<p>I don’t get this person’s hard-on for Stanford…and I also personally don’t care whether individual people think Stanford is better than Columbia. I care whether people in my FIELD value my Columbia PhD, and Stanford doesn’t have a program in my field, so it’s a moot point.</p>
<p>And that’s the thing. When it comes to graduate school, you can’t value one school over another because it’s all program dependent. In addition, I’d like to tell you all now that academic departments don’t use USNWR rankings when hiring doctoral graduates for post-docs and professor positions because the USNWR uses criteria that are not important to them. There are other rankings systems that are more important to academics, and they use intra-industry standards and communication to decide which programs stand out.</p>
<p>@iambth
the times higher education world university rankings puts columbia above stanford
(columbia - 11, stanford - 16) & this is one of the most highly regarded rankings in the world.
prestige, and academic reputation is nothing more than a question of perspective and while those who believe that stanford is more prestigious than columbia may outnumber those who dont (by a very slight margin)…there are many who believe columbia is absolutely awesome! and with very good reason.</p>
<p>so iambth why dont you at least make a concerted effort to get over your massive inferiority complex. Your insecurity is pathetic. Why dont you make better use of your ‘stellar’ stanford education and perhaps find more interesting things to do in the tremendously social stanford scene (as praised by you in several columbia vs stanford threads) ??</p>
<p>Judging by the fact that Columbia has had more Nobel laureates than ANY other college, 4 Presidents, 9 cheif justices, 101 pulitzers and more than 25 oscars…columbia graduates obviously knew how to make better use of their education than you probably ever will.</p>
<p>Columbia doesn’t hold a candle to Stanford. The Farm has produced exponentially more Rhodes Scholars, Goldwater Scholars, Marshall Scholars, Truman Scholars and Fullbright Scholars than Columbia.</p>
<p>In addition, Stanford sends a lot more students to the top law, med and biz schools than Columbia does and it’s not even close.</p>
<p>I personally think you all are breaking this down too much. In my opinion, I think it’s more important where someone gets their graduate degree, considering their major or career path. Lawyers and doctors are typically asked and judged where they got their law and medical degrees, respectively. The same goes for those who have Phds and MBAs. If two people both graduated from Harvard Law School, I would personally judge both of those lawyers the same way, even if one of them went to a state school for undergrad and the other went to Harvard College. I guess my point is that I would personally be impressed by someone who went to an Ivy League or top grad school rather than undergrad school.</p>
<p>^you’re talking about what people ultimately look for, which is where you received your last / professional degree. In this case going from local school –> Columbia grad is far far better than going columbia college —> local school grad. However, this almost never happens for columbia undergrad alums (same for other top schools). However on which is more exclusive, and harder to get into, I’d say Columbia med > Columbia Phd (for most fields) > Columbia law > Columbia Undergrad > Columbia business > All other columbia masters (like teacher’s college, public health, sipa etc.) </p>
<p>For most research univs it’s similar, for harvard it would be: med > phd > law > undergrad > business > other programs</p>
<p>stanford would be: med > phd > engineering masters > law > business > undergrad > other</p>
<p>yale would be: law > med > undergrad = phd > business > other masters</p>
<p>at U Mich it’s probably a bigger achievement to get into most grad / professional schools than it is to get into undergrad.</p>
<p>I won’t deny that Stanford is a better overall univ, but those are some pretty specialized comparisons. I too could cherry pick comparisons in which stanford fares worse like SAT scores of the incoming class, Nobel prize winners, research rankings.</p>
<p>Keep in mind that the WSJ survey does not count Stanford’s (top 2) business and (top 3) law schools in its analysis. Otherwise, the gap between Stanford and Columbia widens.</p>
<p>So I imagine that (the top) Stanford students have higher LSATs/MCATs/GMATs than (the top) Columbia students. Also, Stanford does not leave out the (generally lower) SAT scores of their “non-traditional” students like Columbia. (The SAT scores for Columbia’s GS students are reported separately.)</p>
<p>Oh, where to begin? You realize that the THES-QS rankings are an absolute joke, right?
They’re not even “highly regarded” by British educators themselves who acknowledge that Stanford is severely underranked:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Volatility” is another reason why the THES-QS rankings are a joke: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you know that in 2004-06 that Stanford was ranked #7, #5, #6 and that Columbia was ranked #19, #20, #12? Do you still think that the THES-QS should be “highly regarded?” Nothing changed about the two universities, only the (highly questionable) methodology.</p>
<p>Unless you specify which of the Nobel laureates, Presidents, Chief Justices, Pulitzer and Oscar winners are undergraduate vs. graduate alumni, your “analysis” is utterly irrelevant and meaningless. And for the Nobels, how many of them were awarded to faculty who did the bulk of their work at Columbia? How many were of those Nobels were won by faculty while they were at Columbia? Finally, how many of them were given to people who are merely “affiliated” with Columbia in some sort of capacity? </p>
<p>Keep in mind that Columbia won most of its Nobels prior to the late sixties when the school started to go drastically downhill and Stanford emerged from a regional backwater into a world-class institution. Would you like to count how many Nobel Prizes Stanford has earned opposed to Columbia since the 1970’s?</p>
<p>Of the “4” Columbia Presidents, only one is an undergraduate (transfer) alumni. Stanford has one alum too. The other three came from Columbia law, which has been replaced by Stanford law in the “holy trinity” of legal education. Of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, how many were Columbia undergraduate vs. law school alumni? Since the 1970’s, Stanford can go head-to-head with Columbia when it comes to the highest court in the land. (Ginsberg transferred down from Harvard to Columbia law only because her husband got reject by HLS and had to settle for CLS. So there’s one of your nine.)</p>
<p>And you have to be kidding me about the Pulitzers, no? Columbia has a graduate journalism school and Stanford only has a “program.” So of course, Columbia would have more (mostly) graduate alumni who’ve won the Pulitzer, especially since it is Columbia who hands out the Pulitzers in the first place. With respect to the Oscars, NYU, USC and UCLA alumni have won lots of those as well. So what?</p>
<p>CORRECTION: Ginsburg’s husband did NOT get rejected from HLS. As a matter of fact, he graduated from there. The reason why Ginsburg (unfortunately) transferred down from HLS to Columbia law was apparently because her husband got a job in NYC. (This was in the 1950’s, mind you.)</p>
<p>P.S. In the preceding post, I meant only ONE alumnUS, not “alumni.”</p>
<p>all those nobel laureates were affiliated with columbia in some major way right? their research was wither conducted at columbia? or thier columbia education/resources made use of in some major way.
the same methodology for determining nobel laureates (in affiliation) were used for stanford and stanford obviously fell very far behind.
the point about all those awards is that columbia alumni have done exceedingly well in every possible field! (which is why i made the point about oscars) o surely 'iambth’s claim that stanford trumps columbia in breadth and depth is redundant.</p>
<p>secondly…the fact that columbia has a very good journalism school only supplements its strength as a university. and thats my point.</p>
<p>lastly - whats the point of researching why someone attended columbia and what the circumstances were. the fact remains that all those presidents were columbia alumni in some form or the other. but basically people who enjoyed a ‘columbia university’ education.
jfk transfered from princeton to harvard. but i dont see yale people going on about how he dint really want to go to harvard or something. how does it matter why ginsberg went to columbia law. the fact remains that he did! and did well for himself after.</p>
<p>& cmon. surely nobel prizes, pulitzers etc are greater, more universally acknowledged yardsticks for success in the long run than rhodes scholarships, flubrights etc.
(northwestern was number one last year in fulbright scholarships but i dont hear nw kids going on about how much better nw is than stanford…)</p>
<p>stanford is a great school and no ones disputing that. i personally believe however that columbia is at par with it or perhaps better and im sure that theres quite a few who would agree with me.</p>
<p>what i dont get is why its so absolutely vital for stanford kids do go on like ‘columbia doesnt even compare’…‘were better than columbia for sure’ etc etc.</p>
<p>all you portray by doing that is a lot of deep stemmed insecurity.</p>
<p>My original point was that Stanford undergrad > Columbia undergrad. But let me add a few more points:</p>
<p>Stanford PhD > Columbia PhD
Stanford law > Columbia law
Stanford biz > Columbia biz
Stanford eng > Columbia eng
Stanford med > or = Columbia med</p>
<p>No, Stanford had a later start. Columbia was the superior research institution up until the 1960’s. Stanford has been and will be the superior research institution going forward. Stanford receives more research funding, raises more money (in absolute and per capita terms) from alumni and has more financial resources (aka endowment) at its disposal.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s painfully obvious that you have no clue who Ginsburg is. I thought the part about HER having a HUSBAND might have clued you in. Oh well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why don’t you start small with a Fulbright and work your way up to a Nobel and then we’ll talk, okay? Also, Rhodes >>> Pulitzer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Your personal beliefs don’t matter. I could “personally believe” that NYU is “at par or perhaps better” than Columbia. Does that make it so?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You dug up an over-a-month-old thread just to launch ad hominem attacks against someone who said that his or her school is more prestigious than yours. So who really has “a lot of deep stemmed insecurity?”</p>
<p>Well, objobs, how did the question of Stanford even come up? This is after all the COLUMBIA forum, a topic restricted entirely to COLUMBIA, comparing COLUMBIA’s undergraduate program to COLUMBIA’s graduate program. Stanford is nowhere near this topic.</p>
<p>It was brought in by a Stanford student trying to bash Columbia for no good reason whatsoever. Given that this forum is frequented by students, alumni and others affiliated with Columbia it is not entirely unreasonable on their part to try and defend their school from irrational, unmerited and unprovoked attacks. Their reaction is perfectly understandable - but yours is not. Why should a Stanford student hijack a thread dedicated to an entirely different topic and turn into a debate about which is the better school? Actually, that is not what has been done either. Just putting Stanford on a pedestal at the expense of Columbia.</p>
<p>Both Stanford and Columbia are perfectly fine institutions and there is no need to debate about which is better than which, especially on a thread that does not even reference this! To any observers, it would appear that Stanford students are more insecure than Columbia students. Do Stanford students truly feel the need, the urge to go on other forums and sing the praises of their institution, cite all the ways Stanford is better than XYZ College (whether or not these claims are factual) solely to make themselves feel better about their choice of institution? I don’t see Columbia students doing that, anywhere.</p>
<p>Stanford is certainly a great college but you do it no credit.</p>
<p>damm objobs - if only you werent so slow on the uptake…</p>
<p>it doesnt matter who ginsburg was/is wtvr cuz it doesnt take away from columbia law one bit that she decided to transfer there. & my point was it definitely didnt do her any harm. </p>
<p>secondly, as someone going to columbia this year i would occupy myselves with threads regarding columbia (which you obviously seem to overlook everytime you happen to post here) and hence i dint bother to dig up this thread to launch an attack against stanfordians.
(damm something like that would be such an ‘iamtbh’ and ‘objobs’ thing to do).</p>
<p>& btw thanks for putting in bold yoda’s only slightly provocative comment. after an entire paragraph of trying to put across how its only unfair to be so absolute when speaking of prestige, and suggesting the few on the east coast who believe that columbia is more prestigious than stanford are entitled to do so; you chose to embolden the only words (completely out of perspective) to make yourself seem somewhat reasonable.
your pathetic man.</p>
<p>and lastly spare me the nonsense about how ‘YOU’ feel that all stanford grad schools are better than all columbia grad schools. cuz ‘YOUR’ opinion about columbia does not matter. </p>
<p>as a future freshman im proud to be going to what for me, is the best school in every possible way. its my college. so ‘MY’ opinion does matter.</p>
<p>man…being happy, proud and spirited about the college you attend is so important for college life. but in a healthy way!
posting on other colleges forums, trying to say your college is better in every possible way (even if it possibly is) is definitely not cool man. thats insecurity - (which you really shouldnt have -you go to stanford for gods sake!)</p>
<p>& before you spend another day trying to dissect everything i say and refute any errors i may have made. just try being a little happy about yourself and your college and give this a break!</p>
<p>take columbia’s athletes out and I’m sure you’ll see the same result, just as many D1 teams and athletes at Columbia. And Stanford is notorious for being more holistic, any facts to back this up or just a feeling? this is every school’s reason for lower sat scores, Columbia just as much.</p>
<p>And SAT scores are really relevant for GS students aren’t they.</p>
<p>It’s one thing to argue that Stanford is overall a better university, which most here will generally agree with, but to say/agree that Columbia doesn’t hold a candle to Stanford sounds fairly insecure.</p>
<p>Finally on where people choose to attend college, telling someone to blindly choose Stanford because it’s God’s gift to humanity and because Columbia doesn’t hold a candle to it, is pretty counter-productive and makes you look ignorant. I think Columbia is better than Swarthmore, Brown and Cornell but I would never tell someone to attend Columbia over any of those schools because of prestige or because Columbia is a better university. Those schools do hold a candle to Columbia and Stanford or Yale as well.</p>
<p>Also the initial statement that many in the north east think Columbia is more prestigious than Stanford is absolutely true. I personally don’t think so, but it is a common opinion.</p>
<p>No offense, but Columbia athletes do not belong on the same playing field as Stanford athletes. Stanford has won the Director’s Cup (for overall athletic excellence) 15 consecutive years running. To the Beijing Olympics, Stanford sent more athletes, won more (gold and overall) medals than any other university in the world. If Stanford were treated as a separate country, it would’ve placed in the top ten in medal count. Annually, Stanford football players compete against the likes of USC and Notre Dame; Stanford basketball players compete against the likes of UCLA and Arizona. The Stanford women’s basketball team has made it to three consecutive Final Fours. And so on…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stanford has a 72% yield without relying on the crutch of Early Decision. You don’t think Stanford could admit and enroll higher SAT scorers if that were its intent? Columbia could probably try to enroll higher scorers too; but then its yield would have trouble remaining above 50%.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps, except for the fact that I never told anyone to “blindly” choose Stanford over Columbia. Nor did I say Stanford is God’s gift to humanity. I did agree, however, with another poster that Columbia doesn’t hold a candle to Stanford. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, CC polls are very “scientific.” Apparently, there’s one going around that says Harvard loses cross-admits to Yale.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Did you really go through the entire 24-page thread and count everyone’s “votes?” Maybe I’m cynical, but this doesn’t exactly scream security.</p>