Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The website states that they have to finish their BA requirements from Trinity at Columbia in their third year. You don't get a BA immediately after the two years there.

Who cares

Op's kid, presumably.

Anonymous wrote:The website states that they have to finish their BA requirements from Trinity at Columbia in their third year. You don't get a BA immediately after the two years there.

Who cares

The website states that they have to finish their BA requirements from Trinity at Columbia in their third year. You don't get a BA immediately after the two years there.

I'm the 00:42 PP.

You should be aware that the approach to studying and taking classes at European universities, including Trinity, is quite different, than at a typical US university.

I went to Trinity's history department site and looked up the courses on offer. Below is a typical one for freshmen. Read it carefully.

https://www.tcd.ie/history/undergraduate/modules/freshman/popes-kings-crusaders.php

While the subject is interesting, note the following:

Contact Hours: 2 lectures per week and 6 seminars over the course of the term - this means you're sitting in a large lecture hall taking notes, and during the term you will also have six seminars, which are smaller groups usually led by a graduate student where you discuss the subject. Compared to a typical Ivy league course this is much more listening to a droning professor and taking notes, and less open discussion (a term is approximately three months, so that's roughly a seminar every two weeks).

Assessment: 20% essay, 80% examination - oooh! This is very critical. While it doesn't tell you the frequency of examinations but based on my experiences with British universities, the vast majority of your grade is based on the final examination. This 80% could very well be exactly one exam at the end of the course. By comparison a typical US history course will have more frequent essays/papers, shorter assignments and quizzes/mid-term exams. The final exam, while important, isn't so heavily weighed. The ratio between papers and exams is more balanced.

What does this tell you? It tells you that European universities really do expect their students to take far greater responsibility for their studies and far less hands holding. There's pros and cons to this. The pro is that it forces greater discipline, the con is that so much of your grade rests on the final examination and blowing the final for various reasons is too common. And the con is also that it forces a "cramming" approach to studies, which is not always beneficial. In theory a typical student at Trinity or UK or European university spends most of the term reading their assignments (and you in theory do read a lot) and attending the lectures) but that structure too easily lends itself to blowing off your studies till the final weeks and cramming to catch up. Having experienced both an Ivy undergraduate and studies at British universities, I found the American education approach as at the Ivies more consistent and balanced throughout the semester with less of a counter productive crunch towards the end, it was just more well-rounded altogether. Last, but not least, grading standards tend to be different. Not better, but different. The idea is that an A equivalent grade is rarely given out so the equivalents of Bs are the equivalent of As at American universities. http://www.globalinksabroad.org/upload/gud/program/program_guide549.pdf and it may have an impact on the GPA if the school doesn't weigh it when converting it to Columbia grades.

By the way, I am also intrigued by how it's possible to two BAs in only four years? If you start at Trinity and study, say, history, do you only study the history courses for two years, and then when you get to Columbia, you have to catch up with the rest of the distribution requirements that your peers have likely already finished with in their first two years? I wonder what the implications are for the last two years at Columbia? Just a thought. It seems to be a brand new program.

That is tough.

2 degrees and 2 great schools plus going to Europe are all perks. Having more international friends and connections. Able to travel Europe those 2 years on time off.

But....

Staying at one school all 4 years gives you a true community, alumni feel, more options to change majors, more close friendships, and probably less stress. Raveling home the first two years would be tough too. Would almost want Columbia first to get her feet wet.

I guess it depends on your daughter. Is she more a loner with various friends, traveler, individual hard worker or do you think she would be happier in a true community with life long friends and family close by for 4 years.

Either way - congrats. Amazing opportunities.

Actually, the weakest academic programs, based off global rankings, are at Dartmouth. Sorry to break it to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(it's 2 years in Dublin then 2 years at Columbia, she gets a BA from both)

I would go with Columbia/Trinity. It is a stronger and more prestigious school than Brown and Trinity is also a top uni in Europe, not weaker than Brown objectively speaking. Brown is is really overrated, it is objectively the worst ivy and no one would be mentioning it in the same sentence as Columbia or most other elites if it didn't have the ivy league tag.

All that said provided that DC doesnt have a stronger preference for Brown. if he/she is really in love with Brown then you could go with the best fit and where he/she is happiest. Brown provides an excellent education as well.

Ah, it's the Brown hater again. Why is Brown objectively the worst Ivy and really overrated?

Trinity is a fine university but it's not a "top" university in Europe. There are plenty of other "better" universities. The Irish university model doesn't work quite like the US universities so you should be careful before attributing too much prestige or merit to Trinity simply because it's likely the only Irish university people outside Ireland have heard of.

I'm not wildly impressed by doing a dual BA at Trinity AND Columbia. Only two years at each? You'd be missing out on much of what makes a great college experience. If you started out at Trinity you'd form your friendships and experiences with your fellow classmates, but then suddenly leave them to go back to the US while they're still finishing their courses, and join a class at Columbia where people are already splintered off into close friendships and relationships with professors. You'd be little more than a freshman again but placed in the wrong year and not the incoming freshman class. It's all the hassles of being a transfer student. Two years in college really does fly by and with only two years at either schools you won't really have time to develop that special university experience and relationships.

I'd take four years at Brown (or Columbia) over splitting the years between two schools. One can always do a semester study abroad. Or a master's degree abroad.

Also ask yourself what is the benefit of having two bachelor degrees?

Exactly the same can be said for Brown.
Brown is objectively the worst ivy because it has the weakest academic programs by any measure.

I searched the Trinity/Columbia dual program and you can only study one of four subjects at Trinity: English Studies, European Studies, History, and Middle Eastern and European languages and cultures.

That is pretty restrictive and if you're spending the first two years at Trinity, it means missing out on the liberal arts/exploratory phase of the first two years places like Brown, Harvard, Yale, and the LACs emphasize. Furthermore, trying to fill 2 BAs in 4 years means having no time for anything outside of those disciplines. Want to try out that Psychology of the Good Life course that everyone raves about? Tough luck.

I'd definitely pick Brown myself or four years at Columbia rather than splitting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(it's 2 years in Dublin then 2 years at Columbia, she gets a BA from both)

I would go with Columbia/Trinity. It is a stronger and more prestigious school than Brown and Trinity is also a top uni in Europe, not weaker than Brown objectively speaking. Brown is is really overrated, it is objectively the worst ivy and no one would be mentioning it in the same sentence as Columbia or most other elites if it didn't have the ivy league tag.

All that said provided that DC doesnt have a stronger preference for Brown. if he/she is really in love with Brown then you could go with the best fit and where he/she is happiest. Brown provides an excellent education as well.

Ah, it's the Brown hater again. Why is Brown objectively the worst Ivy and really overrated?

Trinity is a fine university but it's not a "top" university in Europe. There are plenty of other "better" universities. The Irish university model doesn't work quite like the US universities so you should be careful before attributing too much prestige or merit to Trinity simply because it's likely the only Irish university people outside Ireland have heard of.

I'm not wildly impressed by doing a dual BA at Trinity AND Columbia. Only two years at each? You'd be missing out on much of what makes a great college experience. If you started out at Trinity you'd form your friendships and experiences with your fellow classmates, but then suddenly leave them to go back to the US while they're still finishing their courses, and join a class at Columbia where people are already splintered off into close friendships and relationships with professors. You'd be little more than a freshman again but placed in the wrong year and not the incoming freshman class. It's all the hassles of being a transfer student. Two years in college really does fly by and with only two years at either schools you won't really have time to develop that special university experience and relationships.

I'd take four years at Brown (or Columbia) over splitting the years between two schools. One can always do a semester study abroad. Or a master's degree abroad.

Also ask yourself what is the benefit of having two bachelor degrees?

OP-thanks all, I'll keep you updated..all good opinions

Brown because 2+2 on separate continents isn't going to create any "community"

I would personally do the Trinity/Columbia route because that sounds absolutely incredible. But it is ultimately up to your kid.

If I had a kid capable of getting into 2 Ivy's, I'd feel confident in letting them make this decision, and would try hard not to add any bias from me into the conversation.

Anonymous wrote:(it's 2 years in Dublin then 2 years at Columbia, she gets a BA from both)

I would go with Columbia/Trinity. It is a stronger and more prestigious school than Brown and Trinity is also a top uni in Europe, not weaker than Brown objectively speaking. Brown is is really overrated, it is objectively the worst ivy and no one would be mentioning it in the same sentence as Columbia or most other elites if it didn't have the ivy league tag.

All that said provided that DC doesnt have a stronger preference for Brown. if he/she is really in love with Brown then you could go with the best fit and where he/she is happiest. Brown provides an excellent education as well.

(it's 2 years in Dublin then 2 years at Columbia, she gets a BA from both)