<p>since there are so many cross applicants between the two schools, i was wondering how similar they are, in atmosphere, political views, competition, etc. thanks.</p>
<p>where do you get that there are so many cross applicants? Columbia and Harvard are probably more similar than say Columbia and Princeton. Political views will be similar with columbia being slightly more political and slightly more liberal. The student body interests would be similar i.e. good mix of law, med, politics, int relations, non-profit, wall street aspirations. lots of diversity and international students.</p>
<p>Both are competitive, H’s student body would be slightly more competitive. In terms of name recognition H>C, and in terms of prestige: grad school placement, wall street placement, scholar programs - H>C, but Columbia is def one of the top 5-10 schools, so you aren’t at a major disadvantage by attending columbia. </p>
<p>The campuses are different, the culture too is different, columbia is more quirky, more enterprising, less concealed from real world problems, less resource rich, probably less arrogant too. Columbia is a more mature adult-like campus, more cynical, less athletics driven.</p>
<p>
Harvard is plenty enterprising, at least in terms of the frequency it instills (or fosters) the entrepreneurial spirit in its students.</p>
<p>For me the biggest difference was the arrogance factor - specifically, I found Columbia students took themselves less seriously and were more open to meeting people who weren’t like themselves. Seeing as how i’m a pasty white boy from the 'burbs who went to a top public school, I was pretty much “like themselves”, but it didn’t give me much chance to really branch out. Columbia felt more welcoming into its community. I grew up all around Harvard and spent tons of time there, took classes there, etc - I knew it fairly well for purposes of comparison.</p>
<p>I would also say that plenty of the comparisons I make in the <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/237231-columbia-vs-princeton-ed.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/237231-columbia-vs-princeton-ed.html</a> thread are valid for columbia-vs-harvard, except that Harvard isn’t suburban so much (still not quite as urban as columbia), so adjust as necessary.</p>
<p>concoll is being bashful. there are advantages to either school. and whereas we could talk forever about how name recognition is a base reason to choose a school, i think that it is clear if name is your only criteria Harvard has the brand. </p>
<p>for almost every criteria, however, things are pretty much a wash. this is if you look at things from the big picture. even if H has an (x) percentage chance of getting a better job or placement than a C student, H or C have a 100x percent chance of getting a better job than avg. university graduate. further, rarely is a university alone the cause of such success, but it is the perpetual circle, admit good people, top jobs will want them, your school looks better, you admit the top people. Harvard is very good in the cycle, as is Columbia relative to everything out there. I think even if you find Columbia coming in behind Harvard on some metrics, it does not mean that Harvard is significantly ahead of Columbia, and perhaps if you were to add in an equalizer for the fact that Columbia is less resource rich, you might be impressed by outcomes.</p>
<p>but here is the kicker and why i argue it is not so good to be on top. in a word: perspective. a common argument against our fair crimson friends is that of unobstructed elitism. why shouldn’t they feel elitist, they got into the BEST school in the country, or so everyone says. i mean read the harvard board, or worse yet go on facebook and see harvard groups; it is borderline absurd. no this is not everyone - i mean i have read some rather incredible pieces of work in the Harvard Crimson which really shows just how brilliant some of them are. but the culture is prevalent and at its apotheosis in higher education. what that creates is a place that is not the BEST for everyone to attend. and a place that i did not find enlightening, but rather troubling, cold and less of a transformative experience than a 4 year award for previous activity. i wanted something more…</p>
<p>Columbia is a mish-mash of a lot of interesting things that are working together that make it in my mind a about as vibrant, unique and intellectually engaging a school out there. first comes our brand of subdued elitism tempered by the reality that we are not the top dawg (with some of us having letters of rejection to prove it). Then comes the sort of student Columbia attracts - someone independent, someone who doesn’t need hand holding, including students who were admitted to more “reputable schools” but actively decided to go to Columbia - aka they could see through the veneer that is HYP. Further enhanced by New York City, the rather unlimited array of opportunity, but also the hyperrealism that puts you as a student into direct contact (at times conflict) with some of the most unique and interesting situations for an 18 year old. everything from being invited to an art gallery of an up and coming artist to being in the middle of a heated argument on the street you can see the world of privilege and poverty at its most extremes. it is bizarre, in your face, constant, illuminating and maturing. The product is a place of argument, where there is a sense of inferiority meeting superiority, where you have to watch what you say and how you say it, where the classroom meets the real world. And so I think what you have is a pretty incredible place that necessitates individual growth, community growth. it is a place that is frustrating, but some pain, as they say, is good - and i think the reality that not everything will happen perfectly is something people ought to face. at columbia you will face road blocks, some could have been avoided, perhaps, but others are ingrained by a culture of competing interest - of 8 million people pulling the city in different directions. if you can negotiate your way out of the labyrinth of life in new york and columbia - you have gained an incredible perspective in life.</p>
<p>so though concoll gives a pretty good summation of what to think about. if you take my stance and on most reputation or supposed objective factors there is minute differences between the two groups. if on academics you take a similar sort of stance, especially laying aside some of the kind of hyped up lies about Harvard having a crappy undergraduate academics (i would rather say it doesn’t live up to the brand, but it is still Harvard, still rather incredible). then if it is on the community you want to be a part of - there is certainly value in columbia > harvard. the mix of who goes to columbia and new york city itself creates a student body that is rarely satisfied, but also (like the city) always looking for new ways of expression and pushing the limit. i think that is brilliant.</p>
<p>something to consider.</p>
<p>^I am a columbia student and a pretty proud one at that, but in terms of job and grad placement H beats out columbia at the very top. Some companies are simply not open to Columbia - top hedge fund and top private equity firms don’t recruit on campus like they do at Harvard or Wharton. Yale law school has more H kids than Yale kids, followed a distant third by Princeton / Stanford / Columbia. Look at the number of Rhodes scholars H has produced vs. Columbia or the number of Marshall Scholars.</p>
<p>That said you are correct that H, Col provide opps 100x better than the average place. I have a friend working as a spring intern at KKR, and 3 others planning to work at Mckinsey, Goldman securities and Lazard investment banking this summer (it’s a really shtty year). These are elite divisions completely closed to 99% of the world even in a good year. We do get rhodes scholars, we get olympic medalists, we get pop stars, we (eventually) get top lawyers, politicians, business people and entrepreneurs. At a good company (say Barclays), H does not give much of an advantage over Columbia, you only see the difference at the very top.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>being less resource rich is not an equalizer, no-one cares that the univ is less resource rich, all things equal if you have the chance to go to a univ with more resources, you probably should. </p>
<p>The rest of your post is on the money, it really brings out how I feel Columbia blows people away and makes them struggle –> grow and become smart, intelligent fighters. Given a pretty normal set of interests and conditions, Columbia could easily be a better choice than Harvard, even if future success and opening doors is all you care about.</p>
<p>concoll to clarify - let us suppose that H students have x advantage in getting top jobs than columbia folk, but also have y advantage in resources. if by some mathematical way we can prove that y > x then perhaps you can say that with less columbia people and students do more. a thought exercise, maybe someone out there wants to prove it.</p>
<p>and one comment about where to place columbia in higher ed. columbia along with harvard fall into the category of multidisciplinary major research institutions with few equals besides UC-Berkeley, Stanford and to an extent MIT. Y and P are more boutique by comparison (quit your yapping YP fans, to an extent it is a good thing, hence why ugrad is big at them). as universities they score highly in core disciplines, have highly rated professional schools, and have a broader range of such professional schools. that is of course at the uni level.</p>
<p>and concoll - i don’t know what you mean by hedge funds and PE crowd because even to H grads unless they wiggle their way in, for the most part funds like people with 2 years of experience banks or MBA’s - and to this extent, I know a few funds that have strong columbia connections and often hire undergrads (when the economy is supportive). but perhaps you are being a bit one-tracked. i don’t think ‘finance’ jobs are the pinnacle of a university’s prestige and personally i could care less how columbia stacks up to a BUSINESS SCHOOL like wharton in this area. and i hope that this new economic outlook reorientates the way people think about job prospects. to quote Jack Donaghy re: finance folk - “they have no real world skills, but boy do they work hard.” in recent years columbia has been at or near the top in TFA placements, has had the highest number of fulbrights over the past decade than any other university – sort of showcasing a social justice front. what i concede however, is not knowing enough information about outcomes. i have talked to people at preprofessional advising and career services and they are working on this info, but don’t really have it yet. it would be interesting to see where columbia places in the top with regards to students seeking real grad school: engineering, arts and science programs.</p>
<p>and i said you were being bashful because i know you love alma, though at times you give off a vibe that this wasn’t your first choice. am i right?</p>
<p>1) here’s the info on the yale law school, it’s pretty evident where my point stands :
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/duke-university/326689-law-school-harvard-yale-uva-undergrad-representation.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/duke-university/326689-law-school-harvard-yale-uva-undergrad-representation.html</a></p>
<p>2) Here’s the info on rhodes scholars, again pretty evident where my point stands :
<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/500531-rhodes-scholars-2.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-search-selection/500531-rhodes-scholars-2.html</a></p>
<p>3) There’s little doubt that we are extremely efficient with our lesser resources, but resources have absolute advantages, i’m talking club allocations, facilities, financial aid, paying top professors: in all these respects being efficient with resources is no reconciliation.</p>
<p>4)Finance jobs are merely a part of the pinnacle of prestige. In this respect (because i have exposure to the industry / recruiting), harvard fares better than we do. They also have doors open to them that are closed to us. BCG did not recruit summer interns from campus this year, they restricted their search to H,P,W,S and no-one else. The very best Hedge Funds and private equity places do recruit directly off H’s undergrad campus, but not Columbia - examples i know of: Citadel, AQR, Blackstone. Yes we have access to a few top hedge funds, P.E., I-banking places (examples: D.E. Shaw, Goldman Sachs Quantitative Resources Group, Lazard), but these also recruit at H and it’s undeniable that H overall gives an absolute advantage to it’s student body.</p>
<p>5) Columbia wasn’t my first choice but it was 2nd, and Harvard wasn’t one of my applications. So that fact is irrelevant. Over the years, I’ve grown to love and defend Columbia, I sign our fight song more than anyone I know, but I can’t be blind to our relative deficiencies.</p>
<p>well, then focus on the positive - like I tried to. Harvard will have its own defenders. Why not make the case for the areas in which Columbia is better? I can certainly think of several - with the University’s emphasis on the quality of undergraduate academics being first on the list (the Core is proof positive of this). Harvard, as a university, does not really care about its undergrads, its attentions are mostly spent on its grad schools.</p>
<p>admissions greek your first post on Columbia was fantastic, really demonstrated its uniqueness and attraction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was making a holistic comparison, it’s dumb to only focus on why Columbia is better, because you lose credibility, people think you’re just a marketer, who was that yale kid who flamed here a lot about crime? he didn’t maintain much credibility even on his board because he would only focus on why yale was better than x,y,z. </p>
<p>That being said Harvard is unfortunately no Columbia :p.</p>
<p>The only thing that’s keeping me from ranking Columbia over Harvard is grad school placement. I know the name of your undergrad school does not count for everything, but it does count for something. I figure I’d have to do more to distinguish myself at Columbia if I wanted to get into a top grad program in my field – e.g., super stellar LoRs, award-winning senior thesis, etc. Any input on this from those who currently attend or who have graduated from Columbia?</p>
<p>Mustafah - I think that there is a certain misnomer about grad school placement and here is why.</p>
<p>There is the assumption that if I go to Harvard I graduate and my problems are solved. You still have to do well there, have people like you, and have them write good LoRs. The allure of Harvard as the best of the best - means some truly amazing people go there…and they don’t need the name to get into top grad schools. The one thing I will concede is that Harvard has a pretty good “scholarship factory” where they identify people that might be scholars early on, work with them for 4 years and essentially make sure they are competitive. And the hidden secret of the Rhodes/Marshal, etc., is how well you do in the cocktail reception the night before the interview, not the interview itself. Yeah kind of crap. Grooming people has never been my idea of legitimate activity, but it works.</p>
<p>But the thing is - being a medium fish in a big pond means you are not standing out. And what grad schools still care about no matter who you are is you are maximizing your resources and are considered a ‘top flight’ candidate. Columbia is smaller, you will have great connections with faculty because of the nature of the curriculum, emphasis on ugrad activity and the overall brashness of students to advocate on their own behalf. I was friends with Deans of various schools and they wrote me letters of rec. I found it very easy to do what I wanted, and that Columbia was not all that competitive outside of applicants to Goldman or Mckinsey where jealousy did reign. I also know students were able to do some pretty amazing things as undergrads, start businesses, and make names for themselves that helped in the grad admission process.</p>
<p>So I guess if you really worry about grad placement the reality behind the statistics is that you will have more of a chance than you perhaps think. Yes more Hers are at YLS, but it doesn’t mean it is any easier for them to get there, perhaps it just comes natural to them. I know people at almost every single top grad school who are phenomenal. And just recently, I can add myself to that list.</p>
<p>If you want to be lazy in college maybe you can still get in with an inflated H gpa and solid lsat. I don’t quite know…but I guess the thing to reassert is that you may not have an experience that really improves the way you see the world and approach problems. Being ambitious and wanting the best for yourself should also mean desiring an education that will challenge you emotionally (EQ) as it does academically. I think Columbia’s unique blend does that probably just about as good as anywhere else. So if you are smart, Columbia will make you smarter, you will get into top schools and do great. And you will have an entire shelf of books to help you remember the experience.</p>
<p>
To quote click and clack (Cartalk…): Bogus. :)</p>
<p>Both the Cocktail reception and the interview are important. It is fair to say that each gives the committee a different view on the candidate. The cocktail reception is a trap for the unwary, because it allows the spotlight seekers a chance to put themselves out of the running, but you could shine at the reception and totally blow your interview the next day.</p>
<p>The interview really serves to validate what you say in the rest of the materials. For example, one candidate I know claimed that playing the violin was a passion. At the interview, one of the committee asked her to show her spot, her chin callus to prove she played a lot. She did and went on to win. No she was not from Harvard…</p>
<p>I really appreciate your input, admissionsgeek. But all other things being equal, going to Harvard would give you a boost for grad school admissions, no? I was just wondering how much of a boost relative to Columbia. I didn’t mean to imply that I wasn’t going to work my ass off at Harvard; I just meant that I’d have to do more to distinguish myself at Columbia to compensate for its lesser prestige. I never thought of the flip side, though – that it would be harder to distinguish myself at Harvard.</p>
<p>I get the whole ‘top flight’ thing and how connections with faculty members are more important than institutional prestige up to a point, and in these respects it looks like Columbia would be the better option. Moreover, after an initial reluctance to partake in a Eurocentric core curriculum, I’m beginning to become convinced of its merits.</p>
<p>My gut tells me to go to Columbia. Yet it pains me to think of the prospect of passing up Harvard.</p>
<p>if you get into Harvard and Columbia, you really should take Harvard. Its Harvard, its that simple. People can debate all day how big a difference it makes, but when you say you went to Harvard people pay attention. </p>
<p>This from someone who loves Columbia didn’t even apply to Harvard</p>
<p>I personally would not have chosen Harvard over Columbia for undergrad. (Stanford might’ve been a different story - never got to test that). For graduate programs, especially the MBA that I’m applying for now, however, Harvard is undoubtedly the best.</p>
<p>You can’t look at the university as a monolithic entity when evaluating what’s right for you. A good brand name helps but a large part of the value is in the quality of the students you meet, the curriculum you go through, and the alumni network you inherit. Those will vary school-to-school within a university.</p>
<p>Mustafah all things being equal, maybe. </p>
<p>But all things are not equal because you have to include the experience and the community into your calculation. Plus I am going to give you an x factor that should sweeten the Columbia deal: me. If you go to Columbia - look me up on here and we can chat. I will give you the secret hints on how to do well at CU, how to make it your paradise. In the meantime: you will spend four fantastic years, have incredible stories that would drown a Cambridge experience. And I will help you network from the get-go with older Columbians in whatever field it is, who will get you jobs, internships and eventually LoRs. You will be set and not have to worry about Harvard kids having a mini-headstart, you will catch up to them in no time. And to anyone who is on this forum, prospective and current students - I am always happy to help. I got a BA in Columbiana, and making sure that students have a satisfying experience is perhaps one of the strongest reasons I post on here at all.</p>
<p>As for the ‘eurocentric’ core. I am glad you are seeing it in a different way, perhaps another perspective to help push you over. At Columbia nothing is taboo, and calling out the core for what it is, dead white men, is often a subject of conversation in class and even within the Committee on the Core that oversees the program. I remember being deadly afraid of the core and almost deciding against Columbia because of disinformation out there in cyberspace when I was applying (why would you want to go to a school that requires you to take courses, and similar mumbo jumbo). But with help of friend I began to realize how critical having a core would be to my education: the core is both a celebration and a critique of western tradition, it is a moment in which we read some of the most important books of the past, but spend the whole time trying to dissect and disprove arguments, figure out how other societies integrate themselves into “western traditions,” and concentrate rather interestingly on what is wrong with the core In the end, however, we end up celebrating individuals who during the time they wrote they were vilified and often never appreciated in their own time; St. Augustine was a lowly bishop, Boccaccio and Dante were banned, Austen’s books were initially published anonymously to avoid criticism. Or philosophers whose main goal it was to disprove each other: Plato was disproved by Aristotle, who was overturned by Descartes and Newton, who were criticized by Hegel and Rousseau. The core itself is a framework predicated around critical thinking, about disagreements, but also about continuity and traditions. As a good Columbian, you will begin to see the obvious restrictions of the core, but then a funny thing happens - you don’t want it to change because it is precisely the core that allowed you to ask yourself unique and challenging questions and gain perspective on many critical issues. Some of the most ardent core lovers I know today got their start as avoid skeptics of the core’s eurocentrism. Plus if you like arguing, thinking, or thinking about arguing, the core is about as fun an academic experience as it gets.</p>
<p>
Can I start off with a housing question? How big of an impact do you think housing has on social networking, etc? I’ve read all of the posts on CC and I’m still kind of stuck between JJ and Carman (with Hartley-Wallach as a distant third choice) :(</p>
<p>On one hand, a single as an underclassman is virtually unheard of at a lot of schools. However, you could also lose the experience of having a roommate–which some would argue is a big portion of the overall college experience.</p>
<p>Most Carmanites will tell you that there is a marked difference in the dorm social life between Carman and JJ, and that the kids who go to Carman are all the ones who wanted to be social at the expense of some minor conveniences, so it trends towards that.</p>
<p>Most John Jayers will retort that that’s BS, you make the same number of friends in both places, and the bonds you form with your freshman year floor are just as strong in both places. Anecdotally, a bunch of my Carman 10 group are still living together in NYC, 6 1/2 years later.</p>
<p>The biggest difference is really the living experience (double with more space, vs single with less space, semiprivate bathrooms, proximity to the dining hall, etc). You can read up on my post from this thread: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/276867-housing.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-university/276867-housing.html</a></p>
<p>If you’ve got more specific questions, start a new thread on them and we’ll be happy to help, rather than taking this one off-topic.</p>
<p>there are a lot of rumors out there that you have to be in Carman or you will never have friends. it is mostly hyperbole. i think that a lot has to do with the kind of attitude you have about your living situation, and then as always the luck of the draw with regard to what room you actually get and your floor. as a preference - i like to export my fun, and so i went for the tamer experience of the llc, and even today some of my best friends from columbia are older. i think it challenged me to get off of my floor to make most of my first-year friends, but lit hum helped a lot with that. but it also meant that i met a lot of people who were already involved in activities who pulled me along and i got started in clubs before a lot of other first years. i actually think jj and carman limit your ability to see outside of your year, but that is a pretty minor comment.</p>
<p>i think it is your attitude and your personality about it that matters more than the actual circumstance you get in. if you are willing to make the most of it with a roommate, you will have a good time; equally so if you live alone. i had the world’s smelliest roommate and though i have yet to have another roommate because of it, i also know it will fill me with stories for my grandchildren.</p>
<p>and a secret, if you don’t like your housing option, there almost is always someone in carman or jj who want to switch. so there is always that.</p>