columbia college (Chicago: apartment, houses, dorm)

[eevee]

wow, I have NO CLUE how or why this thread as disintegrated so much, or why people feel the need to go out of their way to prove a point about a school. seriously, how much time did you spend dragging up this info? don't like Columbia or feel it meets your high standards, fine, don't attend. the OP asked a question about this school and hopefully those questions were answered. the OP has already stated definite interest in the school, so why bother w/ your ongoing bashing, EyesIntheSky? seriously, give it a rest already! you do seem to have some kind of personal vendetta to mar this school reputation as if the OP's interest in it somehow personally affects you. again, no one is forcing you to attend and if the OP is old enough, mature enough, and smart enough to seek further high education, he will have done his homework into what he needs and he was just seeking opinions. let the OP worry about his own future and his own future opportunities, mmmkay?

really, give it a rest already. if some people like the school and feel it as something to offer them, why are YOU going out of your way to tarnish it? it's getting quite pathetic and not the kind of attitude I'd associate w/ one who went to a "far superior school" . I think everyone should just quit it and move on, unless the OP has more questions. let's not derail this thread into some silly argument about the "worthiness" of one school over another

[EyesInTheSky]

Eevee, for the record I was not prolonging this thread because I have any personal grudge against Columbia College. If you review my original post, you'd see all I wrote to the OP is Columbia College does not have a strong academic reputation. My very first post was a direct answer to her direct question asking if Columbia is a "good school."

Because I responded that Columbia does not have a good academic reputation, others started piling on me. Thus, I felt compelled to quantify my statement about Columbia's poor reputation by investigating the extent of their professional accreditations, where it turns out Columbia does not have any accreditations beyond regional accreditation. It took me only a few minutes to verify this; I have direct access to the CHEA accreditation database (and I believe most of the same info is also available on the CHEA website).

I then tried to close my involvement in the thread by wishing the student from VCU good luck, but the name calling and insults continued (and I'm not referring to you for you seem very reasonable). I'm brand new to City-Data and it's not my intent to come on here and be a bomb thrower and make enemies. And I agree with you Eevee; if someone wants to debate the academic and research reputations of various schools, we should take it to a new thread that is appropriately titled. Indeed, perhaps such a dialog should be taken to a whole different forum, for I doubt there are many participants on this specific forum that are interested in whether the University of Illinois at Chicago is considered a 1st tier or 2nd tier research program.

And P.S. to the original poster, VCUhoney (if you're even still reading): I'm not trying to persuade you away from attending Columbia College. I only wanted you to know that Columbia College does not have a good academic reputation and I felt it important to provide you that perspective. But as you wrote previously, you are comfortable with that because you are not seeking a rigorous academic experience and instead desire practical training, so indeed Columbia might be a good fit for you and perhaps will provide a path toward the career you are seeking.

[Drover]

What the hell is your obsession with an art school's "academic" reputation? It's an art school FFS.

[nJohn]

EyesInTheSky, what you've mentioned is valuable to a person going to a university or college that isn't applying to an art school. Trust me, I understand what you're saying and I feel relieved that other people know and share such valuable information about what's going on in high education. Both my older siblings auditioned for conservatories and non-conservatories (these needed ACT & SAT scores), now they weren't planning on majoring in film, but in music and theatre. Conservatories, most I think, do not care for test scores - it's the talent and potential they care about since it's logical that talent and growth would make the best musician, not book smarts.

I'm afraid that you've wasted a lot of time on your research and persuading. It's irrelevant to Columbia-Chicago since it is not a traditional four year university/college - it's a school whos focus is on art and media. Your efforts fall on deaf ears. But in your defense, PM if you want to talk about the qualms on higher education. I've been searching for someone who knows what they're talking about when it comes to this topic.

[nJohn]

To the OP: if you can afford the tuition, find a place to live, think that the school would refine your trade/art/whatever you want to call it, and you think Columbia-Chicago is the right "fit" for you then by all means come. Sometimes, even when people audition/apply for non-traditional schools, they get too caught up in the rankings and reputation and forget about "fit." If you're miserable, then it's going to be a tough four years. I have some friends that are students at Columbia-Chicago and they seem to enjoy it. It's a school that if you do well, build on networking, and prove that you've got some talent in the world that is the fine arts then you'll do fine. I can't say you'll have the same type of guidance that are offered in better schools, and trust me there are better, but I think you'll be fine.

[nJohn]

Originally Posted by whatsthebigdeal

To hell with research and academics, all the students I've talked to get real jobs out of school, at least those I have met from the film department.

That my friend, was a silly statement. Now if you're referring to students who want a career in the arts & entertainment then yes, I would suspect that research and academics are not on top of the priority list.

Note: Sorry about the triple post. It's late and I'm tired. Yawn.

[EyesInTheSky]

Thanks for your comments, nJohn; I respect your experience. I do not work in the arts or have any training in the arts and frankly know very little about the arts. However, I do know a few things about higher education in general, especially such issues as academic reputations, accreditations, research reputations, and the movement of students from lower-tier schools to higher-tier schools (and vice versa) -- although admittedly my experience is heavily skewed toward the sciences and some fields of engineering. I'm not really an academic administrator (I'm a researcher and very occasionally teach), but I have had collateral duties in academic administration and have sometimes participated in activities such as admissions decisions, academic advising, accreditation reviews, and so forth.

Contrary to what so many responses on this thread suggest, I would be very surprised if most arts-oriented college programs are not concerned about their academic strength and reputation. Although apparently it's not important to schools like Columbia (and its supporters), even a cursory review of the accreditation database for arts and art-performance programs indicates that virtually all the name-brand schools (and even a great many non-name-brand schools) have achieved professional accreditation in their respective program areas. Columbia College has no such accreditations and about the only rationale I've seen for that is something along the line of, "It doesn't matter because Columbia teaches art."

Well, if professional accreditation for arts schools (such as NASAD accreditation) does not matter and is not important, then why did the Art Institute of Chicago along with several other universities in Illinois and across the country earn it? Ditto for the several other types of performance art and writing-oriented accreditations that are associated with the types of academic degrees offered at Columbia College.

To me, it's a huge warning sign that Columbia does not have any professional accreditations beyond regional accreditation. This is the same situation the University of Phoenix used to be in; although Phoenix online programs earned regional accreditation (which itself was hugely controversial and has a very interesting back-story), until recently they had no professional accreditations (Phoenix somehow managed to earn a couple professional accreditations in recent years).

Anyway, although I don't have a lot of time to invest in these forums, I'd be glad to exchange thoughts on the whole accreditation/reputation issue with you and the others on the forum. Perhaps we can start a new thread. It would be ideal if we could get some of the faculty or administrators at Columbia College to participate, if any should be lurking in here.

[NearWestSider]

Originally Posted by EyesInTheSky

I then tried to close my involvement in the thread by wishing the student from VCU good luck, but the name calling and insults continued (and I'm not referring to you for you seem very reasonable). I'm brand new to City-Data and it's not my intent to come on here and be a bomb thrower and make enemies. And I agree with you Eevee; if someone wants to debate the academic and research reputations of various schools, we should take it to a new thread that is appropriately titled. Indeed, perhaps such a dialog should be taken to a whole different forum, for I doubt there are many participants on this specific forum that are interested in whether the University of Illinois at Chicago is considered a 1st tier or 2nd tier research program.

I said "there are four major research universities in this state".

You tried to use my statement against me to discredit my rebuttal of your condemnation of Columbia College. You made a poor choice of words, and now that "any objective measure" has been shown to be hyperbole, you are changing those words and backhandedly accusing me of wanting to start a debate about UIC.

Very bad form, to put it mildly. A classic Straw Man. Shame on you.

FYI: I have no desire to debate the merits or demerits of UIC with you. In fact, I doubt you will find the words "UIC" in any of my previous posts in this thread, and if you do, I apologize. My response was aimed squarely at "any objective measure". Will you kindly confine your responses to what I actually say? Thank you.

Getting back to Columbia College:

You've made a valid point about Columbia College's accreditation issues.

But you've not addressed Columbia College's explosive growth. It seems to me, that any private institution that successful must be doing SOMETHING right. The market has literally spoken. Any thoughts on how or why that might be?

[NearWestSider]

My bad. Find "objective" Replace with "common". Everything else stays the same.

Apologies.

[sonkab14]

I have to side with EyesInTheSky on this very-dated issue. I currently go to Columbia and am planning on transferring to the School of the Art Institute. Unfortunately, most of what EITS said is true. Few classes are challenging, although most students are friendly. I have heard positive things about the film and photo departments, but not much else. I relied on myself to get my jobs and internships. Most importantly, the school's reputation (not in regards to those 2 majors) is not quite as respectable as other schools. It's pretty simple - there are many other art schools in the country that would be of greater benefit to students.