<p>I was recently wait-listed at Barnard, but got accepted to NYU college pf arts and sciences with a $7,500 academic scholarship. Can anyone compare the quality of the education at Barnard vs. NYU? If I go to NYU, am I just paying for the name or is the education really so superior? Would I be just as well-off in CUNY honors, or is NYU really worth it?
(Note: Money is only an issue if I am being ripped off! My parents have no problem paying for Barnard tuition bec. they KNOW that it's not a rip off, but they are not sure about NYU.)</p>
<p>why don't you get accepted to barnard first</p>
<p>I'm trying! (wrote a letter, e-mailed an admissions couselor, going to visit campus etc.) But I don't want to pin my hopes on it, and I have to register at NYU meanwhile, so I just wanted to make sure that it is really a good alternative before I commit myself.</p>
<p>NYU is an overall better experience than Barnard, and has better academics and student body as well. Go to Barnard if you really feel like being at an all girls school. Warning: Some Columbia people may think you backdoored it in.</p>
<p>I personally fell in love with Barnard - did ED was deferred --> rejected. I loved the small school feeling in the big city that it offered. Also, being able to take classes at Columbia I thought was awesome. NYU CAS is great, but has a very much "large school" atmosphere, and if you don't feel comfortable with that, I suggest Barnard.</p>
<p>Does anybody else have any comments on this?</p>
<p>i agree with IHeartNY08, barnard is smaller, more close knit, while NYU has a very big, more open feel to it...whichever u think would be better suited to you :D</p>
<p>-katrina-</p>
<p>"NYU is an overall better experience than Barnard, and has better academics and student body as well. Go to Barnard if you really feel like being at an all girls school. Warning: Some Columbia people may think you backdoored it in."</p>
<p>Baloney. They are two entirely different schools. </p>
<p>For my money, Barnard is FAR more prestigious. Plus NYU is NOTORIOUS for its' red tape and bureaucracies. Want to be treated like an INDIVIDUAL - opt for Barnard, hands down.</p>
<p>Joycell, have you attended either school?</p>
<p>Average SATs:
NYU: 1300-1450 (50% range)
Barnard: 1360</p>
<p>The schools are about the same as far as difficutly to get into, and this is when you include NYU's non-academic schools (School of Ed, Social Work, GSP). </p>
<p>As for being treated like an individual (not even sure how you define that)-here is the student/faculty ratio:</p>
<p>NYU: 12/1
Barnard: 10/1</p>
<p>-Barnard has a slight edge, but there isn't a big difference, and NYU's departments are better in most areas. </p>
<p>"Baloney. They are two entirely different schools."</p>
<p>Oh really? Then why does Barnard love to adverstise that they are "affiliated wth Columbia"? Yes, I'll agree its a separate school right across the street, but the fact is, Barnard loves to piggyback off Columbia and they adverstise the Columbia connection wherever they possibly can. </p>
<p>Here is a quote from Barnard's website:</p>
<p>"Barnard is located just across Broadway from Columbia's main campus and is one of four undergraduate schools within the Columbia University system (the others are Columbia College, the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the School of General Studies)."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.barnard.edu/about/btoday.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.barnard.edu/about/btoday.html</a></p>
<p>The only reason that Barnard has ANY prestige is because of the Columbia connection. Barnard (ITSELF) isn't all that much. How many distinguished profs. or top ranked departments does Barnard (ITSELF) have?</p>
<p>jwblue-Attending a school does not always qualify an individual as the best judge - sometimes, as in your case, it works to almost obliterate objectivity. Btw, my quote "Baloney..." was in reference to NYU and Barnard being totally different schools. </p>
<p>My D applied to Barnard, NYU and a slew of other schools 3 years ago; so I was very involved in the selection process - from tours to sit-downs with adcoms. Because she was a highly recruitable student we spent lots of time at many different campuses. Very refreshingly, they were all more than candid with us.</p>
<p>There was NO comparing NYU and Barnard. They are almost diametrically opposed. Even the NYU officials we spoke with didn't deny that theirs' is a more impersonal approach to students. Entry level classes there are 250 students and up in some cases. Not so at Barnard. </p>
<p>This doesn't make either school a bad choice, just a DIFFERENT one based on PERSONAL preferences. </p>
<p>And that's where you come off looking foolish.</p>
<p>Obviously, you are a one-man band for NYU and that's great, (although I'm not sure they need it). But when you start getting catty about good schools, you lose credibility. </p>
<p>The world is full of other wonderful schools BESIDES NYU!</p>
<p>Actually, GS=Columbia's GSP, but they also can't transfer between colleges without external application. Neither can CC-SEAS. </p>
<p>Student to faculty ratio is a terrible measure for comparing an LAC to a University, considering that Universities have graduate students who take up a lot of professors' time and attention. But still, I think (s)he meant being treated like an individual in regards to red tape and bureaucracy.</p>
<p>About Columbia... would you like them to pretend the connection doesn't exist? It is a huge advantage for students who want to attend an LAC to have access there. What you quoted is literally halfway down the page and in a section entirely dedicated to explaining the relationship with Columbia, which many people are confused about.</p>
<p>Undergraduate departments aren't ranked; graduate programs are. Barnard has as many excellent departments as any LAC. Key difference between the VERY DIFFERENT liberal arts colleges and universities. LACs want to teach, U's want to produce scholarship.</p>
<p>(but the joy of Barnard is that our professors have to pass Barnard's selection process--based a lot on student feedback and teaching--and then Columbia's tenure review, so none of them are scholarly slouches, just not all "big stars")</p>
<p>"Catty", Joycell?...umm, it was you who used the term "baloney". I've never stated that NYU and Barnard were the same type of school, please be my guest and point it out if I did. </p>
<p>The original question here was about educational quality, not individualism or which has smaller classes. Quality entails a wide array of concepts. So yeah, if one wants a LAC atmosphere, its obvious, take Barnard over NYU (though nobody on this thread indicated that they wanted that per se). But NYU has more top departments, more well known profs., better scholarship, and most of Barnard's "prestige" comes from the Columbia affiliation (as oppossed to a LAC like Williams which stands on its own). I know this because I attended both NYU and Columbia (thats non-Barnard Columbia). Many Columbia students and faculty view Barnard as the back door in...and this is very well known. </p>
<p>"Barnard has as many excellent departments as any LAC" </p>
<p>So are you saying that Barnard is on par with schools like Amherst, Swarthmore, and Williams? I don't think it is at all. Neither is Barnard the top all-girls school---that would be Wellesley. Even with the Columbia affiliation, Barnard is a notch below the top LACs. </p>
<p>But I digress, yes, both are very different schools (large research U vs. LAC).</p>
<p>Yes, I think the educational quality is the same. I'd even argue that Barnard's stronger than those schools in some subjects, such as writing, dance, psychology, urban studies... but overall, education's pretty much the same. I know a GREAT many transfer students from institutions much more "prestigious" than Barnard, and they all agree. I'm not exactly concerned about prestige, here. I seem to have learned well enough and grad schools seem confident of that, despite how few famous professors taught me.</p>
<p>The student body average statistics are higher at A, S, Williams, but not at Wellesley. If you think having peers with 50 point higher SAT scores is a critical factor in your education, then yes, A, S, W are better.
Of course NYU has more well known profs and more publications, something true of almost all big U's as compared to LACs--that doesn't necessarily translate into a better education. How many LACs have "top departments," in your mysterious metric?</p>
<p>And actually, as a student here now I'm pretty confident I can say that your back door claim isn't true. Starry-eyed and self-important freshman might think that, but after meeting Barnard students, most are disabused of that notion, unless they're completely blind or inalterably biased. The fact is, Barnard students do just as well in Columbia courses as Columbia students, and vice versa. So is Columbia's education bad?</p>
<p>I think (and I am NOT an educator), that when you talk about the QUALITY of education, well, you have to look at the whole picture. Is the quality the same if you are one of 200 in a class or one of 20? Depends on the student. Is quality of education impeded if there is too much red tape? Maybe. Is the quality of education enhanced by be affiliated with an IVY league school. Probably.</p>
<p>jwblue, I'm with you - NYU is a great school (my younger D would love to apply there next year!) but it's no Columbia or Barnard. </p>
<p>And whether that's good or bad, is in the eye of the beholder.</p>
<p>"How many LACs have "top departments," in your mysterious metric?"</p>
<p>-There are definitely LAC's out there that have a much bigger abundance of top departments than Barnard. The top LACs can even go toe to toe with many research U's. Even though the US News ranking is not perfect--far from it in fact, look at how Barnard stacks up in a ranking of LACs (#29-LACs are also a much smaller group than research universities).</p>
<p>Once again, Barnard's so-called prestige comes mostly from the Columbia affiliation, not its own traits. </p>
<p>"And actually, as a student here now I'm pretty confident I can say that your back door claim isn't true."</p>
<p>Columbia is clearly harder to get into than Barnard. Also, Columbia's mocking of "Barnyard" has been nothing new. Here is 2003 Fed article of a Columbia student making fun of Barnard pres. Judy Shapiro:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thefed/v2/archives/19/19.8/schapiro.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.columbia.edu/cu/thefed/v2/archives/19/19.8/schapiro.html</a> </p>
<p>Then of course there was the Columbia U. marching band incident which you may know about...and that actually prompted a response from Barnard's prezzy Shapiro...seems like Barnard is a little more sensitive than you imply.</p>
<p>But again, Barnard is a different type of school than NYU or Columbia. I would also agree that "quality" is a subjective term...so the issue is what one is looking for.</p>
<p>Actually, I was a Fed staff writer for a while. It's called "joking." The EIC last year was a Barnard student. There are many Barnard students on the Fed staff, and a few in the marching band, too. Personally, though, I hate Orgo night because they're blasting loud music on the quad late at night before finals.</p>
<p>When did I somehow imply Barnard "wasn't sensitive" (though I don't think it is egregiously so)? Students at Columbia have protested the marching band's racist jokes, so why can't students at Barnard protest their sexist jokes? I think both protests are silly, but what on earth does that have to do with the quality of Barnard's education? For that matter, what does how hard it is to get into one school over another have to do with it? Again, the fact is that Barnard students do just as well as Columbia students in the same classes, so any difference in the admissions difficulty doesn't have much significance in terms of academic ability. But most people generally accept that. How many students are rejected from Harvard for lack of being president of something in high school or missing a few more questions on a standardized test?</p>
<p>I would definitely disagree that the top LACs can measure up to research U's in the criteria you seem to value. Also, I never claimed Barnard was as <em>prestigious</em> as Amherst or other top LACs, I just noted that prestige doesn't make an education any less thorough. And as a rank of "quality," US News rankings are not far from perfect--they're pretty terrible. Would you say Barnard provides a worse education than, say, Vassar? Colby? Is Colorado College that much better than Skidmore?</p>
<p>Seriously, what is your obsession with prestige?</p>
<p>Joycell, you make valid points, and I mostly agree, but a couple things.</p>
<p>For example, you ask:
"Is the quality the same if you are one of 200 in a class or one of 20?"</p>
<p>The average class size at NYU is not anywhere near 200 (it is in fact under 30). The overwhelming majority (close to 90%) of classes at NYU are under 50. The classes of 200 can be counted with fingers on a hand...some MAP requirements, some pre-med classes and possibly intro. econ. which will have students from both CAS and Stern. </p>
<p>As for the undergrad. v. grad. issue which was mentioned earlier, its the same profs. teaching both levels at NYU. Undergrads at NYU can also enroll in graduate classes with an advisor's permission.</p>
<p>Obviously Barnard classes are still smaller, but NYU has more distingiushed profs. and superior deparments, some of which even give students the chance to earn graduate degrees in less time, at less cost, and without ever taking the GRE. </p>
<p>"NYU is a great school (my younger D would love to apply there next year!) but it's no Columbia or Barnard."</p>
<p>Neither is Barnard a Columbia. Of course Columbia is above NYU as an overall university, but the gap is narrower and narrower every year. There are also some areas where NYU is either better (eg. philosophy, applied math, film, near/mid eastern studies) or as good (eg. economics, law) as Columbia. At the end of the day, both NYU and Columbia are large research universities, while Barnard is a small LAC...so yes, it is subjective and depends on a student's priorities. </p>
<p>"And whether that's good or bad, is in the eye of the beholder."</p>
<p>-100% agreed.</p>
<p>Barnard may have outlived its usefulness. I would assume Barnard probably attracts many lesbians and feminists, if you're into that sort of scene, but I fail to see the school's purpose. </p>
<p>My aunt attended Barnard way back in the day. Barnard used to be the Columbia for girls (7 sisters), but then guess what?...the Ivies went co-ed, and Columbia became the Columbia for girls. So, I'm not really sure why Barnard is still there; Harvard got rid of Radcliffe a long time ago.</p>
<p>Barnard is still there because many very fine students still want to go there. And if you're into that sort of scene, you should know that Barnard's queer community is extremely small, especially for a women's college. There are about 3x as many Orthodox students as there are queer students. That's neither good nor bad, just information. But if you're that homophobic, why are you going to NYU?</p>
<p>I'm now convinced I'm just getting my leg pulled, so I'm going to let this go and get back to my thesis. Good luck with all your prestige!</p>
<p>Hold up there Primefactor. Look, I haven't even decided whether I'm going to NYU yet, though it is among my choices. Also, how am I homophobic? You were the one using terms like queer. </p>
<p>As for Barnard being there, Harvard abolished Radcliffe, and it seems strange Columbia has not done that with Barnard.</p>