</p>
<p>Thanks dwHarris. </p>
<p>It's size is in fact its limiting factor. Its hard to consider a 1200 student undergraduate population as a prominent force in pumping out the best scientists and engineers. But with a well-rounded curriculum, it certainly does. It just so happens that only 300 a year do it. You can attribute that to the self-selective appplicant pool. That's why the acceptance rate is in the mid 20s rather than the low 10-12% range for the college. Most of the hard-core science and engineering pheens come out of high school ranting and raving MIT, Stanford, and Caltech. So those who come to Columbia do so for other reasons. The class size for the school of engineering is considerably smaller. But in no way are the students inferior. There are plenty of 1600s that have attended SEAS. </p>
<p>Columbia is known for its liberal arts. With that in mind it is easy to discount the credibility of the engineering program. Columbia students benefit from a different angle of education with the core curriculum requirements. If you ask me, this less technical-specific approach is an advantage. It allows students to experience 2 realms of education and benefit from a well-rounded undergraduate education rather than a 100% techie education. I also think that because SEAS is a different school inside Columbia, it is easy to single it out as "lesser" because of its separate admissions statistics. It is easy to overlook one thing. Objectively, Columbia SEAS students come into Columbia with better grades and scores. Columbia University most definitely benefits from this higher SAT avg, class rank, and avg GPA. This doesn't mean they are better students than CC students however, but just come in with more competitive grades (I'm sure CC students are diiverse, accomplished, and unique in their own regard). People don't think twice when they say Harvard is the best school in the world (a debate for another thread). But a lot of people overlook that it's engineering program is equally as "weak" in comparison to Harvard's strengths (humanities/pure sciences). Many students study at engineering at Harvard, and chose it because, well it's Harvard. Harvard produces several strong engineers into the work force and competitive grad schools. Columbia is very similar. I don't think Columbia engineering takes away from the school as a whole, but rather adds a diverse element of applied science and engineering to a campus saturated with humanities. The curriculum is strong, and more importantly growing. For all you naysayers, if you take a look at the Columbia SEAS faculty there is a extremely high representation of MIT alum (as well as Stanford, and UPenn). To say that SEAS is weak can almost be saying that a PhD from MIT is weak. After all, it is the faculty that can define the school and its program. I can assure you that in a matter of no time, SEAS will be on par with the Stanfords' and MITs' of the world.</p>
<p>Of Stanford's 3088 undergraduates who declared majors, only 659 (~21%) study engineering. This is a slightly less than Columbia's 1200/5200 (~23%) proportionally. Granted, the undeclared students comprise half the student body, but you can probably assume they will take on approximately the same distribution.
<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/undergraduate.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.stanford.edu/home/stanford/facts/undergraduate.html</a></p>
<p>I'm not saying that Columbia SEAS is bad in anyway, but just that there are probably other limiting factors.</p>
<p>You fail to recognize that at Columbia, SEAS stands for engineering and APPLIED SCIENCE. That throws in applied physics majors, applied math majors, Computer Science Majors, Materials Science Majors, and Operations Research Majors. Add these to the 659 you had mentioned doing just engineering at Stanford, and the number is larger. The proportion of these majors at Stanford is probably higher than just the 21%. I am pretty sure that Columbia's program is a little smaller.</p>
<p>Thanks for the clarification on the acronym. If you examine the section of the linked website called "Major Fields of Study" at Stanford, you'll find that things like materials science, management science, computer science (a major offered at both Columbia College and SEAS), and even product design are clustered under the broader field of "Engineering."</p>
<p>Then it seems that both schools have a similar proportion.</p>
<p>It is probably safe to say that Columbia's engineers are less likely to go into the engineering industry than to pursue grad school. </p>
<p>I guess it is just between the silicon valley and NYC. Right now, the silicon valley is winning and producing the best engineers. There is no doubt that Stanford is one of the best engineering programs there is (if not THE best). All I was trying to say is that Columbia Engineering is growing and is much better than people on this board think. In fact, I am interested in applying only to these 2 programs. Both Columbia and Stanford have relatively small programs, and Stanford is probably more respected. I also think that it mainly has to do with the graduate programs, rather than undergrad. When you have things like google, yahoo, and HP, and all that techie stuff originating from Stanford, it is logical that the top engineering kids will be drawn to that environment, thus making it a better known engineering program. Columbia's graduate program is less known but nonethless still worthy. The key is that it is growing. The acceptance rate is decreasing every year with the increase of scores (higher quality applicants), and SEAS is well represented at the top medical, law, and business schools in the nation. It has a good industrial engineering program because of its NY location. Stanford Engineering doesn't have a specific bioengineering program. so in this regard, Columbia is better. But in things like EE, Stanford wins hands down.</p>
<p>Jacobian -- You might be interested in the story that ran in the New York Times within the last few days about Silicon Valley. It noted that, while profits are recovering and businesses are once again growing, jobs are not being added. This is because many of the companies see markets in Asia and are assembling engineering teams in those countries from people already there.</p>
<p>That's part of the reason why I feel it is better not to get too specialized as an undergrad, especially with a certain job niche in mind. The job market changes a lot, by the time you get through grad school. I also think it's a good argument for a program that is not just technical, but will give someone other skills, especially the ability to communicate well. This might be ultimate "edge" for an engineer trained in the U.S. </p>
<p>That said, you obviously are a person who makes his or her own opportunities and so I have no doubt you will thrive wherever you go.</p>
<p>Thanks for that note Sac. </p>
<p>The point that you bring up is a good one. A good education should be multi-faceted in some elements and not completely track specific for the reasons you mention, especially for engineers. </p>
<p>I guess I can appreciate it for other reasons, and also see Columbia's academic environment and engineering curriculum as one that serves very adequately in these regards. It offers analytical skills other than sitting in front of a computer all day and pumping code. That's why I am thinking about transferring there. Don't get me wrong, Stanford would be good too. Stanford's curriculum is very flexible and allows a student to entertain the liberal arts and add in the technical training in their bag of tricks. The 2 schools are quite comparable and inhabit a very qualified and diverse student body. But it might be fair to say, that as the school gets more field specific (school name ends with "Institute of Technology") then the diversity seems to drop. I could be wrong.</p>
<p>I don't think you'll go wrong with either Stanford or Columbia in the long run. My son chose Columbia over Stanford, but for reasons that don't apply to your situation. If you get the choice, I'd think Stanford might make more sense for you, given that you are already a junior and know pretty much what you want to do. Stanford is more flexible than Columbia and may present you more research opportunities. I believe Stanford also takes a good number of transfer students. Columbia is a more difficult school to transfer into because of the core requirements, unless you go the General Studies route.</p>
<p>I am actually at Stanford right now doing some research this summer for the medical school. This place is great, and so is the research. I'm finding myself more and more at home here. My plans are to perhaps take this next year off and continue to do research somewhere (where? I don't know) and then apply to Columbia and Stanford. Do you mind providing the circumstance for your son? Any insight on why someone would choose one school over the other would be great, no matter what the situation. Because Stanford is more transfer friendly, it just may be that it is a better fit for me (more transfer students probably make it easier to adapt to)
Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>My son's reasons for choosing Columbia over Stanford had to do with location, social life, and the core curriculum. He liked the core because he doesn't know whether he's a humanities or science person (or, rather, he is both) and enjoys talking about ideas; liked the NYC music opportunities (especially jazz); really wanted to be in a city rather than a suburb. Stanford is great, but it was familiar and he thought probably too comfortable for him -- he'd spent a lot of summers there. So, Columbia represented more of an adventure both intellectually and socially. As I said, this has nothing to do with your situation as you've described it.
Good luck with your applications!</p>
<p>wow - I guess Columbia's pretty strong in practically everything then.</p>