<p>Allow me to welcome the New Three: Harvard, Columbia, and Yale Universities.</p>
<p>The Day of Trinity promises a very Radiant future. Harvard, Yale, Columbia–your holy of holies-- no doubt will be positively glowing.</p>
<p>insinuating that Columbia is better than Princeton is utter blasphemy.</p>
<p>I think he’s referring to the fact that Harvard, Columbia, and Yale had the lowest acceptance rates this year.</p>
<p>…and that Columbia is far better than Princeton. </p>
<p>But yes, it’s about time that the so-called Big Three has been broken to include Columbia. The world makes more sense. It all seems just right and perfect. the New Three. </p>
<p>Harvard University (Mass.)
Columbia University (N.Y.)
Yale University (Conn.)</p>
<p>…needless to say that the best up there is Yale… ;)</p>
<p>I predict that next year, with an Early Action option, Princeton will once again have a lower acceptance rate than Columbia (even with its yield-enhancing, acceptance-rate reducing ED program).</p>
<p>I contemplated that as well, but I truly feel that the dominos effect will be much greater: more people are going to choose Columbia over Princeton in the near future because of everything that Columbia has going for it: the city, the core, the prestige. </p>
<p>Princeton’s really good, as well, but the college experience there is not comparable to that of a truly urban community. The New Three is composed of urban schools :)</p>
<p>if we’re using acceptance rate as the sole criterion for this title, wouldn’t it be Harvard Columbia Stanford… ?</p>
<p>It’s true that urban schools are on the upswing, but I wouldn’t count Princeton out, much less Stanford. And if you love Yale (which I do) you may not want to make too big a deal of all the “benefits” of its urban setting, which may not be quite as spiffy as those of some (lots) of other universities.</p>
<p>Columbia also has some significant negatives for me. The Core is a mixed blessing at best; many more people like the idea of it than like the reality. And Columbia’s internal politics are as unpleasant as they come. Because it’s in New York, not only do people there take themselves way too seriously, but people in the surrounding community take it way too seriously, too, and powerful outsiders butt in on academic issues to an extent that is extremely inappropriate. </p>
<p>Finally, Columbia’s endowment isn’t in the class of HYPS, and is spread over a lot more stuff than Princeton’s. Columbia’s real estate is priceless, of course, but apart from that Princeton is a much, much wealthier institution, especially insofar as resources for undergraduate education are concerned. That’s a big hump for Columbia to get over if it wants to crack the top 3 or 4. Call me in a couple of decades.</p>
<p>It’s true that Columbia’s endowment is not up to par with its peers, but this is what truly makes it one of the most fascinating instutiions in the world. Columbia doesn’t seem to be limited by its limited endowment, nor do its accomplishments fall short and are actually comparable, if they do not exceed, to the very least, those of the schools that you mention. Again, I do not want to separate Columbia from the group and I hate speaking about it as if it is not (HYCSP in my eyes), but I admire the institution for everything that it stands for. </p>
<p>On a more logical sense, pointing out the faults of Columbia doesn’t deter it from the New Three in any sense. I do not know enough about the reality of its Core (as you seem to know), but we all know that the masses, which these perceptions of Big-anything truly belong to, do not make their judgements of reality (or shall we go into how flawed Yale’s housing system is?). New York City is the greatest city in the world and this stands regardless of what we believe or how our perceptions influence our outlook on what it inhabits. </p>
<p>Now, do not doubt that I love Yale, but Columbia’s path has been one of the most fascinating to me. You say to give you a couple of decades; I say that the time has finally arrived when the hierarchy of institutions make more sense. Princeton’s an amazing institution, surely, but I just cannot wrap my head around the idea of comparing it to Columbia (or Yale or Harvard, at that). I truly believe that Princeton’s been carried over to where it is by traditional perceptions that are hard to break; well, the back ride is over and Columbia has come to claim its rightful place. </p>
<p>I exclude Stanford because Stanford has its own world in the West Coast and I like to focus primarly on the Ivies. </p>
<p>I don’t know. Call me a fan if you must, but holding onto traditional views even in light of facts gives me too much of a sense of blindness. Change is scary, but we all know that everyone at Yale’s liberal enough to accept it. </p>
<p>The New Three stands in my eyes and I’m confident that the time that is to come will only solidify it more and more.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bigboy, give us a break. Known as the safety school of HYPSM applicants, and losing 80-90% of its cross admits to HYP, Columbia is no where near the quality of education as Princeton and who wants to live in Harlem anyway? The students at Columbia are no where near as happy as those at Princeton and Yale.</p>
<p>Look for Columbia’s yield to drop significantly this year as more than 300 kids will have to be admitted from Columbia’s waitlist to make up for all those cross-admits lost to HYPSM who applied to Columbia this year only because of the availability of the Common Application. Those 300 added admits will raise Columbia’s acceptance rate from 6.9% to 7.8%. Columbia, will, of course, continue to claim a 6.9% acceptance rate through March next year.</p>
<p>While Columbia’s a fantastic institution and I have friends there that love it, I still don’t think it’s going to join HYPSM anytime soon. The biggest clue? It’s still riding on the allure of NYC (Columbia College…in the City of New York). If they would make that a less prominent part of their advertising process, I think their rise would have more merit. UChicago, after all, doesn’t spend their entire admissions session or tour talking about the city but about the school, and that, for me, made a big difference.</p>
<p>Japanoko, for whatever reason this thread offends you I’m sorry. I do not personally wish to engage in a debate on ‘the big three’ or ‘the top four according to US News.’ However, a couple of unfair statements in your previous post. </p>
<p>First, Columbia has never taken 300 people of its waiting list and there’s no reason to believe it would this year. And if I recall correctly, Harvard, Yale and Princeton have each taken between 75 and 250 students of their waitlists in the last few years. All initial acceptance rates will go up accordingly over the summer. No need to unfairly subject Columbia to this yield banter. </p>
<p>Second, I don’t think anyone thinks of Columbia as a safety school. </p>
<p>Third, the cross-admit study you refer to is now nearly 15 years old and from data in the 1998-2000 admissions cycles. Those graduates have kids now. Times have changed.</p>
<p>Fourth, how do you determine that Columbia offers ‘no where near the quality of education as Princeton’? </p>
<p>Fifth, who wants to live in Harlem anyway? I would take a search of the NYC real estate market to determine that answer. Lots of folks, apparently.</p>
<p>Sixth, how do you determine that Columbia students are ‘no where near as happy as those at Princeton and Yale’? I would reference at least some tangible data to make sense of this. According to US News, Yale has a 99% retention rate and both Columbia and Princeton have a 98% retention rate. I do agree that many students at Princeton may not want to be at Columbia but Columbia students, by and large, have no interest in Princeton other than contrasting how very different it is from Columbia.</p>
<p>Perhaps the issue is not of replacing Princeton with Columbia, but adding it to the list of upper elite tier schools (HYPSMC). This happens in business (like the bulge bracket firms on Wall Street) and basketball (witness Duke’s and CT’s relativelyrecent rise to alongside UNC, KY, KS at the top of the college hoops world).</p>
<p>It has been amazing to watch Columbia’s admissions trajectory over the past 20 years. I went to a private day school appx. 20 years ago that fed a lot of kids into Ivies, and Columbia was legitimately viewed as a “safety” school for us then. A friend of mine graduated probably ranked 38th out of 40 kids in the class – horrible grades, decent SATs – and sailed into Columbia after racking up rejections from a host of A and B list schools. He was even rejected by Boston College back then.</p>
<p>Like beautifulday writes, times have truly changed. </p>
<p>I love Yale, but my only regret is not considering other schools at the time, like Columbia or Harvard. I guess that being legacy has its down sides. </p>
<p>If there’s anything that’s certain, it is that Princeton is not up to par with any three.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>beautifulday</p>
<p>Much of the substantial increase in applications to Columbia this year came from HYPSM applicants that previously had not considered Columbia but decided to apply this year due to the ease of applying. Columbia’s yield rate will drop significantly as these cross admits will choose HYPSM instead, forcing Columbia to admit over 300 applicants from its waitlist this year, up from 75 last year.</p>
<p>mancune, I’m actually really interested how this is so? Columbia and Harvard had the largest endowment in the beginning to the mid 1900s and Columbia’s always been affiliated with the most noble prize winners in the world. </p>
<p>Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and Yale have always been amazing schools. A+ all across the board. Let’s not start messing with the past. </p>
<p>Japanoko, you have predictions and I respect them. I’m simply curious, do you attend Princeton? or any of the other four mentioned, at that matter?</p>
<p>EDIT: I apologize. Let me explain why I ask you this before you answer, if you choose to do so, that is. I ask you because your statements are so radical and inaccurate that one who is part of the elite institutions just would not agree with. Statements like, “Columbia’s a safety,” or “Harlem’s dangerous” are only things an outsider who has no fundemental understanding of these schools would say. (I suggest you look into the dangers of New Haven…) Your statements seem to radical is all I mean. Do you attend any of these schools?</p>
<p>^^^^bigboy, Columbia and UC Berkeley’s beginning of the downfall as premier universities, of which both have very much recovered, began with the late '60’s, early '70’s riots and protests by students…</p>
<p>in addition, don’t forget that the Harlem area in the '70’s was a drug infested dangerous area and did not appeal to many of the bright students that were deciding on attending Ivy League schools. In those days it was considered very unsafe to venture north of 96th street in Manhattan.</p>
<p>Seriously, how is the amount of application a school gets any indication of its actual quality of teaching? </p>
<p>The colleges are the same ones before and after people applied in large numbers, only your perceptions of them changed because they’re somehow now more “selective”! UChicago’s acceptance rate dropped down dramatically when it began its aggressive marketing campaign, and now Columbia’s does too as it joins the common application. </p>
<p>Why does this even matter in the first place? You pick the school that best fits your needs and interests so you can be happy there. Going to one that most impresses your friends will only lead you disappointed once you get there. Really, all of the top 50 colleges will be good enough for any self-motivated student.</p>