How is Columbia for undergrad?

About the Ads
F

fattycat96

New Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2015
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I know a HUGE factor of med school is having a solid GPA... I'm deciding between Columbia and then schools like USC or UCLA. Columbia is certainly the better school, but I could be in jeopardy of not having a stellar GPA and not even being accepted to med school. What do you think?
Members don't see this ad.
 
Go where you think you will be happy and succeed. I don't think an adcom seeing you attend columbia will blow their socks off vs ucla/usc.
Then account for costs, support system, etc. If you are from CA, it seems UCLA is a good choice. Good school, cheap(er) tuition, good location.
 
loll..... dont judge a school based on a med school you may or may not attend four years from now....
 
Members don't see this ad :)
All are great schools. Consider finances (IS vs OOS/cost of living) and where you'll be happiest.
 
gyngyn said:
UCLA is the largest producer of pre-meds in the nation. Last year there were 919.
Columbia had 202.
We don't have details on their success, though.
Go to the best school that accepts you where you can do well.
Click to expand...

You also have to remember that UCLA is 6-7x the size of Columbia when you only look at undergrad enrollment.
 
smarts1 said:
You also have to remember that UCLA is 6-7x the size of Columbia when you only look at undergrad enrollment.
Click to expand...
I do remember that.
If OP does well in a big (warm) pool vs small (different) pool, that is an important consideration.
LA vs NY...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would highly recommend Columbia. I am at a comparable Ivy League school and we have people with "average" GPAs getting into stellar medical schools. Additionally, my own school has a success rate of around 85-90% of getting premeds into medical school (compared to just over 40% nationwide) - I would assume Columbia is comparable.

Contrary to what everyone says, your undergraduate school does matter for medical schools. At the 4 top 20 interviews I've been to, 75%+ of the applicants there came from Ivies/Duke/Stanford/etc. Everyone I've talked to reported the same. Whether this is a function of school name or inherent ability remains to be seen, but keep in mind this correlation does exist. There are also some schools that really like Ivy League students (NYU, Sinai, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, Michigan, WashU, and other Ivy League medical schools) and will interview you even if you have not great stats (though usually these students have below average GPAs, but strong MCAT scores).

If you later decide to not pursue medicine (which many people do), Columbia will give you an amazing chance to do literally whatever you want. Don't underestimate the resources and opportunities available at these types of institutions.

The only reason I would recommend not going to Columbia is if you think you will get a terrible GPA there and you think you will get a great one at UCLA (there is absolutely no way you can know this before you go). If you don't like Columbia, it's far easier to transfer from Columbia to UCLA than the other way around (transfer rates at Ivies who accept transfers are around 3% or less...).

That being said, go where you think you'll like it best. If you cannot function in cold weather, then don't go to the northeast. You've been given an amazing opportunity. Take advantage of it.
 
gyngyn said:
CA kids sometimes have a difficult adjustment to the east coast.
Only OP can do this self-assessment, though. It could be a growth experience.
Click to expand...

True, but on the other hand, California is probably one of the most represented states at my school, so plenty of people from all parts of Cali make the adjustment and thrive here. If OP absolutely cannot function in <60 degree weather, then yeah, Columbia might not be a good choice, but you're right, that's something that they have to figure out for themselves.

It seems to me like OP is mostly concerned about the level of difficulty at Columbia vs. USC/UCLA. I will say what I always say when this comes up. The medians at Ivies tend to be higher than at state schools (science classes are usually a B median with some B+ in upper levels and B- in lower levels), but most students tend to cluster towards the mean. This means it can be hard to earn an A (I mean you're competing with some of the best students in the world...), but getting a B is relatively easier. However, a lot of students here get B+/A- in their core science classes and still manage to make it to top 25 med schools, (again, they do very well on the MCAT), so getting that A isn't always 100% necessary. On the other hand, at UCLA or USC, you'll probably have C median courses, but the standard deviation is a lot higher and the distribution is more balanced, so proportionally the same amount or more people will get an A, but at these schools, getting a 3.6 or 3.7 would be probably worse application-wise than getting a 3.6-3.7 at Columbia (where you can still make it to a top ranked school).
 
WedgeDawg said:
True, but on the other hand, California is probably one of the most represented states at my school, so plenty of people from all parts of Cali make the adjustment and thrive here. If OP absolutely cannot function in <60 degree weather, then yeah, Columbia might not be a good choice, but you're right, that's something that they have to figure out for themselves.

It seems to me like OP is mostly concerned about the level of difficulty at Columbia vs. USC/UCLA. I will say what I always say when this comes up. The medians at Ivies tend to be higher than at state schools (science classes are usually a B median with some B+ in upper levels and B- in lower levels), but most students tend to cluster towards the mean. This means it can be hard to earn an A (I mean you're competing with some of the best students in the world...), but getting a B is relatively easier. However, a lot of students here get B+/A- in their core science classes and still manage to make it to top 25 med schools, (again, they do very well on the MCAT), so getting that A isn't always 100% necessary. On the other hand, at UCLA or USC, you'll probably have C median courses, but the standard deviation is a lot higher and the distribution is more balanced, so proportionally the same amount or more people will get an A, but at these schools, getting a 3.6 or 3.7 would be probably worse application-wise than getting a 3.6-3.7 at Columbia (where you can still make it to a top ranked school).
Click to expand...
It is an incredible luxury to decide between any of these schools.
I have seen a significant number of excellent students have difficulty adjusting to both the weather and the culture of the east, notwithstanding all the good points you have made. As long as OP is aware of the additional adjustment necessary, any excellent east coast school can be a good choice.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
The opportunities you'll have at Columbia are probably the same at UCLA. The difference is you won't be competing with hundreds of other students for those opportunities at Columbia like you will at UCLA (where there are volunteer programs that have 200+ applicants for less than 10 spots).

Columbia is the right choice all around, especially if you do decide to move away from medicine towards another field.
 
Take the liberal arts education in the greatest city in the world and run. (cough Columbia cough)


Obviously, as others have stated, this is a very personal decision but I do want to highlight that the important parts of that decision have nothing to do with getting into medical school or your potential GPA and everything to do with you as a person and the type of educational resources you value.

Just because high school students are generally terrible at valuing educational resources (myself included, when I was in your position), I am going to throw in an enormous pile of salt and say that a liberal education - especially a pedigreed one - is something that you should value very highly.
 
gyngyn said:
UCLA is the largest producer of pre-meds in the nation. Last year there were 919.
Columbia had 202.
We don't have details on their success, though.
Go to the best school that accepts you where you can do well.
Click to expand...

Now now, you are misleading the student by neglecting to put these numbers in perspective. UCLA has an undergraduate population at least an order of magnitude greater than Columbia. Those numbers, without context, do not signify anything.
 
One thing about California culture--it doesn't really have a strong sense of what the Ivy League can do for your life (or maybe it depends on where you're from--my area sure didn't.) Maybe it's because many Californians have no interest in the parts of the planet that care about the Ivies. But if you think you might want a career on the East Coast, and there's any chance you might not stick with pre-med, Columbia would probably open more doors.

That said, @gyngyn's right. East coast culture can be a big shock. I would have sunk like a stooooone if I'd come for college.
 
caffeinemia said:
Now now, you are misleading the student by neglecting to put these numbers in perspective. UCLA has an undergraduate population at least an order of magnitude greater than Columbia. Those numbers, without context, do not signify anything.
Click to expand...
It gives him an idea of the difference in the size of the community.
It may be better or worse, but it is a big difference!
I only wish we had the stats to compare outcomes, sadly we do not. I'm sure both schools do extremely well.
 
Columbia is an Ivy League university with 1/5th (or less) the population of UCLA. It has world class support and access to the most populous, diverse metropolis in the United States. This is a no-brainer, unless you hate the cold and cannot bear to be away from Cali for some reason.
 
Get out of California if you wanna attend medical school. Might I suggest Penn schools or maybe going to Texas?
 
pageantry said:
One thing about California culture--it doesn't really have a strong sense of what the Ivy League can do for your life (or maybe it depends on where you're from--my area sure didn't.) Maybe it's because many Californians have no interest in the parts of the planet that care about the Ivies. But if you think you might want a career on the East Coast, and there's any chance you might not stick with pre-med, Columbia would probably open more doors.

That said, @gyngyn's right. East coast culture can be a big shock. I would have sunk like a stooooone if I'd come for college.
Click to expand...

Echo what you said. I think it's all about realistically assessing your fortitude and adventurer's spirit. I was a Californian who never left Cali until Harvard. I was blown away by how unworldly/unexperienced I was when I got there. But it changed my life in so many great ways once I fought through the first miserable year. Harvard still pulls through for me in so many ways to this day. That's a fact, even if you feel (as I feel) that it stinks of elitism.
 
If you are 100% set on premed, I would seriously think about whether you can succeed at Columbia. I've heard that some of the courses (e.g., their intro bio) is among the hardest in the nation. UCLA is probably not that easy either but Columbia is definitely on another level when it comes to peer group.

If you ever change your mind and want to do something else, then Columbia >>> UCLA for most fields. The name alone will open many doors for you.
 
Though I was never a Columbia student (Dean Frantz didn't let me in off of waitlist... still bitter to this day!!!), feel free to message me if you have questions about New York. I'm a resident here now and it has been quite the transition, even though I have spent the last ten years bouncing around several major urban centers.
 
caffeinemia said:
Echo what you said. I think it's all about realistically assessing your fortitude and adventurer's spirit. I was a Californian who never left Cali until Harvard. I was blown away by how unworldly/unexperienced I was when I got there. But it changed my life in so many great ways once I fought through the first miserable year. Harvard still pulls through for me in so many ways to this day. That's a fact, even if you feel (as I feel) that it stinks of elitism.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and anyway it's not like UCLA or USC are exactly known for their monastic vows of renunciation.
 
Not sure where exactly you're from, OP, but also consider that Columbia is in the middle of a New York. While it has a campus, it's very tiny and you can never escape from the big city feel. If you're not from a big city, this might not work for you. It totally wouldn't have worked for me in undergrad, although I didn't realize it when I was choosing a college.

So make sure you visit before you commit, if that's where you're leaning.
 
Columbia chewed me up and spit me out. The premedical office boasts a high success rate, but that's mostly because the weeder classes come early and do their job.

@jamcat : Morningside Heights is not a big city feel, at all...
 
The Helpful Aye Aye said:
@jamcat : Morningside Heights is not a big city feel, at all...
Click to expand...

Ha. That just shows how much those of us from small towns aren't used to big cities. I've lived in NYC for several years now, and to me Morningside Heights definitely has a big city feel. Like, unquestionably. Sure, it's no Times Square but it still would have been way, way too much city for me in undergrad.
 
jamcat said:
Ha. That just shows how much those of us from small towns aren't used to big cities. I've lived in NYC for several years now, and to me Morningside Heights definitely has a big city feel. Like, unquestionably. Sure, it's no Times Square but it still would have been way, way too much city for me in undergrad.
Click to expand...
I was just thinking today how I wish I could find a way to convey to my younger self the amount of privilege you run into in NYC. It was explained to me thus: at every dinner party in this city, some people are the diners, and others are the food. You would know if you were a diner.

I don't know if it's the same in L.A., and maybe it's impossible that anyone else was ever as naive as I was, but fwiw there is definitely a lot to be said for proximity to people who love you.

A sentimental consideration, perhaps!
 
Yeah, Columbia definitely doesn't have the big city feel of NYU, but its area is still pretty densely populated.

OP, NYC can get a bit dreary (think Gotham City), especially during the cold months. If you rely on the California weather and scenery during stressful times, it'll be a difficult adjustment, especially as a pre-med.
 
Some important information:

"In 2009, 53% of the UCLA students who applied to medical school gained admission to at least one school. Those students with a com-bination of high grade point averages and high MCAT scores were more likely to receive admission. For instance, in 2009, 13 UCLA se-niors applied with a GPA of 3.90 or higher combined with an MCAT score of 35 or higher. Of those 13 applicants, 13 of them (100%) were accepted into at least one medical school. "

Of those 919 premeds, only 13 of them had a 3.9/35+ (Edit, 13 seniors, so that pares that 919 probably down to just over 450, but still)

That's pretty bad.

https://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/PreMed.pdf
 
The bio class is a pain, but you can get through it. If you're really afraid of it, you can (god forbid!) take it at Barnard. I think the premed office doesn't love this, but I know people who did this and are now in med school.

In terms of having a good experience, I would recommend NOT taking standard premed physics and chemistry. The people in those classes seemed stressed. I had a better time with chiller people in engineering physics. (edit for clarity: there are three levels of intro chem and physics to choose from)

I have no idea about UCLA, but I had a really awesome experience at Columbia.
 
Speaking as a USC student, I had the time of my life here. The athletics are next to none, football games are the most fun you'll ever have, Greek life is a special, tight-knit community and the academics are tough but full of great, enthusiastic professors.

If you only plan to live in California once in your life, do it in college. I really cant even fully explain how amazing and fun these past 4 years have been as a Trojan.

Pm me if you want more info!
 
Some other stats:

Acceptance rate to medical school from undergraduate colleges:

Penn: 76% (http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/healthprof/parents.php)

Dartmouth: "about twice the national average" (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~interviewers/pdfs/college_fairs_faqs.pdf - page 6)

Princeton: "Admissions for Princeton applicants to medical school have remained well above the national average (85-95% annually from Princeton, 45-50% nationally)...Between 35% and 40% of students who matriculated to medical school in the past four years is attending a top 10 US News & World Report research school." (http://www.princeton.edu/hpa/premed/prospective-students/2013-HPA-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf - page 2)

Cornell: 67% (sucks to suck) (http://www.career.cornell.edu/paths/health/medschool/charts.cfm)

Brown: 85% (http://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/explore/admission-facts)

Yale: 88% (http://ocs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/med_school_stats.pdf - page 1)

Harvard: 85% (http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1085420.files/Winthrop Pre-Med Handbook 2012-13.pdf - page 16)

I could not for the life of me find Columbia's....
 
WedgeDawg said:
Some other stats:

Acceptance rate to medical school from undergraduate colleges:

Penn: 76% (http://www.vpul.upenn.edu/careerservices/gradprof/healthprof/parents.php)

Dartmouth: "about twice the national average" (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~interviewers/pdfs/college_fairs_faqs.pdf - page 6)

Princeton: "Admissions for Princeton applicants to medical school have remained well above the national average (85-95% annually from Princeton, 45-50% nationally)...Between 35% and 40% of students who matriculated to medical school in the past four years is attending a top 10 US News & World Report research school." (http://www.princeton.edu/hpa/premed/prospective-students/2013-HPA-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf - page 2)

Cornell: 67% (sucks to suck) (http://www.career.cornell.edu/paths/health/medschool/charts.cfm)

Brown: 85% (http://www.brown.edu/admission/undergraduate/explore/admission-facts)

Yale: 88% (http://ocs.yale.edu/sites/default/files/med_school_stats.pdf - page 1)

Harvard: 85% (http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1085420.files/Winthrop Pre-Med Handbook 2012-13.pdf - page 16)

I could not for the life of me find Columbia's....
Click to expand...

You have to be really careful with how you read these averages because schools are not very transparent with how they define pre-med and when they are you can gain some insight into how they get the numbers they do. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% certain that higher ranked schools get students into medical school more often than lower ranked schools even if that difference is marginal (lolCornelllol). One of the programs I belong to has a 97% acceptance rate to medical school.......BUT the only people allowed in that pool have at least a 3.6/33. Highly misleading. So take those stats with a grain of salt. They might seem super impressive but there are probably some asterisks involved.

However, I will bet you anything that Columbia grads do better overall than UCLA in the context of medical school admissions. In terms of education? They are both fantastic schools with immense resources in a variety of fields. I think you if you got into both schools you could be successful in either of them. Columbia wins out overall, however, as I stated before.
 
Lucca said:
You have to be really careful with how you read these averages because schools are not very transparent with how they define pre-med and when they are you can gain some insight into how they get the numbers they do. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% certain that higher ranked schools get students into medical school more often than lower ranked schools even if that difference is marginal (lolCornelllol). One of the programs I belong to has a 97% acceptance rate to medical school.......BUT the only people allowed in that pool have at least a 3.6/33. Highly misleading. So take those stats with a grain of salt. They might seem super impressive but there are probably some asterisks involved.
Click to expand...

Of course. Some of these schools definitely screen, but I know for sure that some don't (at least mine doesn't). But if you assume similar degrees of transparency (not sure how valid this assumption is), you get the lowest rate here (Cornell's 67%) compared to UCLA's 53%.

Lucca said:
However, I will bet you anything that Columbia grads do better overall than UCLA in the context of medical school admissions. In terms of education? They are both fantastic schools with immense resources in a variety of fields. I think you if you got into both schools you could be successful in either of them. Columbia wins out overall, however, as I stated before.
Click to expand...

Here are some raw numbers (without any percentage to attach to them)

"In 2008, Columbia undergraduates matriculated at Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons (14), The Albert Einstein College of Medicine (8), Harvard Medical School (8), Yale Medical School (8), and Cornell’s Weill Medical College (5)." (https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/ask/faq/topic/389). That's pretty remarkable.

Not that this really says anything since I still can't find out anything else about Columbia (how many applied? what is the acceptance rate? do they pre-screen? where else do people go?). But anyway, that's (14+8+8+5=35) already at 4 top medical schools. UCLA only had 13 (out of a much higher cohort) that even had a 3.9/35+ which is what they would need to be considered (under normal circumstances) at any of these schools.
 
WedgeDawg said:
Of course. Some of these schools definitely screen, but I know for sure that some don't (at least mine doesn't). But if you assume similar degrees of transparency (not sure how valid this assumption is), you get the lowest rate here (Cornell's 67%) compared to UCLA's 53%.



Here are some raw numbers (without any percentage to attach to them)

"In 2008, Columbia undergraduates matriculated at Columbia’s College of Physicians and Surgeons (14), The Albert Einstein College of Medicine (8), Harvard Medical School (8), Yale Medical School (8), and Cornell’s Weill Medical College (5)." (https://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/ask/faq/topic/389). That's pretty remarkable.

Not that this really says anything since I still can't find out anything else about Columbia (how many applied? what is the acceptance rate? do they pre-screen? where else do people go?). But anyway, that's (14+8+8+5=35) already at 4 top medical schools. UCLA only had 13 (out of a much higher cohort) that even had a 3.9/35+ which is what they would need to be considered (under normal circumstances) at any of these schools.
Click to expand...

That is indeed very remarkable. It's not surprising given the inbreeding at prestigious northeastern institutions (and Stanford who just wants to be one of the good ole boys at this point). The students at those medical schools come mostly from 4-5 institutions. So - while that record is remarkable and I am sure those students are deserving, academically speaking - I would not be ready to say that UCLA has a "bad" record of getting people into medical school. They are a challenging, public institution in California with the highest pre-med volume in the nation. It's natural that as you get a larger and larger sample size that the sample behaves more and more like the general population (the GP being the national applicant pool which has a success rate in the high 40s).
 
Leave it to SDN to analyze the **** out of the situation. College is a means to an ends at one level, but it's also a journey meant for enrichment and growth. For god sakes, stop analyzing the statistics. Humans... ie your future patients... do not decide purely by numbers, they also decide by the promise of good experiences.
 
Lucca said:
That is indeed very remarkable. It's not surprising given the inbreeding at prestigious northeastern institutions (and Stanford who just wants to be one of the good ole boys at this point). The students at those medical schools come mostly from 4-5 institutions. So - while that record is remarkable and I am sure those students are deserving, academically speaking - I would not be ready to say that UCLA has a "bad" record of getting people into medical school. They are a challenging, public institution in California with the highest pre-med volume in the nation. It's natural that as you get a larger and larger sample size that the sample behaves more and more like the general population (the GP being the national applicant pool which has a success rate in the high 40s).
Click to expand...

My apologies, my "bad" comment was about the number of 3.9/35+ applicants, not about the strength of the program as a whole. I don't think it is at all fair to say that UCLA is a bad premed program or school (quite the opposite - their average still above the national average and they have a solid reputation), but I just don't think they're in the same league as Columbia. If we are looking at this from the perspective of a high school senior who wants the best chance possible of getting into medical school, I don't think it would be advantageous to direct them to UCLA over Columbia (outside of any extraneous factors such as finances, weather, proximity to family, etc). It's not a comparison of how good the two schools are individually, just how they compare against each other.
 
OP, you will get out of college what you put into it. Both UCLA and Columbia are fine institutions that will prepare you very well for medical school. Study hard, take advantage of the plethora of opportunities at either of these great schools, and you will be fine.
 
The standard wisdom on SDN is that GPA trumps undergraduate rankings. The Ivy League schools tend to have more grade inflation than the UC system, but they're also generally ranked better, making Columbia the school to pick. Of course, this is kind of a cold, scheming way of looking at your choice of undergrad.
 
Columbia.
Top schools (such as the Ivy league schools) provide opportunities and an environment unparalleled.
 
Doug Underhill said:
The standard wisdom on SDN is that GPA trumps undergraduate rankings. The Ivy League schools tend to have more grade inflation than the UC system, but they're also generally ranked better, making Columbia the school to pick. Of course, this is kind of a cold, scheming way of looking at your choice of undergrad.
Click to expand...

If OP goes to Columbia expecting massive grade inflation in the premed curriculum, they will be sorely disappointed. Did you know that the Ivy League is actually made up of several distinct schools?

Ivy League, Hopkins, and Stanford are names can help you along. Thinks like "Public Ivies", "Southern Ivies", and "really good public schools" don't necessarily hold weight outside of certain geographic areas, such that you shouldn't count on someone caring that you went to UCLA. In spite of the fact that the rigor and opportunities may be similar (unverified), the reality only matters if it lines up with what admissions perceives.
 
RedPhys said:
Columbia.
Top schools (such as the Ivy league schools) provide opportunities and an environment unparalleled.
Click to expand...

UCLA and USC undergrad are no slouches in providing an environment or opportunities to succeed. But if you said Columbia offered unparalleled name recognition in the country - then yes, I agree.
 
I'd recommend Columbia. I go to a very similar Ivy and people here with average GPAs are quite successful WRT med school. The grade inflation in the Ivy League (or at least at my Ivy) is no joke. And if you got in, there's no reason to think you won't be able to do about as well as everyone else-- especially if you got in unhooked. There are a TON of premeds at the UCs which makes competition for resources actually a lot tougher as other posters have mentioned. However, you do need to think about the fact that the East Coast is tremendously different than the West Coast (and, imo, inferior). I'm not even talking about the weather-- if you can't put on a coat and deal with the winter then you're just a whiny person-- but it's culturally just very different, so that's something to think about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Best State for undergrad?
Replies
11
Views
2K
jhmmd
jhmmd
CoolKid575
  • Poll Poll
UAB or UCSB, which is the better pick for pre-med?
Replies
3
Views
906
Hollow Knight
Hollow Knight
W
T20 Undergrad vs Full-Ride for pre-med
Replies
3
Views
2K
deleted771945
D
P
  • Question Question
Which UC is better for premed? UCSB or UCR
Replies
3
Views
2K
panda56
P
jimbo2007
Binghamton vs. Rutgers Honors vs. Northeastern for Pre-Med (Neuroscience Major) – Which is Best?
Replies
1
Views
134
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
Top