<p>It’s not only possible, but almost inevitable that you will take courses at Columbia as a Barnard student. The only courses at Columbia that are almost impossible to take are their “core” courses. </p>
<p>Barnard does not appear to offer a major called “business”, but does four different majors in the department of economics, for example. I am not sure what specifics you are looking for, but if they are offered in a Columbia course, you would certainly be able to take that course…</p>
<p>I don’t think Columbia offers an undergraduate business major either; all I can find is a special concentration (similar to a minor) in business management. The Columbia Business School is strictly a graduate program. Some, but not all, graduate level course are open to undergrads. </p>
<p>But bottom line… if you are sure that you want to major in business, then I don’t think that either Columbia or Barnard is the best option. </p>
<p>I think that in general, courses at Barnard are taught with the assumption that the students will be academicians or scholars - that is, a Barnard education provides an excellent foundation for the later pursuit of a Ph.D. Of course many students are pre-professional or have other career goals in mind – but the majors are pretty much structured with academics in mind. Over 4 years, the student will learn to think, write, and talk like a future professor of something or other. It’s simply a philosophical aspect of an elite liberal arts program – they don’t see themselves as functioning as a trade school – so you aren’t going to find majors that are geared to career-preparation.</p>
+SheepGetKilled I know this thread is old, but I thought I’d say this anyway: someone’s SAT score does not define how good of a student they are. Some of the smartest, “best” students I’ve known did not qualify as National Merit Semifinalists because they were (a.) poor standardized test-taking skills or (b.) had outstanding talent in one area (such as writing) but average skills in another area (like math). You can’t simply say that standardized test scores define the quality of a student. It would also follow that two students with the same score are not necessarily of equal intellect or creativity. Outside of the college application world, those scores mean nothing. They do not define a person’s potential or what they can do with their life, and shame on you if you think they do.
I don’t see what selectivity has to do with the question. The question was about comparing the two schools. In reality, the only major difference is CORE. Columbia’s core is much more restrictive than Barnard’s New Ways. Other than that, you can take courses at either place. I know as my daughter is at Barnard and has taken about 75% of her courses at Columbia. She also feels that student support is better, and more intimate, at Barnard.
Every year the same question gets asked: don’t people read other posts?! And every year you get a post from someone like “Sheepgetkilled” who claims that the best Barnard student is equivalent to the worst Columbia student on the basis of SAT skills. All I can say is that I hope no admissions counsellor from any university reads your comments as it shows you (1) don’t understand SAT ranges; and (2) don’t understand holistic admissions. It also shows you have ignored all the discussion about the relative merits of SAT scores.
Using this logic, you would argue that Harvard students are far superior to Columbia ones, and that simply isn’t true. Why would you ever conclude that performance on a multiple choice test equates to intelligence. If the tests were so accurate, the score range wouldn’t be so broad. And the fact is that if you come from a professional family, a perfect score, perfect GPA and great extra-curriculars probably makes you no more “competitive” that a student with less stellar statistics from a disadvantaged family or with some artistic, scientific or athletic hook.
Each year I watch students with supposed “brilliant” statistics get rejected. Harvard rejected more valedictorians than it accepted. So go one and quote statistics, and then come back and complain how cruel the system is. Or realize that your “stats” aren’t enough.
Sadovaya, I understand your point about Columbia and Harvard, but there are some things I’d like to point out. They aren’t considered better or worse than one another because 1) They are both top tier ivy league schools (yes, there’s even a tier for ivies) 2) Their rankings are very similarly high up there.
Honestly, many people choose Barnard because it’s easier to get into. Barnard’s acceptance rate is around 23.8% while Columbia’s is only 6.9%, which honestly is why many Columbia students say that Barnard isn’t or shouldn’t be the equivalent of Columbia. That being said however, Barnard does get many of the same benefits as Columbia students, such as classes, professors, and networking.
Therefore, in my opinion, the Barnard to Columbia comparison doesn’t entirely work because of the relatively large gap in their rankings and acceptance rate. As a result, it is very very rare to see a prospective student get rejected from Harvard and be accepted to Barnard while it is extremely common to see students get rejected from Harvard and accepted into Columbia and vice versa.