<p>sorry konradph, but Harvard Extension School students take their courses online or at night school…</p>
<p>Columbia’s School of General Studies undergraduates (25% of all undergraduates) take the same classes, with the same faculty as the other undergraduates…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>pbr, </p>
<p>The school admissions stats should be presented on a comparable basis to other schools that an applicant is comparing Columbia to, and the fact is that a student that attends Columbia as an undergraduate will be taking the same classes with the same faculty and in the same facilities as these 25% other undergraduates - he has the right to know what the metrics of his fellow undergraduates are, including SAT/ACT’s, GPA’s, high school class ranking, etc. (100% of the undegraduates, not just the top 75%) He has the right to know that his fellow undergraduates that attend the same classes where not selected on a 7% basis, but were admitted on a 30-40% basis and in, fact, that Columbia was much much less selective in choosing these students that make up a significant percent of the undergraduates. </p>
<p>Columbia FAILS to supply these metrics for the applicants to make an apples/apples choice in colleges. Columbia also FAILS to supply these metrics to the ranking entities that applicants sometimes use to gauge the quality of education of its undergraduate programs…</p>
<p>Columbia is misleading the applicants in this manner, but based on losing 90% of its cross admits to HYPSM, it appears that the lack of transparency for Columbia is having its effect, and not many people are being fooled here.</p>
<p>Japanoko, you (and many other Princeton “fans”) seem to view admissions stats as scores in a sporting competition. I, and many other parents, view admissions stats reporting as a tool for applicants to gauge admissions odds. This is not an arms race. Princeton fans would perhaps undertake less hand-wringing over Columbia surpassing Princeton in the almighty selectivity race if they understood this.</p>
<p>It is very difficult to gain admission to both Columbia and Princeton. If GS admissions stats (admittedly lower than those for traditional student admits at both Princeton and Columbia) were included in Columbia’s College/SEAS admissions stats, you, or some other Princeton advocate would complain that Columbia’s reporting was misleading.</p>
<p>Why don’t you also accuse Columbia of duplicity in not including Barnard numbers in its reporting?</p>
<p>Why? The new admissions rate would again (perhaps temporarily?) be higher than Princeton’s, but would not be helpful to applicants and, possibly, given the the perceived increased access to Columbia, would cause even more than 35,000 people to apply to CC/SEAS, resulting in a further reduction in Columbia’s admissions rate.</p>
<p>^Japanoko is a ■■■■■. It’s best to ignore him.</p>
<p>“The new admissions rate would again (perhaps temporarily?) be higher than Princeton’s, but would not be helpful to applicants …”</p>
<p>The admissions rate that is most helpful to applicants is the admissions rate to the one college there that they are actually applying to. Not any amalgamation.</p>
<p>However if one was trying to rationalize an amalgamation, it would be to describe the university community in its entirety, including all the people who are enrolled and are in fact there, in the classrooms of the university. From this latter perspective there is no rationale for excluding GS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>konradph, when you say “sometimes” with Harvard College students, how many is that?</p>
<p>about one ever ten classes?</p>
<p>one ever 20 classes?</p>
<p>because the commuting part-time 30-something 550 SAT 3.0 GPA Columbia School of General Studies undergraduates take most of their classes with the Columbia College and Fu Engineering undergraduates with the same professors and at the same facilities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>pbr, good point and that can easily be calculated since Barnard,** unlike Columbia GS**, reports their acceptance rates, their SAT/ACT’s, the GPA’s and other metrics such as top ten percent ranking. </p>
<p>In addition, Columbia GS undergraduate students fall under Columbia University in the City of New York and Barnard does not. So that when you are reporting undergraduate students of Columbia University inthe City of New York, the School of GS undergraduates should be included</p>
<p>I think one can in fact make an argument for including Barnard’s numbers, if you are trying to get the full picture of who is there and attending classes there. Barnard students take on average 30% of their classes at Columbia, they are certainly present in many Columbia classes. There is virtually seemless cross- registration between the schools, and Columbia students take approximately the same number of courses at Barnard. A few Columbia majors are actually housed at Barnard, taught by Barnard professors. My guess is Barnard students are as relevant to Columbia College as Cornell Hotel students are to Cornell Arts & Sciences students. </p>
<p>So for the purpose of some sort of global assessment of the university community as a whole, and who will actually be there with you- which is the only vaguely rational argument for looking at any consolidated statistics in the first place, if there is one- I think one can legitimately include Barnard, if Cornell Hotel has to be lumped in with Cornell Arts & Sciences.</p>
<p>For the purposes of assessing admissions chances it is of course ridiculous to lump them together, because they are part of a different admissions pool. But for that purpose it is likewise ridiculous to lump any group of colleges of the university together, since application is made only to particular colleges there. All that is relevant for that purpose are the stats for the one particular college there that you are actually applying to.</p>
<p>"…take most of their classes with the Columbia College and Fu Engineering undergraduates with the same professors and at the same facilities. "</p>
<p>Moreover, their grades all count for GPA calculation at all the university’s colleges, I imagine. If a Harvard College student takes a course at Harvard Extension school, does that grade count in the Harvard College GPA computed by the registrar on his transcript? I don’t know, but I doubt it. At Columbia, as I understand it for the most part they are just various sections of the same courses, which anyone at all the colleges can, and often do, take. And so can Barnard students, with of course some limitations. So for example my nephew took a Chemistry class at night that was relatively more populated by GS students. I’m sure the grade appeared and was counted in his FU transcript.</p>
<p>konradph, you ought to quit posting statistics that aren’t true. 25% of Columbia engineering grads (again, you’re comparing Princeton as a whole against Columbia Fu, which is misleading in itself) who take jobs go into the financial industry. That equates to 10% of Fu graduates as a whole.</p>
<p>fightthetide read you post again. Columbia engineering is Fu.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>geesh, you would think that konradph would do a little more analysis in support of his comments in Columbia v. Princeton. </p>
<p>From the very same documents that konradph has provided:</p>
<p>Princeton Class of 2010 response rate = 98.2%
Columbia Class of 2010 response rate = 69.4% </p>
<p>One would assume that the students that did not respond, about 2% of Princeton and 30% of Columbia Class or 2010, are not in graduate school or employed.</p>
<p>now lets look at Columbia’s own figures from the 69.4% that reported:</p>
<p>14.5% - Applied and am awaiting, or decding
3.1% – Have not started the job search process
5.2% – Will take time off
3.7% – Other
26.5% - Total </p>
<p>26.5% of the 69.4% that responded = 18.4% of the total Class.</p>
<p>+30.6% that did not respond</p>
<p>= 49.0% of Columbia Class of 2010 that is not in graduate school or employed</p>
<p>For Princeton:
23.8% - Seeking employment
2.4% – Travel and other
26.2% - Total </p>
<p>26.2% of 98.2% that responded for Princeton = 25.7% of the total class.</p>
<ul>
<li>1.8% that did not respond</li>
</ul>
<p>= 27.5% of Princeton Class of 2010 that is not in graduate school or employed</p>
<p>so, to sum up:</p>
<p>Percent of Class of 2010 That is not in Graduate School or Employed
27.5% - Princeton
49.0% - Columbia</p>
<p>oops!</p>
<p>It’s honestly not a fair assumption that those did not respond were not employed. We have no idea what the circumstances were.</p>
<p>^^^^it is the nature of the beast. There is a good probability that the lack of responses is due to a of lack of good news to report. In addition, this is Columbia you are talking about, remember?..Columbia University, the one that refuses to release a common data set, and almost a year later after letting 75 kids in from the waitlist, still fails to show an acceptance rate for the class of 2014 that shows the effect of accepting those kids into the school (still using the pre-waitlist 9.16% acceptance rate instead of the correct 9.44%).</p>
<p>After 4 years at Columbia I can guarantee that GS will not bother you or detract from your in and out of class experience in any way. It was actually refreshing to make friends a fire fighter, a war veteran and real estate broker. They weren’t coming to our parties, living in our dorms nor were they in most of our classes, but their perspective was great to have around. I’d meet GS students once in a while in class, in the gym or in a club.</p>
<p>re: arguments about SAT and grades: There are no published statistics, because those stats are just not relevant to a GS applicant’s ability to succeed and contribute to campus. Columbia GS will gladly reject a top scorer with a mediocre record post college and will gladly take someone with a 1700/2400 who has really excelled in their job and shown leadership. Who is more likely to be successful afterall? Freshman year in college your SAT scores become more or less irrelevant, how about 5-8 years after graduating from high school? Heck, by that standard, why don’t MBA programs publish and compare SAT scores of their applicants?</p>
<p>This entire discussion has drifted completely away from the OP’s point.</p>
<p>To the OP: if you can visit the campuses, all these stats and arguments about GS or acceptance rate couldn’t be less relevant. Seeing the way this discussion has gone, I’m quite content to have gone to Columbia rather than Princeton.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>confi, so are you saying that the 2,000 General Studies undergraduate students (25% of all Columbia undergraduates) are missing, no where to be seen in your undergraduate classes (except for a few)?</p>
<p>Columbia states that they take most of their classes with the other Columbia undergraduates from Columbia College and Fu Engineering. Was Columbia lying when they said this?</p>
<p>Is Columbia issuing Columbia University Degrees to the GS students without requiring them to attend classes?</p>
<p>I find this very odd</p>
<p>from Columbia:</p>
<p>[FAQs</a> | General Studies](<a href=“http://www.gs.columbia.edu/admissions-faqs]FAQs”>http://www.gs.columbia.edu/admissions-faqs)</p>
<p>*Are the courses the same as those taken by students at Columbia’s traditional undergraduate colleges?</p>
<p>Yes. GS students take the same courses with the same faculty, are held to the same high standards, and earn the same degree as all other Columbia undergraduates.</p>
<p>Who will be in my classes? </p>
<p>Students from Columbia’s two other undergraduate colleges and Barnard College students will be in the classroom.</p>
<p>Who teaches my classes? </p>
<p>GS students take the same classes with the same professors as students in Columbia’s other undergraduate colleges. Undergraduate courses are taught by members of the Columbia University Faculty of Arts and Sciences.</p>
<p>The Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Columbia University consists of twenty-nine departments in the social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences. The Arts and Sciences also includes six schools: Columbia College, the School of General Studies, the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, the School of the Arts, and the School of Continuing Education, as well as numerous institutes and centers.</p>
<p>*</p>
<p>monydad makes good points. I wonder what Columbia’s acceptance rate would be if it included GS and Barnard; even including GS alone would bring up its acceptance rate considerably. Anyone know that number?</p>
<p>I know that Stanford includes non-traditional students in its general acceptance rate (I think others, like Yale and Princeton, do as well); of course, they are few in number, but that doesn’t mean that since Columbia has more of them, it can just exclude them.</p>
<p>^^^^phanta, the more transparent of the major universities is Cornell in that it includes all 7 of its schools for undergraduate stats and yet only its School of Arts and Sciences and Engineering school are comparable to other colleges. This by itself, hurts its stats - leaving many people to underestimate its strong academics. For example, the school of engineering has a 25/75 SAT Math range of 720-800, a very impressive figure.</p>
<p>Oh, by the way, Cornell also issues separate stats for each of the 7 colleges.</p>
<p>on Columbia, I would imagine the 25/75 SAT’s and acceptance rate can be calculated for the combined 3 Columbia undergraduate schools (and maybe 4 with Barnard), if we assume certain SAT’s and accepatance rates for the GS school.</p>
<p>I will do that exercise sometime this week, but it is going to get real ugly for Columbia.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What will it take for me to convince you not to do this? Aren’t you busy these days watching Jersey Shore or something! I think the new season starts this week…</p>
<p>japanoko, make sure you also include the admissions stats for all transfer students. Come to think of it, my Columbia son also has quite a few classes that include graduate students, so you’d best include the graduate students’ admissions stats as well. Have fun!</p>
<p>pbr has made a good point again, this time regarding transfer students.</p>
<p>Columbia Fu has something like 150 students enrolled, typically, who are admitted merely via agreement, based on getting a 3.0 GPA, + rec letters at a host of mostly less selective affiliated colleges: [Combined</a> Plan Program | Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/engineering/combined]Combined”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/engineering/combined)
These students were not admitted to Fu upfront, they were admitted only into their mostly less selective colleges, then had to attain only a 3.0 GPA there.</p>
<p>Here’s what one CC student had to say about the program:</p>
<p>“I know someone who completed 3 years at Bates and is now at Columbia for engineering. He would have had essentially a zero chance of being accepted to Columbia straight out of HS, so he is extremely excited and satisfied.”</p>
<p>Indeed, why wouldn’t he be…</p>
<p>IIRC Princeton takes essentially zero transfers in most years, and none that are admitted per agreement like this, correct me if I’m mistaken.</p>
<p>They both have grad students that probably share some advanced classes, so let’s call that a wash.</p>
<p>Japonoko it should be easy to guesstimate stats for those combined plan students, based on the entrance profiles of the affiliated colleges and making some assumptions.</p>