Brown v. Columbia

bonanza
Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:42:39 +0000

Happy1 touched on the important difference. Both schools are pretty similar in terms of prestige, quality, and size of undergraduate populations (graduate school is different; Columbia is far and away a better place to go to graduate school but that is of little or no relevance to an undergraduate applicant). But the educational philosophy of the faculty is quite different for undergraduates. Columbia, along with University of Chicago, is famous for having a significant “core” curriculum in which everyone will take the same (or very similar) courses before focusing on your major as an upperclassman. The proponents of this approach argue that undergraduates are too young and immature to judge what courses they need to be an “educated” person and that, left to their own devices, students will tend to focus too much on one or two areas or will take too many “easy” courses that will do them little good in the future.

Brown’s approach is the exact opposite of the the “core.” Student’s are pretty much free to take what they choose (obviously, your chosen major will impose requirements so it is not completely free wheeling; it’s just that there are few university-wide requirements) and can even choose to take everything pass-fail (not a recommended approach if you ever want to go to graduate school, but you can if you want). My impression is that most Brown students are smart enough to want a good education and therefore most avoid the pitfalls that the “core” advocates are concerned about, but there are always some who take the easy path and end up wasting a lot of time and money.

Obviously, the other major difference is location. You can make a strong argument in favor of either location. It is very subjective. But no one can dispute that they are very different.