<p>yeah it's definitely not representative of the entire student body, lewisoftus. and i'm sorry to hear that you won't be on campus next year, and that you got such a bad impression of the kinds of students there. grade flaunting is just something people over 18 don't do; i was a bit appalled to see it on this thread.</p>
<p>It's no more misleading than the assumptions being made about Barnard admissions - that's the point I really am trying to illustrate. </p>
<p>Barnard & Columbia College select from different applicant pools and use somewhat different criteria for admission. Meanwhile, Columbia is discriminates somewhat against its women applicants -- it has more women applying than men, but admits more men, meaning that statistically it is slightly harder for a woman to get into Columbia than a male applicant. This suggests that with the additional overlap created by whatever percentage of female applicants choose to apply to both colleges, women in general may represent a stronger set of applicants to the colleges than men in general. This would mirror the situation that has been written about at length that affects most colleges -- one of the things that the presence of Barnard does is allow Columbia to maintain a closer gender balance (52% men/48% women). With both schools combined, there are 60% women/40% men, which may very well be the same proportion Columbia would end up with if the Barnard campus was not there, but Columbia employed gender-neutral admission policies. </p>
<p>I mean when it comes down to it, statistically there is a very small fraction of women who are rejected from Columbia who probably would have been admitted if they were male. If a woman in that category is admitted by Barnard... is that a "back door"? Or merely rectification of a discriminatory practice?</p>
<p>But I have a feeling that the reality is that only a small proportion of Barnard applicants also apply to Columbia, and there probably are some that are rejected by Barnard but accepted to Columbia simply because they don't seem like a good "fit" for Barnard. So the whole "back door" claim probably fails because of more significant differences in the applicant pools. Barnard probably doesn't want unhappy students, and it certainly wants to increase its own yield, so it is likely to to try to avoid admitting students whose applications reveal they are dual applicants to both schools and likely to be admitted to Columbia, insofar is that is possible.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php%5B/url%5D">http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php</a>
Last year, probably this year, and definitely the year before last, Columbia College has admitted more women than men. In addition, more women matriculate to Columbia College every year than men. You might be thinking that there are more males at Columbia than females because of the engineering school, but that imbalance is created strictly because the engineering school gets substantially more male applications than female. And who says Columbia doesn't want unhappy students?</p>
<p>blah, the only point I am trying to make is that we can all distort statistics in one way or another, but all of that sort of reasoning is fallacious.</p>
<p>I think Columbia is a great school, and so is Barnard -- and I am sorry that some Columbia students feel upset by Barnard's presence. I am sure there are some Barnard students who take Columbia classes and end up doing better than the Columbia students in the class, and I'm sure there are others who don't do as well. </p>
<p>The arguments in this thread follow the same logical fallacy and bias that people opposed to affirmative action often express: knowing that some URM's get a boost in admission, they assume that every URM they see is somehow less qualified, and the discount the value of the added diversity and life experience that many of the so-called "less-qualified" URM's bring to the campus. </p>
<p>Barnard is a different college with different admission standards, and as I pointed out above this is exactly the same situation with every other consortium of colleges: Hampshire doesn't have the same admission criteria as Amherst - both are very different from U.Mass. From what I have seen, it does appear that Barnard & Columbia may have the most liberal, seamless, and convenient cross-registration policies of any college partnership that I know of, so in that respect they are different because the relationship between the two simply is closer. </p>
<p>Barnard's admission rates are higher simply because they have a single sex pool, which essentially cuts the number of prospective students in half. Columbia had the same problem before it went coed - in 1980 it was accepting more than half of all students who applied, and they went co-ed precisely because it was rapidly losing prestige and increasing the size of their applicant pool immediately reduced their admission rate. </p>
<p>So basically, if Columbia College were still all-male, it probably would be much easier to get into -- so its silly for a co-ed college to try to compare itself to a single-sex school. With the possible exception of Deep Springs, there are no single-sex colleges of any kind in this country that are more difficult to get into than Barnard, simply because half of all qualified students aren't eligible to apply. So essentially, Barnard is setting the current standard for the maximum level of selectivity that can reasonably be expected from a single-sex college - and it will probably continue to do so. </p>
<p>The admission standards for both schools are so rigorous that in terms of intellectual ability, the student bodies are indistinguishable. Columbia students have somewhat better test scores on average, Barnard students come with higher average GPA's. (Some would argue that the GPA's are more predictive of likely college performance; I think its a distinction without a difference). Both draw from the very top performing students, and entrance is so highly competitive that it is ridiculous to try to differentiate the students. It is like debating who is richer, a person with $50 million in assets, or a person with $60 million. Of course the one with $60 million has more money on paper, but both are so wealthy that it doesn't really matter. </p>
<p>I am sorry that there are Columbia students who seem to have a hard time dealing with this.</p>
1 Like
<p>Well said, Calmom</p>
<p>I second that</p>
<p>The girls who attend Barnard applied to Barnard and were accepted to Barnard. Evidently they preferred Barnard because it is an all girl's school and they liked the culture/programs. So why on earth would they even <em>want</em> to say they attend/graduated from Columbia unless they were embarrassed to say they attend/graduated from Barnard. Why aren't they proud of Barnard?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The girls who attend Barnard applied to Barnard and were accepted to Barnard. Evidently they preferred Barnard because it is an all girl's school and they liked the culture/programs. So why on earth would they even <em>want</em> to say they attend/graduated from Columbia unless they were embarrassed to say they attend/graduated from Barnard. Why aren't they proud of Barnard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>...just stop trying...clearly this discussion has just become a couple of parents and some high school kid throwing around meaningless numbers and being blind to any actual facts.....i think it is easier to make an assessment of the situation when you have been on campus rather than when u r sitting infront of a computer looking up stats and trying to interpret them to make a point....i find it funny that the views of a student who has been at columbia for almost three years r discounted by people who have been on columbia's campus for maybe less than a week total. Sorry but at some point you must face reality.</p>
<p>Which one would be better ?
Barnard or NYU..</p>
<p>Shraf - I didn't throw around numbers or statistics. I simply stated a fact -- they applied to Barnard for a reason and attended for a reason, so why aren't they proud of the fact?</p>
<p>I have a child who attends Columbia and have spent time on the campus as as he, but I don't see where spending time there has anything to do with why somebody would say they attended Columbia when they applied to Barnard, attended Barnard and graduated from Barnard....unless they didn't want people to know.</p>
<p>Acinva, the most accurate and truthful thing that a Barnard grad can say is that she graduated from "Barnard College of Columbia University". That's what the diploma says. (actually, I don't know if the diploma says "of" or "at"). </p>
<p>To deny the Columbia connection would be like telling a kid who attends college in Poughkeepsie that they can't say that they attend college in "New York", because only students who attend college in "New York" state have the right to use the name, because Poughkeepsie just isn't as wonderful a city as New York City. </p>
<p>Or you could tell me that I can't claim to have graduated from UC Berkeley because I never actually attended the undergraduate college there, only the law school.... which has its own administration and faculty and budget and rules of admission.</p>
<p>All Barnard students graduate from from Columbia University. That's in the terms of the affiliation agreement; and Barnard pays Columbia money for the use of university facilities. </p>
<p>I would suggest that if Columbia College students are upset about this, they should show their own pride in their school and make sure that they always say they went to Columbia <em>College</em> rather than confusing the issue and claiming to go to <em>Columbia University</em>.</p>
1 Like
<p>Where is their pride in Barnard College? In my day, the girls who went to Barnard said they went to Barnard and were proud of it. They didn't feel the need to say Barnard College of Columbia University. Sure the diploma says Columbia University. So what? It's just sad to me that some of the girls are too ashamed to admit they go to Barnard. That's all.</p>
<p>acinva: some probably are, inasmuch as at least some people at every school are dissatisfied with their experience. but many (and probably most) are not. all the barnard students i've met were very friendly, and our conversations actually never involved the columbia/barnard schism. there are honestly more interesting things to talk about.</p>
<p>calmom: please don't get the wrong impression; i never (or at least i tried not to) have a stance on this barnard/columbia situation. i was simply trying to help clarify some of the points made here by people who do have [very adamant] positions. both barnard and columbia are really great institutions, and both benefit substantially from each other. isn't the law school called "UC Berkeley School of Law" though?</p>
<p>Harvard College students don't say they graduated from Harvard University on their records. They clearly indicate 'Harvard College' on official records.</p>
<p>However, Extension school students say they got undergraduate degree from Harvard University by eliminating the word 'Extension', very similar to what Barnard students do.</p>
<p>We all know that undergraduate Economics degree from Wharton is different from Econ degree from CAS of UPenn, even though they are both Undergraduate Economics degree from Univerisity of Pennsylvania..</p>
<p>Actually, the name of the law school is "Boalt Hall" - or at least that's how most graduates refer to it. The diploma, of course, says "University of California". All UC grads get diplomas that say "University of California" across the top in really big letters and then the name of their particular school or campus is in smaller letters. </p>
<p>But I would always put on a resume something like "UC Berkeley (Boalt Hall)" or "Boalt Hall (UC Berkeley)" -- I mean it would be stupid not to in terms of employment, just on the off chance that some one screening apps didn't actually know. But if another lawyer asks me where I went to school, I'm going to say "Boalt". </p>
<p>I assume that my daughter will buy Barnard t-shirts and a Barnard hoodie and Barnard sweat pants and Barnard mugs. (I told her to pick up some mugs as gifts for the teachers who wrote such nice recommendations for her-- since of course they deserve some of the credit.) I'll put a Barnard decal on my car. </p>
<p>But when my daughter applies for jobs after college I expect she will do as I did: either writing "Barnard College (Columbia University)" or "Columbia University (Barnard College)". As I posted very early on this thread, a woman would be foolish not to want to take advantage of the huge alumni network from a school like Barnard -- but at the same time when it is a matter of getting a job, it would be equally foolish to risk losing out because someone doesn't know what or where "Barnard" is. It isn't a matter of "pride" - rather its the first rule of writing a resume: strut your stuff. Why should she HIDE the fact that she has a degree from "Columbia University" when her future career is on the line -- especially since it is very likely that her major will involve taking most courses on the Columbia campus from Columbia professors? And who is she going to get letters of recommendation from? If she has a good relationship with a Columbia prof, won't it make sense to get the letter from that person on Columbia letterhead?</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
...just stop trying...clearly this discussion has just become a couple of parents and some high school kid throwing around meaningless numbers and being blind to any actual facts.....i think it is easier to make an assessment of the situation when you have been on campus rather than when u r sitting infront of a computer looking up stats and trying to interpret them to make a point....i find it funny that the views of a student who has been at columbia for almost three years r discounted by people who have been on columbia's campus for maybe less than a week total. Sorry but at some point you must face reality.
[/QUOTE]
Even if your version of the story is "reality" or the "truth," why would anyone want to listen to a big a-hole like you? Don't they teach you presentation skills and manners at Columbia?</p>
<p>If I recall correctly, this thread all started when the OP was annoyed because she said her cousin was accepted to Barnard College but was telling everyone she was attending Columbia University. I just can't understand why a current student would say they were attending Columbia University when they are attending Barnard. So what if the Joe Smith on the street never heard of Barnard. However, when applying for a job, I don't think it's wrong to want to use the more prestigeous Columbia name.</p>
<p>As a future Columbian my opinon is pretty simple...</p>
<p>Both Barnard and Columbia are fantastic schools located in NYC -- anyone would be lucky to go to either one. Both are filled with some great people and not so great people (just like anywhere else). But the fact remains that both are superb institutions to get an undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Yes, I agree that both schools are great institutions.</p>
<p>Barnard is an excellent choice for those who want some of the benefits of an all females school (small classes, leadership opportunities) but want the benefit of being in a coeducational environment, especially the coeducational enviornment of one of the best ivy league schools in the country, and being in one of the most exciting cities in the world. Barnard students can take almost all of their classes at Columbia, and can particpate on their sports teams. It is the women who are accepted to Columbia who are not happy with this arrangement. They are often bothered by all the Barnard women in their classes, feeling that those students did not have the same academic record to get into Columbia. Some of them are afraid the guys will go out these girls from Barnard instead of them. The truth is that Barnard is getting very difficult to get into as well, although it still remains somewhat easier than Columbia. This year those admitted to Barnard had average SAT scores of 1400 on math and critical reasoning combined. Barnard is also an excellent choice for those who are considering graduate school (it is looked upon very impressively) as well as those who want to work in New York City afterwards where there is a lot of name recognition to Barnard. In other geographic areas like the south and midwest, Barnard does not have the same name recogition however</p>