UCLA vs. COLUMBIA GS

College Search & Selection
21

<p>

</p>

<p>Why is there a separate General Studies (versus College) at Columbia University, and are there any significant differences in the academic programs? It says that General Studies is for returning or non-traditional students who may be full or part time, but why would they necessarily have to make a separate administrative unit for them?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>For Los Angeles area companies, being local is a huge advantage in that on-campus recruiting is very convenient for such companies at UCLA and other local universities. Columbia would have a similar advantage in New York.</p>

22

<p>There are separate schools because, while the academics are virtually identical, there remains different administrative needs for both respective student bodies. For example, a student applying to Columbia directly out of high school has different needs than, say, someone transferring into school at 45 years of age. Admissions critea are thus based on these distinctions. Admissions to CC is very competitive: roughy 6%, this past filing period, but they received upwards of 20,000 applicants (the sizable uptick due to CC using the common application for the first time this year. A person applying at age 45 will not have relevant SAT scores, and people do not just randomly apply to Columbia GS like they do with CC. The applicant pool is much smaller. </p>

<p>To add to the administrative differences, GS students, since they are usually older (27 is the average age) do not live in dorms with 18-21 years olds, they live in University Housing with law school, business school, and other grad students (which makes perfect sense because of the age similarities). </p>

<p>For a picture of the academic similarities I provide a wikicu link:
[School</a> of General Studies - WikiCU, the Columbia University wiki encyclopedia](<a href=“http://www.wikicu.com/School_of_General_Studies]School”>School of General Studies - WikiCU, the Columbia University wiki encyclopedia)</p>

<p>The admissions criteria for GS is different than CC. Its not 6%, but it’s 23%, closer to UCLA and Cornell transfer rates.</p>

<p>Link from the most respected and credible cleve admit website:</p>

<p>[College</a> Search - Columbia University: School of General Studies - GS - Admission](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>

<p>And now Cornell’s:
[College</a> Search - Cornell University - Admission](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>

<p>And UCLA:
[College</a> Search - University of California: Los Angeles - UCLA - Admission](<a href=“College Search - BigFuture | College Board”>College Search - BigFuture | College Board)</p>

<p>For that last Filing period that’s: 18% for the entire Cornell University undergraduate system, 23% for GS, and 33% for UCLA.</p>

<p>Don’t let anyone say that GS is easy to get into. It’s a selective Ivy League college, with an intensly rigorous academic environment.</p>

23

<p>What determines whether an admitted student is in General Studies or College? Does the student decide at the time of application, or does Columbia assign an admitted student to one or the other? If one or the other were perceived as easier to get into, wouldn’t more applicants apply to the “easier” one?</p>

24

<p>You can only apply to GS if you’ve had at least a year break in your education since high school. With very few exceptions you can only apply to CC directly out ofhigh school.</p>

25

<p>“And now Cornell’s:”</p>

<p>Cornell is organized into distinct colleges, admissions is done separately by college just as is the case at Columbia.</p>

<p>For the class entering Fall 2010, the transfer admit rates by college were as follows:
College of Agriculture & Life Sciences 44%; Human Ecology 40 %; Industrial and Labor relations 46 %; Architecture 11%; Arts & Sciences 7%; Engineering 12%; Hotel Administration 31%.</p>

<p>However the published transfer admit rates for the first three, the “contract colleges”, are highly misleading, because a large proportion of the admitted transfer pool consists of so-called “Guaranteed Transfers”, people who were offered deferred admission, subject to achieving certain criteria, when they applied to those colleges initially for freshman admission. The admit rate for transfer applicants who were not GTs is not published, however it is obviously much lower since there are a lot of GTs and most people would not apply if they did not meet the specified criteria, so very few transfer applicants with GTs are turned down.</p>

<p>Of these seven different colleges, the only one with a liberal arts curriculum and majors comparable to Columbia GS is the College of Arts & Sciences.</p>

26

<p>Thank you the clarification monydad.</p>

27

<p>In my opinion, tsar10027 hit the nail right on the head on this one.</p>

<p>@LoverofWisdom, please remember: Columbia GS is an official undergraduate college of the Ivy League Columbia University, just like CC and SEAS. You will earn the same degree as all other graduates (all while taking the same classes with the same students and faculty!)</p>

<p>More importantly, your resume will be indistinguishable from other Columbia graduates.</p>

<p>To be honest, The School of General Studies is essentially the same as Columbia College in every way, except in regards to financial aid, and the option to attend part time.</p>

<p>From another thread:</p>

<p>“CCE is the office that handles recruiting and they treat undergrad recruiting equally (they don’t care about your school - whether you are gs/college/engineering). To them you are an ugrad. They organize mixers, send out emails, and GS students are equally able to attend those events as anyone else … Throughout the entire recruitment process you need not even mention the distinction between GS/CC/SEAS, as your interviewer unless they attended Columbia, doesn’t know that such differences occur. To them you are an econ (or whatever) major at Columbia with stellar everything.”</p>

<p>Trust me – there are plenty of people who chose Columbia GS over UC Berkeley and UCLA. I happen to be one of them, and I feel great about it. </p>

<p>Plain and simple, Columbia University on your resume just looks better. (I admit, however, that law school will be more important.)</p>

<p>Then again, Columbia is actually more cheaper for me, so if finances will be a big problem, you should consider UCLA, seeing as how it is also a very excellent institution.</p>

<p>Good Luck.</p>

28

<p>I saw a post regarding GS vs CC in regards to “why have the seprate colleges.”</p>

<p>Answer is simple: Columbia College has age limitations. If you take a year off school, regardless of your “stats” your no longer eligible for admission into CC and must apply to GS. Also, if you wish to attend columbia part time as an undergrad, you’re only option is GS.</p>

29

<p>@slipper1234, who wrote: "So yes, Columbia over UCLA. But not Columbia GS over UCLA, it literally has no advantages and costs more. "</p>

<p>And @Blah2009, who wrote: “I can’t imagine Columbia general studies placing better than UCLA [in law school].”</p>

<p>UCLA has a great undergrad program, but anybody who doesn’t view Columbia GS as being the same degree as CC or SEAS, and thus an objectively superior opportunity (taking the same classes for the same Ivy degree) hasn’t done the research on GS and isn’t basing their assessment on anything quantifiable. Sorry to disappoint, but not every Ivy grad went to one of the Ancient Eight directly from high school. That doesn’t mean, however, that UCLA is suddenly a better option than any of them - including GS. Again, apologies to alums of non-Ivy programs trying to enhance their prestige at the expense of GS, but grads of GS still went to Columbia. And grads of non-Ivies still didn’t. That matters.</p>

<p>For example, the numbers below come from US World News via another cc post and are a couple of years old, but they show that CU admitted only the fourth-highest number of transfers among the Ivies alone. And perhaps most important in the comparison of UCLA vs. Columbia GS - CU (including GS, which itself admitted 92 transfers in 2009) is dramatically more selective than any UC listed, and accepted basically FIFTY TIMES fewer transfers than the vaunted UCLA. </p>

<p>So you can go to a public UC which accepted 5,199 other transfer students, instead of an Ivy which accepted a 104, and still feel like you’re in a better program, because you spent less, and/or because of what some weird minority of CU outsiders who don’t know what they’re talking about have had to say about GS. But these are the numbers. And the numbers are pretty formidably in GS’s favor.</p>

<p>University/ Transfer admit/ Transfer applied/ % transfer admit<br>
UCLA 5,200 15,075 34.49%
UC Berkeley 3,232 12,371 26.13%
USC 2,436 8,305 29.33%
NYU 1,671 5,380 31.06%
Cornell 801 2,918 27.45%
Penn 367 2,190 16.76%
Brown 117 972 12.04%
Columbia 105 1,837 5.72%
Dartmouth 38 550 6.91%
Duke 25 479 5.22%
Stanford 25 1,180 2.12%
Yale 24 751 3.20%
Harvard (no data)<br>
Princeton (no data) </p>

<p>So granted, Columbia could probably do a better job on financial aid (one of the few legit differences between the schools); of explaining its common mission for all of its undergrad schools to the broader populous; and could emphasize more business leadership GS grads and fewer ballerinas on its site. Or it could simply say “we use GS to reserve a 100 or so spots per Fall for non-traditional students” (in comparison to Berkeley, which is proud to say that they reserve up to 1/3 of their spots for transfers!)… But when you look at schools like Berkeley - which along with Stanford and Duke are frequently mentioned in the same breath as the Ivies - I really don’t know how you can win the argument that GS isn’t well above UCLA/Cal, when GS provides the same education as CC and SEAS, for the same degree from Columbia University.</p>

<p>BTW - I myself recently faced the choice of UCLA or Columbia GS. I chose GS.</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/transfer-students/752822-top-schools-high-transfer-rates.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/transfer-students/752822-top-schools-high-transfer-rates.html&lt;/a&gt; </p>

<p>[Columbia</a> University, School of General Studies Admissions Information - CollegeData College Profile](<a href=“http://www.collegedata.com/cs/data/college/college_pg02_tmpl.jhtml?schoolId=1436]Columbia”>Columbia University, School of General Studies Acceptance Rate | CollegeData)</p>

30

<p>Just to address some of the points in your post, la2nyc … and btw, congrats on being able to xfer from community college to Columbia. I’m going to guess you attended Santa Monica College because of all CA’s cc’s, CU recruits from SMC.</p>

<p>I’m not sure what relevance your ‘and accepted basically FIFTY TIMES fewer transfers than the vaunted UCLA’ remark has in this ‘argument.’ The way UCLA accepts cc (and four-year xfers) and fills its undergrad student body is just different than how an elite private, like Columbia, fills its own; it’s just a difference in admissions philosophy.</p>

<p>UCLA as part of the UC system is just trying to engage in and employ the Master Plan of Higher Education of/for CA, as part of the three-tier college system in CA: UC’s, CSU’s, and the Community Colleges.</p>

<p>To repeat something you’ve already know, but others may not:</p>

<p>UC’s: Research orientation, ‘comprehensive’ u’s or moreso than CSU, some with full doctoral-granting depts – consequently more pre-professions and graduate-preparatory orientation for undergrad; many professional grad schools … Med Schools, ~ five; Law Schools, ~ six; grad B-Schools, ~ four? etc…; eligiblity index of top 1/8 of high schools, though for Cal and UCLA, A-G UC grade index is just a bare minimum standard.</p>

<p>CSU’s: More ‘teaching’ orientation; more undergrad trades/vocations, including marketing, IT, undergrad business majors; a few doctoral-granting programs, not much though; eligibility index of top 1/3 of graduating high-school class.</p>

<p>CC’s: Two-year certificate granting programs in vocations and trades; **feeders to UC’s and CSU’s **; classes taught by professors with masters degrees rather than doctorates as CSU’s and UC’s (though there are some with PHD’s and some with just bac degrees if their programs are more trade oriented); open admissions.</p>

<p>The cc’s represent a great option for those who: desire a second chance at college when their hs grades are less than impressive, maybe even returned to cc after a few years off, maybe some even floundering at their first attempts at cc … I’m guessing like yourself but not wrt floundering; are looking for a cheaper alternate route towards obtainiing a bac degree by spending two years at effectively, relatively zero cost; find that their local public high schools are lacking in course offerings, eg, A/P, honors, and sometimes even general interst level, many of the latter more of your genius-level kids, who instead choose to enroll in cc when they’re in hs and maybe even graduated early from it. I’ve heard of more than a handful of latter cases of someone graduating from cc and UCLA at the age of ~ 19-20 because they chose to forego the normal hs four-year experience by switching to a cc.</p>

<p>The integration and implementation of CA’s Master Plan (wrt each of the three components) includes the cc’s feeding the UC”s and CSU’s at great amounts. When the xfer rates drop from cc’s to UC’s, specifically, then there’s a problem, and there’s a study done to correct this.</p>

<p>A lot of how each UC employs the cc system wrt numbers xfering in is obviously dependent on each of the nine undergrad campuses and obviously varies among all nine. UCLA chooses to enroll more xfer numbers of all the UC’s because: one, it has had excellent success with cc (and other 4-year) xfers – these students have the same grad and professional options as those who’ve had a four-year experience at the school; two, the school wants to balance the mix of undergrads in upper and lower division standing, although this need to xfer in large numbers for balance has lessend because the rates of progress of four-year students is so much faster now with ~70% graduating in four years (and the rates are improving esp of late); three, it is the most desired campus of all nine for xfers with a yield of ~60% of those who apply.</p>

<p>For the third point above, many foreign and oos students may find a side-door entry to UCLA when maybe they didn’t fulfill the English requirement from their hss. If you went to SMC, you’d know this because SMC has a lot of foreign students from all over the globe who desire UCLA as their first choices. </p>

<p>UCLA isn’t trying to bypass the admissions reporting of incoming frosh by restricting their numbers and taking more in as xfers as some morons (sorry for the ad hominem) here have stated generally for all those schools that have high xfer-in rates, but rather, it is for the reasons I gave above.</p>

<p>Either way, full frosh with little xfer-in classes or limited frosh and full xfer-ins, UCLA rejects far more for than it could ever have room, for both sets, as evidenced by an overloaded (underestimated yield…wait lists anyone?) frosh class that will enroll in Fall of 2011. In fact, because of the high diversity factors the U employs in admissions wrt holistics especially for its frosh class, it rejects far more highly q’ed students than it probably should, and could have far more than twice the enrollment than its typical incoming first-year student class and have even higher standards (grades/scores) within a significantly increased yielded frosh class … with a consequent lower or no xfer-in class if it chose. (But be thankful it doesn’t employ the class mix of elite private u’s because of cost and second chances for those who choose cc.) (There are even some who bypass a very good four-year to attend cc and shoot for UCLA and Cal later on.)</p>

<p>And your numbers are off becuase the xfer-in rates are dropping every year for UCLA. To use xfer statistics from two years ago (maybe even three, looking at the date-stamps … I’m guessing three…) would reflect obsolete data. All you have to do is go the [UCLA admissions](<a href=“http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/Adm_tr/Tr_Prof11.htm”>http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/Adm_tr/Tr_Prof11.htm&lt;/a&gt;) website to find the current:</p>

<p>Applied: 19,986
Accepted: 5,435
Rate: 27.19%</p>

31

<p>Wow, way to not really address any of the quantifiable info I posted (except the age of the data, which I myself highlighted upfront). And instead illuminate us with qualifiers, providing ‘answers’ to questions that no one is actually asking. </p>

<p>The reality is that this is a forum about UCLA vs. Columbia GS. So here’s some constructive feedback: Next time you and a couple of others with questionable agendas are trying to knock GS below UCLA and basically down to the level of a Cal State at like four times the cost, and someone then soberly points out the fact that one school admitted 5,200 transfers IN THE SAME YEAR that the other school admitted 105… that’s your cue to respond with something other than your idea of the differences in ‘admissions philosophies’. (As if Columbia GS accepting transfers is inexplicably counter to Columbia University’s own admissions philosophy. Does that even make any sense?) This is supposed to be a discussion about academic standards, selectivity, and making fair and accurate comparisons between two undergrad schools. You’re trying to make it about something else.</p>

<p>And you can take shots at transfer students from cc’s all you want - just be sure to do so consistently in the future, roughly in the order of frequency at Ivies and elsewhere. And not zero in on GS like it’s the only way to transfer to an Ivy, or some type of backdoor. Especially when numbers plainly to the contrary are staring you in the face.</p>

32

<p>First, a correction or two besides the grammatical and syntactical ones in my prior post. Something to the points of:</p>

<p>

, s/b

</p>

<p>and, something about my wrongly including ‘oos students’ with those who needed a ‘side-door’ to UCLA because of English requirements as I reread the post afterwards and was too lazy to edit…</p>

<p>I don’t know where your bellicose, antagonistic reply comes in to mine just prior. If somehow you’re replying in kind to those I called ‘moronic’ for stating that UCLA accepts a lot of xfers as a way to bypass reporting standards for these students, then I apologize. This admitted ad hominem wasn’t meant for you as you don’t have enough history on these boards for me to call you out … with your post prior being just your second. It is meant for those MORONS that have > 5,000 posts that make it a fairly regular theme to call in question UCLA and UC’s intentions in taking many xfers.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Meh… Just a difference in posting philosophy. I use these boards to illuminate, to offer things someone visiting these boards may not know in the college-selection process. If we were just robotic responders to topics having to stay within the extreme narrow confines of individual threads, I think this particular board would be much less informational. And it’s not JMO, but EVERYONE here veers at least somewhat off track if my prior post was considered such.</p>

<p>And for someone who chose Columbia over UCLA, I would have thought you would have more up-to-date data. There is a very prominent, material difference between 27 and 34%, even if the difference in years is not.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I think you need to read all my prior posts in this thread.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not comprehending … if it isn’t a difference in philosophy, what is it: UCLA somehow needs to take in xfers?..UCLA needs to bypass reporting standards of frosh? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m still not comprehending. I addressed why UCLA is xfer intensive, which is an important distinction between why there’s a large difference between the numbers UCLA takes v CU.</p>

<p>If you want to feel as though you’ve entered the world of exclusivity for college by Columbia taking in ~30 times less the xfer students (final yields s/b the marker), when your info is actually comparing apples and oranges, then feel free … I’m not trying to deprive you of that feeling, and I never intimated that you didn’t accomplish much, especially since I congratulated you. I’m just thinking it’s a little off to put down xfers from cc to any college when you used this vehicle yourself to gain entry. Would you rather CU have accepted 1 in 10,000 and left you out? </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m still not comprehending where I said such, but okay, I guess…</p>

33

<p>I dont think UCLA will open as many doors as Columbia can. Since GS students are viewed as peers within the undergraduate umbrella of Columbia ( i.e SEAS, CC, GS), we often attend various events catered to undergraduates. For example, Facebook recruits at about 10 schools, and Columbia is one of them, that alone would be enough if you are a computer science major, but there’s more… I was also looking at the " Events " tab on the Center for Career Education, a career website at Columbia. And Among the plethora of various services geared towards obtaining various jobs, mock interview’s, and “crack the case” ( consulting interview prep ) , and boutique investment firm informational sessions that prepare students for finance/consulting careers, I saw a few reputable companies holding information/recruiting sessions at our campus that lead to internships/ full-time positions; among them are Google, RBS, Citi, Jane Street, BNP Paribas, and Morgan Stanley for the month of September 2011. Pretty decent roster for the first month of autumn session. I got tired of registering for most of them since there were so many to choose from. I have yet to look at October, which looks promising.</p>

<p>In terms of financial aid, I do owe some money, but not much for the education and opportunities I am receiving; a little over two-thousand out of pocket for the academic year. Looks like I will have some free time for the sailing team this semester.</p>

<p>I guess UCLA might have same set of opportunities. But I am not sure. Anyone care to enlighten me?</p>

34

<p>Oh Wait, I found the UCLA website for Career services. The employer showcase highlights Target as the primary recruiter. I guess now when I am shopping around target, that next time I will think of UCLA as the lady tallies the price of my toilet paper at the checkout line. No wonder those cashiers are so quick!</p>

35

<p>Randomadmit I hope your joking. Target is one of the best marketing jobs out there and is heavily coveted among anyone entering brand management</p>

36

<p>Two years at Columbia GS is not worth the debt…plus transportation costs for a low-income person.</p>

<p>Besides, who would be co-signing those loans?</p>

<p>And, you’ll have big debt for law school.</p>

<p>Don’t listen to your family BECAUSE THEY WON’T be paying your debt!!!</p>

<p>They don’t know what they’re talking about. UCLA is considered a great school by law schools.</p>

<p>Besides…when you’re an atty, your undergrad name means NOTHING. What matters is your law school. And, going to UCLA will not hurt your law school chances at all.</p>

<p>Your law school chances DEPEND on YOU. Your GRADES and your LSAT. The undergrad won’t matter a bit.</p>

37

<p>To echo Mom2Kids…
Plenty of Columbia undergraduates [degree] apply and would love to be admitted to UCLA Law. Many do get their JDs from UCLA.</p>

38

<p>

</p>

<p>LOL, that’s hilarious…</p>

<p>Probably not even five grads choose to work for Target and you claim it is UCLA’s primary recruiter. </p>

<p>Alright, alright… most of the people who greet you (maybe that’s Walmart), check you out, and stock the shelves, graduated from the school. Hope this helps you feel better. </p>

<p>But as the others have stated just prior to my post … try to stay on topic. OP was wondering about a UCLA v Columbia degree for L-school placement.</p>

39

<p>*Oh Wait, I found the UCLA website for Career services. The employer showcase highlights Target as the primary recruiter. I guess now when I am shopping around target, that next time *</p>

<p>Oh my…are people that shallow-thinking that they can’t venture further into their brains to realize that companies like Wal-mart, Target, chain grocery stores, etc have to hire college graduates to train to run corporate operations, participate in strategic planning, be their CPAs, attorneys, future store managers, etc. </p>

<p>Are people that naive (being nice here) to think that when those companies recruit at various universities that they are recruiting cashiers or other modestly paid positions??? </p>

<p>In 1985, my friend’s H was recruited from Berkeley into management training for Vons grocery. He was soon making 6 figures back in the 1980s. There people aren’t recruited to do menial work. </p>

<p>:rolleyes:</p>

40

<p>Columbia GS students looking down upon UCLA students? </p>

<p>The same Columbia GS students who had a val plagiarize his speech? </p>

<p>[Comedian</a> Not Laughing Over Columbia Graduate’s Speech - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/25/comedian-not-laughing-over-columbia-graduates-speech/]Comedian”>Comedian Not Laughing Over Columbia Graduate's Speech - The New York Times)</p>

<p>The same Columbia GS students who BADLY wanted their diplomas to be in latin to get people to assume they were columbia college students?</p>

<p>[GS</a> debates diplomas: Latin or English?](<a href=“http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/02/02/gs-debates-diplomas-latin-or-english]GS”>GS debates diplomas: Latin or English? - Columbia Spectator)</p>

<p>The same GS students who would have no shot tranferring into Columbia college so instead they opt for Columbia general studies? </p>

<p>what has this world come to?</p>