Why is Duke, Columbia, and Penn underrated in these forums?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
41

<p>

</p>

<p>Hahahaha. Honestly, your post is the funniest thing I’ve ever read. </p>

<p>Look, I have a ton of respect for Columbia. I think if it continues to rise as it is doing right now, it just might outstrip MIT, and join the top 5 within the next 10-15 years. But, between Stanford and Columbia there really is no contest. Columbia needs to stop fudging its numbers before anyone can take it even half seriously. General Studies is an embarrassment for the school, and the undergraduate experience is pretty terrible.</p>

42

<p>I do not think General Studies is an “embarrassment”, but I do not understand why Columbia does not include students enrolled in that program in their general admissions data. </p>

<p>Cornell includes students enrolled in its Human Ecology and Agriculture colleges, Northwestern includes students enrolled in its Education and Music colleges, Michigan includes students enrolled in its of Art, Kinesiology, Music and Nursing colleges etc…Sure it raises the acceptance rates and lowers the SAT/ACT ranges, but those figiures only matter to high school kids and no-so-educated/pretentious parents. Universities are not supposed to cater to the lowest common denominator.</p>

43

<p>PrinectopnDreams: “But, between Stanford and Columbia there really is no contest”</p>

<p>The USNEWS ranks colleges for undergrad and ranked Columbia ahead of Stanford with criteria atleast they see fit. Believe me, I am not going to fall for these rankings as these are merely general guidelines, but at the same time, you should really understand for an undergrad going to Columbia or Stanford he or she can make the most of it and do well in any of the places equally. It all depends on that person. I see little difference one college will have compared to another between the two.</p>

44

<p>This “Stanford is better than Columbia” concept is not just wrong, it is mute… A college is only “good” if it meets the needs of the <em>majority</em> of its students, faculty and parents who pay to send their kids to that institution. I have a daughter heading out to Columbia this year, and I am hoping she likes it and it fits her well. If it doesn’t meet her needs, it won’t matter to us (or her) how highly ranked Columbia is. The reality is that schools in the top-20 “ranking” of anything by all objective measures indicate these schools are darn good… #1 vs #3 or #4 or #10 is mere nit-picking and an exercise in futility.</p>

45

<p>^well said. also, @Alexandre: Those particular colleges within those universities don’t have lower SAT/ACT ranges, nor do they have higher acceptance ratings, the last time I checked. Given stats and the fact that I have friends going to USC, Northwestern, and Michigan all in the music schools, and they perform at the same level academically and on standardized tests as do the people in the regular arts and science colleges. The universities don’t just lower their standards for different programs… </p>

<p>Also, the GS program at columbia is unique; I don’t see the relevance in comparing it to the music, art, etc. programs at other schools. That is a stupid comparison that makes no sense. It’s for nontraditional students, and has a large student body. I’m willing to assume Stanford does not have as many nontraditional students and thus does not have a separate college for them.</p>

46

<p>^ I already said that Stanford has nontraditional students, but far fewer than Columbia. Stanford includes its nontraditional students in its general acceptance rate.</p>

<p>Basically, you’re saying that Columbia shouldn’t have to include them in its admissions statistics simply because they have a lot more of them. But that’s not a reason for not including them. You even suggest that GS isn’t the same as the separate colleges at other universities because they “don’t just lower their standards for different programs” and that Columbia GS is “unique” because it does lower its standards. So you’re proving the point that if GS were to be included, it would not only increase the acceptance rate, but decrease their average stats.</p>

<p>The fact is, GS students take the same classes, are graded against the same standards, compete for the same opportunities, etc. For all intents and purposes, they are part of the undergraduate population, and so Columbia should include them in its admissions data, just like every other top private does with its nontraditional students. </p>

<p>I’ve seen some Columbia posters show disdain for the “lower Ivies” like Cornell and Brown, and for their supposed lower selectivity, but the reality is that Columbia is equal in selectivity. And if Columbia didn’t game its numbers, it would not be ranked as high as it is in US News (esp. in the selectivity rank, which likely overestimates with Columbia).</p>

<p>edit: I don’t think that GS is an embarrassment either, but clearly Columbia does, or else it wouldn’t exclude them from its admissions statistics.</p>

47

<p>

</p>

<p>No Columbia excludes their SAT scores and grades because the SAT scores and grades of GS are pretty irrelevant to their applications, unlike scores and grades for CC and SEAS. It isn’t because they’re an embarrassment, it’s because they are evaluated on very different measures. Also you seem to think that GS students are less qualified, how about you show us some statistics? All you have is an assumption that you made up in your head. Maybe the scores are lower, maybe the scores are higher, maybe they are irrelevant and you have no case.</p>

<p>From princetondreams:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>perhaps you might find it embarrassing to associate with military veterans and people who left high school to start [often impressive] careers, but I certainly don’t. Also if the experience was so terrible, wouldn’t more than 1.5% of freshman transfer?</p>

48

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, that was joso2015’s assertion. My main point was that Columbia’s acceptance rate would be much higher if they included GS students. In general, though, the more students you have, the harder it is to maintain a high standard. Are you asserting that Columbia does maintain such high standards? Since the conventional wisdom runs counter to that, the burden of evidence is on you to show that it doesn’t. Since Columbia doesn’t release such statistics, we can assume that their stats would lower Columbia’s overall averages.</p>

<p>Does Columbia even release the acceptance rate to GS?</p>

49

<p>The point of providing acceptance rate and GPA/test score data is to provide future applicants with some notion of how difficult admission may be for the school/program sought. GS applicants are not the same pool as College and SEAS applicants. How are data for GS relevant for a College/SEAS applicant, or vice versa? If you want to argue that this sort of data represents a yardstick for “greatness,” go nuts. I suspect the admissions folks at Stanford, Columbia and every other school mentioned here would disagree.</p>

50

<p>^ it’s the Columbia people who bandy about data like acceptance rate, concluding that they’re superior, more selective than YPSM, etc. when there is an inherently unequal aspect: that those schools include their nontraditional students in their data. Also, nontraditional students at HYPSM are also considered as a separate applicant pool, but they do not have a specific “school” for them; instead they put all nontraditional students in with the rest of undergrads once they arrive. Columbia does this as well in classes, resources, etc. but keeps them administratively separated so that it can continue to seem more selective than it is.</p>

51

<p>

</p>

<p>Columbia does beat it: </p>

<p>[Stanford</a> | Stanford University | Best College | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/stanford-1305]Stanford”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/stanford-1305)
[Columbia</a> University | Best College | US News](<a href=“http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/columbia-university-2707]Columbia”>http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/columbia-university-2707)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Stanford might indeed give out slightly more aid, but if students are graduating with more debt then the school is worse at fulfilling the financial need of students.</p>

<p>[50</a> Top Colleges](<a href=“http://50topcolleges.com/Columbia.html]50”>http://50topcolleges.com/Columbia.html) 11.6k
[50</a> Top Colleges](<a href=“http://50topcolleges.com/Stanford.html]50”>http://50topcolleges.com/Stanford.html) 16.2k</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>from the article: [We</a> offered, they declined: Many admits choose other prestigious universities](<a href=“You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News”>You’ve requested a page that no longer exists | Stanford News)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>there were 821 students who chose not to attend stanford, we have no clue what % indicated their school of choice. It could have been 800, it could have been 100, the article cleverly does not reveal. If I were rejecting a Stanford offer, I would have absolutely no obligation nor incentive to tell them where I’m going.</p>

<p>you’re"13" number is unfounded.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>there’s a reason no one cares much about yield - it is easily manipulable. You take less qualified students (Stanford has lower admit stats afterall) and they accept your offers in droves because they didn’t get in anywhere else as great. Even US News dropped yield from their ranking methodology. Notre Dame’s yield is much higher than Caltech’s and BYU’s is higher than Stanfords’s.</p>

52

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t. But I seriously doubt all 2000 of them are that interesting. Plus, just having over 2000 non-traditionals on campus, messes with the traditional campus social life. While Columbia might be happy in its place, it’s obvious that because of programs like GS, it will never be viewed with quite as much respect as HYPS, all of which are more selective about their non-traditionals, and do more to incorporate them into the campus life.</p>

53

<p>

</p>

<p>no, your pristine wisdom says GS has lower stats. My contention was “we don’t know what GS stats are, so let’s not make hasty unfounded assumptions”. The burden of proof is most certainly on you, did they not teach you scientific inquiry at Stanford?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>yes, Columbia not publishing SAT scores must mean that GS stats are lower, can’t be anything else like SAT scores are not very important 5 / 10 / 15 years out of college (average entering age is 27). Is this how you reach most of your conclusions?</p>

54

<p>

</p>

<p>straight of wiki: “A January 2010 news article in The New York Times discusses the strong military veteran presence in the GS student body.[4] In addition to a large body of former military students, many students have held full-time jobs before matriculating at Columbia.”</p>

<p>here’s the article:</p>

<p>[With</a> New G.I. Bill, More March From Battlefield to College - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/nyregion/09gis.html?pagewanted=1&hp]With”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/nyregion/09gis.html?pagewanted=1&hp)</p>

55

<p>^ Still, 2000 non-traditionals is ridiculous. And a bunch of them invariably don’t deserve to be there as much as the traditionals. Makes it obvious why Columbia’s social scene is so fragmented.</p>

<p>P.S: Just being a veteran shouldn’t make one eligible for Columbia. There are other jobs that people pursue that can be just as, if not more, noble.</p>

56

<p>“Those particular colleges within those universities don’t have lower SAT/ACT ranges, nor do they have higher acceptance ratings, the last time I checked.”</p>

<p>Joso, that is actually very incorrect. There are varriations in acceptance rates and SAT ranges depending on the college. For example, at Cornell:</p>

<p>College of Arts & Sciences: 15% Accepted, SAT Range 1320-1510, ACT Range 30-33
College of Engineering: 21% Accepted, SAT Range 1370-1540, ACT Range 31-34
College of Human Ecology: 31% Accepted, SAT Range 1310-1460, ACT Range 30-33
Idustrial and Labor Relations: 20% Accepted, SAT Range 1290-1460, ACT Range 29-32
School of Agriculture: 21% Accepted, SAT Range 1250-1460, ACT Range 28-32
School of Architecture: 15% Accepted, SAT Range 1240-1470, ACT Range 29-32
School of Hotel Management: 26% Accepted, SAT Range 1240-1420, ACT Range 28-31</p>

<p>Admissions Stats for CAS and CoE: 17% Accepted, SAT Range 1340-1520, ACT Range 30-34
Admissions Stats for the remaining colleges: 22% Accepted, SAT Range 1260-1460, ACT Range 29-32</p>

<p>Those differences are minor mind you. In fact, I do not think they signify anything. However, by the shallow and childish standards of a typical high schooler, those varriances are significant. </p>

<p>Michigan does not report acceptance rates and SAT/ACT ranges by college. However, the schools of Kinesiology and Nursing definitely have significantly lower stats. The schools of Art, Architecture and Music are harder to figure out because applicants go through the school of LSA, but they are held to different standards based on their intended academic path.</p>

57

<p>

</p>

<p>wonderful assumption, now for some evidence to back it up…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>funny, I spent 4 years on campus and didn’t once come across someone saying GS detracted from the social scene. Again, a causal link that is “obvious” in your head but absent in reality.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>and who ever said that merely being a vet gets you into Columbia GS?</p>

58

<p>

</p>

<p>No, it doesn’t. Like I said, counting Stanford’s seminars, it’s 75% under 15; I’m sure that it’s more than 78% under 20. Also, I have no idea where US News got that info, since Stanford’s CDS, which does not include seminars, has much higher than 68% under 20.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>And you’re saying I’m ill-informed about scientific inquiry? You can’t make that conclusion–that average indebtedness includes people who attended under the loan policy, which was eliminated. Either way, Stanford’s financial aid is objectively better than Columbia’s.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Your argument is basically, “well, there could be lots of people who never filled it out and ended up at Columbia!” So you dig up an old article from 7 years ago and pull out one phrase to prove your case. Here’s the hole in your theory: the elite admissions offices trade names to verify data, which that old article does not acknowledge. But if you honestly want to cling to that to believe that Columbia doesn’t lose as badly as it does to Stanford, that’s fine. The data is accurate to within a very small error (by the way only 664 students chose not to attend Stanford; the 820 is from many years ago).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, it’s the opposite: people care about yield because it’s hard to manipulate. A school can game its numbers like SAT scores, acceptance rate, etc. all of which it can control. But it can’t control who decides to attend. That’s why many think that US News rankings should be based more on yield, since in order for a school to improve its yield, it has to improve in concrete ways that will attract more students. Instead, they rely on measures that can be and are manipulated for a higher rank. Columbia is a perfect example of this.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Except that doesn’t work here–since as far as anyone knows, such data is not available. Thus, we must rely on what we believe to be true, and not just I, but others who are Columbia students, agree that GS is less selective. Nobody is contending otherwise except for you. So you must prove your own case rather than expect others to do it for you.</p>

59

<p>

</p>

<p>CC students are known to feel superior to their GS counterparts for a reason…</p>

<p>Generally, the more impressive non-traditionals are at Brown and Yale, where they go through an admissions process as selective as the one for traditionals. Also, I remember seeing a thread on this forum where some CC students said that they let just about anyone into the GS program. Will post the link as soon as I find it.</p>

<p>And please stop arguing that Columbia undergrad is equal to Stanford undergrad. You have a right to your opinion, but just know that the majority of people will think you’re simply delusional. And I say that with a ton of respect for Columbia.</p>

60

<p>I agree with Confidentialcoll with regards to the impact of GS students on Columbia’s campus life, social or academic. So many on CC think that having weaker or untraditional students on campus somehow polutes the undergraduate experience. It does not. </p>

<p>From an academic stand point, stronger students will naturally take more challenging courses while weaker students will generally enroll in more basic classes. As such, students of equal potential will circulate in similar circles. Academic mingling between students of significantly different ability rarely happens and has zero impact on the academic experience. </p>

<p>Socially, students choose who to hang out with. Intellectually superfical snobs who only wish to mingle with “their own kind” can easily do so. I see no shame in the fact that Columbia gives untraditional students the opportunity to receive a world-class education. In fact, it makes Columbia stronger. I just do not understand why Columbia does not include those students in their overall statistics.</p>