I just have a question, please don't flame me

[calmom]

<p>

Not that it matters, but my daughter is a first year at Barnard and takes classes on both sides of Broadway, So far her highest grades have been earned on the east side of that street.

My daughter also had the same experience – higher grades came easier in the courses she took in Columbia. She took roughly 40% of her course work at Columbia her first couple of years – but later on she pretty much shifted to Barnard-only courses. It was clear that as she got deeper into her major she preferred the profs in her department. </p>

<p>But to francis: the point is that Barnard students are not entitled* to take Core courses. (There is a difference between being entitled to do something, and being permitted. It’s like when you were a kid and asked your parents if you could do something, and they said “maybe”. You probably knew when you were 5 that “maybe” usually meant, “probably not.”) </p>

<p>With every other course at Columbia (with the exception of those that are reserved to majors in given departments), the Barnard student stands on equal footing with enrollment. Some CC students even complain that Barnard student sometimes have priority, because of the differences in timing & mechanism of course enrollment on each side of the street. It’s basically a first-come system, so if a Barnard student can log on an sign up to a popular course a day ahead of a CC student, the Barnard student may get the spot. It also is apparently a little more cumbersome for a CC student to sign up for some Barnard courses than the other way around.</p>

<p>But again, Barnard’s course enrollment system does not give Barnard students the option of signing up for Columbia core courses. The occasional Barnard student who takes a Columbia core course does so by making special arrangements, which probably require jumping through a few hoops along the way — and my guess is that it would entail offering a fairly good reason for wanting/needing the course. </p>

<p>Whether you have friends at Barnard who say they go to Columbia is irrelevant – whatever they say, they did not take the core. </p>

<p>I don’t think anyone has said that you don’t “deserve” to go to Barnard – the point is that you have said that you are “obsessed with” the Columbia core, and we are trying to get across the point that Barnard students do not take those courses. </p>

<p>I disagree with Elkyes assertion that transfer admissions has “lower standards” - I think the admission standards are different, but not “lower” – and at least for Barnard I understand that transfer admissions is likely to tighten up as they will have fewer spots open, due to over-enrollment of this years’ first year class. (Their yield numbers were better than expected, meaning more entering freshman than usual, which will in turn mean less spots open for transfers over the next 2 years).</p>

<p>I also agree with churchmusicmom’s observation of a “can do” attitude among Barnard women, though I don’t know if it come from attending a women’s college. At least in my d’s case, it is something she brought with her to the campus – Barnard certainly nurtured & strengthened it, but it isn’t the source of it. That’s just one more reason I think that your focus on the core suggests a poor fit – it’s the attitude of someone who sees their education as something that is structured for them by others rather than something self-created and self-directed. I’m not saying one is better than the other – it’s just a difference in educational philosophies. My d. also considered NYU, but she was looking at Gallatin – she has always wanted to shape her own path, rather than following whatever was laid out for her by whatever school or program she was then enrolled in. </p>

<p>I don’t really know how many other Barnard students share her independent streak – but I do feel that if you want to transfer as a sophomore or junior because of the core, you are looking backwards rather than forwards. Columbia’s core is designed for freshmen & sophomores; students with advanced standing are generally supposed to be taking advanced level courses. Yes, transferees are required to take those courses as they are considered an essential part of the Columbia education, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are the type of broad survey classes that are intended to provide foundational knowledge. </p>

<p>It’s pretty easy to find the reading lists of Columbia’s core courses – you could be nurturing your obsession by doing some of that reading on your own, rather than stressing over the fact that some Columbia students are relying on Sparknotes. You could also use those reading lists as a way of determining which courses at your current university - or wherever else you enroll - will replicate the content: See: <a href=“http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/sites/core/files/pages/LH%202011-12%20syllabus.pdf[/url]”>http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/sites/core/files/pages/LH%202011-12%20syllabus.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[francisvdahlmann]

<p>Calmom, that makes a lot of sense. I hadn’t considered it from the aspect of the two schools having completely different educational philosophies. However, I don’t know that I am completely against the whole “design your own curriculum” idea - I considered transferring into Gallatin for a while from my current program, but decided not to because I was afraid of ending up with a meaningless degree. Which I might anyway, haha. But at least I won’t be alone.</p>

<p>As for trying to replicate the Core classes here, like I said, I’ve tried to design my schedule in that way, but the problem is that none of the courses here cover even a quarter of the material. I’m not saying that to be obnoxious, it’s just that the whole book-a-week philosophy doesn’t really exist here.</p>

[calmom]

<p>But here’s my point: what’s stopping you from reading the books on your own? I just gave you a link with a reading list – every one of those work is in the public domain, which mean you are going to find e-book versions available free of charge. You probably can also find regular, hard-copy versions in your university library as well. </p>

<p>I understand that reading on your own doesn’t give you the input of a professor or class discussion, but is a starting point. Also, I find it hard to believe that NYU doesn’t have any classes that include Homer and Herodotus on the reading list. </p>

<p>I do have to note that at least half a dozen of the works listed on the syllabus are books that my kids read in high school. I am not saying that means they aren’t worth reading again in college – it’s just that I question what is so special about being able to read King Lear, Pride and Prejudice, and Crime and Punishment in the context of a single course? Why don’t you figure out which books appeal to you most, read them on your own, and then if you are interested in learning more, enroll in courses at whatever college you end up attending that provide more in-depth exploration of selected texts?</p>

<p>If you are unhappy with the quality of your courses or academic offerings at NYU, then of course that is a very good reason to transfer – but my point is that as a transfer student it is time to be focusing on the next step (your major and anticipated advanced course load).</p>

[francisvdahlmann]

<p>I’m not saying that NYU doesn’t have any classes that cover some of the same material - in point of fact, we read The Odyssey in my Cultural Foundations class - it’s just that the scope of the classes is so different. For instance, we skipped parts of The Odyssey and when I asked my professor why we randomly hadn’t read selected books, she got really offended at me for no reason. And yes, quantity isn’t necessarily quality, but in this case I feel that there is a correlation.</p>

<p>I read King Lear in high school, too. I guess in response to that point I would just say that for me it’s about the foundational experience of reading all these texts and seeing how they relate to each other. Yes, I could read them myself and that would still have value, but I think it’s helpful to have a guide when taking on an undertaking of that scale. Maybe this is a shortcoming of my personality, but I feel like even if I decided to devour the entire reading list of CC and LitHum, I still wouldn’t get even a tenth as much out of it as if I had a teacher and classmates to help me coax my ideas out of their shells. Discussing literature - and specifically the literature of the canon - with intelligent people was a dream of mine even before I knew about the Core. And yeah, I know your response to that is going to be that that can be found at colleges other than Columbia. It’s a fair point. But I feel like the intensity and specificity of what I’m searching for is currently manifested best in the Core. </p>

<p>As for your point about how as a transfer it is time to be focusing on the next step: I know. This is the part of the process I struggle with the most because I’m still not really sure what I want to do with my life or even what major I truly want to pursue. I anticipated that going to college would allow me to narrow my interests, but instead, it’s simply deepened the ones I already have while new ones spring up all the time. I guess it’s better than not being interested in anything, but it causes me a lot of angst (as evidenced by these posts) because I just have this burning desire to learn everything in the world.</p>

[abcd13]

<p>So, being a high school student, I probably can’t give francis much advice, but I’d just like to comment on a few things about the Barnard forum on CC and this thread. I think francis asked a question that I’m sure many prospective Barnard students would like an answer to. However, I don’t think many of the regulars on this forum are willing to answer it. </p>

<p>Everyone on this forum will always say, don’t apply to Barnard if you want to go to Columbia. But, no one will ever tell you why. Churchmusicmom pointed out that Barnard has more individual attention from professors, etc., but if most Barnard students take a good chunk of their classes at Columbia, what is the difference? I have a friend who is currently a Barnard sophomore, and every class of hers is at Columbia. I have also read that when you are signing up for a class as either a Barnard or Columbia student, you don’t know which college the class will take place at. Also, many people on this forum have talked about how Barnard students participate (and have leadership positions) in many Columbia student organizations and how social life is pretty much completely integrated. Taking all of this into consideration, I just don’t understand how going to Barnard would be any different from going to Columbia (even if you don’t parade around as a Columbia student and purposely try to separate yourself from Barnard). What makes Barnard so unique? </p>

<p>I also want to talk about a certain vibe I frequently get from the Barnard forum that I think was especially displayed on this thread. As a student who is interested in Barnard, I do visit this forum pretty often. I just feel like the minute you say anything even slightly negative about Barnard, you are basically guaranteed a condescending answer and claims that your questions (which, like francis’s, are usually perfectly fair) are “offensive” or “insulting”. Barnard’s admissions standards are somewhat lower than Columbia’s. While I do not think that Barnard students are inferior in any way to Columbia students, this is a fact (you can look it up on collegeboard yourself). I agree that Barnard has a more holistic approach, which I do like (though, according to davidmarne, I am probably only worthy of community college), but anyone who mentions that Columbia is harder to get into is automatically shunned. While Francis is told that she has a glorified view of college, I think that many of the posts on here show how Barnard students/alumnae/parents have a glorified view of their own school (davidmarne, I think your claim that most of the entering class at Barnard were either valedictorians, editor-in-chief of their school newspapers, etc. is a bit of a stretch and I think that your picking at a prospective student’s academic record to put her down is quite unnecessary).</p>

<p>While I still think that Barnard is a great school and I would be more than lucky to be admitted, I don’t like the vibe I often get from this forum. I hope I didn’t offend anyone, though I probably did, and I would just like answers to questions that even after visiting this forum so much, I don’t really know how to answer.</p>

[francisvdahlmann]

<p>Thank you, abcd13! I don’t think that the other voices on this forum have been wrong, necessarily - just passionate - but it is refreshing to hear from a different perspective. I know I’m getting a little tired of hearing myself talk (or type, as the case may be).</p>

[davidmarne]

<p>Most being more than 50%, my statement: [“Most of the entering class at Barnard were either valedictorians, editor-in-chief of their school newspapers, class presidents, or nationally ranked/award recipients.”], although hard to believe, is a fact. The admissions committee at Barnard handpicks, the best and brightest “Future Leaders” to fill its entering class. On paper, if you simply use SAT Scores/Class Rank/GPA you could infer that Columbia College has “higher admission standards” than does Barnard College. I believe, in doing so you miss the point. Barnard is a special place, I have previously posted a link to what I believe is a good attempt at explaining this: </p>

<p>[Are</a> Women?s Colleges Outdated? | The Good Man | MensHealth.com](<a href=“Hearst Magazines”>Hearst Magazines)</p>

[calmom]

<p>abcd, I can’t account for everyone’s posts, but my response to francis was specifically premised on her very strong assertion that the reason she wants to come to Barnard is her fascination with Columbia’s Core. </p>

<p>Barnard students do not take the core, and it is very rare that a Barnard student is able to enroll in a core class – to do so requires special permission. So it’s simply inappropriate for a student to say they want to come to Barnard because they are obsessed with and want to take the Columbia Core. That would be like someone saying that they want to spend a semester living in Brazil in order to learn Spanish – somewhere along the line that person is going to have to be told that people in Brazil speak Portuguese. The fact that there are some people in Brazil who also speak Spanish doesn’t change the fact that the person who wants to become fluent in Spanish would be better off choosing a country where that is the main language.</p>

<p>If francis had posted that she really wanted to attend Columbia to study economics, but that she didn’t think she could get in, and wanted to apply to Barnard instead, hoping that she would have the opportunity to take classes from the 2 profs at Columbia who have won the Nobel prize for their work – then I certainly wouldn’t have discouraged her, other than perhaps to mention that Barnard has a totally separate econ department. (But nothing would prevent a Barnard student from enrolling in econ courses offered at Columbia)</p>

<p>The degree of overlap between the schools really depends a lot on choice of major. Some departments are jointly administered or designed so that there’s not much overlap in course offerings. But for some majors, each school has its own fully staffed department and course offerings. On the other hand, in some cases, there is only one department and a student at one school that wants to major in that subject will have to take most of their major requirement at the other school.</p>

[churchmusicmom]

<p>

Taking all of this into consideration, I just don’t understand how going to Barnard would be any different from going to Columbia (even if you don’t parade around as a Columbia student and purposely try to separate yourself from Barnard). What makes Barnard so unique?

</p>

<p>ABCD, thanks for your post. I hate that any of my responses on here have possibly had a negative effect on anyone seriously considering going to Barnard. And I appreciate your perspective on this. </p>

<p>To address your question/statement quoted above: </p>

<p>What makes Barnard so unique at least among Liberal Arts colleges for women, is its affiliation with Columbia. Your inference is correct, in that depending upon a student’s chosen major, a Barnard student could indeed spend most of her time in Columbia classes. My d was a neuroscience major, for example. Columbia also offers that major. She could have taken many of her classes at Columbia, but she frankly chose not to because she felt Barnard’s were better and more challenging, and taught by profs and not TAs. I have personally heard a well-known Columbia English prof say that Columbia College students are missing the boat when they don’t take advantage of classes offered at Barnard.</p>

<p>My daughter loved being a Columbia University student and is proud to be a Barnard alum. She would not have had it any other way. It sounds so cliche’, but Barnard has indeed managed to offer the best of both worlds…all the advantages of an small liberal arts college and academic environment geared towards women, with all the resources of a large research University. AND boys in classes!!</p>

<p>Again, my humble apologies for negativity. There has been some amazing garbage on these boards in the past regarding the Barnard/Columbia affiliation, and I know I tend to react quickly to try to stomp that down…</p>

[mrbc2011]

<p>I started to write this response and ended up confusing myself, because I feel like there are so many issues going on here. So first these two points: (And I graduated from Barnard in May.)</p>

<p>1) I never met, nor heard of, a single Barnard student who ever took a Core class. My understanding was that you COULD, if you wanted to - but you would have to wait until all the CC students were squared away first, then find a section with open seats and petition into it. And the follow-up to that would always be: but why would you want to? Some Core instructors are amazing, but more of them - at least as far as I understand it - are not. It’s a lottery system so it’s complete luck who you end up with, and as a Barnard student trying to squeeze in - well, you wouldn’t end up with one of the good ones. [I also never heard a CC student talk about the Core as anything more than something to get through, and it’s a book a week on top of your reading for another 3 or 4 classes. But I know you’ve thought about this a lot, so I won’t say any more.]</p>

<p>2) I wanted to correct something that abcd13 said - you DO know which school you are taking a class at. The school is designated in the class number. There are a few puzzling situations in which the class seems to be shared between the schools, but that’s relatively rare. And while all tenured Barnard professors are also tenured Columbia professors (because that’s how the system works) you always KNOW which school a professor is really at. </p>

<p>3) As nobody has discussed the departments you’re interested in: I wasn’t an English major, but my three best friends were, and I can tell you that the Barnard English department is superb. Two friends did creative writing, which is especially good, but they enjoyed all of their English classes. English is a pretty sizeable major at Barnard and we’re well known for the number of alumnae writers - everybody from Zora Neale Hurston to Jhumpa Lahiri and Ann Brashares.</p>

<p>Beyond that, I wish I could explain what makes Barnard unique. But I’m afraid my answer is only going to sound wishy-washy. I DO think that for the most part, Barnard is pretty self-selecting. I think Barnard has a great community atmosphere that is lacking at Columbia - just because of its size. We have some wonderful traditions. We also have a more accessible administration and professors who - though it sounds cliche - really care.<br>
To be honest, it does seem kind of rude to suggest using Barnard for its Columbia connection. I KNOW people do this, but they certainly aren’t the norm - I didn’t know any. Barnard is a wonderful school and deserves students who love Barnard for Barnard’s sake. I know you are trying to be as diplomatic as possible, and I appreciate that, but of course I have strong feelings about this - I loved my time at Barnard!
If there is anything else you’d like to know about Barnard - extra-curricus, campus life, anything - please ask, PM if you want! I’d love to help convince you that Barnard is worth loving for its own sake.</p>

[francisvdahlmann]

<p>@davidmarne - I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but where are these statistics coming from? I’d just be curious to know because it seems like something that would be very difficult to quantify.</p>

<p>@Calmom - I like your analogy about Brazil. It was very apropos and made me laugh. However, you kind of lost me with the Economics point. Is my desire to take the Core so much less valid than a desire to take classes from Nobel prize-winning professors? To me, they seem like they carry the same weight, if the Core idea doesn’t have a slight advantage simply because it’s a fixation with a philosophy rather than specific people.</p>

<p>Churchmusicmom - I find your insight about your daughter really interesting. The fact that this has been a theme throughout this discussion - the idea that Barnard classes really are more challenging - is very intriguing and definitely something I will take into consideration.</p>

<p>@mrbc2011 - </p>

<p>1) Your statement that “I also never heard a CC student talk about the Core as anything more than something to get through, and it’s a book a week on top of your reading for another 3 or 4 classes” makes me very sad. I always thought of the Core as one of the major defining characteristics of Columbia, what makes it different and (in my mind) superior to other schools, even within the Ivy League. I said last spring when I was still waiting to hear back from Harvard that I would trade the waitlist there for another chance at Columbia in a heartbeat, without even pausing to think, and the reason for that is the Core. The idea that it’s just seen as something to get through - well, it’s certainly something to consider, but I won’t pretend it doesn’t make me deeply sad.</p>

<p>3) Thanks for the information! That’s actually really valuable for me to know. Do you have any insight about the quality of the Philosophy and Spanish/Comparative Literature departments?</p>

<p>Lastly, I understand your point about how it seems rude. I really appreciate the way you answered me in spite of your natural instinct to simply defend Barnard. I want you all to know that the conversation that has been taking place on this board in the past couple of days has really influenced the way that I view Barnard AND Columbia - you’ve definitely given me food for thought. It seems like I’m trying to end the conversation - I’m not - but I just wanted you all to know how helpful you’ve been to me in spite of our clashing ideas.</p>

[mrbc2011]

<p>francis - you know, to me it sounds as though what you are truly searching for is a smaller English/Comp Lit/Philosophy class. think about it. the Core is for EVERYONE - for the English majors as well as the biology majors. some of them are as interested as you seem to be - which is great. but some of them would rather be, I don’t know, dividing cells or whatever it is that bio majors do. (I clearly wasn’t one.)<br>
the point is, the Core is a great thing about Columbia, but it isn’t the only thing. say you’re at Columbia because you really want to take a class with Joseph Stiglitz (I don’t know if he actually teaches anymore but let’s go with it.) the Core is there, it’s fine, that’s good - but your real passion is economics and chances are, you aren’t going to be enthralled by Lit Hum. And that’s okay. because it takes all kinds.
it sounds like what you’re searching for is a smaller class where people are really interested in what they’re studying and really committed to understanding it and discussing it and learning from it. there are absolutely classes like that at Barnard/Columbia.<br>
Have you studied the Barnard/Columbia course offerings for the classes that you’re interested in? my English major friends were in some really great seminars and had wonderful conversations with great professors and, maybe more importantly, interested classmates.</p>

<p>I unfortunately have no insights into the other departments that you’re interested in. I’m a French/Latin person and was a Medieval/Renaissance major. I did take a philosophy class, at Columbia, which was probably the hardest thing I ever took in my whole life, because I just don’t think like that. but all of those departments have good reputations, as far as I know.</p>

[calmom]

<p>

Is my desire to take the Core so much less valid than a desire to take classes from Nobel prize-winning professors? To me, they seem like they carry the same weight, if the Core idea doesn’t have a slight advantage simply because it’s a fixation with a philosophy rather than specific people.

</p>

<p>Aaargh.</p>

<p>If you attend Barnard you would probably NOT be able to take any core classes. Core classes are ordinarily not open to Barnard students, and they are not listed in eBear as options for course registration. Occasionally there is an exception to the rule, but that hardly ever happens, is done only be special arrangement outside the normal course enrollment process, and even if you were able to manage to get into one core class you certainly would not be able to take the entire core. </p>

<p>If you attended Barnard, you probably WOULD be able to take courses offered by the Nobel winning econ profs at Columbia, assuming that they were currently teaching and offered classes open to undergrads and you had the proper prerequisites. Barnard has its own econ department with its own courses and requirements, but equivalent Columbia courses can generally be substituted for the Barnard requirements, and Barnard students in econ or any other major can easily enroll in those classes as electives, with no special permission needed. (It might not be a good idea for other reasons – profs win Nobels for their research work and not their teaching ability, which is a different skill – but the point is, you would find those courses) </p>

<p>It makes sense to go to Barnard because of things that you CAN do at Columbia, even if you are a student at Barnard. It doesn’t make sense to go because of things that you can’t do.</p>

<p>I’m frustrated over the fact that you don’t seem to understand that meaning of “no” - or at least of “probably not”. </p>

<p>In your first post you wrote:</p>

<p>

I am interested in the possibility of taking Core classes at Barnard. I know that you can cross-register at Columbia, and I recently received word from a friend of a friend that would seem to indicate that it is possible for Barnard students to take Core classes, but that they are “really hard to get into.” I would like to know specifically which Core classes are available to Barnard students and if there is any truth to the information I received from my acquaintance.

</p>

<p>The answer to your question is that (a) Barnard students to not “cross-register” at Columbia. Rather, 95% or more of Columbia classes are listed as offerings for Barnard student, and they simply register for those courses as they choose. As far as I know, the Core classes are not included in that 95%. (b) It is “possible” for Barnard students on occasion to take Core classes but it is extremely rare and probably requires lobbying by the Barnard student, the consent and support of her adviser, and special permission from the Columbia Core instructor. (c) The answer to “which Core classes” are “available” is “generally none.” (d) There is a grain of truth to the information you got, but it looks like wishful thinking on your part has really twisted the meaning. </p>

<p>If you happened to already be at Barnard and wanted to get try to get into a Core class, it would probably be worthwhile to give it a go to see what happen. You would be there already, with nothing to lose by trying. But transferring to Barnard because you want to take Core classes makes no sense at all. Barnard students DO NOT TAKE the Core. Sorry to keep trying to hammer home the same point, but it just seem like you either don’t get it, or don’t want to get it.</p>

[calmom]

<p>

The fact that this has been a theme throughout this discussion - the idea that Barnard classes really are more challenging - is very intriguing and definitely something I will take into consideration.

Please keep in mind that observation may be influenced by the particular course selection of the students. Barnard students probably select Columbia courses based on a particular interest - or a need to fill a distribution requirement – so that is going to color their experience. </p>

<p>You should proceed on the assumption that academic expectation are roughly equivalent on either side of the street, not that one is better than the other.</p>

[francisvdahlmann]

<p>I understand that Barnard students do not take the Core - I knew that even before I posted anything on this forum. I also understand that it would be very difficult and perhaps even impossible to take a Core class as a Barnard student, and that it would be foolhardy to transfer solely for that reason. What I meant when I responded to your point about the Econ class was that I don’t understand why the DESIRE to take Core classes as a Barnard student would be any less VALID than the desire to take Columbia econ classes as a Barnard student. I understand that attempting to take a Core class would be much more difficult and perhaps not possible, but I felt like you were attacking me on philosophical grounds rather than pragmatic ones, and that is why I answered in such a manner. I hate to reiterate what I’ve already said, but I was not in any way contesting your point that attempting to do so would be impractical. I understand that it would be impractical. I just don’t feel that it would be WRONG to want to do so, which is what I felt like you were saying. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your words.</p>

[francisvdahlmann]

<p>@Calmom - Well, the idea that they are equivalent is even interesting to me. After all, I do not feel challenged in my current program/at NYU.</p>

[calmom]

<p>The difference is that Columbia econ courses are open to Barnard students, so the applicant who wants to attend Barnard because of the strength of a particular department or offerings at CC is making a reasoned, practical choice. </p>

<p>My daughter selected colleges to apply to in part because of the strength of their Russian departments. Barnard & Columbia operate their Slavic language departments jointly, so of course we looked at the the Columbia offerings as part of the determination of whether to apply to Barnard. We knew that d. would probably be taking most of her Russian language courses at Columbia. </p>

<p>The question is not whether a “desire” is “valid” but whether it is a reasonable basis for a choice. It is not reasonable for a student to choose to transfer to a college because of something the college does not have, but which she wishes it did have. </p>

<p>I’m starting to feel that perhaps you really still don’t quite understand the Barnard/Columbia connection. The option to take Columbia econ courses is essentially part of what Barnard offers. So that is why a desire to attend Barnard, premised in part on the reputation of the Columbia econ department and its prefs, might make sense. </p>

<p>Let’s turn it around. Let’s assume that a student wants to attend SEAS and minor in dance. Columbia doesn’t offer dance, Barnard does, but no problem – there’s a dance minor at SEAS – see: [MInor</a> in Dance | Bulletin | Columbia Engineering](<a href=“http://bulletin.engineering.columbia.edu/minor-dance]MInor”>Minor in Dance | Bulletin | Columbia Engineering)</p>

<p>But you can see that every single one of the dance classes is a “BC” course. That means that the SEAS dance minor is going to have to make the college choice based on the quality of the Barnard dance department. So wanting a school where you can major in computer science and minor in dance might be a perfectly legitimate reason for a student to choose to attend SEAS.</p>

<p>On the other hand, it would not make sense for the prospective SEAS or CC student to choose their school because they liked the Barnard first year studies program and the quality of Barnard’s advising system. Of course there are probably many Columbia student who wish they had those options – but it would make no sense to offer those as a reason for choosing Columbia. </p>

<p>No one is criticizing you for <em>wanting</em> something – we are just pointing out that you can’t get what you say you want at Barnard.</p>

[calmom]

<p>

I do not feel challenged in my current program/at NYU.

</p>

<p>You’re in Liberal Studies, right?</p>

[francisvdahlmann]

<p>I understand what you’re saying. I don’t really appreciate you insisting that I don’t get it when I’ve stated several times that I agree with you as to the feasibility of taking Core classes at Columbia. I don’t think it’s quite as impossible as you’re making it out to be, but I get that it is very, very difficult, and I am not planning on applying to Barnard as a transfer student solely to take Core classes, so you can stop driving that point home. </p>

<p>I’m in Global Liberal Studies, which is a four-year degree program with a core curriculum. It is based on LSP, but that is where the similarity ends. GLS students are not like second-tier CAS students - I would say they are generally of equal caliber, if obviously much more concentrated in the humanities fields. My major is GLS, which is another problem, since that basically means nothing, even at NYU. People haven’t heard of the program or think that it is equivalent to LSP, which is deeply annoying, no offense. There are an insane number of requirements - way more than the Core - but the upshot is that GLS students spend their junior abroad. That is the one thing I would be sad about losing if I were to transfer - but it would definitely be worth it for a more rigorous academic climate.</p>

[3togo]

<p>

Everyone on this forum will always say, don’t apply to Barnard if you want to go to Columbia. But, no one will ever tell you why. Churchmusicmom pointed out that Barnard has more individual attention from professors, etc., but if most Barnard students take a good chunk of their classes at Columbia, what is the difference?

When I went on college tours with my daughter I started our Columbia and Barnard day thinking the exact same thing. Before our trip Columbia was my daughter’s first choice and I was thinking Barnard would be a great back-up (and way to take advantage of a lot of Columbia is she didn’t get into Columbia). Then we spent 1/2 day on each campus in including info sessions and tours … and before talking to my daughter I got a hold of Mom3ToGo and told her I knew where my daughter would go to school … she applied to and was accepted to Barnard ED (and it was an obvious choice for her). The schools are VERY different and I believe almost everyone visiting both schools will have a strong preference for one of the other. Both school are great schools and having access to the other school is a pro for both schools … however they are different … and, IMO, should not be considered proxies for each other.</p>