<p>Even considering the Ivy League as more than an athletic conference, but as an elite academic one, Cornell very much deserves to be in it. It comes in the top 5 or 10 for the highest # of top programs, has one of the strongest faculties in the country, etc. We all know that the Ivy League is much more than an athletic conference, so let’s not pretend that Cornell deserves to be in it only because of its athletics.</p>
<p>Huh, I did not realize that AEM had such good placement. However, at least in strong economies, Dartmouth places a substantial amount of top students straight into PE/HF does it not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cornell’s campus is right in the middle of what is arguably the most beautiful waterfalls, gorges, lake country, and natural beauty on the east coast – that is far from “nothing.” It is also at the center of what USA Today has recently ranked the ‘Best College Town’ – Ithaca itself. For students who are interested in a nested and laid-back college town—one that largely revolves around its university—Cornell is hard to beat. For people who like dense, expensive, and amazing cities, Columbia is hard to beat.</p>
<p>PE and VC firms hire very few undergrads and do not have a specific strategy targeting individual campuses, although Harvard, Stanford and Wharton seem to have the lion’s share, while several others (including Cornell and Dartmouth) are also very well represented. Whenever you can count the founder of a company such as Carlyle among your alums, you know you are going to have certain priviledges! </p>
<p>BB firms recruit very heavily at Dartmouth too. The difference between Cornell and Dartmouth is that Cornell has a specific program (AEM) that is going to attract many of the university’s IBanking types while Dartmouth does not. As such, IB recruitment at Dartmouth will not be as specific to any single major. </p>
<p>If I were to compare Cornell overall to Dartmouth in this regard (IBanking placement), I would give the edge to Dartmouth, but if I were to compare AEM to Dartmouth, I would say the two are roughly equal.</p>
<p>You most definitely could be correct Alexandre, but one thing that I’ve observed this year is that I-Banks love the top undergraduate business schools, AEM, Wharton, Georgetown, Stern, Ross etc. These are consistently well-represented while schools like Dartmouth and Columbia occasionally miss the mark. Would you say that’s an accurate observation?</p>
<p>About the PE firms: I’ve spoken to a junior and a senior at Stanford who both confirmed that our recruiting for PE firms is almost non-existent. For VC firms, however, Stanford remains king. :)</p>
<p>I think it is safe to say that Business schools have more aggressive and “connected” career offices than colleges of Arts and Science. However, it is hard to imagine any business program besting Columbia or Dartmouth where IBanking placement is concerned other than Wharton. I think Ross matches them, but I don’t think any program other than Wharton has the edge over them.</p>
<p>lol, just to add in my 2 cents</p>
<p>for most of the 20th century, the three most well-lauded schools for higher education were harvard, columbia, and uchicago (yale and princeton werent in the picture). Columbia, however, fell into a state of decline in the 1970’s - 1990’s; New York during that time was crime ridden and filled with a bunch of other problems, not the best image for the most metropolitan city in the world as it is today. Columbia, with it, went downhill in perception. Since US news rankings (im sure the most read one) came out around that time, it didnt put columbia very high (not even top 10)…and i guess first impressions matter a lot lol? but since that, columbia has been climbing higher and higher year after year, and its boost in ranking and preception over the past few years (last year especially :D) im sure restored a lot of credibility! yay! lol</p>
<p>Columbia’s not really underrated. It finally has the USNWR ranking it deserves (right behind the Big 3), and it’s the second most selective national university in the country. I really fail to see how it’s underrated; everyone remotely familiar with elite college admissions knows about Columbia. Being Ivy, in New York, and now highly-ranked, it’s hard to ignore.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not entirely sure where you got this idea. Chicago wasn’t even founded until 1890 and has had trouble with finances and a reputation for seriously anti-social students (and not in the cute t-shirt slogan sense) for much of that time. They’ve had some ups and downs but only recently seem to have settled on an up. While I love Chicago, I’m not sure your claim holds much water.</p>
<p>^ well sorry man, I just remember reading about it from previous posts (by admissiongeek I believe, he’s pretty credible) and from a professor at a surrounding university mention it -.-. And your analysis seems pretty nice, but I can say the same thing about what you just wrote; even if its true, that doesn’t mean UChicago couldn’t come out on top as a major research institution in the 1900’s…w/e</p>
<p>glassesarechic, the University of Chicago and Stanford were both founded in 1890, but both were among the 12 original members of the American Association of Universities (AAU) when it was first launched in 1900. As such, it is safe to say that since 1900, Chicago has been one of the most respected and high-profile universities in the US.</p>
<p>You seem have some of your facts crossed. The University of Chicagoas we know it today never faced financial difficulties. Prior to its official founding in 1890, another University of Chicago existed on the same grounds. It was religiously affiliated and it had financial problems. But when Rockefeller made his donation in 1890, the university turned a new leaf and was irrevocably altered.</p>
<p>I also think you are adopting modern concepts to 1900 realities. Universities in 1900 were small and relatively straightfoward. They were not nearly as complex and sophisticated as they have been in the past 50 years or so. As such, a university could easily rise to prominance in a matter of a decade. </p>
<p>Further, in 1900, students did not go to college to party and universities were not known for being “party schools” or “anti-social”.</p>
<p>“a reputation for seriously anti-social students (and not in the cute t-shirt slogan sense) for much of that time.”</p>
<p>No, they didn’t, because the term meant nothing for much of that time. The earliest Chicago could have gotten the “antisocial” stereotype would probably have been the 70s/80s. But the idea that people considered certain undergrad schools to be “antisocial” in the 30s or 40s is absurd. Chicago was a research powerhouse, and it had an undergrad school that wealthy Chicago kids attended. The idea that college applicants should choose the “best fit” school from among a national pool is like 15 years old, and even now applies mostly to a specific class. The majority of American kids go to public colleges, even today. Back when Chicago was founded (and for the next 70 years), only the children of elites even went to college!</p>
<p>to the people arguing over the whole thing about “most of the 20th century… harvard, columbia, uchicago:” it was apparently in the first half of the century. if i’m correct, it says that columbia was for a large part of the century the major research institution in america.</p>
<p>now, none of us were around back then to personally verify any of this information, and you have to understand that public perceptions change over time, and it’s likely that such perceptions of the ‘top’ universities were largely different well in the past from what they are today. i’ll trust what i’ve read claiming that columbia, uchi and harvard were the major players in days past. makes sense, what with the manhattan project happening at both columbia and uchicago. also, just look at all the incredible inventions and discoveries that have happened at columbia, as well as its most impressive alumni: almost all in the first half of the 20th century.</p>
<p>Half of you should feel really embarrassed for being childish and petty enough to get involved with such a discussion, and the other half of you should just know better than to waste your time like this. Having skimmed through this thread, I have to say that it vaguely reminds me of childhood arguments about which superhero can kick which superhero’s ass in a fight. Oh and don’t forget the technicalities like variations in a particular superhero’s power over his or her history. It’s not fair to compare one superhero at his or her peak to others who are still trying to get there.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wow, this is an absolutely ridiculous, rude and ignorant statement. GS Dean Peter Awn has stated that GS has the highest average GPA of all the undergraduate schools. In one article, he even said, “So give me a break, when youre the best student in the department as a graduating senior, tell me why thats a back door.”</p>
<p>Also, GS’ acceptance rate is, according to College Board, in the low 20’s. (It is getting lower every year.) Admittedly, this is much higher than Columbia College’s acceptance rate although lower than Barnard’s. I think some of you are really exaggerating GS’ supposedly “easier admissions.”</p>
<p>With these facts in mind, I think you are being very harsh, unnecessarily rude and ignorant by calling a college of a university “an embarrassment”. Why is it that you feel the need to insult an entire student body to get a point across? Think about it. How does that help you?</p>
<p>You kind of remind me of the CC kids who say that Cornell’s contract colleges are not really Ivies and are “embarrassments” to Cornell University because of its “supposed” affiliation with NYS and SUNY (I disagree on this issue as well.) </p>
<p>Yes, Columbia’s School of General Studies, as you may already know, is “an official undergraduate college of Columbia, and offers the same classes, with the same faculty and same degree as all other undergraduate schools.”
…which is why you argue that GS’ statistics should be included with that of CC and SEAS. </p>
<p>Honestly, I do agree with you to a certain extent. But I think ‘part’ of this has to do with practicality as well. “GS admissions statistics are not reported in conjunction with CC/SEAS statistics. This is related both to GS’s different admission deadlines and the fact that CC/SEAS and GS have different applicant pools.” You may have noticed but GS’ deadlines and notification dates are all over the place in the Fall and Spring. Rolling admissions also makes it more difficult. To be honest, it’s quite difficult to have all the statistics in time for USNWR. But yes, there is a chance that Columbia is hiding these statistic intentionally.</p>
<p>Short version: I agree with you to a certain extent, but your insults are unnecessary, rude, and misleading; and most of all, false.</p>
<p>[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>It was unnecessary to revive this argument. A lot of people who argue about this stuff are just ■■■■■■■■ or have other motives.</p>