<p>The Columbia application doesn't ask that, and, as far as I know, Barnard's admissions officers don't share that information with Columbia's, so there's no way for the latter group to know whether female applicants to Columbia also applied to Barnard (and vice versa, I would assume, although I've never seen Barnard's app).</p>
<p>Even thought they don't know, they can get a sense by the information in the application. In some cases, the student's interest & EC's might make it very obvious. Also, it is likely that for athletic recruits, the coaches would have that information and they are not only likely to let the ad com know.</p>
<p>What else would account for the differential rate of admissions between male & female applicants to Columbia? If nothing else, the Columbia ad com is taking Barnard's presence into consideration when they skew their application process to achieve gender balance. You don't see that sort of skew (10% female vs. 13% male) admit rate at other Ivies such as Harvard, Yale, or Princeton. </p>
<p>If admit rate equates with qualifications, then as a whole, Columbia women must be smarter than Columbia men .... so maybe the reason you males are dating the Barnard women is that you are too intimidated by the brainy Columbia girls to ask them out? ;)</p>
<p>
[quote]
If admit rate equates with qualifications, then as a whole, Columbia women must be smarter than Columbia men
[/quote]
</p>
<p>This doesn't follow at all. You're assuming the numbers of males and females applying to columbia are equal. Not only is it a well established trend that girls are making up more and more of the college application pool as a whole, you would have to go into the possible draws females would have to NYC/columbia/etc that may not exist for a male.</p>
<p>Skraylor, I already gave the numbers -- 55% of Columbia applicants are female, but only 48% of accepted students are female; the acceptance rate for females is 10%; for males 13%. This was spelled out in detail in post #40. I'm not making any "assumptions" when it comes to the raw numbers...they are all reported and easy to access.</p>
<p>calmom, start your own thread. this one is supposedly about barnard stereotypes and the resulting atmosphere on campus, not admissions numbers.</p>
<p>I personally have no interest in crunching the numbers to prove or disprove that "most" BC students could not have applied to CU or whose admission standards are higher. If my assertion was too bold, then it was too bold, but it was made qualitatively, not quantitatively. Others will have other experiences, and that's why we're all posting in this thread.</p>
<p>Hm. Mothers are offering statistical arguments and arguments based on our own D's and getting flamed for it. Other posters are making sweeping generalizing with "my own experience" for evidence.</p>
<p>And I really don't get the nastiness here. So sue us. We know we have brilliant D's who did not go to Barnard because they couldn't get into Columbia. And we don't like to see them stereotyped, or any Barnard students for that matter, as lesser. So our motivation is to protect, communicate. </p>
<p>Seems just as laudable as wanting to parse minor or nonexistent differences and show wit? and control.</p>
<p>The tone of some of these posts might lead me to stereotype Columbia students. But I know those stereotypes would be untrue.</p>
<p>I don't see the need for a hierarchy, pecking order, what have you. Barnard's reputation of turning out accomplished, achieving women speaks for itself as does Columbia's obvious success in facilitating intelligent, achieving graduates.</p>
<p>And I actually do have a great sense of humor in many contexts; bawdy, what have you. I don't mind the sexual content of the humor if it's in good fun. Not at all. But we mothers do get tired of reading put-downs of our daughters for choosing to enroll in a school that is amazing in and of itself and just happens to be affiliated with Columbia University.</p>
<p>And having done PhD work in the English Department of Columbia (admitted and everything! though finished elsewhere for personal reasons) I do have difficulty with guys who graduated from Columbia undergrad assuming they are superior to me in knowledge, intelligence and wit.</p>
<p>Equal? Yes, that I'll grant you. You guys are amazing for sure.</p>
<p>Superior? I don't think so, and especially not in the compassion or empathy department.</p>
<p>I might fall prey to gross gender stereotyping here but for my knowledge of my very compassionate S who chose Williams over Columbia. Imagine that.</p>
<p>At the risk of sounding like C02 here, get a grip. Not one person has mentioned the words "hierarchy", "pecking order", or even brought up the idea until you did so here. Not one person has "put down" Barnard as a group - if anything, all the posts by first-hand accounts indicate a camaraderie between the schools. Nobody's trashing your daughter's school - despite the invitation to do so, because this thread was about stereotypes. And discussions of stereotypes come with the usual caveats, among them that (1) statistics are silly because we're talking about impressions, and (2) second-hand accounts are irrelevant because the OP is talking about how students perceive each other.</p>
<p>No, mythmom, I'm afraid any perceived slights are entirely in your own oversensitive, defensive head here. Just because you took some grad classes (probably before there WERE Columbia Women, since that was 1983+) doesn't mean you have a point of reference for inquiring applicants. Turn off Mama Grizzly Protecting The Cub mode and stick to what you know.</p>
<p>If that's a slight bit rude, so is your thread hijacking, accusations of "lack of compassion" by the rest of us, and misrepresentation of what everyone is saying.</p>
<p>Your reply was just as I expected. Sigh. You win. We're crazy old ladies and you are princes of the city.</p>
<p>I tried. Off this thread.</p>
<p>To the Barnard moms - the OP started this same thread on the Barnard board to give you your opportunity to speak your mind. You didn't get one Columbia student/parent blast in contradicting all of your remarks. Why do you always find it necessary to force your opinions on the Columbia board when posters are here to get the Columbia viewpoint? If they wanted the Barnard viewpoint, they would post their questions on the Barnard board. Geesh.</p>
<p>
Your reply was just as I expected. Sigh. You win. We're crazy old ladies and you are princes of the city.</p>
<p>I tried. Off this thread.
</p>
<p>Smart, to leave before you dig yourself any deeper. Now that's what I call PWNED.</p>
<p>
It stands for itself in terms of representing the attitude of some Columbia students, who seem intent on feeding a stereotype that Columbia is filled with arrogant a-holes. </p>
<p>Which, of course, is what deters a lot of people from applying to Columbia in the first place. To the extent that various threads on CC represent dominant college culture, the Columbia threads certainly stand rather high on the hostility scale, whether it is a thread like this or some other thread where some newcomer with some flaw in their stats posts a "chances" question.</p>
<p>To quote that master of diplomacy and interpersonal relations, Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?"
I would like to reassure the OP that all of the nastiness is here on CC and not at Columbia or Barnard. CO2 gave a nice response in post #3, and Phedre gave a nice thank you in #5. We should have quit there. (Come on! How often are you going to agree with Columbia2002?)</p>
<p>
[quote]
It stands for itself in terms of representing the attitude of some Columbia students, who seem intent on feeding a stereotype that Columbia is filled with arrogant a-holes.</p>
<p>Which, of course, is what deters a lot of people from applying to Columbia in the first place.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, one of the best schools in the world is adversely impacted because a couple people with too much time on their hands go a bit overboard on a message board. Calmom: More cattle, less hat.</p>
<p>Are any Barnard students, who would know most about the Barnard side, going to post?</p>
<p>Check the Barnard board, Jellybeanz, there is a similar thread.</p>
<p>And to defend Barnard, if I had wanted to go to Columbia, I wouldn't have applied to Barnard early. And I think I had just a good of a chance as anyone who applies to Columbia. I've taken 14 AP classes since I was in 9th grade, have gotten either 5s/4s all of them (and mostly 5s), have a 4.0 UW GPA, and did well on my SATs and SAT IIs. Extracurricular wise, I show dedication and leadership, and I also have won numerous scientific and literary awards. I'm sure many other Barnard students have had similar stats, so please, don't assume that just because someone prefers one institution over another, they're stupid. It's completely ridiculous, and just makes you all seem like pompous, elitist snobs. Honestly, I don't understand why there is such hostility from the Columbia side.</p>
<p>From what I hear from both my friends at Barnard and Columbia, it is impossible to make a distinction between a Columbia and Barnard student in the classroom, because everyone who got into either school is equally capable of handling the work.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Honestly, I don't understand why there is such hostility from the Columbia side.
[/quote]
ah, but see, there's not, at least not in here. in fact, there's about 10 different posters on here who've said as much, myself included.</p>
<p>About the extent of it is what the OP alluded to in her quote, about some Columbia girls taking a subconscious attitude of hostility, for various reasons, none of them having to do with academic ability.</p>
<p>I have struggled with the issue of Barnard's being relatively less selective and less prestigious. Ultimately, it came down to this for me: I don't need to go to the more selective college to feel that my intelligence is validated. Now, that's not to say that Columbia students do, but for someone like me, Barnard is legitimately the better fit, and I'll gain more from the snug fit than I'll lose from the higher acceptance rate. The institutions are very distinct and are different in many important ways.</p>
<p>To people who might let their inhibitions about going to the less selective/prestigious school interfere with the application process, I'll say this: your college doesn't define you, and someone who will judge you for going to Barnard rather than Columbia is drastically immature and not the kind of person whose appraisal should matter to you.</p>
<p>Why are there so many parents on here anyways? Just the boards in general. I know you want to give your kids as many opportunities as you can, but seriously.</p>
<p>And fighting with actual Columbia students? Please.</p>
<p>
[quote]
your college doesn't define you, and someone who will judge you for going to Barnard rather than Columbia is drastically immature and not the kind of person whose appraisal should matter to you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So someone who does hiring at a prestigious company is "drastically immature" because they judge you as less qualified/intelligent/whatever as compared to the Columbia applicant competing with you for the job?</p>
<p>And of course your school defines you. A big part of who a lot of Columbia alums are is because of our experiences at Columbia.</p>
<p>I think that an employer will really give due consideration to an entire application. Every Columbia student isn't necessarily better qualified for a job than every Barnard student.</p>
<p>Forgive me for not making the context clear, but I'm talking about student-to-student relations. Columbia students who would judge Barnard students for going to the latter rather than the former are, indeed, immature.</p>