<p>I got a packet of colleges today, as I'm a junior and getting ready to submerge myself completely into this college admissions process. As I was looking through the colleges, I noticed that Columbia College and School of Engineering and Applied Science are much more prestigious and competitive than the School of General Studies. The former two were ranked in the "Most Competitive" section (along with all the other Ivies and top schools), where as the latter was placed two categories lower in the "Very Competitive" section with average SATs rangin only 573 to 619, and accepting about 1/2 to 3/4 of their applicants.
So my question is, why is it that the School of General Studies ranked so low? And is it less prestigious/not looked on as highly (even though it is Columbia) than say, Columbia College?</p>
<p>GS is for alternative types of students. The people who get into GS are people who are older and generally the types of people who would have had no chance at making Columbia at 17 or 18.</p>
<p>Yes, it is less prestigious.</p>
<p>general studies is not as prestigious as columbia college, even though students take more or less the same classes (not, i believe, the core). gs is for nontraditional students who took time off after high school - they range from 20 years old to 80 years old, and aren't looking for the same college experience people in cc or seas are, but they still want to take advantage of a large ivy league research university in new york.
cc and seas are ranked differently because although they live together and go through the same admissions process (which is one thing that differs barnard from the columbia schools), they have different admit rates. cc is the regular liberal arts college that most people are interested in, it's the most selective and has the highest alumni giving rates, among other reasons that make it the highest ranked school at columbia.
cc and seas students get along because their schools are so different (no one can fault a seas kid for not getting into cc, because they know he didnt want to go to cc), but gs students are not considered as.. competitive, i guess, on campus.</p>
<p>well, I plan on applying to CC... so would it not be beneficial for me to apply to GS as well as a safety?</p>
<p>
[quote]
[CC] has the highest alumni giving rates
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Source? I've never seen stats on the giving rates of CC vs. SEAS. I'd be curious, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the highest ranked school at columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where's the relative ranking of CC and SEAS?</p>
<p>i dont think you can apply to 2 schools at columbia.
and if you're material for cc, you're not for gs, and vice versa. in order to get into gs it has to be at least a year since you graduated from high school. read the website, it'll explain everything.</p>
<p>What scarf said is correct -- if you're competitive for CC, your safety schools should be much stronger ones than GS.</p>
<p>okay, thanks everyone!</p>
<p>sorry, i was vague. when i said "ranking" in reference to cc and seas i was referring to the on-campus ranking system among students.. which would generally be cc > seas > gs > barnard. i dont know of any rankings that separate them. as well, i dont know of any data that separate seas and cc alumni giving rates, but it makes more sense to me that cc's rate is higher. i suppose it could go either way, but it always seems to me as if cc alumni are giving money to support the core, etc, and when alumni givers are quoted in the spectator they generally seem to be cc. not that the spec fairly represents them.
so i cant back up what i said. but gs is still less prestigious.</p>
<p>by the way, columbia2002, i wonder if you are as hostile to gs students ("who would have had no chance at columbia at 17 or 18") who say they went to columbia, thus depriving the more competitive cc alumni of their honor, as you are to barnard students?</p>
<p>lol yes, I've been following the barnard thread, and that is an interesting question scarfmadness.</p>
<p>
[quote]
sorry, i was vague. when i said "ranking" in reference to cc and seas i was referring to the on-campus ranking system among students.. which would generally be cc > seas > gs > barnard.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure about your "on-campus ranking system among students." My experience was that CC students had nothing but the utmost respect for SEAS. They saw SEAS as on par with CC; I never heard anyone say that one was better or worse since they're just different (apples vs. oranges). CC people know that SEAS has a higher average SAT score. CC people know that they might not be able to handle the complex math/sci/eng coursework that SEAS kids take, and know that SEAS kids can do just as well as CC kids in the liberal arts classes.</p>
<p>So, I would dispute that CC students see SEAS students as "below" them. And I think most see Barnard as being more prestigious and "better" than GS (and I would personally agree).</p>
<p>
[quote]
it always seems to me as if cc alumni are giving money to support the core, etc, and when alumni givers are quoted in the spectator they generally seem to be cc.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I have no idea. Several possible explanations. The Spec is mostly run by CC people. Also, the most prominent CC alums could simply be more public about their givings. </p>
<p>
[quote]
by the way, columbia2002, i wonder if you are as hostile to gs students ("who would have had no chance at columbia at 17 or 18") who say they went to columbia, thus depriving the more competitive cc alumni of their honor, as you are to barnard students?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>As I said above, Barnard is clearly better than GS. I have nothing against Barnard students who don't misrepresent themselves, so I wouldn't say that I'm hostile to them. And it isn't about depriving any other school of its honor. It is about telling the truth.</p>
<p>That being said, GS people do "go to Columbia." I don't really care. I'm not worried about my degree being devalued. Columbia has plenty of unprestigious programs. Some of the Masters programs are for pure profit purposes, for example. Every college has that stuff to some extent.</p>
<p>I think CC may bring in more donations (if in fact it actually does) simply because it has more alumni--CC graduates about 1000 or so each year and SEAS 400 (I think).</p>
<p>What is interesting is the percent of alums who give and how much they give. I wonder if CC alums or SEAS alums make more money in the long run. Wealth has little to do with charity/generosity, but it'd be interesting to see. SEAS alums easily make more than CC alums in the short run, but I have no idea who pulls ahead in the long run.</p>