Seven Sisters question, asked a different way

Parents Forum
121

<p>

Relatively small number of cross-admits overall. In 2010, 7% of admitted Barnard students were cross-admitted to Columbia. 16% of those chose Barnard – I’d note that in addition to perceived prestige issues, Columbia is able to offer significantly better financial aid to its students, so finances may be the deciding factor for many. There is good historical evidence for this – in 2004, 33% of Columbia cross-admits chose Barnard; in 2008, after Columbia initiated more generous financial aid policies (no loans, no charge for families earning $60K or less), the percentage of cross-admits choosing Barnard dropped to 14%) 41% of entering Barnard students are financial aid recipients. </p>

<p>The top 3 cross-admit schools are NYU, Boston U, & Wellesley. The NYU/BU admitted students overwhelming choose Barnard, with Wellesley the choice is an even split. Finances may also play a part there – NYU is notoriously bad with financial aid, Wellesley & Barnard tend to offer their students very similar packages. Other than that, the choice of the schools seems to indicate that students highly value the urban environment and/or are actively seeking a women’s college. (My d. falls under the “urban” category - applied to NYU, BU, Chicago</p>

<p>UC Berkeley is another big cross-admit school - like Wellesley, it’s close to an even split as to where the students end up. Barnard loses far more admitted students overall to the other Ivies (Princeton, Harvard, Brown, Penn, Cornell) than to Columbia.</p>

<p>FWIW, the number of cross-admits to Vassar was pretty much the same in 2010 as for Columbia; 2/3 of those chose Barnard.</p>

<p>The large number of NYU/BU cross admits seems to suggest that many students are primarily looking for an urban environment. The Cal admits might just reflect the number of California residents in the applicant pool – I think generally about 10% of Barnard students come from California, and the 2010 figure show about 8.5% cross-admits with Cal - it’s highly likely that most California applicants to Barnard are also applying to the flagship university of their home state; there is also a significant chunk of UCLA cross-admits. </p>

<p>As to selection factors, Barnard’s admission rates between 2001-2010 varied from a high of 33% to a low of 25%. During that time median SAT’s of students remained constant, whereas the high school class rank of admitted students tended to be higher in the years when admission percentage was lower. So you really can’t relate SAT scores to selectivity. You’d see the same pattern in other schools – admission percentages go down year after year, but reported score ranges remain relatively stable.</p>

122

<p>

</p>

<p>High-school GPA is the best single predictor of college success. (GPA combined with test scores is apparently a better predictor, but using GPA exclusively yields better results than using test scores exclusively.)</p>

<p>You are completely off-base in your assertion that Barnard students should, on paper, perform worse than their peers at the more selective Columbia colleges. As numerous people working in college admissions have asserted, beyond a certain GPA/SAT threshold, admissions become highly subjective, and a question of picking the right personalities rather than the most capable students (because at that level they are all capable).</p>

<p>Columbia’s insanely low acceptance rate practically ensures that its incoming class next year will be carefully engineered to have just the desired mix of personalities, interests and backgrounds, but Barnard’s acceptance rate of 21% will yield a class that is just as capable in the classroom (and, one might argue, just as colorful and interesting–I’d say going to a women’s college sounds cooler than going to college with a bunch of overachieving fratboys and aspiring ibankers, but that is of course a matter of personal taste).</p>

123

<p>

</p>

<p>I can only speak for W (and only in a limited fashion, since I’m not the one there, my D is) but I definitely get the sense that a good-size part of W’s identity is indeed about addressing the needs of women students as women and ensuring that women can compete in the world effectively. That may have a different flavor through a Wellesley lens than through a Smith lens, though.</p>

124

<p>But each are valid, and women with these similar perspectives should be allies, not adversaries, in a world that is sadly and shockingly still sexist, even if some women are insulated from that reality.</p>

<p>Pizza girl I am not suggesting that you were implying anything different, so this really isn’t a response to you. I hope I’m not taken as lecturing to you.</p>

<p>On a lighter note, one thing I will say about Barnard is that it’s urban setting combined with its cosmopolitan female cohort I wager there is a stronger fashion focus than at the other women’s schools. I’m sure not all Barnard women are affected, but my d and her friends scoured eBay, thrift stores and the lowerEast Side for inexpensive fashion statements. And just like the writing culture of Barnard, this has invaded my life too!</p>

125

<p>^the one concern that’s nagged me all these years is that, when women learn to compete among other women and rise to leadership in that group (measured many ways,) it’s not the same world where male perceptions, expectations, politics and sense of timing play a significant role. You can be the best at what you do, but now you have to plug it into a different structure. So, I advised my girls to ensure they get a balance of experiences in their formative years.</p>

<p>Also, just a general comment: I think when we dicuss elite women’s colleges, we should be (somewhere, even if it’s in the back of our heads,) mindful of the stereotypes.</p>

126

<p>Good point on stereotypes. As for previous comment statistics show that women from women’s colleges hold more leadership positions in the coed world than other women. Of corse, this says nothing about individuals. And I mean when metrics are adjusted for appropriate percentages.</p>

127

<p>

</p>

<p>And not only that but I recall the then-president of Radcliffe quoting a study in the 70s that showed that the graduates of the Seven Sisters NOT associated with a male school had out-achieved the grads of those so associated.</p>

<p>There is a pervasive belief in some quarters that women who choose women’s colleges are afraid of or unequal to male competition. It isn’t true.</p>

128

<p>

</p>

<p>Let us not, in escaping one set of gender stereotypes, resort to a different set of gender stereotypes.</p>

129

<p>“Perhaps they should, and think about forming a bona fide league of their own.”</p>

<p>I remember singing the national anthem at a Seven Sisters swim meet at Harvard that included Radcliffe and Vassar athletes. When I was an undergrad, Radcliffe still technically existed. Looks like Barnard and Radcliffe no longer participate in that event, but Vassar does: [Smith</a> College Athletics - Smith To Host 2012 Seven Sisters Swimming and Diving Championships](<a href=“http://www.smithpioneers.com/news/2012/1/17/WSWIM_0117122430.aspx]Smith”>Smith To Host 2012 Seven Sisters Swimming and Diving Championships - Smith College Athletics)</p>

<p>“women from women’s colleges hold more leadership positions in the coed world than other women.”</p>

<p>Women currently in leadership positions are largely baby boomers who went to college in the 70s or earlier, when women’s colleges had a different status in the marketplace than they do now. Their daughters are mostly choosing coed schools – examples include Hillary Clinton, Drew Faust, Anna Quindlen, Amy Gutmann, Judge Marsha Berzon; Martha Stewart is an exception. If the leadership pattern turns out to hold true for women who graduated in the 90s and 2000s, it will be very interesting, but we don’t have those data yet. (I recently joined the board of our Bryn Mawr alumnae club, and it’s been fascinating to get to know those baby boomer alumnae and their daughters.)</p>

130

<p>

</p>

<p>Care to read what I actually wrote?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well known points that are been repeated ad nauseam in this forum. Now, what does this mean in terms of comparisons in the context of selective admissions. What difference does this “predictor” mean when most admitted and enrolled students have GPA that shows academic excellence. Is there a difference between a pool of students that averages 3.85 UW versus a 3.9UW? Students are expected to have stratospherically high GPA! </p>

<p>And that is why, better comparative elements are added to the mix, including class rank and standardized test scores. And, fwiw, it is not a matter of which is the better predictor in the combination.</p>

131

<p>

</p>

<p>At least regarding ibankers…the above is completely off. There were plenty of aspiring ibankers at these Women’s Colleges…especially Wellesley and Barnard IME.</p>

132

<p>Agreed. Hierarchies are not a pleasant. Generous or accurate way to think.</p>

133

<p>

</p>

<p>Calmom, thanks for the wonderful insight. </p>

<p>PS I agree that I should have listed Barnard (after Wellesley) in the same sentence about high selectivity. Although the USNews has made it more difficult to cull such data points, I remember that Barnard had the highest selectivity index among all-female schools.</p>

134

<p>

</p>

<p>I was leaning on a Columbia stereotype, not a gender one.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I am aware. I was trying to say that someone might prefer a less outwardly successful peer group, with which, however, one has more in common, over a group of people that have been accepted to, say Harvard or Yale. That elusive thing called fit.</p>

135

<p>I don’t think Barnard women feel less outwardly successful than Columbia women. I think they are very proud of their alumna, and not just of the Twyla Tharp, Zora Neale Hurston and Margaret Mead variety. They are also proud of Cynthia Nixon, Lauren Graham, Jhumpa Lahiri and Edwidge Dandicant (the last two garnered many literary awards.) Greta Gerwig is a new It girl and has co-written and starred in wonderful indy films and is a becoming a presence in mainstream Hollywood too. </p>

<p>This is not to take away from Columbia women at all, but I have never been around a Barnard woman (and I know many of my D’s friends) who feels at a disadvantage and is therefore more comfortable at Barnard. If anything, it’s the assertiveness of Barnard women.</p>

<p>This years NYC younger category literary prize went to a woman about to enter Barnard.</p>

<p>I don’t think scores on the SAT is the ultimate measure of outward success.</p>

136

<p>Maybe it’s just me, but even before my d’s went off to college (and I thought my older one would like attend my coed alma mater), I kept looking at my alumni magazine, and I’ve usually found the record of achievement of the women (first women admitted around 1970) as decidedly underwhelming, certainly relative to the men, and certainly lower than women with significantly lower average SAT scores, etc., attending the women’s colleges. I could be wrong (and I do note the few notables), but that’s just the way it seems to me. Has it been the same at Columbia? (granted, they admitted women a decade later); what about the other Ivies? or Amherst?</p>

137

<p>It’s really a mistake to look at the list of achievements of alumni as a way of measuring the worth of a school. There’s a social class element as well – the Ivies historically were the schools attended by the offspring of the rich & powerful (for example, the sons & grandsons of Joseph Kennedy & Prescott Bush) – and prior to the 1970’s, the Seven Sisters is where they sent their daughters. </p>

<p>It’s also selling women (and men) very short to decide that achievements mentioned in an alumni magazine are “underwhelming”. Not everything of importance results in earning great awards or becoming famous. I noticed when looking at Barnard stats that there was a significant uptick in the number of grads from my daughter’s year who were employed in the nonprofit sector --20%, significantly above previous years – I personally would consider that to be a good thing, but perhaps not a path to fame and glory. I mean, I don’t consider my law school classmates who went on to become partners at major law firms, paving the way for political appointments and judgeships, to be more “accomplished” than those who opted to go into public interest law. They just took different paths. </p>

<p>This isn’t to detract in any way from the many highly accomplished graduates of elite schools, I just think it’s a good way for a college to advertise, but often more a reflection of the college’s ability to select students with bright futures than to shape those futures. </p>

<p>I do think that there is an alumna network & sense of loyalty that can help grads of the elite schools. I can see how my d. is already utilizing Barnard “connections” as a networking asset for career advancement. But I have to say that, in whole, my daughter’s opportunities have been self-created – things she got because she was proactive in seeking opportunities beyond what was offered at Barnard – and I think you would find that most highly successful people are the same. Barnard is a place that nurtured, supported, and encouraged my daughter, but it didn’t change her basic personality – she was already “strong and beautiful” before she started. </p>

<p>Barnard now has a supplemental essay question that asks:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>To me, that question seems quintessentially “Barnard”. They didn’t have that particular question the year my d. applied … but my d. was “unafraid” at age 5 – she has been “majoring” in “unafraid” her whole life. They might as well have asked, “tell us what it is like to be you.” </p>

<p>There may be other adjectives that best describe the students and graduates of the other sister colleges, I don’t know. Barnard also has women with a variety of interests & personalities, probably including many who are far less likely to draw attention to themselves, but are nonetheless getting an excellent education. </p>

<p>I think there is great value to the women’s college environment, but I don’t subscribe to the mythology. Let’s recognize and appreciate it without overrating it.</p>

138

<p>My question was not meant to be evaluative, but rather arises from my curiosity. I do notice, for example, the number of female Fulbrights, or the number of female research Fulbrights, knowing full well that the overwhelming number of students never apply for Fulbrights at all (no less get them). </p>

<p>But the comment about my alumni magazine reflects that I see the men and women - from the same institution, and in the same time period, side by side. It is NOT a comparison with another institution. THAT’S what I’m curious about, not the cross-institutional comparison.</p>

139

<p>pervasive belief in some quarters that women who choose women’s colleges are afraid of or unequal to male competition.</p>

<p>My earier point centered on the fact that competent women still have to be savvy in coed office politics or able to read a corporate personality that has been oriented to male power principles or style of interactions. Of course, many do it.</p>

140

<p>I don’t think that’s something learned in any college classroom.</p>

<p>I did not offer the list of alums to assert or demonstrate worth. My point was that women at Barnard do not need to feel they’re in an inferior environment. And to that endi think the method as valid as quoting GPA’s or selectivity rates.</p>