Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

University College London

London

UCL vs. Columbia University?

Hello all,

I have been accepted to Columbia University in the City of New York (Barnard College) as well as University College London. I am interested in working in international affairs, law, human rights, international development, ect. Which should I choose? I would appreciate if someone could give me info on factors of prestige, connections, professors. Thanks so much! :smile:

Reply 1

MrDigBick

My two cents:

- Columbia is located in a not-so-awesome part of NYC (sure, its Manhattan, but its really far to the north bordering on Harlem)

- UCL is located in an amazing part of London

I would say it comes down to which city you prefer and which country you wish to work in later.

I would go with UCL, but I would probably prefer NYU to UCL if money was not an issue (hope to do my MA there).

University College London

London

Reply 2

Ivanka

Original post by fromnytolondon

I thought that Barnard was an independent institution, not a part of Columbia...

Columbia, baby

I personally would go to Columbia. Congratulations btw!! :smile:

Reply 5

Szmessh

Columbia day and night bro

Reply 6

vnupe

Original post by MrDigBick

Actually the area around Columbia is not bad at all, and is considered the Upper West Side... you are correct though that it borders/is in parts of Harlem... used to go there all the time to hangout when I was an undergrad and grad student to visit Frat brothers...

Reply 7

benq

Columbia > UCL but Barnard < UCL

Reply 8

vnupe

Original post by fromnytolondon

As far as connections go, IMHO US unis are generally better at galvanizing alumni and for networking... As far as prestige, both are really top quality unis.

Also it will matter where you would want to work as again in IMHO, more people will have familiarity with the reputation of Columbia over here, than the reverse over there...

Reply 9

RussellG

Original post by fromnytolondon

Wait.
Barnard College is NOT a part of Columbia University.
It's just affiliated with Columbia.
In fact, Columbia doesn't count Barnard students as a number of undergraduate students at Columbia.

>How many students attend Columbia?
>Undergraduate enrollment is approximately 4,500 in Columbia College and 1,500 in The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science.

http://undergrad.admissions.columbia.edu/ask/faq/question/2512

Barnard is one of the seven syisters and a very good college, but less reputable than Columbia College.

Reputation-wise, I'd say Columbia > UCL > Barnard

To answer your question, UK and US universities are very different (Specialist vs LAC), so it highly depends on what you expect to your university life.

Reply 10

vnupe

Original post by RussellG

Actually Wikipedia (and its references) would argue with your suggestion that Barnard is not part of Columbia University, I'm not even convinced that the Barnard Students are not "counted" by Columbia. Even on the Barnard homepage it is described as Barnard College. Columbia University. Also the Columbia University website states that Barnard is part of Columbia University which can be found here:
http://www.columbia.edu/content/schools.html

The Seven Sisters is an affiliation/Coalition, which is a group of representatives from student councils of the historic seven sisters colleges (all which are historically women's colleges).

The delineation between Barnard and Columbia is not so "cut and dry":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard_College

Relationship with Columbia University[edit]

The relationship between Barnard College and Columbia University is complex. The college's front gates state "Barnard College of Columbia University".[8] Barnard describes itself as an official college of Columbia,[9] and advises students to state "Barnard College, Columbia University" or "Barnard College of Columbia University" on résumés.[10] Columbia describes Barnard as an affiliated institution[11] that is a faculty of the university.[12] An academic journal describes Barnard as a former affiliate that became a school within the university.[2] Facebook includes Barnard students and alumnae within the Columbia interest group.[13] All Barnard faculty are granted tenure by the college and Columbia,[14] and Barnard graduates receive Columbia University diplomas signed by both the Barnard and Columbia presidents.[15]
Smith and Columbia president Seth Low worked to open Columbia classes to Barnard students. By 1900 they could attend Columbia classes in philosophy, political science, and several scientific fields.[2] That year Barnard formalized an affiliation with the university which made available to its students the instruction and facilities of Columbia.[9] Many top women attended the college; Franz Boas, who taught at both Columbia and Barnard in the early 1900s, was among those faculty members who reportedly found Barnard students superior to their male Columbia counterparts.[6] From 1955 Columbia and Barnard students could register for the other school's classes with the permission of the instructor; from 1973 no permission was needed.[3]
Columbia president William J. McGill predicted in 1970 that Barnard College and Columbia College would merge within five years,[16] and Columbia's financial difficulties during the 1970s increased its desire to merge,[17] but Barnard resisted doing so because of the university's large debt.[18] After a decade of failed negotiations for a merger with Barnard akin to the one between Harvard College and Radcliffe College, Columbia College instead began admitting women in 1983.[19] Applications to Columbia rose 56% that year, making admission more selective, and nine Barnard students transferred to Columbia. Eight students admitted to both Columbia and Barnard chose Barnard, while 78 chose Columbia.[20]
The Columbia-Barnard affiliation continued, however, despite Columbia College's decision.[19] As of 2012 Barnard pays Columbia about $5 million a year under the terms of the "interoperate relationship", which the two schools renegotiate every 15 years.[21] Despite the affiliation Barnard is legally and financially separate from Columbia, with an independent faculty and board of trustees. It is responsible for its own separate admissions, health, security, guidance and placement services, and has its own alumnae association. Nonetheless, Barnard students participate in the academic, social, athletic and extracurricular life of the broader University community on a reciprocal basis. The affiliation permits the two schools to share some academic resources; for example, only Barnard has an urban studies department, and only Columbia has a computer science department. Most Columbia classes are open to Barnard students and vice versa. Barnard students and faculty are represented in the University Senate, and student organizations such as the Columbia Daily Spectator are open to all students. Barnard students play on Columbia athletics teams, and Barnard uses Columbia telephone and network services.[15][21]

So essentially Columbia = Barnard, regardless of admission rates.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 11

RussellG

Original post by vnupe

It seems I was wrong. Apology for my misunderstanding.
I just thought so because Columbia and Barnard have different admissions (and admissions stats).

Do know you if the data below include Barnard?
(if so, then Barnard should be categorised in General Studies. But I'm not sure.)

Columbia University Fall headcount enrollment by school, 2004-2013

Reply 12

sj27

Original post by vnupe

This. Also as good as UCL is, Columbia's brand is much better known globally. SIPA at Columbia also has one of the worlds best masters in international affairs, so even though you would be doing undergrad, the association of the university with that subject globally is excellent. Ditto its reputation in law.

OP may also want to consider which mode of education suits best. The UK is shorter and more specialized from the beginning, while the structure of a US undergrad gives you more options but takes a year longer. However, if one is interested a variety of things (as it seems OP is) and wants exposure to more modules or just more time before choosing a major, the US system would be preferable.

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 13

vnupe

Original post by RussellG

From looking at your link and then revising the Columbia website I would lean to saying no...
General studies seems to be a specific School of Columbia University, as is Barnard... When it comes to the metric of enrollment, it seems that the admissions and affiliation issues come into effect, and Barnard and Columbia are considered to be separate...

Reply 14

RussellG

Original post by vnupe

Thank you for your reply.
Also the other strange thing is US News treats Barnard separately from Columbia, though Radcliffe is included in Harvard.

Barnard College (32th in the National Liberal Arts College Rankings)
Columbia University (4th in the National University Rankings)

NYU poly is also treated in the same way.

Polytechnic Institute of New York University (128th in the National University Rankings)
New York University (32th in the National University Rankings)

Maybe the relationship between Columbia and Barnard is something like UCL and UCL Qatar. I'm being a bit confused.

Reply 15

vnupe

Original post by RussellG

I wouldn't go by the rankings of US News Reports or any of them... the unis are starting to push back hard on the rankings... I believe Barnard has even refused to participate in thew rankings...

I would concentrate on how the unis themselves indicate their amalgamations...

Also I suspect it would also depend on if there are separate or shared faculty, as well as if the university is capitalizing on its name recognition/cache ... at the end of the day it is a business... though in the US the unis are considered Non-profit orgs and therefore are tax exempt.

Reply 16

cortadita

As a person rejected by Columbia but not by UCL - I would advice Columbia. I do not know anything about your financial situation, which may be an important thing to consider here, but I believe that US schools are generally better recognized (especially in the US, where most people probably never heard of UCL ) and, in the end, offer wider opportunities. But, again, I am biased and my idea of the actual state of matters may not be true - there is a chance I idealized American schools.

Reply 17

star999

Original post by RussellG

From my time at C, I can tell you that while Barnard is technically a part of Columbia, but not viewed that way by employers or the academic community. Columbia COllege or the Engineering School are the primary UG schools. Barnard shares facilities and some faculty but is seen as an easier place to get into and out of. Think of it as comparing the various institutions within U of London. May technically be part of same university but very different places and degrees.
And GS is a non-traditional program for mature students or some joint programs (for example the combined degree with SciPo).