<p>Goldie, you're basically through on this board. You have nothing valid to say, you make points that you can't back up, and when someone refutes them, you make idiotic, immature remarks in an attempt to offend people. Needless to say, it doesn't work. Just get over yourself and go back to Barnard (all the while telling people you go to Columbia). Dont worry, I wont tell anyone.</p>
<p>I hate bumping this thread back up, but after being directed here through another board I just thought I had to add some of the other perspective that Calmom brought at the beginning of this thread.</p>
<p>I kept up with cc's Columbia board for quite a while during my college decision process. In the end, I decided to apply to just Barnard, rather than Columbia too. For me, Barnard offered the opportunity for a small school with large school opportunities thanks to its affilitation with Columbia. </p>
<p>When my friends ask me what school I'm attending next year, I tell them Barnard. When they give me the usual dumb look I just tell them its in New York City, and end it at that. I'm proud of the school I will be attending next year, and it's not an issue of prestige for me. Barnard students who attend Columbia classes are there to work, they're there to get something out of it, just as Columbia students who take Barnard classes are willing to work in Barnard classes to get something back. Perhaps it's possible to see that it's a win-win situation. Columbia students are offered programs in dance and the opportunity to take smaller academic classes, while Barnard students are offered a chance for broader academic opportunities. </p>
<p>Just remember that not every girl (I can at least speak for one!) attending Barnard wishes they were at Columbia. I intend to work every bit as hard as I possibly can next year, regardless of whether my presence is frowned upon or not in any of my classes. It's sink or swim...the affiliation with Columbia would have ended a long time ago if Barnard girls wasn't up to snuff for the academically "elite" Columbians.</p>
<p>Cme, your post doesn't do much to address the issues that are being discussed on this thread.</p>
<p>It's great to hear that you're telling people you go to Barnard and that you don't have an inferiority complex, but the fact remains that many of your peers at Barnard will not have the same feelings that you have.</p>
<p>And, nobody's ever said that Barnard girls can't compete in Columbia classes. The hardest part about Columbia is not the coursework, but getting in. Someone from Barnard is perfectly capable of doing well in a Columbia class. The issue is whether Barnard girls are misrepresenting themselves as Columbia students, not whether they can swim with Columbia students.</p>
<p>Columbia2002, you need to get over it. My Barnard daughter just received her packet -- she is supposed to submit a passport size photo for her Columbia University ID. Apparently there is no such thing as a "Barnard" ID card, but all Barnard students are issued a CUID. </p>
<p>Since you admit by your own posts that "The hardest part about Columbia is not the coursework, but getting in. Someone from Barnard is perfectly capable of doing well in a Columbia class."- there is no justification for your resentment. When Columbia was male only in the early 80's, it had a 50% admit rate. Barnard has a higher admit rate because it has a smaller applicant pool, in part because it is women-only -- but like all women's colleges, it is also a strong, self-selecting pool. For that matter, it is almost twice as easy to get into the University of Chicago than Barnard -- but you probably wouldn't get far trying to argue that Chicago is an easier school or has less capable students. </p>
<p>A significant number of Columbia's applicants are unqualified students who are attracted by the prestige of an Ivy, for whom Columbia is an impossible reach. So in a sense, while Columbia is indeed difficult to get into, it probably is not as hard as you might think once you weed it down to those who actually have a chance and are being given serious consideration by the ad com. It is still difficult, but a student who is a strong candidate probably has significantly better than the 1-in-10 odds that the admit rate would indicate. So it makes little sense for you to place so much importance on the difficulty of admission as opposed the quality of education you get once you are on campus. </p>
<p>I'm not claiming that Barnard is as hard to get into as Columbia College -- just that it is a different college with a totally different appicant pool. Most students who apply to Barnard do so because they have done their research and seriously want to go to Barnard College - NOT Columbia College. Barnard attracts students who tend to be more arts-oriented, students who want a LAC with smaller classes, and/or students interested in attending a womens' college.</p>
<p>I think the "resentment" comes from Barnard girls claiming they go to Columbia instead of just saying Barnard--and we're talking about girls who are INTENTIONALLY trying to pass themselves off as COLUMBIA students and not Barnard students. For a BC girl to say that she goes to Barnard and get blank stares (which obviously is a reflection of the ignorance of whomever she is speaking to) and then say something like, oh, you know, it's affiliated with Columbia University is not really what we all find questionable. Again, what is questionable is girls INTENTIONALLY misleading others by not mentioning Barnard at all. </p>
<p>A few other points:</p>
<p>You wrote: "When Columbia was male only in the early 80's, it had a 50% admit rate." </p>
<p>And I'm willing to bet you that Barnard's acceptance rate was about the same, if not more. Practically every single college is today more selective than it was 20+ years ago. The 50% acceptance rate is therefore an irrelevant statistic today. </p>
<p>You wrote: "I'm not claiming that Barnard is as hard to get into as Columbia College -- just that it is a different college with a totally different appicant pool. Most students who apply to Barnard do so because they have done their research and seriously want to go to Barnard College - NOT Columbia College."</p>
<p>In my experience, all of the girls I knew who went to Barnard were rejected from Columbia College or didn't bother to apply to CC because they didn't think they'd get in. So, no, Barnard does not have a "totally different appicant pool". That's simply untrue. However, I believe it would be better for both Barnard and Columbia to have different applicant pools because then you have people who genuinely want to be at each institution and consequently you have overall happier student bodies (as opposed to a number of people who go to BC because they didn't get into CC/SEAS). I'm not saying every BC girl is a CC/SEAS reject, but every single one I know is, and I know quite a few.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Columbia2002, you need to get over it. My Barnard daughter just received her packet -- she is supposed to submit a passport size photo for her Columbia University ID. Apparently there is no such thing as a "Barnard" ID card, but all Barnard students are issued a CUID.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The janitors at Columbia get a CUID. Your point? Also note that her CUID has a magnetic swipe that knows that she is not allowed to enter the Columbia dorms without being signed in by a Columbia student.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since you admit by your own posts that "The hardest part about Columbia is not the coursework, but getting in. Someone from Barnard is perfectly capable of doing well in a Columbia class."- there is no justification for your resentment. When Columbia was male only in the early 80's, it had a 50% admit rate. Barnard has a higher admit rate because it has a smaller applicant pool, in part because it is women-only -- but like all women's colleges, it is also a strong, self-selecting pool. For that matter, it is almost twice as easy to get into the University of Chicago than Barnard -- but you probably wouldn't get far trying to argue that Chicago is an easier school or has less capable students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? I don't care about the 80s or U of C. I'm not resentful. I think you want me to be resentful. This isn't about me. This isn't about whether Barnard girls are dumb. This is about whether Barnard girls attend Columbia. That's it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
A significant number of Columbia's applicants are unqualified students who are attracted by the prestige of an Ivy, for whom Columbia is an impossible reach. So in a sense, while Columbia is indeed difficult to get into, it probably is not as hard as you might think once you weed it down to those who actually have a chance and are being given serious consideration by the ad com. It is still difficult, but a student who is a strong candidate probably has significantly better than the 1-in-10 odds that the admit rate would indicate. So it makes little sense for you to place so much importance on the difficulty of admission as opposed the quality of education you get once you are on campus.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Bashing the selectivity of Columbia doesn't do much for you, given that you admit that Barnard is less selective.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not claiming that Barnard is as hard to get into as Columbia College -- just that it is a different college with a totally different appicant pool. Most students who apply to Barnard do so because they have done their research and seriously want to go to Barnard College - NOT Columbia College. Barnard attracts students who tend to be more arts-oriented, students who want a LAC with smaller classes, and/or students interested in attending a womens' college.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And you know this how? This is all fluff and no substance. Again, not the least bit compelling.</p>
<p>You've got numbers on how many Barnard applicants really want to go to Columbia and apply to Columbia and then to Barnard as back-up, right? And numbers on how many Barnard appplicants want to go to Columbia but know their chances are poor but apply to Barnard because it's the next best thing to Columbia, right? Heck, can you even tell me what percentage of Barnard applicants even apply to Columbia?</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my experience, all of the girls I knew who went to Barnard were rejected from Columbia College or didn't bother to apply to CC because they didn't think they'd get in.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Correct. Mine too. I don't know a single girl from Barnard who got into Columbia. Nor do I know anyone who knows of such a girl.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So, no, Barnard does not have a "totally different appicant pool". That's simply untrue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Exactly right.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I'm not saying every BC girl is a CC/SEAS reject, but every single one I know is, and I know quite a few.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The ones who aren't are the ones who didn't apply.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In my experience, all of the girls I knew who went to Barnard were rejected from Columbia College or didn't bother to apply to CC because they didn't think they'd get in.
[/quote]
Then you have very limited experience. Maybe its colored by the circumstances in which you meet Barnard women -that is, maybe you are more likely to meet Barnard women who are majoring in areas like math or sciences where they need to take most of the courses via Columbia College - it might make sense for those women to have applied to Columbia. But I'll bet you'd have a hard time finding many women who are heavily involved in Barnard's dance department who applied to Columbia. </p>
<p>My daughter didn't apply to Columbia and never was interested in Columbia - - she was looking for a college that would allow her a lot of academic freedom as well as personal attention from faculty. She also wanted an urban environment, big city. So her top two choices ended up being NYU Gallatin and Barnard. Columbia was never on her list. Columbia didn't even meet the criteria that she set when she first was looking for schools, except for the part about being in NY. </p>
<p>According to Princeton Review, Barnard students tend to also apply to: Amherst, Bard, Boston College, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Eugene Lang, Fordham, Georgetown, Harvard, Haverford, NYU, Sarah Lawrence, Smith, Tufts, Vassar, Wellesley & Yale, as well as Columbia -- since none of the applicants applly to all of those colleges, you can see where overlap might be very different. The artsy types might look more at Bard or Sarah Lawrence -- the ones who really want a women's college might look more at Smith & Wellesley. </p>
<p>Columbia students tend to cross-apply to some of the same schools (like the Ivies) - but different colleges as well: Berkeley, Boston University, Chicago, Duke, MIT, Northwestern, Penn, Princeton, Stanford. So you can see that they tend to be more attracted to many large research universities, whereas outside of other Ivies, the Barnard students tend to lean more toward LAC's.</p>
<p>So basically, I'd suggest that you either widen your social network somewhat or quit making assumptions about what you think is going on in the minds of the Barnard students you meet.</p>
<p>calmom...the ID's issued to Barnard students are Barnard ID's that are just issued at the Columbia ID office...They are not Columbia ID's. </p>
<p>Columbia2002...If I (now I am a parent here so this is just a hypothetical) was rejected from CC and I really still wanted to be in the Columbia environment i too would go to Barnard....Why not? </p>
<p>Student2009...I completely agree with you.... "For a BC girl to say that she goes to Barnard and get blank stares (which obviously is a reflection of the ignorance of whomever she is speaking to) and then say something like, oh, you know, it's affiliated with Columbia University is not really what we all find questionable. Again, what is questionable is girls INTENTIONALLY misleading others by not mentioning Barnard at all. " I wonder though how often the later really happens!!!!</p>
<p>And I also agree with Calmom...I know of at least 5 girls just off the top of my head that applied early to Barnard...so they obviously did not get rejected from Columbia...If they had wanted Columbia instead of Barnard they would have appled there early.</p>
<p>I think calmom's argument that because Barnard College graduates get a degree issued by Columbia University it suddenly makes them Columbia College graduates is seriously flawed. A College student and a Fu student (correct me if I'm wrong) both get degrees from Columbia University but most would agree it is a flat out lie if a college student were to say they were a graduate of SEAS (ignoring the designations B.A. and B.S.) and vice-versa. Similarly, if Barnard students said they graduated from SEAS that would equally be a lie. Or to take it to the extreme the Columbia Law school student and a Columbia College student also get degrees for Columbia University but it is a lie if a CC student claimed they were a graduate of the Law School, no? So what i dont see is why calmom thinks its not a misrepresentation for a BC student to pass themselves of as a Columbia College student/graduate. </p>
<p>You might say that all degrees are issued by Columbia University so they're all Columbia University graduates but a lie of ommission is still a lie...</p>
<p>Finally, calmom cant seem to grasp the concept that no one is denigrating BC students just that they think its wrong when graduates of BC pass themselves of as graduates of CC in hopes that the presitge associated with the latter will give them some sort of unfair advantaged in social or employment situations.</p>
<p>Nowhere has Calmom or any other "adult" poster on this forum argued that it was okay for a Barnard college student to attempt to pass herself off as a CC (ie Columbia COLLEGE) student. I think we are having a semantics problem here. This is about Barnard being an affiliate of Columbia UNIVERSITY, which it IS. </p>
<p>And, Columbia2002, as I told you before, there ARE Barnard students who were also admitted to CC and who chose to go to Barnard. My daughter roomed with one this year.</p>
1 Like
<p>
[quote]
And I also agree with Calmom...I know of at least 5 girls just off the top of my head that applied early to Barnard...so they obviously did not get rejected from Columbia...If they had wanted Columbia instead of Barnard they would have appled there early.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>not applying doesnt automatically mean you would'v gotten accepted....i wasnt going to apply to harvard and princeton because i knew it would be a waste of 140 bucks not because they arent good enough for me....and i applied to columbia early decision...I really dont understand the reasoning behind that statement at all....i may as well say that harvard was not good enough for me or some other absurd thing like that which would simply not be true...applying to barnard early decision is in no way the same as chosing barnard over columbia once you are accepted to both.</p>
<p>
[quote]
calmom...the ID's issued to Barnard students are Barnard ID's that are just issued at the Columbia ID office...They are not Columbia ID's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>thats true....barnard girls get barnard IDs and columbia students and barnard students cant swipe into each others dorms unless they live there.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Nowhere has Calmom or any other "adult" poster on this forum argued that it was okay for a Barnard college student to attempt to pass herself off as a CC (ie Columbia COLLEGE) student. I think we are having a semantics problem here. This is about Barnard being an affiliate of Columbia UNIVERSITY, which it IS.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Each of you has argued that it is OK for Barnard girls to pass themselves off as Columbia University students, which they are not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
According to Princeton Review, Barnard students tend to also apply to: Amherst, Bard, Boston College, Brown, Cornell, Dartmouth, Eugene Lang, Fordham, Georgetown, Harvard, Haverford, NYU, Sarah Lawrence, Smith, Tufts, Vassar, Wellesley & Yale, as well as Columbia -- since none of the applicants applly to all of those colleges, you can see where overlap might be very different. The artsy types might look more at Bard or Sarah Lawrence -- the ones who really want a women's college might look more at Smith & Wellesley.</p>
<p>Columbia students tend to cross-apply to some of the same schools (like the Ivies) - but different colleges as well: Berkeley, Boston University, Chicago, Duke, MIT, Northwestern, Penn, Princeton, Stanford. So you can see that they tend to be more attracted to many large research universities, whereas outside of other Ivies, the Barnard students tend to lean more toward LAC's.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Once again, you resort to fluff rather than reason. PR doesn't have any statistics on this; they just make it up ("tend to apply"). I highlight your attention to my previous statement:</p>
<p>"You've got numbers on how many Barnard applicants really want to go to Columbia and apply to Columbia and then to Barnard as back-up, right? And numbers on how many Barnard appplicants want to go to Columbia but know their chances are poor but apply to Barnard because it's the next best thing to Columbia, right? Heck, can you even tell me what percentage of Barnard applicants even apply to Columbia?"</p>
<p>
[quote]
Columbia2002...If I (now I am a parent here so this is just a hypothetical) was rejected from CC and I really still wanted to be in the Columbia environment i too would go to Barnard....Why not?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Who said you shouldn't? But you're not going to Columbia.</p>
<p>1) Calmmom, you wrote (to me): "So basically, I'd suggest that you either widen your social network somewhat or quit making assumptions about what you think is going on in the minds of the Barnard students you meet."</p>
<p>I'm not making any assumptions about "what * think is going on in the minds of Barnard students * meet." I told you what Barnard girls told me: that they either were rejected from CC and wound up at Barnard or that they didn't bother to apply to CC/SEAS because they didn't think they'd get in. None of this is assumption; it's all coming from Barnard girls' mouths. In terms of making assumptions--and false ones at that--you seem to making one about me by proclaiming that my "social network" is in some way limited. </p>
<p>2) Bidkid, you make a really good point in writing: "Or to take it to the extreme the Columbia Law school student and a Columbia College student also get degrees for Columbia University but it is a lie if a CC student claimed they were a graduate of the Law School, no? So what i dont see is why calmom thinks its not a misrepresentation for a BC student to pass themselves of as a Columbia College student/graduate."</p>
<p>Because Barnard is an affiliated institution (and not an undergraduate college of Columbia), it is technically incorrect for any Barnard student to say she is a Columbia University graduate. It would be like saying that RISD students are actually Brown University graduates merely because they have some degree of cross-registration.</p>
<p>Anyone who doesn't really understand what this thread is about, I suggest you take a look at the original post. Here, I'll make it easier for you. Ex0tic wrote, "Some of you might have heard of Barnard which is in association with Columbia. Anyway my cousin got into Barnard but she tells people its Columbia. Barnard is not the same as Columbia!!!!!!! Someone explain please." Is there really any question that the situation Ex0tic is describing is ethically questionable and an intentional deception on the part of her cousin?</p>
<p>agreed...it is not Columbia....it is Barnard...an affiliate of Columbia...and shraf...the few girls that I know that applied early to Barnard claim that they were never interested in Columbia...whether they are telling the truth is something we will all never know.....</p>
<p>to add on to student2009, calmom and churchmusicmom seem to be playing semantic games suggesting that because Barnard is affiliated with Columbia UNIVERSITY its ok to pass themselves of as that so long as they dont say theyre students of Columbia COLLEGE. The problem is that when someone says I graduated from Columbia or Columbia University most people draw the conclusion that they mean Columbia College. Most peoples minds do not immediately jump to the conclusion that the person means Barnard. Anyone who believes that attending Columbia College and attending Barnard College wont be met with different reactions (the former being pericieved as a more prestigious and selective institution however justified/unjustified that is) is just kidding themselves. What Columbia2002 and other current Columbia students are saying is that it is wrong when Barnard College girls misrepresent who they are with the intention of taking advantage of whatever social clout being a graduate of Columbia COLLEGE affords them. The point is that a lie of ommission is still a lie. Theres nothing wrong with saying I graduated from Barnard College which is affiliated with Columbia University. It is wrong to say you graduated from Columbia and then justify it using semantics games even though your true intention is to capture whatever beenfits there are to be gained from passing yourself as a student who attended a more selective ivy league institution instead of less prestigious, less selective LAC (even if it is an equally great school).</p>
<p>"What Columbia2002 and other current Columbia students are saying is that it is wrong when Barnard College girls misrepresent who they are with the intention of taking advantage of whatever social clout being a graduate of Columbia COLLEGE affords them. The point is that a lie of ommission is still a lie. Theres nothing wrong with saying I graduated from Barnard College which is affiliated with Columbia University. It is wrong to say you graduated from Columbia and then justify it using semantics games even though your true intention is to capture whatever beenfits there are to be gained from passing yourself as a student who attended a more selective ivy league institution instead of less prestigious, less selective LAC."</p>
<p>Bidkid, BINGO. This post ended this thread.</p>
<p>I agree....yeah bidkid! i think we all can agree that he has a good point here....Barnard is a great school and I dont think anyone here means in any way to imply any different!</p>