Amherst, Rice or Columbia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

That’s not such a big deal. All 3 have sub 10% admit rate so it comes down to fit.

[Anonymous]

What does your child want to study? Anything science or engineering? Go to Rice. Location: Amherst is a bit more remote than the others. It will be more of a "college town" feel.
Columbia is great, but so large that some first year students can feel overwhelmed and lost if they've come from a very nurturing high school experience (no one is going to keep asking where their assignments are or why they missed class). Large lecture classes are the norm the first two years, more so than at the others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

That’s not such a big deal. All 3 have sub 10% admit rate so it comes down to fit.

Nice spin of stats - Rice's admit rate is more than 2X Columbia's. This is assuming enrolled cohorts are equal, too.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

That’s not such a big deal. All 3 have sub 10% admit rate so it comes down to fit.

Nice spin of stats - Rice's admit rate is more than 2X Columbia's. This is assuming enrolled cohorts are equal, too.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

I believe you were the one using statistics in the first place. Once you get below 10% admit rate there is no significant difference. Other factors then weigh in. That is what I was referring to. So go back to your tent at Columbia and keep reading Mark Twain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

3.8% of freshman admits mingling with a student body composed of 30% older SGS students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

3.8% of freshman admits mingling with a student body composed of 30% older SGS students.

Did you not see the post pointing out the dumb flaw in your point earlier? Do you need it posted again? In summary it was that nearly all elite colleges have programs like SGS so singling out Columbia for it as some kind of insult is stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

That’s not such a big deal. All 3 have sub 10% admit rate so it comes down to fit.

Nice spin of stats - Rice's admit rate is more than 2X Columbia's. This is assuming enrolled cohorts are equal, too.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

I believe you were the one using statistics in the first place.

No, I am a DP, although I admit I did not note that. I was responding to your use of statistics.

Once you get below 10% admit rate there is no significant difference.

This is a claim you are making without any evidence to support it, and one that appears to be subjectively created by you for the convenience of advancing your narrative in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Other factors then weigh in. That is what I was referring to. So go back to your tent at Columbia and keep reading Mark Twain.

That is not the insult to me that you intend. I would never have been admitted to Columbia in my wildest dreams. But coincidentally I do happen to have The Innocents Abroad right here on my desk to start this weekend. Really not sure why reading Mark Twain is an insult.

[Anonymous]

These are three great choices, apart from the fact that one quickly thinks of similar yet more attractive alternatives (Williams is a more quintessential SLAC experience than Amherst; Yale is urban but not as depressing as Columbia; and Duke is like Rice but with better weather and good sports).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

That’s not such a big deal. All 3 have sub 10% admit rate so it comes down to fit.

Nice spin of stats - Rice's admit rate is more than 2X Columbia's. This is assuming enrolled cohorts are equal, too.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

I believe you were the one using statistics in the first place.

No, I am a DP, although I admit I did not note that. I was responding to your use of statistics.

Once you get below 10% admit rate there is no significant difference.

This is a claim you are making without any evidence to support it, and one that appears to be subjectively created by you for the convenience of advancing your narrative in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Other factors then weigh in. That is what I was referring to. So go back to your tent at Columbia and keep reading Mark Twain.

That is not the insult to me that you intend. I would never have been admitted to Columbia in my wildest dreams. But coincidentally I do happen to have The Innocents Abroad right here on my desk to start this weekend. Really not sure why reading Mark Twain is an insult.

Never implied that reading was an insult. In fact, you should probably read more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a close call. I grew up in Houston. Rice is great but doesn't have the international reach of Columbia. Amherst is a wonderful SLAC but Columbia is Ivy. My kid transferred from a top 5ish slac to a top 5 Ivy. Ivy any day, all day. Great outcomes and congrats.

Maybe but Columbia is not a top 5 Ivy.

It pretty much is. At my office, for recruitment, we don’t differentiate between Columbia and the other top ivies. And the kids are no different. Cannot tell them apart

Keep trying. Whether you like it or not, Columbia has gone down in the prestige scale in the recent years. And STEM recruiters would definitely not differentiate between (if not prefer because of better attitudes) a Rice graduate than Columbia.

Columbia is a peer school to Emory et al. Is it a "top Ivy?" Of course not, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There’s HYP.

There’s Columbia and Penn.

And then there’s Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell.

Emory is nowhere near any of those schools. It can hang out with Vanderbilt and Washington U on a good day.

Brown = Cornell > Dartmouth = Penn > Vanderbilt = Columbia = WashU

Columbia dropping friend, read the news

This is funny.

Not really. The Columbia protesters have gold-plated every suspicion skeptics have had about Ivies. For decades, people have been suggesting that Ivies produce what amounts to human veal: overly protected, overly nurtured, impractical, weak.

But it was easy for condescending people to laugh off such accusations….UNTIL the protests.

How can anyone forget that protester demanding that Columbia makes sure that the students occupying Hamilton Hall still have access to their meal-plan food???? With her glassy eyed comrade next to her nodding in agreement??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not a close call. I grew up in Houston. Rice is great but doesn't have the international reach of Columbia. Amherst is a wonderful SLAC but Columbia is Ivy. My kid transferred from a top 5ish slac to a top 5 Ivy. Ivy any day, all day. Great outcomes and congrats.

Maybe but Columbia is not a top 5 Ivy.

It pretty much is. At my office, for recruitment, we don’t differentiate between Columbia and the other top ivies. And the kids are no different. Cannot tell them apart

Keep trying. Whether you like it or not, Columbia has gone down in the prestige scale in the recent years. And STEM recruiters would definitely not differentiate between (if not prefer because of better attitudes) a Rice graduate than Columbia.

Columbia is a peer school to Emory et al. Is it a "top Ivy?" Of course not, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There’s HYP.

There’s Columbia and Penn.

And then there’s Brown, Dartmouth, Cornell.

Emory is nowhere near any of those schools. It can hang out with Vanderbilt and Washington U on a good day.

Brown = Cornell > Dartmouth = Penn > Vanderbilt = Columbia = WashU

Columbia dropping friend, read the news

This is funny.

Not really. The Columbia protesters have gold-plated every suspicion skeptics have had about Ivies. For decades, people have been suggesting that Ivies produce what amounts to human veal: overly protected, overly nurtured, impractical, weak.

But it was easy for condescending people to laugh off such accusations….UNTIL the protests.

How can anyone forget that protester demanding that Columbia makes sure that the students occupying Hamilton Hall still have access to their meal-plan food???? With her glassy eyed comrade next to her nodding in agreement??

When were students ever wrong about what they were fighting for? 1968 Columbia anti-Vietnam protest triggered a nationwide student movement. In 80s and 90s, there were anti-apartheid South Africa protests. Now it's pro-Palesteinian protests against Israel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

That’s not such a big deal. All 3 have sub 10% admit rate so it comes down to fit.

Nice spin of stats - Rice's admit rate is more than 2X Columbia's. This is assuming enrolled cohorts are equal, too.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

I believe you were the one using statistics in the first place.

No, I am a DP, although I admit I did not note that. I was responding to your use of statistics.

Once you get below 10% admit rate there is no significant difference.

This is a claim you are making without any evidence to support it, and one that appears to be subjectively created by you for the convenience of advancing your narrative in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Other factors then weigh in. That is what I was referring to. So go back to your tent at Columbia and keep reading Mark Twain.

That is not the insult to me that you intend. I would never have been admitted to Columbia in my wildest dreams. But coincidentally I do happen to have The Innocents Abroad right here on my desk to start this weekend. Really not sure why reading Mark Twain is an insult.

Never implied that reading was an insult. In fact, you should probably read more!

And you should probably post less. Because in addition to misusing statistics you communicate poorly. There is no other way to interpret the sentence you typed: "So go back to your tent at Columbia and keep reading Mark Twain."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have not dog in this fight, but thing that gives me pause about Columbia is their massive PR machine. The amount of time they spent making up fake data and then trying to discredit their own professor when they were caught is incredible. We see that same kind of spin on this thread.

That’s one of the reasons Columbia’s reputation has declined.

Good point

Declined so much that it accepted 3.8% of applicants this year--more selective than any Ivy other than Harvard. Your kid rather go to Rice or Amherst? Great--that's more room for kids who really want to be there--and there are plenty of them.

That’s not such a big deal. All 3 have sub 10% admit rate so it comes down to fit.

Nice spin of stats - Rice's admit rate is more than 2X Columbia's. This is assuming enrolled cohorts are equal, too.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

I believe you were the one using statistics in the first place.

No, I am a DP, although I admit I did not note that. I was responding to your use of statistics.

Once you get below 10% admit rate there is no significant difference.

This is a claim you are making without any evidence to support it, and one that appears to be subjectively created by you for the convenience of advancing your narrative in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Other factors then weigh in. That is what I was referring to. So go back to your tent at Columbia and keep reading Mark Twain.

That is not the insult to me that you intend. I would never have been admitted to Columbia in my wildest dreams. But coincidentally I do happen to have The Innocents Abroad right here on my desk to start this weekend. Really not sure why reading Mark Twain is an insult.

Never implied that reading was an insult. In fact, you should probably read more!

And you should probably post less. Because in addition to misusing statistics you communicate poorly. There is no other way to interpret the sentence you typed: "So go back to your tent at Columbia and keep reading Mark Twain."

You seem to be quite ignorant and clearly don’t know what you are talking about. As I said, maybe reading more will help with your narrow mindset