<p>Shraf, I don't see a significant difference in the stats between CC and BC:
Admittedly last years average stats from PR:
CC SAT 1409 GPA 3.78
BC SAT 1380 GPA 3.9</p>
<p>Shraf, did you mean to accuse the authors of the brochure of trying to "disillusion" the parents? Didn't you mean to say "delude"?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, the brochure I posted says [GS students] can compete:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're right that GS students aren't per se ineligible. However, the NCAA has all sorts of age rules. Given that GS students are often several years older than CC-SEAS-BC students, many of them are thus rendered ineligible.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Shraf, I don't see a significant difference in the stats between CC and BC:
Admittedly last years average stats from PR:
CC SAT 1409 GPA 3.78
BC SAT 1380 GPA 3.9
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Selectivity is the difference, I'd say. A 1400/3.8 has almost no chance of getting into Columbia, but a solid chance of getting into Barnard. Columbia's (and, for that matter, any top school's) average SAT score could be 1500+ if it were to select people on the basis of numbers alone since its applicant pool is so competitive. Barnard could never have a 1500+ average SAT class.</p>
<p>My read on the statistics is that:
1) the Ivy schools are successful in attracting applications from thousands of kids who have no business applying. (Why shouldn't I apply? I might get lucky. The college said they didn't have a minimum score. My GC said it was a reach, but I should apply anyway. He said it was a thousand to one shot, but he didn't say it was impossible.)
2) The kids who have the stats that make theirs a reasonable application don't apply to just a few Ivies, particularly if they are using prestige as a selection criterion. As a result these school could accept three or four classes that look the same in terms of stats and diversity, but many students will attend another Ivy.</p>
<p>It is for these reasons that the Ivies go through many more applications to end up with stats that are similar to those of the more selective LACs</p>
<p>
[quote]
It is for these reasons that the Ivies go through many more applications to end up with stats that are similar to those of the more selective LACs
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you wholly dispute the fact that 1) Ivies have a stronger applicant pool and 2) Ivies don't feel the need to accept people with the best stats and can go lower with their numbers?</p>
<p>Actually, I wasn't commenting on the strength of the applicant pool stats but on Shraf's comment that the Columbia's stats would be lowered by the admission of the Barnard women. I don't see the respective matriculation stats as being significantly different. Columbia2002's explanation may be correct, that the stats of Columbia are somehow lower than they might otherwise be through some voluntary action of the admissions committee. Byerly, the "Tufts' Dip" devotees and the students of the Revealed Preference Rankings might offer additional explanations, but by any of these explanations the lower stats are not due to having to admit Barnard women to beef up the athletics. You can accuse the Barnard women of alot of things, but causing the football loss record is not one of them.</p>
<p>I got the matriculation SAT and GPA stats I cited from PrincetonReview.com, so they are admittedly out of date. Where might I get the stats of the applicant pools?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Actually, I wasn't commenting on the strength of the applicant pool stats but on Shraf's comment that the Columbia's stats would be lowered by the admission of the Barnard women.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>ok...lets try this....how about next time you read ALL of what i wrote instead of taking things out of context....alright here goes, i'm gonna copy and paste what i wrote here so u can try again:</p>
<p>
[quote]
dont know why they do this but a simple explanation could be that its an easy way to boost the athletic programs while maintaining strong admission stats and academics...its well documented that athletes usually do not perform as well in HS so its clearly to columbia's advantage to have some of their female team members attend barnard
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Ok, get it now, i was saying that they are better off sending some of the athletes to barnard so they wouldnt further bring down their stats. Again, remember, the ivies are very big on sports and the biggest sports stars didnt have 4.0s in HS so that factors into the stats thats y 1) ivy stats may be a bit lower than you would expect and 2) it is advantagous for columbia to have barnard accept these athletes so it would take less of a hit while still having good teams.....get it now? i mean, throwing out stats is great, and I understand that a parent sitting infront of their computer only has that as a resource but if you are going to do that and try to go on the offensive, at least try to understand what the other person is saying.</p>
<p>So Barnard would have even higher stats if they didn't take the athletes to help out Columbia.</p>
<p>Mardad, Barnard's 2005-2006 common data set is available on line now - so those are newer stats than the PR stats -- but I think that either shows <em>admitted</em> or <em>enrolled</em> students, not the overall applicant pool. I think it is obvious from reported stats over the years that Barnard places somewhat higher priority on GPA than test scores, but the differential in stats may also be a result of the fact that only Columbia accepts men. It is well known that women tend to have higher GPA's than men, but men tend to do better on SATs -- so the SAT/GPA discrepency may only reflect the gender balance. </p>
<p>In any case, Barnard itself doesn't seem to value athletics very highly among applicants (not very many athletes among admitted students), probably in part because the Div I coaches are at Columbia -- if there are any spots being held open for recruited athletes, they probably are Columbia spots. (I don't know how Columbia works - I do know that at some colleges, a certain number of spots in each class are reserved for recruited athletes and the coach for each sport will have a certain allotment).</p>
<p>
[quote]
Barnard places somewhat higher priority on GPA than test scores
[/quote]
</p>
<p>GPA stats are largely useless. With kids applying from 5,000+ different high schools, grade inflation/deflation, weighted/unweighted GPAs, etc., an average GPA means very little. </p>
<p>
[quote]
It is well known that women tend to have higher GPA's than men, but men tend to do better on SATs -- so the SAT/GPA discrepency may only reflect the gender balance.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Guys score 30-40 points higher in math (and slightly higher in verbal) than girls, on average. I'm not sure if there's a difference between men and women at the upper end of the spectrum, however.</p>
<p>And same with GPA. You're right that girls do better in high school than boys. But among HS kids applying to the better national colleges, is there really a difference between guys' and girls' GPAs?</p>
<p>Men have to do 40 points higher than women to get 99th percentile if the scores are grouped by gender and 10 points higher in verbal.
<a href="http://www.collegeboard.com/highered/ra/sat/sat_data_satI.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.collegeboard.com/highered/ra/sat/sat_data_satI.html</a></p>
<p>There is no statistical difference between BC and CC in SAT, I'd be willing to bet the same is true with respect to GPA.</p>
<p>How about some of you Barnard "defenders" head over to their message board. It's been pathetically neglected. For instance, on May 26, someone asked the question "What do you love about Barnard?". Sadly, there's not been one response. The fact that you are busier on the Columbia board is very telling.............</p>
<p>well they are all barnard parents who are deluding themselves into believing their kids go to columbia and they are only here to try and convince themselves more of this misconception and try to make CC and SEAS kids look like a-holes who hate barnard rather than actually helping others get to know barnard better.</p>
<p>The people who are deluded are those who think there is any significant difference at all in the education given by any of Columbia University’s 4 undergraduate divisions–Columbia College, SEAS, GS or Barnard. They all take the same classes, with slightly different requirements–anyone, for example, can choose to take the required courses of any other division by requesting them, including the Core Curriculum, and all courses after basic requirements are the same. My son took about half his courses at Barnard. Students can also take many of the courses at Columbia’s graduate schools. Also, students at Continuing Education can take many of the undergraduate courses at the university. This makes the university one of the best places to go–there are students of a wide variety of backgrounds and ages present in classes, which makes for much more interesting discussions. It also means that the university is able to offer a much larger selection of courses than many of the smaller ivies–because the large number of students mean there is enough revenue to pay for them.
On the question of Barnard’s being a Seven Sister and whether that means it can also be an Ivy–of course it can! As someone else pointed out–the definition of Ivy is athletic, and the Barnard student body is recognized by the entire Ivy League as eligible. Also, the proper comparison with other seven sisters is the other seven sisters at large universities–historically, Barnard’s peers were Radcliffe (always part of Harvard) and Pembroke (always part of Brown). In the same way, Barnard has been part of Columbia since its founding. Columbia participates in hiring decisions of Barnard faculty, many of the academic departments are completely integrated (and where they are not, all Columbia undergrads register freely on both sides of the street, and the university works hard to avoid duplication), and Barnard is represented in the University Senate, graduates on the Columbia campus with all other divisions, etc. My son was in clubs in which Barnard women were officers.
Also, Columbia and Barnard students often choose to live in each others dorms.
I would advise anyone who is looking at Columbia to look at more than one division if eligible. The education offered is the same high quality, which is really the main reason for going to school.</p>
<p>isn’t there like a women’s schools thingie equivalent to ivy league? like back in the days when ivy was only for men. schools like wellesley, bryn mawr, barnard, etc etc… 8 schools. this is the only reason that i can see why it can be referred to as ivy… otherwise i dont think so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This person must be a Barnard alum or have a daughter who goes there. Nobody else uses the term “Barnard women,” let alone bump up a 1000-day-old thread to do so.</p>
<p>Columbia2002, anything i could say has already been said by others on the thread, “Dear Columbia 2002”.
For other participants, I have encouraged my high school daughter to consider Barnard a top choice based on the reasoning I have given above–I can see no difference between the education and opportunities offered at Barnard and other undergraduate divisions of the university, other than a few requirements, particularly if a student does not want the core curriculum (which most schools, including other Ivies, do not have, and which can crowd out time for the other extensive offerings of the university). Nor have I found any evidence that professors or even most students see significant differences. While I have not finished working my way through the posts, I have found no informed disagreement. If I have missed something, it would be nice to know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And who the h— are you? Posting facts and evidence is beneficial and potentially persuasive. Posting about whether you “can see no difference” and whether you “have…found any evidence” isn’t the least bit persuasive. What the h— qualifies you to analyze the “education and opportunities offered” at Barnard vs. Columbia (and please say Columbia rather than BS like "other undergraduate divisions of the university)? And what the h— qualifies you to opine as to whether professors and most students “see significant differences” between Columbia and Barnard?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, you totally missed the boat…</p>
<p>how could your son have taken half of his courses at Barnard? was he a Creative Dance or Women’s Studies major?</p>