<p>My son's advisor and mentor is a Radcliffe grad. Even now, many years after it has been absorbed by Harvard, she proudly lets everyone know from her resume that her school was Radcliffe, no mention of Harvard.</p>
<p>There are faculty at Barnard (especially in the humanities) that are every bit as good as those at Columbia, if not better. If you take out all the athletes at Columbia, and all the international applicants admitted at a 2-3% rate, selectivity is very similar (which is quite amazing, given that Barnard is limited to less than half the population - only women, and only those women willing to consider an all XX school.)
Most folks will tell you that the quality of advising is better at Barnard than it is at Columbia. </p>
<p>If you are into the New York thing, you could hardly do better!</p>
<p>Sac - The "Columbia" theatre department is Barnard's. Columbia does not have a separate theatre department of its own.</p>
<p>I'd think that the Wake Forest or Davidson experience would be pretty traditional/conventional compared to Barnard.....I wonder if there's still alot of activism at Barnard the way there used to be.</p>
<p>For what it's worth, Princeton Review ranks Barnard above Columbia in quality of undergraduate education (combined academic quality, campus quality of life, selectivity, and financial aid/scholarships).</p>
<p>You mean my son should have applied there, instead? :)</p>
<p>Darn, Sac--now we find out!!!</p>