Columbia or Barnard?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
81

<p>And here I jump in again supporting calmom. Why? Because she is arguing for the right of students to have their own value system and evaluate their own situations without such negative judgments raining down on them.</p>

<p>Wanting the last word is a human trait, but when someone stubbornly persists in a judgmental pose I have to wonder why.</p>

<p>If you guys want the last word, how about, "okay, we disagree," and leave it at that instead of posting provocative and invalidating comments.</p>

<p>Why do you care that there are some people who see value in work study jobs?</p>

<p>Anyway, I will take my own advise. I see your position. I respectfully disagree and have a different experience.</p>

82

<p>So to bring closure to my original query it is the consensus opinion that Barnard and Columbia are one and the same. Seems like an amazing situation. One can receive the benefits of a liberal arts education and graduate from a top research university. The best of both worlds it seems. Does anyone have a thought on the basis of the obvious bias that US News displays when it ranks Columbia as a top 10 university but ranks Barnard as the #30 LAC? I know people disagree about rankings but how could they be that far off? Seems almost impossible to understand the difference if you get the same education from both schools.</p>

83

<p>Who in the world to you think said that Barnard and Columbia are "one and the same"? I certainly did not and would not. From the perspective of the parent of a very happy Barnard student I WOULD say "best of both worlds", but I would not assert that Barnard and Columbia are "one and the same". We have gone into great detail on this and other threads about how different the basic requirements are for cc and barnard; we have gone on ad nauseum about differences in housing, in advising, in "feel"; others have strong assertions about how easy one is to get into verses the other. I am pretty sure nobody said they are "one and the same".</p>

<p>And I don't really care anything about USNWR ratings, but it' s my understanding that a significant part of their methodology has to do with the endowment of the institution and Barnard's is, of course, much less than Columbia's. I would think that USNWR's rankings are okay as a starting point in a college search, but I feel badly for anyone that thinks that consideration of rankings is the best or even a good way to select one school over the other. Just my opinion.</p>

84

<p>
[quote]
So to bring closure to my original query it is the consensus opinion that Barnard and Columbia are one and the same.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I don't think that's ANYONE'S opinion -- not the Barnard moms, and not the Columbia kids/alums who give Barnard a hard time.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Anyway, attitude is everything and from the tenor of your posts here I can see why you personally may have had a negative experience with "clerical" positions. In an office setting a person is generally exposed to a lot of opportunity for greater responsibility if they want it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I've never had a "clerical" position or a job that pays $7-10/hr. I know many people who had these sorts of mind-numbing work-study jobs, and I don't know a single person who thought he/she was actually was getting some great experience. These people universally sought to get their work done quickly and efficiently so they could spend the rest of the time doing their schoolwork.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In terms of job responsibility, an example would be the mom whose daughter works in the Provosts office mentioned the d. sitting in on various meetings with interesting people.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In my book, this is rationalization and making the best of the situation you're faced with. None of the things that said mom described strike me as some great experience that will help her daughter's career.</p>

85

<p>
[quote]
One can receive the benefits of a liberal arts education and graduate from a top research university.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This is not the case. Barnard students are not really graduates of Columbia; they're graduates of Barnard. How could this thread have given you the impression that the two are "one and the same"?</p>

<p>In any case, don't forget that Columbia has a college of its own which offers a pretty good liberal arts education.</p>

86

<p>Sigh. </p>

<p>The schools are not the same. They have different degree requirements, different overriding educational philosophies, a somewhat different ambiance. Barnard students have 2 Presidents; they get a degree from Columbia University signed by both the President of Columbia University & the President of Barnard. Their diploma is written in Latin. </p>

<p>There are a whole lot of resources available at Columbia University which are equally available to students at Barnard and Columbia. If you are simply concerned about access to the resources at Columbia, then you will be able to get that at Barnard. That is, you can enroll at Barnard and take any courses at Columbia that you want except for a handful of core courses that are limited primarily to Columbia students. You can participate in the same clubs (my d. is an officer in a Columbia student organization). You can use the same library. </p>

<p>But if you are selecting a college for prestige value, then if you go to Barnard you won't have what you want, because not only will you be stuck with the US News insanely stupid ranking system, but you will run into all sorts of people who never even heard of Barnard. Then again, you'd be amazed at how many people outside of New York City either have not heard of Columbia or don't have any clue at all that it is an Ivy League school. So maybe if you are dead set on getting the most prestige possible from your degree, you'd be better off applying to Princeton, Yale or Harvard. </p>

<p>If you are serious about getting an education, then you can get an excellent education at both, and the best thing to do is to throw away your copy of US News and focus on what each college offers and pick the one you like best.</p>

87

<p>I think what is misleading in all of these Barnard v Columbia threads is the emphasis by some on the connection between the two schools rather than the real differences. When people are trying to decide which school to apply to, I think it's more important to explain the ways in which they are different. What I basically hear from these threads is that Barnard is a very different school from Columbia; however, they get to take Columbia classes, join Columbia clubs and sports and basically get all of the privileges of Columbia students. Why, they even get a Columbia diploma to boot! In my opinion, this is not helpful information for people unsure of where they want to apply.</p>

<p>Secondly, we can bash USNWR rankings all we want, but it is still the most widely used barometer of how "good" a school is. </p>

<p>Thirdly, my daughter graduated from Oberlin College. It's a very good LAC that basically nobody has heard of. So what. People have heard of the Conservatory, but I never felt that I had to "explain" where/what Oberlin was in the context of the Conservatory. Believe me, the people worth impressing are the ones who have heard of schools like Barnard and Oberlin.</p>

88

<p>"Barnard is a very different school from Columbia;"</p>

<p>Everyone here agrees with this, don't they. Most people are able to identify and evaluate these differences, and apply accordingly. I know my daughters could, and did.</p>

<p>"however, they get to take Columbia classes, join Columbia clubs and sports and basically get all of the privileges of Columbia students. Why, they even get a Columbia diploma to boot! In my opinion, this is not helpful information for people unsure of where they want to apply."</p>

<p>Au contraire, I think this is VERY helpful information for students who don't prefer the "big U' feel, for their primary base of operations, and who are therefore considering applying to either Barnard or Oberlin, and who choose not to apply to the big research universities. Such was the situation of both my daughters.</p>

<p>Oberlin students cannot take Columbia classes to extend the limitations in their course offerings. In stark contrast, Barnard students take on average 30% of their classes at Columbia. </p>

<p>Oberlin students are liimited to the clubs and sports that their budget can afford, in its isolation. In contrast, Barnard students participate in clubs and sports of Columbia, which presumably has a bigger budget for these type of things, and more offerings than an LAC would typically have access to.</p>

<p>Yes Barnard pays for access to these facilities, but let's face it would not have had the $$ to produce these facilities in the first place if it was on its own, like Oberlin is.</p>

<p>Oberlin students do not get access to Columbia facilities, such as their library, etc. Barnard students do. Once again, effectively extending their resources far beyond those of most other LACs.</p>

<p>Oberlin does and must stand on its own. As must all other isolated LACs that are limited only to their own resources. Even most LACs that do have course-sharing relationships with other colleges are not really close enough to them to fully utilize these relationships to nearly the same extent. This represents substantial additional, unevaluated, benefit to Barnard vs. these other schools.</p>

<p>Barnard would be one kind of place if it really stood completely on its own, like Oberlin. But it doesn't, and isn't. It's in a different situation due to being an affiliate. For better or, in some ways, for worse.</p>

<p>Everyone associated with the "greater Columbia Community" acknowledges that Barnard derives substantial additional benefit by virtue of its being an affililate of Columbia University. So much so that some Columbia people are actually ****ed off that it seems to them that Barnard students get so much.</p>

<p>Oberlin doesn't derive any such additional benefit, from anyone for anything.</p>

<p>Yet here's the thing:</p>

<p>This additional benefit, which everyone connected to these institutions agrees is substantial, is completely unevaluated by US News.</p>

<p>Let me give you a concrete example of how this comes into play.</p>

<p>My D1 is a student at Oberlin College. A couple years ago, after taking some classes in her major field, she became interested in a particular sub-area which is an active area of study yet somewhat out of the mainstream. Well it happens that in their department there are zero faculty members who specialize in this particular area, or even do it at all. So she has been essentially unable to pursue this area of studies. She actually considered transferring because of this.</p>

<p>Many other liberal arts colleges also do not have advanced-level courses in this particular sub-area. Maybe Barnard doesn't either.</p>

<p>But there is no question that if she were at Barnard, if Barnard did not offer instruction in this area she could walk across the street and take it at Columbia.</p>

<p>Everyone applying to colleges should be able to decide between the "big U" vs. smaller-school environments and choose which they prefer. Having made this choice, completely ignoring substantial additional extended resources that one school has access to but the others don't is, in my opinion, not helpful for people unsure of where they want to apply.</p>

<p>For the record, course offering shortfalls aside, D1 has received an outstanding education at Oberlin. Far better than what I received at a highly-rated research university. If D2 comes close at Barnard, or if y'all come close at Columbia, you each should be happy with your education. Like D2, D1 did not prefer the research university environment overall. It seems like Barnard is going to turn out to be something of a hybrid, because of the Columbia affiliation. </p>

<p>To each their own.</p>

89

<p>If I were a student researching colleges, based on the info from parents of Barnard students, what I would take away from your posts is that Barnard is great BECAUSE you have the access to Columbia University. That seems to be the one benefit that is mentioned in all posts on this issue. Those who attend Barnard may do so because of its association with Columbia, but those who chose Columbia, didn't do so because of its association with Barnard.</p>

90

<p>By the way, if a Barnard student doesn't want the feel of a big research university, they can stay on the Barnard campus and be involved with Barnard activities and classes. It's not a must that they cross the street. What you all seem to be saying is that there isn't enough that Barnard has to offer to keep it's students happy.</p>

91

<p>Why not then just advise people to go to Columbia and save themselves the trouble of having to cross Broadway Street?</p>

92

<p>There IS enough to keep Barnard students happy, but in part this happiness is greatly accentuated because Barnard is an affililiate of Columbia and gets substantial acesss to Columbia.</p>

<p>If Barnard was not an affiliate of Columbia, and did not have access to Columbia's facilities, like Oberlin doesn't , it would be a far different place.</p>

<p>Barnard has no sports teams outside of Columbia. I understand at least most of the clubs Barnard students join are Columbia clubs. The student newspaper Barnard students work at is Columbia's newspaper.</p>

<p>30% of the courses Barnard students select are at Columbia.</p>

<p>So it seems evident to me that you are right in the sense that there is not enough that Barnard directly provides through solely its own resources to keep its students as happy as they choose to be.</p>

<p>However you are wrong, in that Barnard does offer these additional opportunities/facilities to its students, so they get them in any event. They offer them by means of Barnard's affiliation agreement with Columbia University.</p>

<p>If Barnard College was not an affiliate of Columbia University it would be a far different place, with much more limited resources, this is true. But it is an affiliate of Columbia University.</p>

<p>Oberlin is an island, and can only be evaluated in isolation. Barnard is not an island. It actually gets something of value as an affiliate of Columbia, and this extra value is reasonably considered by all applicants.</p>

<p>Barnard students can indeed just stay acoss the street, if they so choose. But that is not the package that they get, or what they signed up for. The package that they get, by virtue of affiliation, includes access to Columbia. So they have no need to stay across the street if they don't want to. And they don't, evidently.</p>

<p>The smaller-school environment that nevertheless has access to the far greater resources of a research university, but only when and to the extent these are deemed advantageous, is an appealing combination to some applicants, such as my D2. YMMV.</p>

93

<p>"Those who attend Barnard may do so because of its association with Columbia, but those who chose Columbia, didn't do so because of its association with Barnard."</p>

<p>There are some Columbia majors that are significantly or entirely staffed at Barnard. It's likely that students pursuing these majors did choose Columbia at least in part because of its affiliation with Barnard. For the remainder, some may select, hopefully only in part, due to resources available only via affiliation. So what, if they are correct. Barnard IS an affiiliate of Columbia university and that DOES get them more than they would otherwise get.</p>

<p>"Why not then just advise people to go to Columbia and save yourself the trouble of having to cross Broadway Street?"</p>

<p>I guess if you prefer being at Columbia 100% of the time, vs a minority of the time, then you're right, that's what you should do.</p>

<p>All here have acknowledged that the primary environment/atmosphere/ curriculum/ is different at Barnard than at Columbia. Applicants have a choice of which prevailing atmosphere they prefer, for the bulk of their studies. As well as the rest of the package that goes with each choice; prestige, selectivity, etc. While still having substantial access to resources of each school.</p>

<p>In D2s case, she did not prefer the feel of a research university and did not apply to any. Her other choices would have been LACs. D1 felt the same way. Actually there are a good number of students who prefer LACs to research universities. Also, a huge issue is that neither of them wanted to be have their courses dictated to such a large extent via the Core Curriculum. </p>

<p>While generally lauded, Columbia's Core Curriculum is an outlier in the area of higher education today. It presents a compelling reason for those who want this curriculum to choose Columbia over all other colleges. However, it must be recognized that it presents a substantial disincentive to those people who actively don't want such a curriculum imposed on them. At least I know two such people (well, among other issues).</p>

<p>IF someone is ALWAYS walking across the street then I agree those people would be better off just staying across the street. The beauty of the existing arrangement is that the students can pick and choose when to cross the street, but only when it is personally advantageous based on their particular desires. It's great that they have this option, when most other LAC students, such as those at Oberlin, don't.</p>

<p>Options have value. Trust me on this.</p>

<p>One failing of US News is they do not value options. Big mistake.</p>

94

<p>"While Amherst is a small liberal arts college, the Five College consortium offers students access to five times the courses, library resources, activities and more. The consortium is an unusual cooperative arrangement among Amherst, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Hampshire Colleges and the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Amherst students can take classes at any of the other campuses (all within a 10-mile radius of Amherst), without paying extra tuition."
Would it make sense then if I follow the options model put forward that a degree from U-Mass or Hampshire is the equivalent of an Amherst education, and would it be that a five college consortium is inherently superior in terms of opportunity and resources than a two school "partnership"? Is it simply a size issue?
I know little about Oberlin but it also seems to have additional resources..."Oberlin College is a member of the Great Lakes Colleges Association and The Five Colleges of Ohio consortium, including Ohio Wesleyan University, Denison University, Kenyon College, and The College of Wooster."</p>

95

<p>The equivalency of a degree to another degree is for each evaluator to decide.</p>

<p>This whole discussion is a strawman, nobody associated with these schools said the schools are exactly the same. Either here or elsewhere. If you've actually read what is stated here, everyone has said quite the contrary. </p>

<p>You have no question.</p>

<p>It is true though that availability of extending course offerings via the consortium is an unevaluated advantage of Amherst over, say, Williams. Though I would imagine distance between schools limits its utility.</p>

<p>And generically one of the advantages of those who prefer research universities such as Columbia to liberal arts colleges is the greater course selection.</p>

96

<p>Where then do you think Barnard deserves to be ranked?</p>

97

<p>For my D2, based on her objectives and criteria, Barnard was ranked #1. Without consideration of Columbia, by the way.</p>

<p>My D1 preferred Oberlin, and several other liberal arts colleges, based on her opinions and criteria at the time.</p>

<p>If you are an applicant, I suggest you develop your own criteria and rank on the basis of what is important to you.</p>

<p>Then you can decide for yourself where each school should be ranked.</p>

<p>But when you make this evaluation do not fail to consider all the resources available at/to each school. Particularly if such resources are integral to the school in question and not peripheral.</p>

<p>There's a good chance that your ranking will not agree with US News.</p>

<p>You can succeed from any of these schools, if you are good enough and they are the right place for you.</p>

98

<p>
[quote]
For my D2, based on her objectives and criteria, Barnard was ranked #1.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well thats based on her subjectives because I don't think that anyone here would argue that Barnard is the best school in the country.</p>

<p>My question, though, for anyone who has an opinion on the matter: Objectively speaking, where does Barnard deserve to be ranked?</p>

99

<p>Rankings are completely dependent on criteria.</p>

<p>US News has criteria, which are their subjectives. Weighted subjectively by them.</p>

<p>If you use their subjectives, with their weights, on their criteria it deserves to be ranked as it is, I assume.</p>

<p>The point is, everyone has their own subjectives and these are quite relevant to each individual.</p>

<p>Moreover, the criteria and weights assigned by US News are themselves subjective, and are not the be-all and end-all.</p>

<p>If you want to take an "efficient markets" approach, as has been advocated here, and assume that applicants can take more into account than US News does, Barnard is ranked #9 in the LAC selectivity category, when I last looked. Despite not having male applicants.</p>

<p>Leaving all else aside, I think most Columbia students would agree that access to Columbia is worth something of value, beyond what would be the case without access to Columbia.</p>

100

<p>^well said, clearly even though a flowery campus might be atop someone's list, it isn't applicable to the most number of people. Rankings try to generalize criteria that they find most useful to the greatest number, like average class size, or freshman retention, there is a also a heavy bias on factors which can be quantified like SAT scores, and graduation rates. even for these quantative factors, there is large bias in how to come about with the final numbers:</p>

<p>example: usnews uses an 'overperform' / 'underperform' rating, where they use quantifiable factors to judge if a college has 'educated' the students that it attracts. in theory it's supposed to see if univs smarten stupid students or something along those lines. In practice it's very far from that ideal. they quantify this performance, by looking at the stats of an incoming class, and the money spent on them and calculate an expected % of graduation. If the actual rate is higher then the univ has overperformed, if lower they have underperformed. Every year caltech gets screwed on these, because they have an extremely rigorous system, and so the % of students who make it through is lower than peers. Now why should caltech, a school that's really comitted to educating students in the sciences, one that spends a ton on money on each undergrad and a school that maintains one of the most rigourous curriculums in the country to push students to their limits, be considered severly underperforming?</p>

<p>what the rankings do do, is that they influence students to apply to certain places. So even if amherst was a horrible school, they'll still get a ton of smart kids applying and very happily going there, and in the process improving the peer group, making it a less horrible school. Rankings and what they try to quantify are in many instances cyclical </p>

<p>so where does barnard deserve to be ranked? probably higher than it currently is, but no-one knows and no one can 'objectively' or even accurately judge.</p>

<p>when you finally go to univ to realize how little rankings are talked of or even known, the lay man doesn't acutally know where the school is ranked, and the educated man doesn't care where it's ranked, so emplyers, grad schools etc have their own criteria for judging a school's education and alumni. find the one you'll be happy at, and will learn from, the rest falls in place. so flowers over endowment if that helps you sleep at night.</p>