<p>Which is stronger in terms of opportunities and benefits from the alumni network?
Which has better school spirit (which both are lacking according to many threads on CC). but I don’t just mean school spirit in the traditional athletic sense, which student body is more proud of the school?
Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>Mr. James Bond, you seem to be in an unnecessary “dilemma” posing this question. I have looked into your past questions and your “background”…You first need to get admitted to one of these “fine” institutions before asking about alumni networks, etc. You do “know” how difficult it is to get into any of the schools that are on your “list” especially for foreign nationals from East Asian country…I don’t envy you, since this will be a very tough year for all applicants applying to top schools…</p>
<p>wow that was kinda uncalled for…well i just wanted to get a feel of both schools before i decide where to apply early, if i like columbia better, i might apply ED. Otherwise, i will apply uchicago EA and Columbia RD. Therefore I feel like im posing a perfectly reasonable question here…</p>
<p>Both schools have more similarities than differences. I believe both schools alumni have great mutual respect for each other…I could see a student interested in Chicago being just as happy at Columbia or vice versa…so, you will not get a verbal battle here. Remember Bond, you can apply EA to Chicago and ED to Columbia at the same time…</p>
<p>jamesbond1: 5-10 years ago, Columbia would’ve been considered to have a better alumni network than Chicago. Nowadays, they’re probably about even, and considering Chicago’s momentum, I wouldn’t be surprised if Chicago had a noticeably better alumni network in 5 years. For school spirit, I would say that both schools have students and alumni who are very proud of their alma mater. Not in the sports sense like Duke, obviously, but in a more intellectual sense, like how people from Cambridge or Oxford are proud of their own alma maters.</p>
<p>Considering the difficulty of getting into both of those schools, it might be wise to apply ED/EA to Columbia/Chicago, seeing as how hardly anyone is likely to get into both of them. Unless, of course, you feel a significantly greater attachment to Chicago over Columbia, in which case you would be justified in applying EA/RD to Chicago/Columbia.</p>
<p>i just want to bump this thread one more time…
i understand that it’s hard to get into those schools, but if i can’t decide between the two, i really don’t know why I should apply ED to columbia if I might end up liking Chicago better. Currently neither school is my first choice, but considering that my first choice is even harder to get into, I might apply ED to columbia and EA to chicago if I feel that columbia is significantly better than UChicago</p>
<p>The problem with your question is that parsing one over the other as “significantly better” is nearly impossible. As you can see from this board, UChicago alums are fiercely proud of their school; as are Columbia’s. That being said, I think out of all of the top schools we share the most common bonds and have utmost respect for one another (core curric, commitment to the scholar-athlete, urban enviro, global focus, etc). </p>
<p>If it’s networking your’re after I’d do some more independent research, as each school is strong but approaches it in a slightly different way:</p>
<p><a href=“https://careeradvancement.uchicago.edu/[/url]”>https://careeradvancement.uchicago.edu/</a></p>
<p>[Career</a> Connections | Columbia Alumni Association](<a href=“http://alumni.columbia.edu/career-connections]Career”>Career Resources | Columbia Alumni Association)</p>
<p>I went to UChicago for undergrad and Columbia for grad. My impression is that for career advancement, undergrad affiliation is pretty much confined to your first job or two while your grad school/professional contacts last a lifetime. </p>
<p>My company recently brought in a UChicago 4th year for an interview on my rec. (3.8 GPA after 4 years at UChicago – holy smokes!). Although it didn’t work out in the end, her high GPA and knowing what she had to do to maintain that at UChicago sold me.</p>
<p>I have a few friends in my industry from my college days but comparing the alumni networking of “college A” to “college B” is a bit of a red herring. It’s all about grad/prof. schools when it comes to career advancement and so you have to look at the particular fields of study you’re interested in.</p>
<p>I feel like I might be emphasizing too much on the “benefits” that may come from the alumni network from each respective school. My point of raising the question isn’t really about “where can I get the best job?”, but more along the lines of, 50 years later at a college reunion, which college will get a higher percentage of student attending the reunion because of their “school pride”? I suppose that can be more comparable?</p>
<p>Although you were asking more about the alumni network, this link had a discussion about the UChicago Vs. Columbia Core, albeit from the Columbia side LOL! </p>
<p>[East</a> Coast or No Coast: How UChicago’s Core Stacks up Against Our Own | Bwog](<a href=“http://bwog.com/2012/04/29/east-coast-or-no-coast-uchicago-vs-columbia/]East”>East Coast or No Coast: How UChicago’s Core Stacks up Against Our Own - Bwog)</p>
<p>Curriculum is the defining feature of Columbia College’s intellectual identity. Undergraduates who chose Columbia specifically for its curriculum—seeking the “wide- ranging perspectives on classic works of literature, philosophy, history, music, art, and science” touted by Columbia brochures—very probably also considered the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>On the surface, the schools are similar: both undergraduate colleges are situated within a prominent research university in a major metropolis, and both boast a robust general education grounded in the Western canon. In addition, both venerable curricula are undergoing significant changes as they adapt to contemporary sentiments in education.</p>
<p>Still, for all they have in common, these two educations are far from identical. Chicago’s “Common Core” is not organized around cornerstone courses like Columbia’s Lit Hum and CC. Rather, their Common Core requires that students choose two or three “Hume” courses, three Social Science (“Sosc”) classes, two or three under Civilization, and one or two in Art, Music, or Drama. It’s not “Common” at all. Finally, students must take five to seven math and science courses (far more rigorous than Frontiers), in addition to fulfilling language and physical education requirements.</p>
<p>These various tracks provide a self-selective slant to Chicago’s Core: while some are less demanding, others offer a rigorous, traditional sequence in the Great Books. For instance, students on the Classics track engage deeply with the same thinkers taught in Lit Hum and CC. More zealous students major in “Foundations,” a deep and broad sequence in the traditional liberal arts, which spans all four years. Columbia, on the other hand, takes a more centralized approach: one track for all, Global Core and science requirements excepted.</p>
<p>Mark Lilla, a professor of humanities who has taught Core classes at both schools, believes Columbia’s unified curriculum is “far superior” to Chicago’s decentralized equivalent. Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilization follow a more traditional progression of texts, whereas Chicago’s flexible regimen has, Lilla says, reduced its Common Core to “just one more requirement to get through”—more akin to general education requirements at other colleges. Moreover, brief, quarter-long, courses fail to foster the kind of year-long bond that the right Lit Hum adjunct can form with the right class.</p>
<p>At Columbia, the popular perception is that institutionally, Chicagoans are more serious intellectually. Lilla disagrees: “To my surprise, Columbia students are more enthusiastic.” It would appear, however, that the enthusiasm Lilla identifies in Columbians may be relatively short-lived. He observes, “I find [the two student bodies] equally curious in their first two years, but after that, something happens to Columbia students when they are busy pursuing their majors. They lose the thread and become more professionally oriented.” He contends, “We don’t do a good job of connecting the Core experience to what happens after.” With the advent of junior year and graduation, students become more outwardly focused, looking to secure an internship and a future rather than cultivate a relationship with the Great Books.</p>
<p>Accordingly, the most important difference between the schools may not be curricular, but cultural. Roosevelt Mont</p>