<p>I’m absolutely shocked - people always put Barnard and Wellesley in the same category, but I just checked the Liberal Arts College rankings on US News and saw that while Wellesley is ranked 6th, Barnard is ranked 33RD. Now I know that rankings are not an entirely accurate basis of judging things, but US News is incredibly accurate for the most part, so this was shocking news to me. I figure Barnard is only considered as good as it is because of a) New York and b) Columbia - otherwise it really must not be as academically rigorous as some of the other LACs or offer as many opportunities as places like Wellesley, since it’s ranked so low - and even below Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke! And places like Colorado College, Hamilton, Colby, Colgate, etc…</p>
<p>What’s the general sentiment on CC about this?</p>
<p>US News uses statistics concerning retention of students, faculty resources, alumni giving rank, and financial resources. Statistics are not very indicative in the first place, and the latter three consider issues of money. Of course, it’s not how rich the college is that determines its abilities to teach students and provide experiences for them.</p>
<p>There’s an “assessment” aspect of it, too, but it’s based off of a five point scale, and any sort of ranking on such a limited scale cannot be balanced. They also take into account faculty salary, which while possibly indicative, isn’t exactly a fantastic way of deciding whether or not a professor enjoys or is proficient at teaching. </p>
<p>Last but not least, they use student selectivity. I abhor that piece of statistic. All that indicates is that many students applied. The selectivity percentage doesn’t decrease, because the college is becoming more choosy from its usual pool of applicants. It decreases, because its pool of applicants increases. That’s the reason why colleges spend so much time sending e-mails and encouraging people to apply, not because they expect to accept them, but because that will increase their chances of getting many applicants.</p>
<p>US News does not have to ability to sit into a classroom and grade the school on the actual quality of classes. US News also does not take into account “opportunities” available at the school (no look at career services, extra-curriculars, involvement in communities).</p>
<p>Don’t look at rankings. If you want to see what a college is like, read reviews. They are more likely to be biased, but if you read them critically, you will get so much more out of them than you will any sort of statistic-based rankings.</p>
<p>You’re mostly right - but the rankings do somewhat convey a large essence of a university/college - which is why they’re still applicable (even though many factors are ignored). Everyone knows not to base a decision ENTIRELY on rankings but it can’t just be a fluke that Barnard is 33rd! I just want to know/understand why this might be the case…</p>
<p>The facilities available to Barnard at Columbia are not included in the rankings. If they were it would be a very different story. Wellesley does have a much bigger endowment. Barnard is more selective.</p>
<p>I’m absolutely shocked - people always put Barnard and Wellesley in the same category, but I just checked the Liberal Arts College rankings on parchment and saw that while Wellesley is ranked 9th, Barnard is ranked 5th. Now I know that rankings are not an entirely accurate basis of judging things, but parchment is incredibly accurate for the most part, so this was shocking news to me. I figure Wellesley is only considered as good as it is because of a) Massachusetts and b) MIT - otherwise it really must not be as academically rigorous as some of the other LACs or offer as many opportunities as places like Barnard College of Columbia University, since it’s ranked so low - and even below Pomona College and Swarthmore! And places like Williams College, Bowdoin etc…</p>
<p>What’s the general sentiment on CC about this?</p>
<p>When they rank Barnard they do not take Barnard relationship with Columbia into consideration which is part of what makes the school great. If they did it would most likely be much higher.</p>
<p>With an acceptance rate of 21% Barnard could have higher SAT scores if that was what it valued. Barnard is not as numbers driven in its acceptances as some schools are.</p>
<p>I thought I recalled, and so found this article, that Barnard (along with other colleges) had decided a few years ago not to participate in the USNWR survey. In other words, the part of their ranking system that involved college administrators filling out an assessment of their opinion of OTHER colleges. </p>
<p>The article is also a pretty interesting read about the real value (or lack thereof) of the USNWR rankings</p>
<p>Part of the problem is that we don’t teach much about the resolution of a measuring instrument in school anymore. USNWR does not report the ability of its survey to measure a difference. I was recently treated for a herniated disc with an injection. After 24 hours I texted the doctor that did it that I had 90% pain relief but that if was sitting next to the PhD in their department my relief was 87.478% and that I had rounded up. This is a science joke and I got a good laugh from their department. I couldn’t possibly determine my pain relief to that degree of accuracy. 90% is probably better than 70% but 87% is not necessarily better than 86%. I’m just not that accurate. So, the ratings are probably accurate but to a much lower degree than the way USNWR uses them. If your college is in the top 25 it is probably better than one in the 100-200 range, but that is not how teenagers read this.
Law School is the only place that the rankings make a difference but that is because the law firms actually take them seriously. They should make lawyers take more lab science in college.</p>
<p>So true. My D’s one year of law school convinced her of only one thing: that law training is so bad that it’s no wonder government is so messed up. The fault may have been hers, but she felt she was forced to put blinders on. She is now pursuing academics. I don’t know if she’ll eventually get a job, but she is much more enthusiastic about the learning.</p>
<p>mardad: I get your science joke. It’s very cute. And I am glad that you experienced so much pain relief.</p>
<p>I see your point Mardad… but I’d carry it further because of the fact the OP commented specifically about a data point that US News does NOT measure. The US News metric in fact gives weight to factors that could very well mitigate against academic rigor -for example, it rewards schools that accept students with higher test scores at entrance and which have higher retention and graduation rates. Well, one way to have happy students who graduate is to only admit students who are already very smart & well-educated, and then make sure that the classes are easy enough and graded with enough laxity that no one flunks out. And in fact you do find a good deal of grade inflation at the top schools. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean the opposite is true – that is, just because US News doesn’t choose to apply any metric that would award colleges for requiring a great deal of effort and dedication from its students, it doesn’t mean that a college that ranks well necessarily lacks rigor – but the fact is that years ago when the ranking system put Cal Tech at the top of the heap, US News reacted by changing its metric to make sure that would never happen again.</p>
<p>So now the STEM-focused Cal Tech & MIT are safely pushed down to a position below the big-4 Ivy League (HYP and Columbia) … and the magazine sellers are happy. </p>
<p>I’m not sure that there is a good system to measure academic rigor at a school – one web site has a [list</a> that puts Reed as #1, Columbia at #10](<a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/88j6kl8]list”>http://■■■■■■■.com/88j6kl8) - but doesn’t disclose its metric.</p>
<p>FWIW, the OP is clearly ■■■■■■■■ for a fight here. From her other posts, she was admitted to Wellesley months ago, but appears to be currently trying to decide between NYU and Northwestern. Not a Barnard prospie, so no particular reason to be concerned about Barnard’s ranking or level of course rigor. Appears to be an international student, so that may be one additional factor explaining the high focus on rankings or misunderstanding of the specific niche that US News occupies in the world of US College marketing.</p>
<p>The problem of course is the despite relatively high test scores Barnard is strapped financially and does not have the resources in and of itself to be a competitive liberal arts college. It endowment is 20% of that of the top womens schools and below the level of the schools ranked in the 30’s in the Us News survey. Women who go to Columbia respond with disdain if asked if they went to Barnard. Oten they answer no I went Ivy league…I am sure that before CU accepted women it was one of the top insitutions in the US. At this point it is a very good but not top LAC.</p>