<p>Right upfront I'd like to say that I'm trying to figure out NOT ONLY the degree of truth of these stereotypes, but also how much they are tossed around on the two campuses. If anyone claims 0% truth I would like to know what you think caused people to start stereotyping Barnard students.</p>
<p>I read in Megan McCafferty's book "Charmed Thirds" (the author is a "Columbia graduate" according to the book jacket, I'm not sure whether undergrad or what):</p>
<p>"Since Columbia University went coed in 1983 there has been a glacial relationship between the women of Columbia College and the women of Barnard College, the women-only school located right across Broadway. It has everything to do with the scarcity of single Columbia men. Between the two campuses, guys are outnumbered roughly two to one, which makes for very heavy competition on the hookup front. Columbia women claim that the Barnard women are (1) preoccupied with appearances, (2) dumb, and (3) slutty. (That is, the ones who aren't stereotyped as man-hating lesbians, making them a versatile group, indeed.) Columbia women generally concede that this combination makes Barnard women irresistible to Columbia men. The Barnard women claim that they are indeed (1) cuter and (2) more stylish than the Columbia women, but are (3) equally smart, all vehemently unslutty explanations for their attractiveness to Columbia men." (p139)</p>
<p>Now, I really respect this author--I LOVE the Jessica Darling series--and am influenced by her take on the social topography of the two schools esp. because I'm applying to both (as I've heard many ppl do.)</p>
<p>ahhh also I didn't mean to say "0% truth" because obv. there's always going to be a variety of students at a college...I just meant a higher than average degree of truth I guess...</p>
<p>This is the problem with stereotypes -- they're generalizations that may be true to an extent but are dangerously overly applied. Here's my take:</p>
<p>1) Intelligence -- on the whole, Columbia girls are slightly more intelligent. For the most part, the two cohorts are indistinguishable. However, you're more likely to find someone brilliant at Columbia. And while there are some moronic Columbia girls, there are more at Barnard.</p>
<p>2) Appearances -- Indistinguishable. Both schools have a fair amount of (to quote the author) "man-hating lesbians" who dress like guys. Both schools have a number of cute/hot girls. And the vast majority of girls at both schools are pretty plain and average, and dress that way. Barnard girls don't exactly dress like girls at FIT or something.</p>
<p>3) Promiscuity -- It's the same. It's a function of the times: many girls at either school will open their legs after they get a couple drinks in them. Columbia guys will go after either, and there's an ample supply of either willing to do that.</p>
<p>I agree with Columbia2002 (and keep in mind that we're talking about the respective student bodies IN GENERAL, not about specific students--so, Barnard parents who read this, no one is trying to insult your child).</p>
<p>Columbia students have a SLIGHT edge in terms of their collective intellectual acumen, probably because Columbia has a deeper applicant pool and attracts more high-achieving, intelligent students by virtue of its reputation alone. That being said, some of my friends/acquaintances at Barnard are among the smartest people I've met in college, so this doesn't apply to everyone. </p>
<p>That's the only discernible difference. Other personal qualities (e.g., attractiveness, likeability, sociability) vary so much among individual students at both schools that any generalizations ("We're prettier than they are," etc.) just reflect a desire on the part of those make them to create some sort of meaningless rivalry.</p>
<p>On the whole, in general, not talking about specific students or meant to insult anyone - because after all it is a generalization -- my Barnard daughter has found that Columbia students are ever so slightly likely to be more full of themselves.</p>
<p>The OP makes a really good point which hadn't really occurred to me prior to applying ED to Columbia(got deferred) about the female/male imbalance. Would current(or past) Columbia students agree that men are far outnumbered by women? Is this a good thing(I'm a male), or is a good chunk of the female population "man-hating lesbians"?</p>
<p>"On the whole, in general, not talking about specific students or meant to insult anyone - because after all it is a generalization -- my Barnard daughter has found that Columbia students are ever so slightly likely to be more full of themselves."</p>
<p>Thank you for that inane non-contribution to this discussion.</p>
<p>In classes it is not even possible to tell the two groups of women apart. And although it's true, Columbia's SAT scores are higher, Barnard GPA's are higher.</p>
<p>It's sad that this "rivalry" can't be put to rest.</p>
<p>DD (a Barnard student) spends many weekends at Yale where her best guy friend is, and I have heard (by my very own ears) the Yale men exclaim at her intelligence and acumen. Her beauty speaks for itself.</p>
<p>I am sure there are many Columbia women who are equal. There certainly are many Barnard women who are.</p>
<p>This is the last point I will make, because I do think that these distinctions aren't so important, but I would like to note that high school GPAs aren't standardized from school to school, as are SAT scores . (I also couldn't find Columbia's average HS GPA for the class of 2011 on their Web site.) A somewhat better measure is class rank, which shows Columbia's and Barnard's applicants to be almost the same. From schools that rank, 92% of Columbia admits were in the top decile of their high school class (with 98% in the top two deciles); 93.4% of Barnard students were in the top two deciles.</p>
<p>
[quote]
DD (a Barnard student) spends many weekends at Yale where her best guy friend is, and I have heard (by my very own ears) the Yale men exclaim at her intelligence and acumen. Her beauty speaks for itself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This is a really sad and self-serving attempt to demonstrate Barnard girls' purported equivalence with Columbia girls. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Is this a good thing(I'm a male), or is a good chunk of the female population "man-hating lesbians"?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>There are man-hating lesbians at both Columbia and Barnard, though I'd venture to guess that there may be more at Barnard. But there are also plenty of gay guys at Columbia. On the whole, there are significantly more straight girls -- notwithstanding the fact that many of such aren't passable -- than straight guys.</p>
<p>Wow! Imagine how chastised I feel by your criticism. I really worry about you guys sitting in judgement of me and my daughter and all her friends.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow! Imagine how chastised I feel by your criticism. I really worry about you guys sitting in judgement of me and my daughter and all her friends.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You do care about others' opinions or else you wouldn't have irrelevantly bragged about your daughter's purported "intelligence" and "acumen" and beauty."</p>
And also my d. spent an entire semester complaining to me that students on both sides of the street were devoid of a sense of humor and never able to catch on to any joke ...</p>
<p>HINT: the comment was meant to be inane. As in, a deliberate and sarcastic attempt to highlight the inanity of the other comments by posting something equally ridiculous.</p>
<p>"And also my d. spent an entire semester complaining to me that students on both sides of the street were devoid of a sense of humor and never able to catch on to any joke ...</p>
<p>HINT: the comment was meant to be inane. As in, a deliberate and sarcastic attempt to highlight the inanity of the other comments by posting something equally ridiculous." </p>
<p>I understood that it was intended as a joke, thanks.</p>