<p>To OP,</p>
<p>Here is an article from Duke’s student newspaper:</p>
<p>[Duke</a> still step below top schools | The Chronicle](<a href=“http://dukechronicle.com/article/duke-still-step-below-top-schools]Duke”>Duke still step below top schools - The Chronicle)</p>
<p>if it helps.</p>
<p>1789 - you state that:
“For the best and the brightest Duke, Columbia and Penn are relative safety schools.”</p>
<p>Please take a look at this year’s acceptance rates - Columbia’s 6.9% acceptance rate (6.4% for Columbia College) places Columbia as the 2nd most selective university in the nation, right after Harvard.</p>
<p>Not much of a saftey school for the ‘best and the brightest’.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the sake of argument, and as someone who very seriously considered Columbia during the application process, it is possible that C’s lower acceptance rate this year doesn’t correlate with increased selectivity. The Common App made it easy for applicants who wanted an Ivy in the Big Apple to apply–but those aren’t necessarily the types of candidates who would be truly competitive for admissions. </p>
<p>Still, I do think Columbia’s location positions it to really take off in the next few years. I do wonder, however, if the fact that they tout NYC as the school’s greatest asset could hinder it as well.</p>
<p>Guys, quit this nonsense. If you deal with the top 20 schools in US, for undergraduates, there will be hardly any difference. it should also come to which school give more grants and where you feel comfortable, proximity, weather and personal preference in making the decision. My son decided to go Columbia , but I have known kids who turned down Harvard for Rice(merit) and HYM for Duke (merit) this year.</p>
<p>^Turning down HYPSM for one of the full rides to Duke is hardly unheard of.</p>
<p>Sure each school has some specialties, but at the end of the day, there is little difference in any of them other than campus life and location. Academically, they are all powerhouses and wasting your time over ranking each one is fruitless.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tons of top faculty in every discipline (Stanford’s faculty on the whole is comparable only to Harvard’s and Berkeley’s. And Columbia may have the most Nobels in its history, but Stanford has the most Nobels currently on faculty). Top 5-rating across almost every discipline. Higher selectivity (and no, acceptance rate =/= selectivity) and its yield is around 20% higher. Much better financial aid. Much better athletics. A larger, more cohesive campus with much higher gross square feet of facilities. A lot more money spent on research. Stanford has a much larger endowment and is a fundraising beast (when Columbia announced its new goal of raising $5 billion, it was the most ambitious in history–until a few days ago, when Stanford announced that its $4.3 billion campaign was already well past the $5b mark, and will likely raise over $6b by the end). The list goes on.</p>
<p>This is not to say that Columbia is not an amazing school, but I think even the most rabid Columbia supporters wouldn’t put it ahead of Stanford.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed! I’m starting at MIT next year for grad school and I still think it’s overrated on these forums.</p>
<p>How is MIT overrated? MIT among the top 3 in the following subjects:</p>
<p>Biology
Business
Chemistry
Computer Science
Economics
Engineering
Geology
Mathematics
Physics</p>
<p>MIT is among the top 10 in the following subjects:
Linguistics
Philosophy
Political Science
Psychology</p>
<p>The only major subjects that MIT does not excell at are Anthropology, English, History and Sociology.</p>
<p>Outside of the academic realm, MIT also happens to be one of the wealthiest universities in the world. I really don’t see how MIT is overrated.</p>
<p>^ MIT also does not excel at languages, comparative literature, any of the arts, communication/journalism, statistics, medicine, law, public policy, public health, education, religion, cognitive science, gender studies, and probably others that I’m not thinking of. Most of these are “major.” Some of its programs are overrated IMO, like linguistics, where it gets a boost for having had Noam Chomsky (who’s long gone); and it marginalizes many departments that at other universities are independent, e.g. putting linguistics and philosophy into the same department (where in the world did they come up with that?!), or “writing and humanistic studies” (how general), or “foreign languages.”</p>
<p>MIT also does not do as well in the NRC rankings as it does in US News program rankings. It places outside the top 3, or top 5, or top 10 in in many of those same disciplines in NRC rankings.</p>
<p>But that’s immaterial, because my point is based on the fact that people on this site overrate it and often want to put it above Harvard or Stanford, etc. Hence why both of the above comments said “on these forums.”</p>
<p>MIT does not belong above Harvard or Stanford, but it is certainly one of the top 5 universities in the US. </p>
<p>This said, Princeton is also not as well rounded. It has no Business, Education, Law or Medicine, nor does it offer subjects such as Communications/Journalism, Public Health, Public Policy and Social work. Just because Princeton and MIT do not offer a broad range of disciplines does not meam they are not worthy of their lofty reputations.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well for one, its grad school and job placement (referring primarily to consulting and banking; with tech firms, while good, it’s still a notch below Stanford) are nowhere near as good as HYPS’. </p>
<ul>
<li>Its business school is a joke compared to HWS and even Columbia and Kellogg. </li>
<li>The humanities, and most social sciences at MIT are also pretty terrible.</li>
</ul>
<p>PrincetonDreams, you are mistaken on several fronts:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>MIT’s placement into Consulting firms is in fact excellent. Investment Banks also love MIT graduates, but for some reason, MIT students are not keen on IBanking careers. To say that MIT’s placement rates into those industries is “nowhere near” those are HYPS is incorrect. In fact, MIT matches Stanford and beats Yale where Consulting and IBanking placement is concerned.</p></li>
<li><p>Sloan is not a joke! It is not quite as good as HBS or Wharton, but it is certainly on par with Columbia and Kellogg. </p></li>
<li><p>MIT is very strong in the Social Sciences. It is #1 in Economics and top 10 in Political Science and Psychology.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also think that Princeton’s the weakest of HYPS (not just for that reason). MIT does make the top 5, but people on the forums tend to exaggerate how well it stacks up against the rest of the top 5.</p>
<p>Alexandre, that is correct. My apologies. Lol, I tend to exaggerate differences, but those differences between HYPS and M certainly are there. :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^ This.</p>
<p>The way I see it, MIT is not for everyone. However, for those interested in Engineering, the Sciences or Economics, MIT is hard to match, let alone beat.</p>
<p>I certainly agree that Stanford is much more well rounded and that Harvard and Yale also have more to offer. Princeton and MIT are the two least versitile, but they also belong among the top 5.</p>
<p>“Much better athletics” is a b.s. factor… Why don’t we throw state schools into the equation then?</p>
<p>I also don’t really accept that Stanford’s faculty is necessarily ‘better’ than Columbia’s because it has <em>more</em> nobel prize winners. One does not need a nobel prize to be accomplished and an excellent professor in the first place. </p>
<p>That being said, I will concede that Stanford is, in fact, a more well-rounded school. But, I don’t necessarily equate well-roundedness with inherent superiority. Like someone said earlier, these arguments become unnecessary and people begin to pick things apart. Each one of these schools has its particular strengths that made it incomparable to others. I think Stanford’s biggest point is its incredible well-roundedness, as well as some particularly strong departments. MIT has its obvious strengths that make it a better choice for some people, as other schools have their points which make them better choices for others.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even as someone who turned down Stanford for Columbia, I have no problem in stating that Stanford is better than Columbia. That is just fact. Choosing Columbia over Stanford, if you don’t know what you want to do with your life, is slightly dumb. But, if you examine both places, and see which which one offers you more opportunities to do what you want to do, there are instances where Columbia comes out on top.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I wasn’t implying that. I am one of those posters who’s most critical of using Nobel affiliation to compare universities; it’s a completely useless measure. But someone brought up Columbia’s “superiority” in having the most Nobels, and I thought I’d point it out.</p>
<p>But differences in faculty strength can be seen in various measures, like academy membership: NAS membership (Stanford 145 vs. Columbia 45), NAE membership (95 vs. 20), AAAS membership (258 vs. 143), etc. This despite the fact that Columbia has a faculty nearly double the size of Stanford’s.</p>
<p>I agree that these arguments become pointless since each will have specific strengths, which should be a greater consideration for students, depending on what they want. But the OP asked about a claim I made when I originally posted in this thread (before it was moved to this forum), and I responded when I saw it.</p>
<p>since we’re talking numbers, here are some numbers in which Columbia is ahead of Stanford, most of them are relevant to undergrad education and strength of student body:</p>
<p>1) % of class under 20
2) % of classes over 50
3) 4 year graduation rate
4) 6 year graduation rate
5) first year SAT score ranges
6) ACT score ranges
7) acceptance rate (2011)
8) % of freshman in top 10% of high school class
9) average debt on graduation (measure of how well college meets financial need)
10) % of pell grant receipients
11) % of minority students
12) Nobel prize and Pulitzer prize affiliates</p>
<p>Stanford is an amazing and top notch university for sure, but just because usnews ranks its graduate programs better does not make it superior undergrad. Columbia is definitely comparable and there are good reasons to choose either one over the other for undergrad.</p>
<p>^ way to bring up a bunch of irrelevant facts, many of which aren’t true. To clear up a few misconceptions:</p>
<p>When you count Stanford’s introductory seminars in its classes (not counted in the CDS, which is compiled by the Registrar and not the VPUE), 75% of Stanford’s courses have fewer than 15 students. Only 2% are above 120. I doubt Columbia can beat that–esp. considering that it has way more students, including students in GS who take the same undergrad courses.</p>
<p>Stanford’s 4-year grad rate is lower because many students (about 15% of the class) participate in the coterminal program, wherein students are awarded their bachelor’s and master’s at the end of the 5th year.</p>
<p>Columbia’s acceptance rate would be way higher if it included students admitted through GS. Stanford (and others) includes its non-traditional students in its overall acceptance rate; of course, there are few non-traditional students getting an undergraduate degree at Stanford, but why should Columbia get to separate them just because it has tons more of them? That too would lower its SAT scores. The only reason it’s separated is to make Columbia seem more selective, when it’s nowhere near the selectivity of HYPS when you count *everyone *who’s getting in to get an undergraduate degree. Even if you don’t count them, it’s not as selective at Stanford, though the margin of difference is much smaller.</p>
<p>Columbia has lots of Pultizer Prize winners–more than any university–and unsurprisingly, Columbia’s the one who administers the Pulitzer! Wonder how that happened :rolleyes:</p>
<p>17% of Stanford’s student receive the Pell Grant, so they are equal there.</p>
<p>At Stanford only 32% of the student body is white, versus 42% at Columbia. (And self-identified minority students are in slightly higher proportion at Stanford.)</p>
<p>If Wikipedia’s right, the average aid package at Columbia is many thousands less than at Stanford.</p>
<p>I can’t even verify half the data stated in your post, because Columbia conspicuously does not produce a common data set (as far as I can see), and doesn’t report information on indebtedness or average aid package to the College Board. Wonder why :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that; that’s only one reason, but there are a whole host of other reasons (few stated above) why Stanford’s better for undergrad. And the students who are admitted know that. Another statistic: of the students admitted to both Stanford and Columbia who ultimately choose one or the other, fewer than 13 or so students choose Columbia. Unsurprising, considering that Columbia’s yield rate is typically under 60%. Clearly despite it being “comparable,” students choose to attend elsewhere in droves. Compare that to Stanford’s 72%, and among top privates, only Harvard has a higher yield (marginally–about 76%).</p>
<p>Useless statistics, but if you’re going to bring them up just to show how Columbia performs “better”…</p>