I don’t see how it would make any sense for them to include the stats of two schools that have differing enrollment criteria. I actually found it frustrating when other schools did not separate out their stats. In any case, including Barnard admits would make no sense because of the double admits – they would be counting some students twice. </p>
<p>You are making the mistake of assuming that “selectivity” equates with educational rigor or quality … a false notion driven by US News and the idea of “ranking” colleges. But those numbers are manipulated by colleges through aggressive marketing and soliciting extra applications. </p>
<p>The Ivy League attracts more than its share of patently unqualified applicants, simply because of name recognition & prestige. That is, an increase in the number of rejected applicants does not necessarily correlate in any increase in the number of qualified applicants. </p>
<p>But that being said, an applicant to CC will want to know what the admission stats are for the college they are applying to. No male applicant to CC can apply to BC; and there is virtually no crossover between eligibility to apply to GS vs. CC. So fudging all those stats together would simply create less reliable data overall. </p>
<p>It would be nice if Columbia were more transparent about GS - it’s very hard to get admission stats about that program.</p>
That’s a dumb argument. If anything, hyper-selectivity REDUCES academic quality by homogenizing the student body – it tends to exclude students with a broader range of backgrounds and experiences.</p>
<p>My daughter’s SAT CR score was 620. She graduated summa cum laude and phi beta kappa, with a GPA over 3.9. (Part of the reason her GPA was so high was that she got an A+ in a 5-point Columbia class her first year - so it isn’t a Barnard thing.) She has a whole lot of friends with much higher SAT scores and much lower GPA’s.</p>
<p>Taking an SAT is nothing at all like doing college work. If anything it is a dumbed-down approach to selecting college students, because there is no opportunity for in-depth analysis or creative thinking on the test. It sends a message to students that there are “right” answers to questions; it discourages and punishes nuanced thought. </p>
<p>My d. expressed frustration at college with students who would ask the profs in class, “is this going to be on the test?” But that’s a reflection of SAT-mentality and hyper focus on GPA’s. You get kids who value their test scores over their ability to question or think.</p>
<p>And worse, it makes it LESS rather than more likely that a student will be admitted to the college that specifically has the program/resources that will fit his/her needs best.</p>
<p>Barnard draws all of its students from about one-eighth of the total potential applicant pool. One half of all students don’t qualify, and three-quarters of the remaining won’t apply to a women’s college. Barnard gets to reject more applicants than other women’s colleges because of the presence of Columbia (i.e. men). But the number of applicants rejected has no clear relationship to quality of education (as I’ve noted elsewhere, my d. turned down Williams for Smith because of its clearly and demonstrably higher educational quality in the areas she wished to study.) All one learns from rejected applicants is that the applicants are rejected - they don’t contribute or take away from the educational quality of the institution one iota. </p>
<p>By most accounts, the GS students are the best students at Columbia. I have no idea what their entering stats are, or how many are rejected (again, that doesn’t matter in the least.) If anything, studying alongside GS students should be one of the things that makes Columbia more attractive (much like the Ada Comstock students at Smith make it more attractive.)</p>
<p>It would be interesting to study the relationship between so-called selectivity (i.e. the number/percentage of applicants rejected) and the prevalence of cheating.</p>
<p>I’m not talking about admit rates–that’s a trivial part of selectivity, and in my opinion the least interesting and least informative part. I’m talking about SAT/ACT scores and GPAs, and not of admitted students, but of enrolled freshmen–for which there’s no danger of double-counting. It’s perfectly obvious why Columbia only counts the stats of CC/SEAS students. It’s because those are its most selective units, and by doing so it gins up its US News rankings. But it’s misleading, because the students in those classrooms aren’t just CC/SEAS students, they’re also GS and Barnard students. </p>
<p>When Harvard or Yale or Princeton reports its middle 50% SAT scores, that gives you a pretty good idea of who your classmates will be. When Smith reports its middle 50% SAT scores, that includes the Ada Comstock students. When Columbia reports only the middle 50% SAT scores of its most selective units, that creates a misleading impression, and a non-comparable set of figures–and intentionally so. It’s dishonest.</p>
<p>Look, I don’t think SAT scores are the be-all and end-all. I think, in fact, many colleges are overly reliant on them. But I do think if people are going to use SAT scores to compare and rank colleges, then there’s some real value in having the reported SAT scores mean the same thing. And Columbia is going out of its way to game the system, so as to mislead.</p>
<p>Do I think there’s value in having colleges be more transparent in reporting admissions stats for each unit with separate admissions standards, so that “a student will be admitted to the college that specifically has the program/resources that will fit his/her needs best,” as mini puts it? Sure, I think that’s a terrific idea. It would be valuable to applicants to Penn’s Wharton School to know just how long their odds are, and what they can expect the stats of their classmates to be, and how that compares to Penn’s arts & sciences school, or to its nursing school. It would be valuable to Cornell applicants to know how much harder it is to get into Cornell engineering than into CAS, and what the caliber of the competition will be there; and the same with respect to CAS and Cornell’s school of hotel administration. Same for any university in the country that has multiple undergraduate colleges and admits into a particular college, creating different admissions standards for each college. But for whatever reason, very few schools are fully transparent about this. I can’t think of any, really, except those that are or have just a single undergraduate college. But Columbia’s approach isn’t more transparent, it’s less transparent, because it blends two of its undergraduate colleges–CC and SEAS, which not coincidentally happen to be the most selective units–and excludes others (Barnard and GS), even though Barnard and GS students sit in exactly the same classrooms as CC and SEAS students.</p>
<p>Notice I’m not criticizing Barnard’s reporting practices here. They report figures that are comparable to other LACs. But Columbia is reporting figures that are not comparable to any other research university with multiple undergraduate colleges, because so far as I know Columbia is the only research university that excludes some of its undergraduate colleges from its reported stats.</p>
<p>To be perfectly clear: I am not attacking Barnard, or women’s colleges more generally. I have actually been one of the biggest advocates for women’s colleges on CC. I can proudly say that one of my daughters will be attending a leading women’s college in the fall. My other daughter had a women’s college as her #2 choice but was admitted ED to her #1 choice, a coed LAC. I think the Seven Sisters, in particular, have historically been extremely important pillars of academic excellence, and remain so despite facing a difficult market over the past several decades. But I do think the relationship between Barnard and Columbia is complicated and confusing enough that it gives both principals the opportunity to try to have it both ways–to claim unity when it suits them, and separateness when that suits them. And in some cases that leads to lack of transparency, and to intentional deception, and I think this is one such case.</p>
<p>The “dishonest” thing is that students are allowed to retake the SAT. Your position would make sense if (A) The SAT were a valid test of intellectual ability or college preparedness (which is is not), or if (B) SAT’s were administered in a single sitting, uniformly to all students at the same day, with no opportunity for a retest – and if it some measures were also taken to prevent students from paying for tutoring ahead of the exam. </p>
<p>The most useful aspect of SAT scores for elite colleges is that they claim to be “need blind” in admissions while at the same time perpetually guaranteeing that they will admit classes of students skewed heavily toward the wealthiest families.</p>
<p>GS students are not required to submit SAT scores in any case. So pulling in those numbers would be about as valuable as looking at median score ranges from test-optional schools. </p>
<p>I also think you still do not understand the relationship between Columbia and Barnard. Barnard has a more holistic admissions approach. I think my daughter was accepted because of language studies and her dance background. I don’t think that the ad com gave a second thought to her SAT scores --they saw her grades and class rank, they valued her arts-oriented education.</p>
<p>I’m really sorry that you think that the median SAT scores of students in college has much to do with abilities. I would agree that it is significant at the lower end – that is, if you saw that the median score at a school was 450, you might question the ability of the school to provide much challenge. But an SAT score of 1800 correlates to about 80th percentile, and anyone with that score should easily be able to do college work at any liberal arts college. You seem to think that there is a discernable qualitative difference between a student who has a score of 680 and a score of 720 on the test. There isn’t even a statistically significant difference between those two scores (margin of error on the SAT is 60 points) – much less something that you would have much bearing on actual performance. </p>
<p>If you want “transparency” you’d favor mandatory reporting of single-score, first time sitting scores. But all you would be doing would be encouraging colleges to further manipulate their admissions policies to retain whatever score profile they think will look good to US News.</p>
<p>I’m glad my daughter chose not to accept her admission to Barnard, and chose Wellesley instead. 120 students in a literature class? That’s ridiculous for a LAC. I can’t remember any of my English classes at UCLA having that many students.</p>
<p>Someone above counted two dozen lecturers/senior lecturers and at least as many adjunct professors in the Barnard English department. At Wellesley, there are two senior lecturers, one visiting lecturer (a Pulitzer winning art critic), and 19 associate to full professors (plus one visiting professor). One of the full professors has the same credentials as the Barnard lecturer - Radcliffe College bachelor’s and Harvard doctorate. And no TAs.</p>
<p>Barnard is not a standalone “LAC”. It is a smaller school within the environment of a large research university. More resources. TA’s are often graduate students who often socialize with or have discourse with undergrads in their department outside the class boundaries - so their presence can broaden the framework that the undergraduate experiences. </p>
<p>Some people really are not happy in a cloistered, age-restricted environment. </p>
<p>I don’t see what is wrong with students having the opportunity to choose among small and large classes. My son originally started out at a LAC where class sizes were restricted and he had a really hard time getting into the classes he wanted. On paper, it looked terrific – but the reality was that the popular classes filled quickly, and he’d always get one or two classes he wanted but end up filling his schedule from the “leftovers” that no one wanted. </p>
<p>My daughter never faced any difficulty at all at Barnard. One thing I really liked was that all classes – all levels – were open to all students. There were first year students at Barnard signing up for graduate level courses at Columbia. </p>
<p>No one is required to take the larger class. (The English major is extremely permissive in terms of course choices - basically any literature course would do to fill very broad outlines) In addition to the large class, Prof. Ellsberg taught two seminars with 12 students each this past semester. There are plenty of other literature and poetry classes to choose from with smaller enrollments with smaller enrollments. No matter how you cut it, the large enrollment in Ellsberg’s course signifies popularity of the course - it could be popular because it is perceived as an easy A, but whatever the reason, it’s a class that was filled beyond the capacity of the only lecture hall in the building.</p>
<p>Well, there was demonstrated demand for the course, given that there were 120 people who signed up to take it. And if I recall correctly, it was an elective, not required, course. So the demand was a “real” demand. That should be sufficient. If students demand a course should the college not provide it?</p>
<p>Technically, Barnard is not part of Columbia, a Barnard alumnus can not join Columbia Alumni Association. A JTS alumnus can not joint Columbia Alumni Association. A Teachers College alumnus can not join Columbia Alumni Association.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have had the opportunity of interacting with some of these GS students and they are some of the smartest people I have met anywhere.</p>
<p>No. The fact that students might demand a literature course of, let’s say, 120 students and peer-grading and/or self-grading, does not imply that a college should provide it.</p>
<p>Barnard itself has admitted this, as I noted in #111.</p>
<p>Calmom, wiith regards to a one-time single sitting SAT/ACT score… </p>
<p>There still would exist an advantage to the wealthy student with an expensive private education.</p>
<p>Columbia GS college is for a different set of students (adults). Harvard does not include its extension school in its calculation of SAT/ACT score range for the very same reason. This is not misleading at all.</p>
<p>Columbia GS student definition from Columbia’s website.
What defines our students as nontraditional is that GS students have taken breaks of one year or more in their educational paths.</p>
<p>Smileygerl, I agree with you. I was focusing on the multiple sittings to show just one of many reason that focusing on test score ranges is pretty useless.</p>
<p>I would rather be able to take a class with a great lecturer and it be crowded then not have the opportunity. Sure there should have been help for testing grading etc, but why not have a chance for more student to enjoy a good class?</p>
<p>Small doesn’t always mean better. Small can be dull and annoying</p>