<p>OK, I'm sorry if I have spread wrong information -- but given the fact that it comes from the Tufts web site -- you can see why I would have that impression. I mean, Tufts really would do its students a service if it would improve the design of its web site and make sure that all information posted there is current and correct. </p>
<p>I know that I consider it i*very* important for a student to be able to get clear and accurate information about school requirements during the final decision phase of college selection, because that really can end up being a deciding factor -- especially for a student who has expressed reservations about core requirements.</p>
<p>re: #20: ..of course, being in the suburbs of Boston, you wouldn't have much opportunity to try and date the girls at Barnard who may have gotten into Tufts. </p>
<p>Personally I doubt this choice is overwhelmingly lopsided in either direction.</p>
<p>I'm not a huge fan of the Revealed Preference study that's running around CC, like some people are, but FWIW its results, derived by analyzing actual matriculation selections of accepted students, show overall rank of applicant preference at Barnard #33, Tufts #42.</p>
<p>Not that this is a particulally useful way to pick a college in any event...</p>
<p>Lolabelle, I don't want to belabor the point, but the page I referenced is on the Arts & Science web site you referenced (at <a href="http://as.tufts.edu%5B/url%5D">http://as.tufts.edu</a>) and I got to it by using their "easy" navigation links. The point is -- that's what Tufts has on its web site. If it's wrong, so be it -- but I generally am very careful to check my sources before I post anything here on cc. So don't blame me for being gullible enough to believe what I read on a college web site. </p>
<p>As I said, I take your word for it. I'm not trying to argue with you. I'm happy that my d. is at Barnard and I think that Sharone should go to Tufts. I think that overall, academic offerings at Barnard are a little bit stronger because of the ties with Columbia -- the academic expectations on both sides of the street are equally high and are Ivy-caliber, and Barnard students get the benefit of very close advising and direct contact with their faculty while at the same time having the full resources of Columbia at their disposal. That includes a lot of things -- for example, being able to use Butler library for research. For my daughter, who is interested in international relations but specifically interested in Russian and Slavic languages, it also includes close proximity to the resources and programs at the Harriman Institute. So if I were going to rank colleges in terms of overall resources and offerings, I'd agree with the Princeton Review as to how the colleges compare. </p>
<p>But I also said that I don't think that applies across the board to every single major. Tufts is an excellent college. If Tufts offers an undergraduate major that is not offered at Barnard -- such as IR -- it is reasonable to expect that for that major Tufts is probably going to offer more academic opportunities - it is going to have developed a more cohesive set of courses, better advising geared to that major, etc. So for Sharone's individual needs I would think Tufts would be much better -- and some sort of nuance about ranking really is irrelevant. </p>
<p>I mean, my son is attending a much lower ranked university and he just got selected for a dynamite internship that pretty much rivals anything that any Ivy would offer him --- so it really is not about "ranking" but about what opportunities are there and how they mesh with the student's interests.</p>
<p>in response to Monydad, I think that is incredibly ridiculous to focus on the connection with Columbia. There is talk that Columbia will end that relationship in the near future. Because in all honesty, who is benefiting from that relationship? Primarily Barnard. It only increases costs and bureaucratic issues for Columbia. So I would not count on that relationship lasting much longer. In addition, if my memory serves me correctly, you incessantly are on the Cornell boards, discussing New York's relationship with Cornell. In all honesty, how can you say that Barnard's relationship with Columbia is closer to that of Cornell's state supported schools with Cornell UNiversity?</p>
<p>Sharone: I posted on your other thread about this topic, and read the thread you posted about G'Town and wanting to transfer.</p>
<p>You know my views about IR and Barnard/Columbia, so I won't repeat myself.</p>
<p>If you haven't been to these campuses, and given everything you've said, I would definitely go to Tufts. GW is a great school, but it's an urban school in DC (albeit a relatively safe part of DC). To me, it feels impersonal. I don't think its DC proximity gets you so much, particularly since you aren't actually sure about what you want to do post IR studies. Tufts has a nice campus and a very solid education that I would argue is just as good in real terms and nearly as good in perception terms (I am one who thinks the differences between top 30-40 schools amounts mostly to appearance rather than real differences, unless you are talking about superior LACs) as Columbia.</p>
<p>I think the big thing is that coming from Texas, Tufts will be the least likely to shock you in terms of the difference of its culture and setting.</p>
<p>Also, none of what myself and UCLAri said convinced you about Columbia, so I think you are weighting non-academic things more importantly than you're really representing that you are.</p>
<p>You know, whatever anybody says, if it feels right to go to Tufts, go to Tufts. Don't expect anyone else to make decisions about your feelings for you. These are legitimate things and more instructive and valuable than rankings of rigid ideas about perceived school quality. My guess is a year at Tufts and you won't consider transferring to G'Town. Tufts is a great school.</p>
<p>Clearly you haven't been convinced on the basis of academic considerations alone that Columbia/Barnard would be the way to go. I think therefore that that is a bad bet for you. Columbia/Barnard is best I think for the kind of person that has visited and really knows that that is where they want to be. A lot of people don't want to live where Columbia is.</p>
<p>Go to Tufts and enjoy a first-rate experience.</p>
<p>" In all honesty, how can you say that Barnard's relationship with Columbia is closer to that of Cornell's state supported schools with Cornell UNiversity?"</p>
<p>I don't think it's closer, but it looks to me to be very similar. The reasons they look similar to me are:
1) their students take what seems to me to take about the same proportion of their courses at the bigger college of Arts & Sciences;
2) Their students share the same clubs, sports teams, geographic proximity & social life as the university as a whole;
3) Their students are issued degrees of the umbrella university</p>
<p>There are some differences too. Fer example Barnard students have separate dorms. But it's not like they are far away, either. To me the similarities outweigh the differences.
YMMV.</p>
<p>If the affiliation were to end, then that would be different. Currently, as per forever in the past, it is in effect.</p>
<p>IF Cornell were to eject the College of Industrial & Labor Relations from the rest of the university that would also be different.</p>
<p>By "rumors," I'm sure you mean "wishful thinking on the part of the internet crazies." See: any post I've ever made, for reasons why the affiliation is ending no time soon, and why it benefits Columbia rather than costs (and they know it). And that's all I'll say about it in this thread. :)</p>
<p>Just want to weigh in, in response to NuGrad's ridiculous post. The Barnard and Columbia relationship is not going to end. It isn't even on the table. It may be upsetting to insecure Columbia undergrads, but it is an arrangement that is beneficial to Columbia University -- always has been, always will be. For one thing its a source of revenue. Fore example, Columbia's expenses to maintain the Butler library are going to stay the same whether or not Barnard is there, so its nice to collect extra money each year from Barnard. </p>
<p>Same with their classes: profs are paid based on the number of courses they teach, not the number of students in them, so when Barnard students enroll n Columbia classes, the University benefits from the dollars that come with those students. Columbia is free to designate any course it offers as being limited enrollment with priority for its own students, so they don't have to worry about Barnard students displacing Columbia students from essential courses. </p>
<p>The number of courses that are designated "interfaculty" and offered as "Columbia" courses to all students but in fact taught by Barnard faculty is quite high, as are the number of departments that are essentially operated jointly. My daughter is involved in one such department -- Slavic Languages -- the head of the Barnard department is also the director the Harriman Institute, so you are looking at a tremendously close relationship among the faculty. Also, an untold number of Columbia grad students are employed as TA's for Barnard faculty -- I don't think the graduate departments would want to give up that resource for their students. </p>
<p>As long as Columbia is turning away more qualified applicants than they enroll, there is no reason whatsoever for them to terminate their relationship with Barnard -- they don't have any shortage of students, so Barnard doesn't represent competition to them.</p>
<p>Obviously, "NUGrad" is not a Columbia student and has no knowledge or understanding of the Columbia/Barnard relationship. If s/he did, s/he wouldn't make that assertion, because s/he would know that it would be a tremendously disruptive move that would create all sorts of problems for Columbia, in terms of the need to fill in all the gaps created by the departure of Barnard faculty. It's not so much that Barnard provides full departments and majors to Columbia, like architecture and urban studies -- it's that all over the place, Columbia is relying on Barnard faculty to round out the departments, filling little niches here and there with essential courses and providing backup whenever a Columbia faculty member goes on sabbatical. The bottom line is that Barnard's courses and faculty are woven into the full University infrastructure that would make separation very messy and difficult, and favors preservation of the current status quo.</p>
<p>um in response to that, I am friends with a very loyal and involved Columbia alum. What I articulated is what was conveyed to me. I trust him, since he is very involved with the university.</p>
<p>I think it's reasonable to contemplate the state of the affiliation agreement, if this is an important aspect to you. I asked for people's thoughts on CC before my daughter ED'd. In her case I don't think she really cares much, because she likes Barnard not Columbia.</p>
<p>But what I decided myself is that there wasn't really much risk of the status quo changing humongously during the time she was going to be there. Because there are students attending each of these schools right now, and matriculating next year, who are there with the expectation that they will have access to courses at the other school. If the relation was to abruptly teminate, the schools would be in effect screwing these students. So for example, current Columbia students who are expecting to be able to take courses, or worse yet major in: Dance, Theater, Urban Studies, Architecture, whatever is housed at Barnard would suddenly find themselves left stranded. Columbia students take about the same amount of credits at Barnard as Barnard students take at Columbia.</p>
<p>So personally my opinion is that if the institutions were actually going to unwind the relationship at some point they would probably do it with a long lead time, in such a way so as not to screw their respective currently-matriculated students. Which means it wouldn't likely affect my daughter much in any event. There always seem to be 5 or 10 year terms to the contract, so after 2008 there will be no further risk while she's there, anyway .</p>
<p>But that's just my opinion. I have no particular insight into the situation, and I could be wrong. People need to draw their own conclusions.</p>
<p>Maybe this is one of those mysterious forces you read about in articles about physics like the strong force and the weak force. All over the country colleges are seeking out and bragging about their cross registration, some of which are miles apart: MIT and Wellesley, Occidental and Cal Tech, the five college group around Amherst. It's almost like gravity is pulling colleges together. Yet here we have two colleges across the street from each other, and we have a group of people predicting and in some cases advocating their separation. Maybe as colleges get too close there is a previously undescribed repulsive force pushing them apart. Of course it would not apply in Claremont, so it would have to be a local phenomenon.
I don't claim to understand it, but then I wasn't a physics major.</p>
<p>"In addition, if my memory serves me correctly, you incessantly are on the Cornell boards, .."</p>
<p>You have a unique memory, Your first cc post was this March. I have not posted to the Cornell board since last December. So for the entire period that you have been active on CC I have not made so much as a single post to the Cornell board.</p>
<p>I have been on CC for a long time now, through 2 kids' college searches, winding down and in fact out save for this recent relapse. I have had my share of posts to that sub-forum over that long period of time, but my contributions to it are dwarfed, relatively speaking, by the major players there.</p>
<p>Still, hopefully at least some of my posts there were helpful to at least some students considering colleges.</p>
<p>Not that this comment is relevant , or useful, or appropriate in the first place.</p>
<p>If the contract runs to 2013 then it seems to me this topic is completely moot; one very well can in fact "count on that relationship lasting" for the time period that counts the most: the time that you're going to be in attendance there!</p>
<p>However, I got the impression from the following that the 5-year extension to 2013 had to be elected in 2008. Which is not the same thing.</p>
<p>Well, it kind of depends on the terms of the extension -- if it is an option that Barnard exercises, then it doesn't really matter -- if it is on Columbia's side or both sides need to agree, then in theory it could require renegotiation, but that's unlikely.</p>
<p>Barnard owns the property it occupies, so Columbia can't expand by "evicting" Barnard -- but the pressures on Columbia to expand indicate that they can ill-afford to let go of the additional resources that Barnard provides in terms of classroom space. Since on average about 30% of credit units at Barnard go to Columbia students, this is no small concern -- it means that every year Columbia students take about 6800 classes at Barnard. While that is only a small percentage overall compared to the total number of courses offered at Columbia, it still is very significant for a campus where classroom space is scarce. It would make no sense in terms of Columbia's institutional priorities to drop the relationship with Barnard.</p>
<p>I think that what happens with each renewal of the affiliation agreement is that issues of money get negotiated. Over the years Columbia has required Barnard to pay more for use of Columbia resources as time goes on, and I am sure that Columbia is happy to increase fees wherever it can. As long as Barnard continues to pay Columbia $X, I simply can't see what possible benefit there would be to Columbia to give up that source of revenue.</p>
<p>I meant that it's unlikely that they would want to renegotiate at the 10 year point ... without a whisper of an issue before then. I'm sure if there was a concern about problems with the arrangement there would be rumblings from official quarters.</p>
<p>just to let you know, i ended up choosing barnard. I spoke with a professor who's the head of Barnard's polisci dept AND the east asian studies institute at SIPA, and he convinced me. He said that NYC's resources are unparalleled, and sent me some awesome links about some of Columbia/Barnard's IR offering. But more than that, the fact that such an established and busy professor would take the time to send me such a long email and offer to be my advisor (i was so excited!!) convinced me to go.</p>