<p>as subject.</p>
<p>I would say both are achievements in their own right and cannot be compared. Who’s to say getting into Columbia College is more prestigious than getting into Columbia Med? </p>
<p>This is a pointless question.</p>
<p>Rule of thumb: undergrad is always more prestigious than graduate studies at most top unis. (except for rare cases like Wharton vs Penn CAS, or Harv Med/Bus vs. undergrad (tie), Yale law vs undergrad (tie also), etc). Because:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You could get high GPAs at lesser institutions like NYU (which is much easier to do than at Columbia), BS your grad school applications, and go to a significantly higher ranked school for grad. Graduate admissions as a whole is individualized and omnivorous at the same time, which means you’re just qualified if you get accepted.</p></li>
<li><p>Your undergrad institution is your home, label, and mother of nourishing studies for the rest of your life. That’s where you (should) feel the greatest ties and pride. Legacy status completely depends on if you attended the school for undergrad, not grad. First because there’s a uniform, competitive selection process for undergrad and second because there’s ultimately less undergrad alums than those diplomas Columbia ~20 grad schools spew out. The less you have of something, the more precious it is.</p></li>
<li><p>In addition to the cohesion at the ivy undergraduate level, you have more kids straight out of high school (duh). This might not be obvious: straight out of hs means more academically focused, the person took less wrong turns in life (how could he/she if he/she got into ivy right from hs?), said person more likely from middle/high class families who recognize the value of higher ed, etc. In short, at CC and SEAS you have more of the standard type of students geared for success and leadership in future society, especially business, law, government, and even medicine. Contrast with GS and all other grad schools here (such as SIPA) where you have such a mixed bag of ex-drug addicts, military men, stay-at-home moms, and gray beards. While they would say all that “life experience” makes them more diverse, well-rounded, blah blah, please don’t easily by into that kind of blanket statement. What you do get at GS and grad schools is a truly diverse student body, some with promising beginnings in life but managed somehow to wreck themselves, and others just plain unspectacular from NYU.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>So please, it’s very easy to buy into the general (and quite often BS) statement that you can’t compare undergrad and grad, 'cause they’re so different. Comparison is always possible and meaningful. We wouldn’t get anywhere in life if we acknowledge everything’s uniqueness and refuse to take a stance.</p>
<p>And also please don’t be so ignorant as to allow yourself captivated by any Columbia label: “Oh wow, he’s so smart and special. He got a masters in architecture from Columbia!!!” (Incidentally, I sat at a family dinner where the members are congratulating someone who got into RISD as being an “ivy leaguer.”) Know that there are two very prestigious and noteworthy “achievements” (as you put it) under Columbia University: the College and SEAS (undergrad). Treat all others with equanimity. The same goes for distinguishing between Harvard College and Extension School.</p>
<p>What’s RISD? </p>
<p>One thing I have to disagree is that while life experience does not necessarily make you academically smart, it does make you more “well-rounded.” Also, you can’t compare grad schools and GS to Harvard Extension school, because you receive different degrees. (Harvard Extension school degrees are craps, but grad schools and GS degrees are for real.) And no, I am not advocating for those who got B.S. degree from GS. </p>
<p>Also, how do you “BS” your grad application? If you can “BS” your grad application, I’d think you can also “BS” your undergrad application, right?</p>
<p>I think he’s actually asking whether Columbia has a higher prestige among graduate institutions or among undergraduate colleges.</p>
<p>I haven’t yet applied to graduate schools, so it would be tough for me to know. But my dad (legacy at both undergrad and graduate) has told me throughout my undergraduate applications process that he strongly feels its a much better graduate school than it is a college. If that means anything.</p>
<p>^^some very good points here. </p>
<p>RISD = Rhode Island School of Design in Providence, RI. A very good art school, but it’s not Brown university.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But “well-rounded” is still just a term. The burden of proof lies in showing that well-roundedness is desirable and “good.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True, but you got more better trained eyes watching out for BS in undergrad apps: an office of admissions specifically devoted to the task of weeding out those who don’t got it. Plus, given the great competition for good undergrad education nowadays, it’s ever harder for a BSer to beat the system. </p>
<p>Graduate (academic) admissions is a lot more intimate. You get picked by faculty members (someone could back me up on this), who might be easily impressed by high GPAs and the showing of a lot of interest in his/her line of work. I’m not the best person to ask on grad admissions since i haven’t been through it.</p>
<p>MSauce, your dad could be very much on the ball. But right now (a few decades after he attended, right?) Columbia’s college is rapidly catching up and gaining recognition. Columbia’s being a research/grad powerhouse is indisputable. But be careful in distinguishing between the strength of the program and the people doing it. You could still have good an excellent English department admitting a graduate of UTexas who doesn’t know s**t about good proper English writing (personal experience here).</p>
<p>To help you out with the grad admission process… </p>
<p>Graduate school admission decisions are mostly decided by an admission committee within a department (not a centralized committee like undergrad), and NOT hand picked by one single faculty member. In this case, I’d think graduate ad-com has more “trained eyes” than centralized undergrad ad-com, because graduate ad-com consists of specialized faculty members who obviously have more specialized knowledge in the major area that applicants intend to study. </p>
<p>Also, if “RISD” is not part of Brown, (thus not an IVY), why would an RISD graduate be confused with an “Ivy Leaguer”?</p>
<p>But if the college is “rapidly catching up” as you say, then its a near certainty that the research/graduate aspects of Columbia have the advantage in prestige. It takes a while for prestige to develop, right?</p>
<p>To be honest, I see Columbia’s undergraduate schools as falling behind the pack. I grew up in a house where I thought the order of the best schools in the country were Harvard, then Yale, then Columbia, then the rest. Even going into the process with that state of mind, I couldn’t see Columbia as a top-tier school on the level of HYPS. Obviously its a great institution. But I would say schools like Duke and Vanderbilt are gaining ground on it faster than it is gaining ground on the HYPS schools.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the graduate school is phenomenal for research, and is probably more distanced from the rest of the pack than the undergraduate school is.</p>
<p>Definitely depends on which graduate programs you are talking about in which departments. Aren’t there a few masters programs at Columbia with like 70% acceptance rates? Versus, say, the medical school with a ~5% acceptance rate. The achievement is in part relative to the competition and proportional to the difficulty.</p>
<p>Epaminondas, Once again, you can’t generalize all graduate admissions as being the same. I know that you know this, you gave examples yourself, but I just want to say it again. As far as being able to go to NYU (which, btw, you should give more credit as a good institution but I can understand school rivalry) and then onto a more competitive program, you can say the same thing about high schools. Some are easier to get higher GPAs in, mine was ridiculously easy. That’s why, in both undergrad and grad, there are standardized tests to help balance the differences in GPAs and provide a way to compare (in med, for example, schools buy into or build their own databases that show the average GPA and MCAT of a given university’s applicants so they can see what a good GPA despite the variability). The one advantage that graduate programs have over undergraduate is there are a lot less Universities. Every program in grand and under knows its major feeders, but in graduate admissions it is a lot easier to keep track of a larger percentage of institutions. I would also question your assertion about it being easy to BS your grad application. At least at top and competitive programs, this is not the case. I assure you that P&S admissions (which, btw, has an office of admissions with staff and an adcom just like most graduate programs that I know of) is equally good at weeding out the liars and the no-goods in the application process as CC admissions. The mandatory interview is helpful in this as well, but interviews are just one part of the game. They are most certainly not blinded by self-bias or numbers alone. </p>
<p>Other than that, I would also like to point out to your comments about grad vs undergrad students… reconsider them or at least refine them to separate Masters from PhD from professional. Most of the other things you’ve said I agree with though.</p>
<p>Also, a lot of graduate school admissions differentiate GPAs from different schools. For example, a 3.5 ugrad GPA from NYU is treated differently than a 3.5 GPA from Columbia (obviously, 3.5 from Columbia is given higher weight than 3.5 from NYU). This is the standard procedure in almost all grad admission. It is even part of admissions FAQ in Georgia Tech’s website (Top 5 in most engineering programs), so I am not making it up here… The ad-com knows same GPAs from different schools mean different things. So if you have higher GPA from lesser ugrad school, it is still not going to cut it for most prestigious grad programs.</p>
<p>While I hesitate to attempt any generalized comparison, I’d at least take issue with some of what Epaminondas has said. I don’t think anyone can seriously argue that Columbia Med and Columbia Law are less prestigious than Columbia undergraduate. Columbia Med is top-10 and Columbia Law is top-5, while Columbia undergrad is top-10.</p>
<p>Regarding MSauce’s point, while it was certainly true that the institutional priorities at Columbia favored the graduate schools for most of the 20th century, this has not been true since the mid-1990s. For the last 10 years or so, Columbia College (and SEAS) have been the central (though by no means exclusive) focus of the university. As for Columbia’s overall prestige, it hit rock-bottom in the mid-1980s (when many people treated it as a “nominal Ivy” a la Cornell), but its rise has tracked that of Manhattan. Now, it is arguably the 4th most prestigious university in the country, right after the Big 3. At the very least, it’s in the top 10. What’s amazing is how recent a development this has been!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Replace “country” with “Ivy League.”</p>
<p>LOL… 4th most prestigious in Ivy League, but I’d still argue Top 7 (at least) in the country.</p>
<p>I was pleasantly stunned by Epamin’s superb posting. The Ivy league is an undergrad sports league, so straight off the Ivy League label does not belong to grad schools. Epamin’s exceptions, in grad schools, Wharton, Harvard law, etc are right on point. Anyone, I mean literally anyone, with a college degree, a pulse and a checkbook can get into the social work school, divinity school and education school at any of the Ivy league schools and the degree means little in terms of prestige.</p>
<p>Undergrad has more trained eyes. Yes, an admissions committee of academics reads grad applicants but almost invariably they all defer to a colleague who wants someone in his lab, etc. In undergrad admissions, although you have a reader pleading a case, many times he/she gets voted down, not in grad applicants. I know this, worked in a grad dept, earned a PhD and remained friends with my professor who has several times (by rotation) been chair of dept (not Ivy league school though). In grad applications, a prof taking a liking to your undergrad thesis, or showing an interest in a professor’s work could compensate for low GPA etc but in undergrad, a lowish GPA can be compensated only by stellar ECs that are accepted by an entire committee.</p>
<p>As to Epamin’s comment about grad schools attracting those who have taken many wrong turns, I can attest (small sample here) to supervising MSWs who are just that: ex drug addicts, returning moms, former realtors, etc. Yes, they do bring life experience and diversity but these do not compensate for lack of academic preparation, lack of smarts, etc. Diversity does not equal academic excellence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I’ve been saying, people can be very ignorant. And I believe there’s a joint Brown-RISD program, which feeds to the confusion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Couldn’t say it better myself. MSauce, I don’t know why I put in the word “rapidly” because for people aware of the College’s status as it is now there would be no doubt it’s as prestigious as Columbia’s prestigious grad schools. If your family still treat CC as some provincial backwater, then I’m afraid your views are terribly outdated.</p>
<p>And thanks to wifey, mmmcdowe, and ramaswami for adding to and correcting what I said about grad programs. It must have been late when I wrote about this. I completely forgot about how selective it is to get into a good Ph D program here at Columbia.</p>
<p>I think NYU is a decent institution (I don’t know about rivalry on my part, as I don’t even know any student there). But it’s by no means super, just mediocre.</p>
<p>Final point: I think we should be wary of relating strength of the program to the strength of its individual students, as well as the selectivity to perceived reputation.</p>
<p>You have obviously not seen what it takes to get a PhD in the hard sciences at top schools: MIT, Berekely, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Caltech, etc. While it is an achievement to get into a top school as an undergrad, it is a greater achievement to go to a top school for grad. At this level, you are competing against the top kids in your university as well as the top kids at other top universities for one spot out of twenty, usually. Moreover, the sheer work that is needed is enough to make any asian at MIT cringe: usually top putnam scores–this test is harder than anything you will ever take in your math courses, unless you go to Harvard and take Math55–research, papers, REU’s, and then the obvious stuff like top GRE scores and top GPA’s. For top programs, the professors are not going to pick people because of some arbitrary liking to their disposition; they have a reputation to polish and protect. I’m not sure what sub-par programs you are talking about, but the best programs attract the best students from the university level, not the easy hs level. At this point it doesn’t matter if you went to NYU or Columbia if you get into harvard; here, you both did something amazing at your respective institutions to get to the top spot, and a disparity in rankings does not equal a disparity in intelligence or skill.</p>
<p>disagree with the “undergrad sports league” label… </p>
<p>Ivy League is a NCAA Division I athletics conference, meaning any student enrolled in the school full time (including undergrad or grad students) has 4-year of eligibility. It is not limited to just undergraduate… graduate students can play if they are good and coaches want them… So Ivy League label does apply to graduate students …</p>
<p>You simply cannot make blanket statements about graduate programs and compare them to undergrad. Each grad program is very unique and they look for very different things. I also have a problem with those who suggest that getting something like a master’s in architecture from Columbia is somehow far inferior to being admitted to CC. Most grad school programs are far more self-selecting. An M.Arch program at Columbia is quite an achievement. You actually have to have a proven talent beyond your GPA, SATs, and ECs. You have to have demonstrated ability in the field as you do in many grad programs. In the field of architecture, having an M.Arch from Columbia would be viewed more favorably than a BS from SEAS or a BA from CC… </p>
<p>This is the same in many other fields. To be honest, those who think being admitted to a top undergrad program is your golden ticket for life tend to be high school children without a clue.</p>
<p>wifey, the earliest use of the term referred to “ivy colleges”, the early participants in the sports league were the Colleges, meaning undergrad colleges of the ancient eight. Also, the original charter was of liberal arts colleges, meaning undergrad colleges. I am afraid your answer is too concrete, focusing on some particulars, like grad students participating in the sport and totally missing the abstract element here.</p>