3+2 Engineering Programs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My DS considered 3-2 programs, but was advised by several engineers that he would miss out on critical research and engineering competition opportunities (e.g., solar car). He's now a junior engineering major and we can appreciate the wisdom of that advice. His participation in two major research projects has been a highlight of his educational experience. As a result, he's a very strong candidate for top grad school programs.

+1

There are several very good small engineering schools. Look at Clarkson University. Students are immersed in engineering from day one which produces really quality engineers. It's also a full research institution with lots of opportunities for research.

[Anonymous]

Clarkson vs Columbia ..... Seriously?

Columbia is a better engineering school. Plus, if you decide you do not want to be an engineer your whole life you are well positioned for B school and law school. Also, there is a much wider range of job opportunities coming out of Columbia. For on campus recruiting we had not only all the top tech companies come on campus but also the investment banks and mgmt consulting firms.

With the 3/2 program you get a BA and a BS, which means you have to take the core humanities classes as well as core engineering. 3/2 has done me very well and I would highly recommend it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DS planning something similar. 3/4 undergrad years at a smaller school (probably 4 as he wants to study abroad and also graduate with his class) and then 3 years at Fordham Law (guaranteed admission with a 3.5 and good LSATs)

I asked why more don't do it and the chair said kids need to know coming in so they can plan classes accordingly to get everything in. Also the expectations are high so there can be no screwing around. Many college kids aren't that focused.

OP here: thanks for everyone's input. I can imagine that it takes not only careful planning, but a real focus on the end goal. It's certainly not for everyone, but for a few students who find/plan this route, I can see how it can be advantageous. Certainly something to consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did it and it was a great decision.

I spent 3 years at a state school and then 2 at a private engineering school (Columbia U. SEAS). I have a degree from Columbia and only paid 2 years of Columbia tuition!

I would not have been accepted to Columbia out of high school because I didn't become a good student until college. At the state school, I studies physics and got mostly A's in all my science and math classes.

Did they make you take CC or Lit Hum, or did you get those credits to transfer from the other school?

There is no Core Curriculum, housing is segregated off campus, and they don't guarantee meeting full financial need - hints of its odd backdoor status at Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is no Core Curriculum, housing is segregated off campus, and they don't guarantee meeting full financial need - hints of its odd backdoor status at Columbia.

What a bizarre post.

We were not "segregated" (and why use such a loaded term that has such a negative connotation?). As I explained in my previous post, many 3/2 students lived in a Columbia owned apartment building converted to dorms on Riverside Dr. with a great view of Riverside Park. My suite-mates were mostly grad students from all different parts of the University -- History PhD candidate , a poet in the school of Journalism, SIPA, Harriman Institute, architecture. It was a great experience. I would hardly consider this "segregated." I did not feel at all isolated and I'm sorry if that was your experience. Where would you expect the school to put us --- the freshman dorms on campus? That would be ridiculous because we were essentially seniors by the time we got to Columbia having completed 3 years at another school. I was very happy with the housing situation and I was even able to make friends with some of those who went through the front door (but perhaps they took pity on me for my "backdoor" status).

Yes, there was no Core Curriculum requirement. But that was the point. We were at Columbia for the Engineering school. The three years I spent at the small, liberal arts state college gave me plenty of opportunity to take "Core Curriculum" required classes (in fact, I was required to take Western Civ, humanities, history, music..).

What schools guarantee financial aid? In any event, I applied for aid and got student loans like everyone else.

I am thankful to this day for this "backdoor" opportunity to attend and get a degree from Columbia. If my entry through the backdoor offends you, then it seems like you have a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no Core Curriculum, housing is segregated off campus, and they don't guarantee meeting full financial need - hints of its odd backdoor status at Columbia.

What a bizarre post.

We were not "segregated" (and why use such a loaded term that has such a negative connotation?). As I explained in my previous post, many 3/2 students lived in a Columbia owned apartment building converted to dorms on Riverside Dr. with a great view of Riverside Park. My suite-mates were mostly grad students from all different parts of the University -- History PhD candidate , a poet in the school of Journalism, SIPA, Harriman Institute, architecture. It was a great experience. I would hardly consider this "segregated." I did not feel at all isolated and I'm sorry if that was your experience. Where would you expect the school to put us --- the freshman dorms on campus? That would be ridiculous because we were essentially seniors by the time we got to Columbia having completed 3 years at another school. I was very happy with the housing situation and I was even able to make friends with some of those who went through the front door (but perhaps they took pity on me for my "backdoor" status).

Yes, there was no Core Curriculum requirement. But that was the point. We were at Columbia for the Engineering school. The three years I spent at the small, liberal arts state college gave me plenty of opportunity to take "Core Curriculum" required classes (in fact, I was required to take Western Civ, humanities, history, music..).

What schools guarantee financial aid? In any event, I applied for aid and got student loans like everyone else.

I am thankful to this day for this "backdoor" opportunity to attend and get a degree from Columbia. If my entry through the backdoor offends you, then it seems like you have a problem.

Thanks your input PP. Very helpful!

[Anonymous]

My friend did this. We attended a tiny private LAC that was very focused on the environment. She did her liberal arts distribution classes and a bunch of science and math while there. Then she did her final 2 years at a state school with a strong engineering program. For her, she really wanted that liberal arts experience while majoring in engineering. Worked well for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no Core Curriculum, housing is segregated off campus, and they don't guarantee meeting full financial need - hints of its odd backdoor status at Columbia.

What a bizarre post.

We were not "segregated" (and why use such a loaded term that has such a negative connotation?). As I explained in my previous post, many 3/2 students lived in a Columbia owned apartment building converted to dorms on Riverside Dr. with a great view of Riverside Park. My suite-mates were mostly grad students from all different parts of the University -- History PhD candidate , a poet in the school of Journalism, SIPA, Harriman Institute, architecture. It was a great experience. I would hardly consider this "segregated." I did not feel at all isolated and I'm sorry if that was your experience. Where would you expect the school to put us --- the freshman dorms on campus? That would be ridiculous because we were essentially seniors by the time we got to Columbia having completed 3 years at another school. I was very happy with the housing situation and I was even able to make friends with some of those who went through the front door (but perhaps they took pity on me for my "backdoor" status).

Yes, there was no Core Curriculum requirement. But that was the point. We were at Columbia for the Engineering school. The three years I spent at the small, liberal arts state college gave me plenty of opportunity to take "Core Curriculum" required classes (in fact, I was required to take Western Civ, humanities, history, music..).

What schools guarantee financial aid? In any event, I applied for aid and got student loans like everyone else.

I am thankful to this day for this "backdoor" opportunity to attend and get a degree from Columbia. If my entry through the backdoor offends you, then it seems like you have a problem.

Columbia guarantees meeting full financial need and no loans to all other CC and SEAS students. Other transfer students to Engineering take the required half of the Core because its the centerpiece of the Columbia undergraduate curriculum and academic community/experience. And, segregated means that they are not housed with any other CC and SEAS students.

I applaud the students who go through the program. My complaint is more with Columbia SEAS and its partner colleges using 3-2 as a marketing tool and revenue source. If SEAS believed in the program, it would "integrate" it with the rest of the undergraduate program and standards and use part of Columbia's $9B endowment to support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no Core Curriculum, housing is segregated off campus, and they don't guarantee meeting full financial need - hints of its odd backdoor status at Columbia.

What a bizarre post.

We were not "segregated" (and why use such a loaded term that has such a negative connotation?). As I explained in my previous post, many 3/2 students lived in a Columbia owned apartment building converted to dorms on Riverside Dr. with a great view of Riverside Park. My suite-mates were mostly grad students from all different parts of the University -- History PhD candidate , a poet in the school of Journalism, SIPA, Harriman Institute, architecture. It was a great experience. I would hardly consider this "segregated." I did not feel at all isolated and I'm sorry if that was your experience. Where would you expect the school to put us --- the freshman dorms on campus? That would be ridiculous because we were essentially seniors by the time we got to Columbia having completed 3 years at another school. I was very happy with the housing situation and I was even able to make friends with some of those who went through the front door (but perhaps they took pity on me for my "backdoor" status).

Yes, there was no Core Curriculum requirement. But that was the point. We were at Columbia for the Engineering school. The three years I spent at the small, liberal arts state college gave me plenty of opportunity to take "Core Curriculum" required classes (in fact, I was required to take Western Civ, humanities, history, music..).

What schools guarantee financial aid? In any event, I applied for aid and got student loans like everyone else.

I am thankful to this day for this "backdoor" opportunity to attend and get a degree from Columbia. If my entry through the backdoor offends you, then it seems like you have a problem.

Columbia guarantees meeting full financial need and no loans to all other CC and SEAS students. Other transfer students to Engineering take the required half of the Core because its the centerpiece of the Columbia undergraduate curriculum and academic community/experience. And, segregated means that they are not housed with any other CC and SEAS students.

I applaud the students who go through the program. My complaint is more with Columbia SEAS and its partner colleges using 3-2 as a marketing tool and revenue source. If SEAS believed in the program, it would "integrate" it with the rest of the undergraduate program and standards and use part of Columbia's $9B endowment to support it.

"If SEAS <<believed>> in the program..." What exactly is it you are trying to say? The 3/2 program was not make-believe, it was real. Are you trying to say that there is little value in attending the Columbia SEAS 3/2 because SEAS uses it as a revenue source and doesn't give full financial aid to the 3/2 students? Again, this is bizarre.

Yes, it is true, we were housed with other 3/2 students and grad students. But, so what? I spent a large amount of time with other SEAS students in class and out of class. Why is the fact that we didn't live with them such big deal. In fact, I recall being acquainted with several SEAS students who commuted to the school from other parts of the city. What you don't seem to get is that we already had 3 years of college under our belts, effectively making us Seniors. How many students still live in dorms when they are Seniors?

With respect to the Core, of which you obsess, once again I will repeat that all of us 3/2 students spent THREE YEARS getting a liberal arts education -- i.e., three years of humanities, arts, etc. along with our science classes (mine was Physics). We did not go to columbia for the Core, we went for the Engineering. Why does that not compute with you?

One last point, the ENGINEERING eduction I received at Columbia was no different than the one received by the "normal" SEAS students. For two years, we 3/2 students and the "normal" SEAS student suffered through class TOGETHER. The 3/2 students more than held their own against the "normal" SEAS students. When I attended, the Electrical Engineering Honor Society (Eta Kappa Nu) was led by two 3/2 students (me being one of the two).

Would I have loved to have received more direct financial aid? Yes. But, the fact that I didn't and the fact that I had to find a Work-Study job, didn't lessen my experience (if anything, my Work-Study job assisting the Math department manage its computer network gave me great work experience).

Are you a CC grad who doesn't like the fact that my diploma says Columbia University, but I never took the Core?

[Anonymous]

I was just looking at the Columbia 3/2 program a couple weeks ago with my DC, who is ADHD, but graduating from TJ, probably in the 25-50% with a senior engineering lab. He's strong in humanities, and I like the idea of him going to a small LAC like Davidson for 3 years, doing the core classes and getting a degree in anything her wants, then finishing at Columbia. I'l afraid he will get lost at a large school his first couple of years. Plus, if he could get a merit scholarship to an LAC that does the 3/2 program, we could pay for 2 years at Columbia-- but would be hard pressed to pay for 4, even if he could get in.

PP who have BTDT-- good move or bad idea? It seems win-win given his circumstances. But I don't know if it works IRL. Advice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clarkson vs Columbia ..... Seriously?

Columbia is a better engineering school. Plus, if you decide you do not want to be an engineer your whole life you are well positioned for B school and law school. Also, there is a much wider range of job opportunities coming out of Columbia. For on campus recruiting we had not only all the top tech companies come on campus but also the investment banks and mgmt consulting firms.

With the 3/2 program you get a BA and a BS, which means you have to take the core humanities classes as well as core engineering. 3/2 has done me very well and I would highly recommend it.

Perhaps start by comparing Clarkson to the liberal arts component of the 3/2. I promise you that you'll learn more about engineering at Clarkson. It's a totally immersive environment with great faculty and cutting edge research. After a great undergrad experience, you can go on to get your MS in 18 months at Columbia or the ilk on a fully funded TA or RA. I also know many who also went on to top law or business programs. No problem.

If you want to talk about Faust or Chaucer with your suitmates over dinner, then go to the SLAC. If you want to spend dinner hours brainstorming the next winning solar race car design or debating the tipping point at which battery power will take over the car industry, go to Clarkson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was just looking at the Columbia 3/2 program a couple weeks ago with my DC, who is ADHD, but graduating from TJ, probably in the 25-50% with a senior engineering lab. He's strong in humanities, and I like the idea of him going to a small LAC like Davidson for 3 years, doing the core classes and getting a degree in anything her wants, then finishing at Columbia. I'l afraid he will get lost at a large school his first couple of years. Plus, if he could get a merit scholarship to an LAC that does the 3/2 program, we could pay for 2 years at Columbia-- but would be hard pressed to pay for 4, even if he could get in.

PP who have BTDT-- good move or bad idea? It seems win-win given his circumstances. But I don't know if it works IRL. Advice?

I'm the PP who has BTDT (full disclosure - - it was about 30 years ago!, but it doesn't seem that long ago).

Here were the benefits I got out of it:
1) Degree from Columbia SEAS, but only paying Columbia tuition for 2 years (my first three years were at a small state liberal arts college that was an order of magnitude cheaper than Columbia);
2) The "backdoor" was what I needed -- I would not have been accepted to the SEAS out of high school (played too much in high school, but worked butt off in College to improve my situation);
3) There were a large number of 3/2 students in my class and most (maybe all) we were placed in the same housing, thereby making it easy to make friends quickly (a PP on here essentially called the 3/2 housing a "ghetto" since we were, in his/her words, "segregated" from the other SEAS students);
4) Living in NYC ("if you can make it there ..." ); and
5) its Columbia.

Admittedly, as a PP noted previously, it could have been improved -- specifically, if it was free (or cost less) I would have liked it even more. But this probably applies to any school. Also, there may be some who think a Columbia SEAS 3/2 degree is a fraud since 3/2 students do not have to take the required Core Curriculum, which has been described as "the centerpiece of the Columbia undergraduate curriculum and academic community/experience." In my experience, however, most people could not care less that I didn't do the Core.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

There is no Core Curriculum, housing is segregated off campus, and they don't guarantee meeting full financial need - hints of its odd backdoor status at Columbia.

What a bizarre post.

We were not "segregated" (and why use such a loaded term that has such a negative connotation?). As I explained in my previous post, many 3/2 students lived in a Columbia owned apartment building converted to dorms on Riverside Dr. with a great view of Riverside Park. My suite-mates were mostly grad students from all different parts of the University -- History PhD candidate , a poet in the school of Journalism, SIPA, Harriman Institute, architecture. It was a great experience. I would hardly consider this "segregated." I did not feel at all isolated and I'm sorry if that was your experience. Where would you expect the school to put us --- the freshman dorms on campus? That would be ridiculous because we were essentially seniors by the time we got to Columbia having completed 3 years at another school. I was very happy with the housing situation and I was even able to make friends with some of those who went through the front door (but perhaps they took pity on me for my "backdoor" status).

Yes, there was no Core Curriculum requirement. But that was the point. We were at Columbia for the Engineering school. The three years I spent at the small, liberal arts state college gave me plenty of opportunity to take "Core Curriculum" required classes (in fact, I was required to take Western Civ, humanities, history, music..).

What schools guarantee financial aid? In any event, I applied for aid and got student loans like everyone else.

I am thankful to this day for this "backdoor" opportunity to attend and get a degree from Columbia. If my entry through the backdoor offends you, then it seems like you have a problem.

Thanks your input PP. Very helpful!

At least in my day, the engineering students didn't take the full core, but were required to take either cc or lit hum, hence my question.

It is my observation that the 3/2 programs are reasonable for the kids that are interested in the business side of engineering. The ones who want to blow stuff up, make machines, or are otherwise likely to want opportunities to be on projects or in labs... well this bunch is better going straight to engineering school.

I lived in one of those off campus apts. it seems clear from this person's description that the 3/2 experience was more like going to grad school than undergrad. A fine experience, but not the college scene. If a person is looking for the college experience the last two years, perhaps. 3/2 isn't the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: it seems clear from this person's description that the 3/2 experience was more like going to grad school than undergrad. A fine experience, but not the college scene. If a person is looking for the college experience the last two years, perhaps. 3/2 isn't the way.

Not sure what you mean by "college scene," but for nerdy engineers I'd like to think we did our fair share of partying and hooking-up -- the EEs less so, the Industrial Engineers and Civil Engineers more so.

My first year, most of my suite mates were grad students. So, not much heavy partying in my suite that year, but we did hang out in the common area and there were the other suites that had mostly 3/2 students and more of the parties.

Plus, even if the 2 years of Columbia was not the "college scene" (it felt like college to me), I certainly got a steady three years of the "college scene" before Columbia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It is my observation that the 3/2 programs are reasonable for the kids that are interested in the business side of engineering. The ones who want to blow stuff up, make machines, or are otherwise likely to want opportunities to be on projects or in labs... well this bunch is better going straight to engineering school.

I agree with the first part statement, but not the second.

I would also say that 3/2 programs are equally reasonable for the kids that are interested in the engineering side of engineering. At graduation, one could not distinguish the 3/2 students from the straight students as we took the same hard-core Engineering classes.

I took the business side of engineering route. After graduation, I got a job in a management training program. My best friend, however, took the engineering side of engineering route. He ended-up with PhD from Stanford and is working as an engineer for a premier tech company in Silicon Valley.