<p>According to wikipedia, degrees are awarded by Columbia and Barnard pays to use Columbia's faculty, classes of two schools are open for students of both on reciprocal basis. </p>
<p>So looks like getting to Barnard is nearly as hard as getting to Columbia ? If I'm interested in feminism-related issue but dont want to go to women's college, should I apply to Barnard or Columbia ?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, Columbia’s considerably harder. The 25%-75% SATs at Barnard are 1910 - 2180. At Columbia, they’re 2050 - 2320. On a 60-99 scale, Princeton Review rates admission difficulty at Columbia a 99; at Barnard a 97.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Either one, or both. There’s no reason that you’d have to go to a woman’s college to study feminist issues. And at Barnard or Columbia, you could take those classes regardless of which institution’s course catalogue they’re in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes. But IF Barnard liked students with interest in such issue, I would stand a higher chance. Still, I don’t feel like attending woman’s college.
Thank you anyway.</p>
<p>Yeah but go to Barnard if you think you cant cut Columbia. Then tell everyone you went to Columbia. Most people dont knw the difference anyways and you did go to columbia.</p>
<p>Lol. Im not a prestige whore though I don’t see a significant difference between attending any of these two.</p>
<p>per Wikipedia, the Barnard diploma is also signed by the President of Columbia University and bears Columbia’s seal alongside Barnard’s.</p>
<p>"Barnard degrees differ from the Columbia College diploma in that they are signed by both the University President and the Barnard College President, and carry the official seals of both institutions. "</p>
<p>Is this true? Does the Barnard Diploma say Barnard College at the top, or Columbia University?</p>
<p>Both are great schools and the relationship between them is a benny of attending either. That said I’d suggest visiting both schools and I’d bet you like the vibe of one of the schools more than the other. When my oldest was looking at schools I was thinking gaining admission to either was essentially equivalent … then my daughter visited both … and she had a clear preference … and it wasn’t really close.</p>
<p>OK, this is getting frustrating. Through neither Google, Google Images, or Flickr have I been able to see an image of an actual Barnard College diploma.</p>
<p>Has anyone actuallys seen one, or does anyone have a link to an image of one?</p>
<p>This has been discussed a thousand times on cc. The diploma says Columbia University, but is signed by both schools. According to the diploma, it looks like Barnard is a school within the Columbia University umbrella.</p>
<p>Barnard is neither a 17th century monastery nor a bra-burning feminist manhunt; If you want to study feminist issues, there’s no reason why you should pick Barnard over Columbia unless you genuinely want to go to the former. If you don’t want to go to a women’s college, then obviously Columbia would be the more obvious choice, but keep in mind that you there are many, many boys around Barnard.</p>
<p>Or you could just apply to both and see which you get into.</p>
<p>As requested:
<a href=“http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2221/diplomawf5.jpg[/url]”>http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2221/diplomawf5.jpg</a></p>
<p>Translation:</p>
<p>"The Trustees of Columbia University
in the City of New York</p>
<p>To all and sundry to whom this document shall come, greetings. Know ye that inasmuch as she has duly and lawfully completed all the exercises pertaining to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, we have advanced </p>
<hr>
<p>to that degree and have granted and given her all the rights, privileges, and honors which are customarily bestowed in such instances. In more complete testimony whereof we have directed that this diploma be validated by the signatures of the President of this University and the President of Barnard College and also by our common seal.
Granted in New York on the ___ day of the month of ___ in the year two thousand ____."</p>
<p>Go and visit Barnard and Columbia. They have very distinct “feels.” Barnard is a smallish LAC, almost exclusively undergrad-focused, and a women’s college. Columbia is a coed Ivy League research university. Columbia College is very proud of its core curricular requirements which revolve around a classical/Western Civ canon. Barnard also has a core but it revolves around a flexible interdisciplinary curriculum, loosely organized under the rubric of “the 9 ways of knowing,” an approach that so far as I know is unique to Barnard. Beyond that, Barnard students can take any classes they want (apart from the
Columbia College core) at Columbia, and Columbia students can take any classes they want at Barnard. </p>
<p>Most Barnard College grads proudly identify themselves as Barnard grads, no matter what it says on the diploma; and most Columbia College grads would think it a bit fraudulent for a Barnard grad to identify her alma mater as Columbia, even though Barnard College is technically a unit of Columbia University.</p>
<p>When my D & I visited Barnard, our tour guide and several others proudly pointed out that more Columbia students take classes at Barnard than vice versa, but I’m not sure what to make of that. It could reflect a judgment that Barnard classes are better; or it could mean that both Barnard and Columbia students are trying to protect their GPAs by taking easier classes at Barnard; or that Barnard students genuinely prefer the small LAC/women’s college atmosphere of Barnard while Columbia students are more indifferent; or that Columbia men (or Columbia women) are more interested in meeting Barnard women than vice versa; or some combination; or something else entirely.</p>
<p>My own D felt that Barnard sends mixed messages about its own identity, and may even have a real identity crisis. They just wanted to have it both ways: they were a small LAC but part of a great research university, so had all the advantages of LACs but none of the disadvantages; they were proud of being a women’s college even though there were men in almost all their classes and lots of joint ECs with Columbia, so again, all the advantages of a women’s college but none of the disadvantages; they said Barnard women enjoy limitless off-campus opportunities at neighboring Columbia and in the larger NYC environment but for the most part rarely left the Barnard campus because everything they needed was right there, and that produced a strongly campus-centered culture and student life. And so on. Made my D want to ask them, “Well, who do you WANT to be, really, and can’t you just decide that and stick to it, rather than trying to be that thing and its opposite at every turn?”</p>
<p>Gracias MonyDad. I had seen something like that and didn’t realize it was for Barnard. Now up close with your link I see the seals of Columbia on the lower left, and Barnard on the lower right. It does surprise me somewhat that the Latin Columbia University is atop the diploma.</p>
<p>I can see how some will say their degree is from Columbia, or as implied by the diploma itself, Barnard College (of) Columbia University.</p>
<p>^^ nice summary bc.</p>
<p>it seems that Barnard occupies a truly unique space. Not LAC, not Nat’l Uni, not women’s in the traditional sense, nor co-ed in the traditional sense. So I see what it’s not, and I’ll have to give more thought to what it … is.</p>
<p>I believe Columbia has always issued the diplomas of Barnard grads, since 1900 or whenever. Barnard is a Columbia affililiate, like Teacher’s College, and that’s how the schools decided to arrange things, going back to its founding.</p>
<p>“When my D & I visited Barnard, our tour guide and several others proudly pointed out that more Columbia students take classes at Barnard than vice versa”</p>
<p>Actually IIRC it is the other way around, but not by a huge margin.</p>
<p>" but I’m not sure what to make of that."
There are a lot more Columbia students than Barnard students, Courses taken at Barnard constitute a much smaller % of an average Columbia students’ total than the other way around (which is about 30% on average). Columbia, being much larger, offers more courses. There is complete cross-enrollment, they have teacher ratings for courses at both campuses, students sign up accordingly, based on scheduling flexibility, interest, ratings and all other factors that enter into such decisions. In some cases the schools pool faculty so there is no choice; so eg lower-level Spanish language courses at Barnard were actually at Columbia. etc. A couple Columbia majors are actually totally or in part Barnard programs, taught at Barnard.</p>
<p>“most part rarely left the Barnard campus because everything they needed was right there, and that produced a strongly campus-centered culture and student life.”</p>
<p>?? who told you that…</p>
<p>“it seems that Barnard occupies a truly unique space.”
Now that Harvard swallowed Radcliffe, Brown swallowed Pembroke, etc.
Claremont colleges and Haverford-Bryn Mawr are the closest situations now I think, but Barnard- Columbia seems closer than either, almost approaching the situation at a multi-college university actually, in some ways. (Though not in other ways). Someone posted that one of the Oxford or Cambridge colleges had a similar situation, don’t remember now.</p>
<p>Barnard has always been part of the Columbia system, with an independent administration, but faculty functioning under the aegis of Columbia and diplomas issued by Columbia, from its first graduating class. The history of the arrangement is an outgrowth, historically, of Columbia’s unwillingness to be officially co-ed – that is, in the 19th century, Columbia’s President Barnard wanted to make the school co-ed, but he couldn’t ever get the trustees and faculty to agree to allow women. So they finally worked a compromise that allowed women to self-study and take Columbia exams, and then get Columbia degrees… but of course that didn’t work very well at all. Some of the women enrolled under that self study program organized a movement to set up a real, separate-but-equal school so that the students could attend lectures with professors, take exams, and earn Columbia degrees – and that is what happened. I think Mr. Barnard was dead by the time that happened, but they named the school after him. </p>
<p>Throughout the 20th century there were incremental changes to the agreement between the schools, with an expansion of and greater independence accorded to Barnard’s faculty; development of more distinct curricula for each school, and, of course, Columbia going co-ed in the early 1980’s. I think that up to 1980, the relationship was easier for most to understand. Columbia University had separate undergraduate colleges for men and women, and that was that; in other words, Barnard was simply the women’s college at Columbia, in the same way that Radcliffe was the women’s college at Harvard, or Sophie Newcomb was the women’s college at Tulane. (At least that’s how my mom explained things to me in the 60’s when I was looking at colleges).</p>
<p>I think things became most clear to me when I attended my daughter’s graduation. First the President of Columbia University talked and announced a variety of awards – (he talked as fast as possible as it was pouring rain at the time). Then in turn he called upon the head of the “faculty” for each of the undergraduate schools – followed by calling upon the head of faculty for each and every of the graduate schools – and each in turn made a very short speech along the lines of, “I, as president/dean of XXX college/school, hereby present my wonderful and amazing and brilliant students, and certify that each has satisfied all of the requirements set by the XXX college/school faculty to earn the degree of Bachelor of Arts/Science/Masters/Doctor (etc).” Applause. Then after each faculty head in turn had given their little speech, Bollinger said something like, “OK, everyone gets their degrees, Congratulations!” … and then we all ran off trying to find a dry place. (My daughter returned to Barnard to pick up her actual degree, we arranged to meet at a coffee shop in the new Diana Center, where we duly admired the degree – and later that day we took that degree to an art store on Broadway for framing).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can see that. You’d sooner hear a person say they’re “Kings College, Cambridge” than simply “Cambridge”.</p>
<p>Little known fact: for several decades during the first part of the 20th century, Columbia University had a similar degree-conferring relationship with Bard, then called St. Stephens and college for men only. The relationship was severed in the 1940’s, when Bard wanted to go co-ed and the people who ran Columbia, still uncomfortable with the idea of commingling students of different genders, would not allow it. (Of course, at the time, with all the able-bodied young men gone off to war and Bard being situated out in the boonies, it might have been hard for them to fill their classes if they had not opened their doors to women)</p>
<p>A couple of other notes:</p>
<p>On admissions/selectivity:</p>
<p>Barnard is statistically the most selective of all the women’s colleges – even more selective than Wellesley (in terms of percentage of applicants who get admitted). Women’s colleges are generally less selective than co-ed colleges because they have smaller application pools, as roughly half of all college-age humans are barred from applying because of their genitalia. (crude, but true). </p>
<p>Columbia College is more selective statistically than Barnard, but it is very possible for a student to get admitted to Barnard and turned down at Columbia because they have somewhat different admission criteria. Barnard has a more holistic process and leans a little more artsy, so a student with strong EC’s or accomplishments in the arts (creative writing, dance, etc.) would probably have better chances at Barnard. But a student with amazing academics who leaned more towards math & hard sciences, but weak in EC’s, might easily be turned down by Barnard while getting accepted to Columbia. It’s not that Barnard doesn’t value math or hard sciences - it is that the ad com would sense that the applicant wasn’t a good fit, and probably suspect that the applicant was merely trying to use Barnard as a backup for Columbia.</p>
<p>On the distinct “feels” of the colleges:</p>
<p>True, but keep in mind that they because of the size and geographical proximity of the campuses, if you go to Barnard, for a good deal of the time you will “feel” like you are at Columbia. Example 1: Famous world leader comes to speak at Columbia. You go and gather with other students to watch speech on video feed set up for overflow crowd in Low Plaza. You “feel” like you are at Columbia. Example 2: You are taking a colloquium at Barnard for your major which requires a substantial, 30 page research paper. You need to do research using actual books (not internet) in order to complete your paper. You can’t find the books you are among the 6,000-book collection at Lehman, so you go over to Butler to check out their 2 million volume collection, where you find many, many books. You spend hours working at Butler. You “feel” like you are at Columbia.</p>
<p>There are many other examples, but the point is that to say that Barnard is not part of Columbia would be like saying that your left hand is not part of your body. </p>
<p>It is theoretically possible that a student could attend Barnard for 4 years and never take classes at, attend events at, or otherwise use Columbia’s facilities… but it would be difficult. The converse is not true – while Barnard is equally accessible to Columbia students, it it a smaller piece of the whole. Many Columbia students do spend significant time at Barnard, but it probably is relatively easy to spend 4 years at Columbia without ever once crossing the street to Barnard, depending on the person’s major and interests. </p>
<p>I would note that “Columbia College” is but a small part of the “Columbia University” system. That 2 million volume library is not there for the benefit of Columbia undergrads alone – it is meant to serve the entire university, with which Barnard is affiliated. However, there’s no physical way to differentiate between the college and the university on campus – that is, if you attend Columbia College you will feel like your campus is the same as that of Columbia University… while if you attend Barnard, you will feel like your campus is a different space, across the street. You will also feel like your “campus” is way too small to spend all your time on, and its highly likely that after your first year, you will be housed in a Barnard residence that is not physically located on the Barnard campus. (Some of the dorms are just across the street; some are several blocks away)</p>
<p>Some more notes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My daughter’s experience was that grading was slightly harder at Barnard. She took roughly 40% of her classes at Columbia, and her GPA in those classes was actually slightly above 4.0.</p>
<p>I think that’s probably more of a reflection that she took more small classes requiring substantial papers at Barnard than different standards – there is probably more give-and-take between students and faculty and more scrutiny in that circumstance. I think its easier for a diligent student in a larger class to earn an A, simply because grading is probably based on more objective criteria. (The grader is looking to see whether the course requirements have been met, not worried about whether a particular student has put in their best effort).</p>
<p>I’d note that the predicate for the statement is untrue in any case – Columbia students do NOT take more Barnard classes than vice versa; rather, the exchange numbers are roughly equal, but vary slightly from one year to the next.</p>
![http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2221/diplomawf5.jpg[/url]](http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/2221/diplomawf5.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
