UriA702

muerteapablo - It's pretty hard to compare the two schools considering the vast differences in environment. A lot of students choose Columbia over Cornell because they want a city life. Respectively, A lot of Cornell students choose Cornell because it's a closer relation to the "college experience."

confidentialcoll brings up some very valid points, rankings don't mean *****. As far as I know, nobody chooses a university based on rankings, rather location, reputation and cost. Columbia is a top notch education which appeals to students who want a fast paced city life with many business opportunities. Cornell offers a top notch education as well, no doubt about it. However, the location plays a huge factor, Cornell students are typically more research-oriented.

FU students don't usually go into engineering because of all the opportunities around them in NY. The opportunities are endless and many will take a non-engineering job because of the increased salary, which is perhaps the biggest factor in making that decision when you live in New York, due to the astronomical cost of living. Sure, Cornell engineering has top caliber, first tier engineering students, but Columbia students are just as bright, and more importantly, the education at both schools are as good of an education as you can get, deeming this whole argument irrelevant.

Both have pros and cons relevant to the other. It's just stupid to argue one over the other, because both are great.

One more thing. Take a statistics class the "I know a ton of people who chose Cornell over Columbia" is probably the weakest argument you can make. Cornell students obviously choose Cornell over Columbia or else they wouldn't be at Cornell.

mikesown

I'll second what UriA702 said; I want to go to Fu for the same reason(though I did apply to Cornell engineering). I love CompSci, and I know I want what I do in my life to involve computers and programming, but I don't want to end up at Microsoft or Apple churning out code all day, with (relatively, compared to a doctor/lawyer) low salaries. I want to go into finance, and make (hopefully) a good salary. Fu focuses much more on the latter, while Cornell trains engineers more than anything. If I wanted to become a so called "code monkey" working for a large company for relative peanuts. I'm willing to work hard and put in the 80+ hrs/week it takes to do this, but I want to be rewarded.

Now, that's not to say you can't go into finance at Cornell, but Columbia/Fu is (in my opinion) stronger in giving you a well-rounded education that not only prepares you for a career in engineering(if you choose that path), but also for a career in finance/business.

If you want to be an engineer for the rest of your life, Cornell trumps Columbia. If you don't want to be an engineer for the rest of your life, but enjoy engineering, Columbia trumps Cornell.

muerteapablo

I agree with everything you people say. Columbia destroys cornell for location, no doubt about it.
Also, realize that I'm applying to transfer to Columbia (CC), that's where I want to go.
That said, all I was trying to point out with the anecdotal evidence of my friend who got into MIT and not Cornell was that clearly they're on par with each other. MIT admitted someone that it saw fit to complete the necessary course work. Obviously it could be a fluke on both/either institution's part, but probably not. As for my friends who currently attend Cornell, you're certainly correct that this is not air-tight evidence, but it certainly makes a compelling point. I know a ton of SEAS kids thru high school, and they all respect the Cornell degree more, probably because they understand the rigor involved.
My main point, however, was that confidentialcoll did lie/spin by saying that SEAS SAT scores were higher than Cornell's, when he could not truly know. I found that aggravating.
Let's chill tho, I'd rather waste my time watching movies or something.
Love,
Muerte

UriA702

Yes, Columbia does destroy Cornell hands down for location. Cornell may have the more rigorous curriculum, but Columbia offers New York City, so much opportunity for internships and part-time work prior to graduation, this should be a huge factor in the decision making process for most students considering the two. It is simply easier to get a good job when you have had the opportunity during your undergraduate experience to locate in-field internships and work minutes away by public transportation. Internships for Cornell students seem limited to Summer and Winter intersessions, in New York this is certainly not the case. I feel that perhaps the greatest feature Columbia has to offer is for those who aren't looking for a traditional college experience - it appeals to those looking to start their professional careers and get their foot in the door while still in school, which can ultimately be priceless when it comes down to bargaining salaries and choosing offers, as opposed to letting offers choose you.

The argument that "Cornell destroys Columbia for engineering" is in the eye of the beholder. As mentioned early, no comparison can possibly be made because of how different the atmosphere is.

UriA702

mikesown - You do know that computer scientists have the highest starting salary of any of the engineering disciplines, correct? a "code monkey" at google is typically offered a starting salary of 85k annually with great benefits, working for a great company that really looks after their employee's well being and happiness. Microsoft and Apple are similar, very prestigious and offer very good positions. Relatively speaking, the smaller and mid sized companies seem to be the ones over working their employees, demanding better performance, paying less, and not showing much opportunity for growth.

Think Initech lol

Skraylor

actually, on a whole, chem.e's are still the highest starting salaries with ee's a little bit behind. working for apple/m$/or google are EXTREMELY competitive processes and once you get down to the last selection pool they compete vigorously over you which includes a high starting salary. for the most part tho, if you're not in the top 1-2% of your graduating class as a comp. sci., you get paid about half what those guys are paid

CollegeJournal | Engineering

edit: wsj says aerospace is actually highest....damn nasa an boeing salaries!
edit 2: NACE says chem.e's still highest
NACEWeb Press Releases

Columbia2002

NASA is gummint work. Do they really pay high salaries? I don't know one way or another, but I'm guessing the don't.

Working at google was so 5 years ago.

bohemianlikeyou

I'm sure Cornell has good resources, but for Civil Engineering, Columbia has the second largest centrifuge in the United States and has a team of incredibly intelligent professors and grad students who know how to use and apply it. (I researched there for a few months and choose Columbia SEAS as my first choice college). Not to mention their entire civ. lab is really impressive.

muerteapablo

Cornell has a particle accelerator. Like, seriously.

bohemianlikeyou

Um... the centrifuge I’m referring to is not a particle accelerator. I mean one of the ones that is three meters from the axis to the edge of rotation. You can synthesize debris flows on this one or earthquakes in Columbia’s case. The cavity is around six cubic feet- not one where you put test tubes into a small circular machine. I’m aware that Cornell has one of those.

mrsopresident

I agree with some that the level of education is nearly the same at the two schools (I don't even see a real difference in the quality of education at the top few engineering schools). but, as someone may have pointed out, just because the level of education may be nearly the same (and though I personally believe that it is, that's arguable in itself), that doesn't mean that both institutions will open the same doors. Its like the analogy between Harvard and Cornell, in general: I don't believe that either institution can realistically suggest that it offers a superior quality of education as opposed to the other. But in this game, perception, while not the only factor, is key...and I think overall Cornell (only referring to engineering here) is more highly regarded than Fu.

confidentialcoll

"I think overall Cornell (only referring to engineering here) is more highly regarded than Fu."

noone here has disagreed, that for most engineering disciplines, cornell is the better school if you are certain you wish to pursue a career in that discipline. But because fu gets students who are atleast as competent as cornell engineering does, in several other disciplines it has the advantage. the foci of the schools are different.

rch855

yeah, pretty much Cornell and Columbia both have such great engineering schools that it is meaningless to compare them - you should focus more on whether you could see yourself studying in Ithaca or NYC.

One thing I found interesting, however, was that before I went up to visit both these schools, I told my physics and my calculus teachers (both retired engineers) that I would be visiting Cornell and Columbia, and both of them acted like they didn't even hear Columbia and immediately started talking about Cornell, how great its engineering program is, etc. So it seems to me that Cornell is more highly regarded as far as engineering goes.

mikesown

Both Columbia Engineering and Cornell Engineering are excellent academically, and both offer many opportunities, but are focused in on different aspects. Cornell's engineering school is, well, focused on engineering, and most of its students can and do pursue careers in engineering.

By contrast, Columbia's engineering school is more focused on professional development, entrepeneurialship, and finance. I would liken Columbia's Engineering school to MIT in terms of what graduates do. Both schools contain very smart students who enjoy engineering, but are also smart enough to realize that if they become an engineer after graduation, they won't be paid what they're worth. Therefore, students from both schools often pursue careers in finance/math modeling to get paid what they're worth.

If you're "noble," or just know you wouldn't enjoy a non-engineering career in finance or a similar field, then by all means you should go to Cornell. I think most people here recognize that Cornell has a more rigorous program in engineering, and will leave you better prepared for an engineering job.

What it boils down to is this: If you want to be an engineer for life, go to Cornell. If you know that you're interested in engineering, but really are thinking about pursuing another career for people with analytical mindsets, go to Columbia. The non-academic components(location, campus life, etc.) also play a role, in addition to academics, which should be weighted in your decision.

Skraylor

I think all of you are way too inexperienced to be talking about any of this. You all make it out to be that Cornell grads will somehow magically have more engineering doors opened to them just because they went to Cornell instead of Columbia.

I have the feeling that a lot of you think that if 2 people (1 from Cornell, 1 from Columbia) were applying for the same job, say, at Bechtel or IBM or Chevron then the Cornell grad would be chosen the majority of the time. In reality, as long as their GPA and EC's were the same, it would all boil down to the interview. Talk to anyone in HR and they will all tell you that the interview is the most important part of getting a job (getting your foot in the door is different but a Cornell grad and a Columbia grad have about the same foot-door power). And, honestly, I believe the Columbia grad in the majority of cases will be the better interviewer (tho I admit bias may come into this point, but only this point).

Perhaps there is a difference for the 2 schools as far as grad schools go but I doubt it.

The fact that only 1/3 of Columbia engineering grads go on to an engineering job is only by choice, not by necessity.