Harvard or Columbia - Where would you go?

[Anonymous]

I gad that choice 20 years ago, went to Columbia for the big-city life, never regretted it, got into a T3 law chool anyway and that’s all that matters now.

[Anonymous]

Harvard is so dominant in so many fields, that its hard to argue against it being the best university in the world. That doesn't mean that its the most rigorous/difficult school - its not - nor that its undergraduate students are the best - they're not.

If you talk to people in the specific fields, in reality Harvard is not the outright best.

Law, they may say Yale is stronger
Medicine, they may say Johns Hopkins is stronger
Business, they may say Wharton is stronger
Economics, they may say MIT is stronger
Foreign Affairs, they may say Georgetown or Johns Hopkins is stronger

But like Berkeley, Harvard is among the top 3 (top 5 in Berkeley's case) in an absurd number of non-engineering fields. And for that reason it will always be incredibly prestigious - not because of their undergraduate school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cornell grad here. Eye opening thread. I dread to think about what China thinks about Cornell. Yikes. No Hong Kong investment banks will touch me I guess. Should have worked harder in HS. Will tiger parent my kid to get him into Harvard.

I think the PP on the China post was talking about what the average (uneducated) Chinese knows about American colleges - Harvard. It’s the same way the average (uneducated) American knows everything about the Kardashians and nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Harvard is so dominant in so many fields, that its hard to argue against it being the best university in the world. That doesn't mean that its the most rigorous/difficult school - its not - nor that its undergraduate students are the best - they're not.

If you talk to people in the specific fields, in reality Harvard is not the outright best.

Law, they may say Yale is stronger
Medicine, they may say Johns Hopkins is stronger
Business, they may say Wharton is stronger
Economics, they may say MIT is stronger
Foreign Affairs, they may say Georgetown or Johns Hopkins is stronger

But like Berkeley, Harvard is among the top 3 (top 5 in Berkeley's case) in an absurd number of non-engineering fields. And for that reason it will always be incredibly prestigious - not because of their undergraduate school.

This is a version of how I made my undergrad decision (Harvard vs Wharton). Basically, if you are going to a school for one program and you end up not liking it, what are your options? At the time, my Plan B for Penn did not look interesting/appealing to me. Conversely, there were lots of interesting options at Harvard. Which worked out well for me because I ended up in a different major after getting bored with Economics.

Encourage DC to think about how sure s/he is about Engineering and to start by comparing Engineering programs. But then ask, what if you’re wrong? What would your second choice major @ each school be. If DC is pretty committed to Engineering and prefers Columbia’s program, and finds a comfortable back-up plan, then go for it. But if it’s all murkier than that (and if, for example, DC isn’t really that familiar with what studying engineering would look like), then have DC look more closely at backup plans.

Two more points. ECs at Harvard are as much or more of the education/experience as classes for many undergrads as classes. I wasn’t that kind of kid (ended up an academic, lol), but it’s worth encouraging DC to look at those (at both schools) as well.

And Core curricula are more about enforcing a kind of shared undergrad experience than about what you learn in college or a measure of “rigor.” Basically, anything an undergrad learns @ Columbia in the Core, s/he could take a class in at Harvard. In which case, said undergrad takes the course based on interest rather than because it’s required — and that’s true of others in the course as well. To me, that was preferable. My DC (STEM kid) really liked the idea of a Core because then (in theory) even non-STEM classmates would have basic math/science literacy. So it really comes down to how much of your freedom to choose do you want to give up in exchange for limiting others’ freedom, lol! (There’s also a longer discussion to be had here re Core as Great Books vs surveys for non-majors vs a glimpse into how people trained in other disciplines think vs skills-building seminars (reading, writing, data analysis) for frosh/sophomore, but if people want to have it, that should probably be a separate thread).

[Anonymous]

I know many Harvard alums who thought Harvard was mediocre. I know zero Columbia alums who say that about Columbia, although some said it was a bit intense. I also know a guy who complained that Columbia lacked rah-rah school spirit.

My kid may be in a position to choose between those two. (Maybe not, of course, since even applicants with top grades and scores usually get rejected by both.) Based on my kid's interests and personality, my recommendation would probably be Columbia, not Harvard, even though it's a close call. I also might recommend some of the liberal arts colleges. (By the way, Columbia College is the smallest of the Ivy colleges even though Columbia University is not the smallest of the Ivy League universities.)

I understand the prestige arguments but, after four years, what you did will be much more important than where you did it, at least if Columbia and Harvard are the two options.

I went to Harvard and have family members who went to both.

[Anonymous]

If Columbia SEAS doesn’t work out or the student changes his or her concentration, s/he can transfer to Columbia College. It’s not automatic, but it’s doable. You can have both at Columbia - STEM and humanities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard is so dominant in so many fields, that its hard to argue against it being the best university in the world. That doesn't mean that its the most rigorous/difficult school - its not - nor that its undergraduate students are the best - they're not.

If you talk to people in the specific fields, in reality Harvard is not the outright best.

Law, they may say Yale is stronger
Medicine, they may say Johns Hopkins is stronger
Business, they may say Wharton is stronger
Economics, they may say MIT is stronger
Foreign Affairs, they may say Georgetown or Johns Hopkins is stronger

But like Berkeley, Harvard is among the top 3 (top 5 in Berkeley's case) in an absurd number of non-engineering fields. And for that reason it will always be incredibly prestigious - not because of their undergraduate school.

This is a version of how I made my undergrad decision (Harvard vs Wharton). Basically, if you are going to a school for one program and you end up not liking it, what are your options? At the time, my Plan B for Penn did not look interesting/appealing to me. Conversely, there were lots of interesting options at Harvard. Which worked out well for me because I ended up in a different major after getting bored with Economics.

Encourage DC to think about how sure s/he is about Engineering and to start by comparing Engineering programs. But then ask, what if you’re wrong? What would your second choice major @ each school be. If DC is pretty committed to Engineering and prefers Columbia’s program, and finds a comfortable back-up plan, then go for it. But if it’s all murkier than that (and if, for example, DC isn’t really that familiar with what studying engineering would look like), then have DC look more closely at backup plans.

Two more points. ECs at Harvard are as much or more of the education/experience as classes for many undergrads as classes. I wasn’t that kind of kid (ended up an academic, lol), but it’s worth encouraging DC to look at those (at both schools) as well.

And Core curricula are more about enforcing a kind of shared undergrad experience than about what you learn in college or a measure of “rigor.” Basically, anything an undergrad learns @ Columbia in the Core, s/he could take a class in at Harvard. In which case, said undergrad takes the course based on interest rather than because it’s required — and that’s true of others in the course as well. To me, that was preferable. My DC (STEM kid) really liked the idea of a Core because then (in theory) even non-STEM classmates would have basic math/science literacy. So it really comes down to how much of your freedom to choose do you want to give up in exchange for limiting others’ freedom, lol! (There’s also a longer discussion to be had here re Core as Great Books vs surveys for non-majors vs a glimpse into how people trained in other disciplines think vs skills-building seminars (reading, writing, data analysis) for frosh/sophomore, but if people want to have it, that should probably be a separate thread).

OP here. You hit the nail on the head! My STEM-interested DS was enamored by the idea of Columbia's Core, since he'd rather be surrounded by classmates who appreciated variety as much as he did (as opposed to being, say, the one kid in engineering who's also trying to jam a world history class in). However, as application season rolled on, he wasn't so sure anymore. The Core is definitely a great commitment, and he's concerned that it focuses on parts of the humanities that he's not interested in (literature, ha!). Do you have more insight on this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Cornell grad here. Eye opening thread. I dread to think about what China thinks about Cornell. Yikes. No Hong Kong investment banks will touch me I guess. Should have worked harder in HS. Will tiger parent my kid to get him into Harvard.

No one said Cornell isn't known. It was just a statement that there are a few consistent global brands and Harvard is one along with Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and Stanford.

[Anonymous]

Went to both (as a grad student though).

Harvard -- No contest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornell grad here. Eye opening thread. I dread to think about what China thinks about Cornell. Yikes. No Hong Kong investment banks will touch me I guess. Should have worked harder in HS. Will tiger parent my kid to get him into Harvard.

No one said Cornell isn't known. It was just a statement that there are a few consistent global brands and Harvard is one along with Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and Stanford.

Berkeley is very famous in East Asia.

[Anonymous]

Come on guys... Harvard. There really isn't a question here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Harvard is so dominant in so many fields, that its hard to argue against it being the best university in the world. That doesn't mean that its the most rigorous/difficult school - its not - nor that its undergraduate students are the best - they're not.

If you talk to people in the specific fields, in reality Harvard is not the outright best.

Law, they may say Yale is stronger
Medicine, they may say Johns Hopkins is stronger
Business, they may say Wharton is stronger
Economics, they may say MIT is stronger
Foreign Affairs, they may say Georgetown or Johns Hopkins is stronger

But like Berkeley, Harvard is among the top 3 (top 5 in Berkeley's case) in an absurd number of non-engineering fields. And for that reason it will always be incredibly prestigious - not because of their undergraduate school.

This is a version of how I made my undergrad decision (Harvard vs Wharton). Basically, if you are going to a school for one program and you end up not liking it, what are your options? At the time, my Plan B for Penn did not look interesting/appealing to me. Conversely, there were lots of interesting options at Harvard. Which worked out well for me because I ended up in a different major after getting bored with Economics.

Encourage DC to think about how sure s/he is about Engineering and to start by comparing Engineering programs. But then ask, what if you’re wrong? What would your second choice major @ each school be. If DC is pretty committed to Engineering and prefers Columbia’s program, and finds a comfortable back-up plan, then go for it. But if it’s all murkier than that (and if, for example, DC isn’t really that familiar with what studying engineering would look like), then have DC look more closely at backup plans.

Two more points. ECs at Harvard are as much or more of the education/experience as classes for many undergrads as classes. I wasn’t that kind of kid (ended up an academic, lol), but it’s worth encouraging DC to look at those (at both schools) as well.

And Core curricula are more about enforcing a kind of shared undergrad experience than about what you learn in college or a measure of “rigor.” Basically, anything an undergrad learns @ Columbia in the Core, s/he could take a class in at Harvard. In which case, said undergrad takes the course based on interest rather than because it’s required — and that’s true of others in the course as well. To me, that was preferable. My DC (STEM kid) really liked the idea of a Core because then (in theory) even non-STEM classmates would have basic math/science literacy. So it really comes down to how much of your freedom to choose do you want to give up in exchange for limiting others’ freedom, lol! (There’s also a longer discussion to be had here re Core as Great Books vs surveys for non-majors vs a glimpse into how people trained in other disciplines think vs skills-building seminars (reading, writing, data analysis) for frosh/sophomore, but if people want to have it, that should probably be a separate thread).

OP here. You hit the nail on the head! My STEM-interested DS was enamored by the idea of Columbia's Core, since he'd rather be surrounded by classmates who appreciated variety as much as he did (as opposed to being, say, the one kid in engineering who's also trying to jam a world history class in). However, as application season rolled on, he wasn't so sure anymore. The Core is definitely a great commitment, and he's concerned that it focuses on parts of the humanities that he's not interested in (literature, ha!). Do you have more insight on this?

Not the original PP. Columbia SEASs students are required to fulfill 27 credit hours of core. Students have electives so it should be relatively easy to avoid certain courses. It’s a pared-down core for engineers. Columbia also require a swimming test - but not for engineering students - bc they can build bridges. True.

https://bulletin.engineering.columbia.edu/liberal-arts-core-27-point-nontechnical-requirement

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And Core curricula are more about enforcing a kind of shared undergrad experience than about what you learn in college or a measure of “rigor.” Basically, anything an undergrad learns @ Columbia in the Core, s/he could take a class in at Harvard. In which case, said undergrad takes the course based on interest rather than because it’s required — and that’s true of others in the course as well. To me, that was preferable. My DC (STEM kid) really liked the idea of a Core because then (in theory) even non-STEM classmates would have basic math/science literacy. So it really comes down to how much of your freedom to choose do you want to give up in exchange for limiting others’ freedom, lol! (There’s also a longer discussion to be had here re Core as Great Books vs surveys for non-majors vs a glimpse into how people trained in other disciplines think vs skills-building seminars (reading, writing, data analysis) for frosh/sophomore, but if people want to have it, that should probably be a separate thread).

OP here. You hit the nail on the head! My STEM-interested DS was enamored by the idea of Columbia's Core, since he'd rather be surrounded by classmates who appreciated variety as much as he did (as opposed to being, say, the one kid in engineering who's also trying to jam a world history class in). However, as application season rolled on, he wasn't so sure anymore. The Core is definitely a great commitment, and he's concerned that it focuses on parts of the humanities that he's not interested in (literature, ha!). Do you have more insight on this?

In retrospect, my DC (now a college senior) says I was right. DC got to hear lots of non-STEM classmates bitching endlessly about STEM requirements (esp Chem but also Physics and Calculus) but, in the end, they were no more STEM-savvy than DC’s non-STEM HS friends (makes sense cuz HS basically has a Core for college-bound kids). And DC enjoyed/got more out of the non-Core electives she took in non-STEM fields than she did from her Core courses in arts, humanities, and social sciences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cornell grad here. Eye opening thread. I dread to think about what China thinks about Cornell. Yikes. No Hong Kong investment banks will touch me I guess. Should have worked harder in HS. Will tiger parent my kid to get him into Harvard.

No one said Cornell isn't known. It was just a statement that there are a few consistent global brands and Harvard is one along with Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, and Stanford.

Nobody cares what Asians think about American colleges except other Asians.

[Anonymous]

To put this a different way, Core was more like a continuation of HS (your choice are limited and there’s a lot of overlap in what classmates are taking regardless of their individual interests) and what DC ended up appreciating about college was opportunities to go deep and narrow. So a multi-course sequence on vocal harmonizing vs art appreciation. Linguistics and psych courses vs a soc-anthro-poli sci mash-up course on empirical methods in soc sciences.