Columbia may have a slightly stronger student body overall since Stanford accepts so many athletes but the top 10% of Columbia couldn't touch the top 10% of Stanford academically.
This is more embarrassing when you consider that Stanford has produced 21 Rhodes Scholars in the past decade alone while Columbia has only produced 6 in the same timeframe.
Goldenboy, re-read my posts. Your weak arguments are already addressed. Since when did Stanford admit so many more athletes than Columbia? Both are D1 schools.
Also, Rhodes Scholarships equates to the top 10% of each school? Huh?
Goldenboy, I whole heartedly agree with Yoda's assessment. If we were to use your logic since Columbia has 80 nobel laureates compared to Stanford's mere 43, I think it is safe to assume that Columbia, as a university, is far superior to Stanford. As Swingtime said, stop embarrassing yourself.
Haha, that's because Columbia was the most prestigious university in the world over 50 years ago while Stanford was still on the ascent. Now Stanford is considered far more prestigious.
Goldenboy, I honestly do not understand your fascination with Columbia and your constant derision of it. You seem to think that you have the perfect barometer for testing an undergraduate institution's worthiness. All of these "facts," which you cite do not change the fact that for the past, what is now, three years Columbia has been ranked higher than Stanford. Also, it does not change the fact that Columbia, in some respects, is harder to get into. I don't know where you went to college, but I don't think it was Stanford from what I have gleaned from your posts on this thread. Your fascination with Stanford and your hatred of Columbia borders on the obscene. Columbia is ranked higher than Stanford, by some measures is harder to get into. After Manhattanville is completed, Columbia will probably always be ranked high than Stanford. Stop this nonsense, let the high schoolers get the information they need from various school's respective fora and that's that. If you can't get that through your brain, seek professional help.
The above cross admission data has already show most students want to attend Stanford.
Not many Columbia students can say that they rejected Stanford offer and enrolled in Columbia.
Action is louder than words.
Although both Stanford and Columbia have same 7% acceptance, the applicants pool are different. Many students who applied HYMPS did not even consider Columbia. HYMPS is their goal. People applied Columbia usually as backup or have no big chance to go to HYPMS. Our school has 3-4 Columbia admission. None of then got HYPMS offer. That is the same with our school last year data.
This year, top 30 students in our school will apply HYPMS EA. None wants to apply Columbia ED.
Again, re-read my posts...please...no really...re-read it. And then think about it.
You can't apply to a school as "back up" when it's harder to be admitted in the first place! You can't have "no chance" at HYPSM, but have a chance at Columbia. Read the data. Use logic.. Your anecdotal evidence from people at your school is just that, anecdotal. If they share the same mentality as you, they should also dig into the actual facts.
Data is louder than anecdotes.
I'm skeptical of where the data is coming from on the website you posted, but assuming Stanford wins in the cross admit pool with Columbia, that does not mean Columbia is "back up." It only means of the universe of applicants who applied to and were accepted to both, Stanford was the preferred choice. There is also a large universe of Columbia admits who never considered Stanford to begin with. This is not surprising since the environments of these schools have little in common with one another.
The bottom line is, based on facts (i.e. admissions data) the bar for admission to Columbia is higher than the bar for admission to Stanford. The bars are both REALLY REALLY high, but the Columbia bar is just a little higher. Those who perceive Columbia as a back up are misguided. That's like saying you're shooting for the 5 ft high jump, but in case you don't make it, you're going for the 6 ft one.
When I saw ----The bars are both REALLY REALLY high, but the Columbia bar is just a little higher -- I really want to laugh!!
Check the HYPMS cross admission at the link I provided. HYPMS do not even consider Columbia is their rival.
All the facts show Colubmia is back up for top students. Columbia admitted Rabi scholars every year from our school. Those students only applied RD and with no other offers from HYMPS. They finally chose Columbia over state public schools.
At this point I'm realizing you either are a) ignoring the data or b) incapable of interpreting meaningful facts from noise.
Columbia is more selective than Stanford. There is no refuting that fact. The self reported evidence from the respective universities proves this. Columbia's SAT scores are higher, the admissions rates are nearly identical, the proportion of students in the top 10% of their respective class is higher at Columbia.
That website you posted uses limited data points to determine match ups and then applies a formula (with no details on what that formula is) to determine "predicted preferences."
Lastly, you say "all the facts" point to the argument you are making, yet the only evidence you have provided is anecdotal evidence from your school, and a website utilizing dubious methods to come up with match ups that, even if they were accurate, would be irrelevant data points for the argument at hand. You have not presented any relevant facts!
Compare Colleges: Side-by-side college comparisons | Parchment - College admissions predictions.
The above cross admission data has already show most students want to attend Stanford.
Not many Columbia students can say that they rejected Stanford offer and enrolled in Columbia.
Action is louder than words.
Yes, Stanford bests Columbia 74% to 26%, but Harvard bests Stanford 72% to 28%. I'd say that's proof positive that Stanford is a backup school to Harvard! Irrefutable evidence if you ask me. Right desk?
Columbia is more selective than Stanford. There is no refuting that fact. The self reported evidence from the respective universities proves this. Columbia's SAT scores are higher, the admissions rates are nearly identical, the proportion of students in the top 10% of their respective class is higher at Columbia.
Claiming that your assertions are facts do not make them so.
Acceptance rates are no proxy for selectivity. They reflect simply the ratio between accepted and applied. Tell me with a straight face that Mississippi Valley State is more selective than UChicago or Williams.
Likewise, GPAs are a dime a dozen, given the prevalence of grade inflation and the extreme disparities within the American secondary system; they do not always reflect high intelligence or strong work ethic.
Sat is not the only standard for admission. HYPMS rejected many students with Perfect Sat score. It is even meaningless to compare middle SAT score to determine the best college.
The students got into HYPMS in our school most of them have national or international awards, such as Siemens, Intel STS, USAMO, international art competition, physict, chemistry, biology Olympiad national or international award.
Harvard's cross admission dada beat all the other schools. I won't ignore the facts like some Columbia fans and argue that other schools are better than Harvard. Most students will pick Harvard over other colleges for sure.
I will also not use the facts that some few students who picked other colleges over Harvard to defend Harvard is worse than others. One students got admitted by HYMPS and others. Finally the student attended Duke since Duke offered full ride and the student did not qualify for other college need based financial aid.
Most students attend Columbia or Cornell jus have no other HYMPS choices. I meant most. Of course, Columbia fan can always find some Exception to argue.
Here is another ranking. Clearly Columbia is second to HYMPS and Caltech.
