<p>Speaking personally, I’ve never been particularly impressed by Georgetown. Maybe because when I grew up, it wasn’t considered any better than St. John’s in New York. They had a night school for foreign diplomats, and kicked out professors who divorced (I had a wonderful Russian professor at Williams who was one of those booted.) Facilities are unexciting. And, last time I looked, they had virtually the highest percentage of private school kids receiving no need-based financial assistance of any college in the country. In a word, snooty.</p>
<p>But I’m also sure students can get a great education there (as they can at several hundred other schools in the country.) Not the quality of a Barnard education, in my blinkered judgment, but a fine education none the less.</p>
<p>I just wanted to add a comment or two. S is a SFS grad. It was the most wonderful, inspiring four years of his life. He loved his time at G-town and loved his experiences at SFS. The intern opportunities are incredible and the networking is amazing. I do believe it is easy to transfer from SFS to the College, but harder to transfer form the College to SFS. As to 2collegewego’s post #28 regarding going to G-town for graduate school, when S was deciding between Tufts and G-town and was agonizing over his choice, I happened to get a few minutes to chat with the asst. dean at SFS. When hearing that S could not make up his mind, he aptly responded, “That’s a no brainer. You go to SFS for undergrad and Fletcher (Tufts) for grad. Everyone knows that.” Loved that comment and always had good feelings toward the asst. dean. It made my S’s decision a little easier.</p>
<p>Calmom, if you say that there is no significant difference from Barnard’s scores to Columbia, you also have to agree that there is no significant difference between Barnard’s scores and schools where the mean SAT is 90 points <em>lower</em> in each section than Barnard’s. Of course, at that point, there is a significant difference between those schools and Columbia-- but not Barnard and the lower-ranked schools. </p>
<p>Again, what Barnard <em>is</em> is a liberal-arts women’s college whose students have access to many of the benefits of an ivy league university and are in a major city. That’s an awful lot of good stuff but it’s too bad that some of the parents are trying to make it what it’s not. Mini, I have no idea when you grew up but I have never heard of Georgetown and St John’s mentioned in the same breath! LOL I think there’s an awful lot of sour parent grapes on these Barnard threads.</p>
<p>tk, the student isn’t choosing between Columbia and Georgetown. She is choosing between Barnard and non-SFS Georgetown. I think some of what you posted will be particularly useful when the student is applying to grad programs at Columbia and Georgetown but those aren’t the choices now. </p>
<p>I have had relatives who graduated from both SFS and Georgetown, not SFS. The opportunities for jobs and internships were available to both. The structured coursework of SFS was only available to kids enrolled in SFS. The languages (and I post this because many of these are interested in foreign languages) are a separate school from SFS so that’s available to all. For a student who lives and breathes politics or international relations, the decision is easy. For a student interested in Biology, I would lean more toward Barnard.</p>
<p>Mini, I have no idea when you grew up but I have never heard of Georgetown and St John’s mentioned in the same breath!"</p>
<p>Both Jesuit schools (I think), with St. John’s (and Fordham) having the better reputations. In the 60s and 70s, Georgetown simply didn’t have much of a reputation. I didn’t know of a single top student who even considered going there (I also have to tell you that, in those days, the only students I knew who went to NYU were CUNY rejects, and folks from Missouri.)</p>
<p>And, yes, things change. The biggest change at Georgetown is the relative wealth of the student body (the endowment is still small, relative to the number of students). And the building up of SFS.</p>
<p>mini, I guess it tells me a lot about who you hung around with back in the day. Not only did Georgetown have a better reputation than St John’s and Fordham, but, somehow, Bill Clinton managed to find it and graduate from SFS in 1968. It prepared him enough to be a Rhodes scholar, attend Yale Law, be governor of Ark and president of the US. I guess he’s at least one top student who attended there although he probably ran across any one of a number of other heads of state, political leaders and diplomats who graduated from there.</p>
<p>If you go back to histories of American higher education such as the work of Frederick Rudolph, you’ll find almost nothing about Georgetown prior to that period.</p>
<p>Well, my son is one of those poor, financial-aided public school kids who ended up at Georgetown. He managed to rub elbows with many of those so-called private school “snooty” kids and lived to talk about it. Really - I am so tired of people just assuming if a student goes to a private school and does not need financial aid, they are snooty. I am starting to think it is those people who throw that “snooty” term around who are the snoots. I met some wonderful students, who actually befriended my poor kid (who even had a work study job - social suicide for sure) and for most part, you would never guess how wealthy their parents are. They are as down to earth as anyone I’ve ever met. mini - It’s obvious by your comments that you don’t have a high opinion of Georgetown, but your comments and opinions just seem a little out of date. When was the last time you visited the school?</p>
Again, though, we do not have any “mean” SAT information, only median score reports. But obviously, if we did have mean data, then obviously a mean score >110 points higher or lower than Barnard’s would be “significant” – but that still doesn’t change the picture in comparing Barnard scores with Columbia’s.</p>
<p>
No one has done that other than YOU. You seem to accept popular stereotypes, mostly perpetuated by high schoolers who are applying to schools, to assume that there is a level of hostility between Barnard & Columbia students that does not exist. Barnard students take classes at Barnard and at Columbia; many of their professors teach at both, or even head departments at both. Barnard women have a different, and more flexible, curriculum; and their school is set up to afford the opportunity for developing closer relationships with their faculty, beginning with the selection of their first year advisor. Academically, the only difference between students at one school or another is their foundational curriculum – the structured nature of the core vs. the flexibility of Barnard’s distribution requirements. Socially its probably all over the map, given the array of options.</p>
<p>I did post early on in the thread because my d. happened to have a major focused on international relations at Barnard – which is what the OP was asking about. If the goal of an IR education is to get an IR-job post grad, then my d’s education would have to be declared a resounding success. The other advantage of the Barnard environment is that my d. has close personal relationships with profs who are well respected in the field and would be the ones to write rec letters to support an application for a grad program. (My d. plans to work 2-3 years and then enter a masters or Ph.D. program – she’s got a job that is essentially set up to cultivate recent college grads for that path, and her immediate predecessors are now at Fletcher) </p>
<p>I don’t know anything about Georgetown College as opposed to SFS – and didn’t claim to – I simply suggested some questions for the OP to ask concerning cross-registration. Since the OP’s daughter has not been accepted to SFS, it’s no more relevant to discussion than it is to talk about SIPA’s reputation. The OP’s daughter is either torn between her interest in IR and sciences, or else hoping to be able to study both – I think that Barnard would afford a great deal of flexibility and opportunities both ways.</p>
<p>quote] S is a SFS grad. It was the most wonderful, inspiring four years of his life. He loved his time at G-town and loved his experiences at SFS. The intern opportunities are incredible and the networking is amazing.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Same experience here. Please show me where the high-fallutin’ rich students are because they certainly weren’t in my son’s circle. </p>
<p>For the sake of this thread, it would be helpful to have current, not 40 year old perceptions of both Georgetown and Barnard.</p>
<p>The observation would be the same as to Barnard: no significant curricular border between science and IR. To the extent that the presence of graduate programs would benefit the undergrads, such as providing research opportunities or attracting higher qualified faculty, those benefits would extend equally to Barnard and Columbia undergrads. (I think that Barnard undergrads actually are at an advantage because of the advising system & the colloquia & senior thesis/research requirements, as well as the practical flexibility in terms of course schedule and enrollment afforded by the lack of the core – but I think the point tk was making is simply one about flexibility.)</p>
<p>“You seem to accept popular stereotypes, mostly perpetuated by high schoolers who are applying to schools…” </p>
<p>No, Calmom, as I wrote, I am VERY familiar with both schools and have VERY close relatives who attended and graduated from both. They are not current high schoolers although I do know girls attending both now. Frankly, I wouldn’t have bent over backwards to have been so even-handed in my treatment of both schools if I didn’t have relatives in both camps. </p>
<p>I have relatives who graduated Georgetown, both SFS and non-SFS. As I explained, even the ones who didn’t graduate SFS have access to excellent college fairs, internships and job placement office. The ones who chose to go into international relations were very well-served. Not all continued in the field. (Interestingly, they were all women. At least one gave up her international aspirations for her husband’s career. He is also a Georgetown grad. She went on to Fletcher and he to Harvard law.) </p>
<p>I also had a close relative who worked at Georgetown U Hospital many years ago but no one who studied science at Georgetown. </p>
<p>My relative who attended Barnard was a science major and went to medical school. She later went on to get credentials in international health but at a different institution. </p>
<p>As far as my comments on tk’s post, he linked information about Columbia’s grad program. Columbia does have a top-related grad program, but I’ve never heard of Barnard’s political science program being a particular standout. I went ahead and looked up both Barnard and Columbia’s undergrad political science majors and they do not look integrated. As a matter of fact, Columbia’s specifically says that, “Courses in Barnard College or other divisions of the University not listed on the department website course listing cannot be used to meet the requirements of a major or concentration in political science without the approval of an Undergraduate Adviser, and this should be secured in advance of registration for the course.” That leads me to think that Barnard women can take courses in Columbia’s undergrad political science dept but the departments are separate.</p>
<p>Fine, you looked on the web site. I am relaying the experience of a student who graduated with a degree in poli sci, focus on IR, in 2010. </p>
<p>I’d point out that you don’t really understand the course structure at Columbia, because I don’t think you get the “not listed on the department website” part. Any poli sci major at Columbia or Barnard who wants to focus on IR will take Poli Sci V1601, “International Politics” – which IS listed in the Columbia Dept. web site. “V” means that sometimes it is taught by Barnard faculty, and sometimes it is taught by Columbia faculty. (Barnard-specific courses would have the letters “BC”, not “V”). Generally there is a single section of the course given each semester, with about 150 students. </p>
<p>My d. took the course from Kimberley Marten, a Barnard prof. reputed to be an excellent teacher who gives a fast-paced, information filled course with very intensive reading requirements. In general, the Culpa reviews seem to indicate that students like the Barnard profs who have taught the courses somewhat better than the Columbia profs – see:
[CULPA</a> - Introduction to International Politics](<a href=“http://www.culpa.info/courses/102]CULPA”>http://www.culpa.info/courses/102)</p>
<p>But the point is, Columbia & Barnard students are going to be taking the SAME intro class. The Barnard’s poli sci faculty is excellent, whether you have heard of them or not.</p>
<p>As calmom observed, the point I was making was about flexibility (the OP’s main concern).
But really, as far as I’m concerned, Barnard (outside the Core program) is simply an administrative division of Columbia University. A Barnard student graduates with a degree from Columbia University. On the other hand, Georgetown CAS and Georgetown SFS reflect curricular as well as administrative boundaries. </p>
<p>Can a student do a full-up double major in IR and Physics at Georgetown? What about at Barnard? In choosing courses, can one move with equal freedom across departments at both schools?</p>
<p>I think a brief perusal of Barnard’s Wikipedia page would tell you that Barnard is in fact a college within an Ivy League university. Its students do not ‘benefit’ from Barnard’s relationship with Columbia; they are Columbia students. As their diplomas have always shown.</p>
<p>The fact that its acceptance rate is higher than that of the other Columbia colleges does not make it any less of a constituent of Columbia University. Same goes for Cornell’s School of Hotel Administration, by the way.</p>
<p>Practically, from the perspective of a Barnard student, seems to me that’s about right. Technically it’s a little different, but that’s a whole other can of worms.</p>