<p>
</p>
<p>Is writing “In the meantime, Barnard should be prouder of being Barnard, and consider its affiliation with Columbia as a bonus but not the defining element many love to push” really bashing Barnard?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As they should. But did they emphasize “why” or the advantages? And I’ve never heard a college representative go on and on. That aside, for many parents and students, their first in-depth-exposure to a women’s college is through the college representaive. Because of lack of knowledge or preconceived opinions, it serves no purpose to immediately expound the virtues of the colleges’ curriculum if you fail to explain why a women’s college is a viable and exciting choice. You can have one of the top ten bathrooms in the world, as Smith does, but even that, at least for most women, won’t mean diddly if attending a single-gender college is a non-starter.</p>
<p>[Top</a> 10 Bathrooms Around the World | Listicles](<a href=“http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/2008/12/top-10-bathrooms-around-the-world/]Top”>http://listicles.thelmagazine.com/2008/12/top-10-bathrooms-around-the-world/)</p>
<p>Well xiggi, there was a presumption that Barnard isn’t proud of itself as an institution.</p>
<p>Or that parents aren’t grateful that Barnard still exists. We are.</p>
<p>One thing I think people fail to understand is that in talking about he resources of Columbia University (Butler Library or Lerner Student Center) Barnard is talking about resources that are part of its school. Barnard and Columbia College are parts of Columbia College.</p>
<p>So it may sound as if Barnard is riding on Columbia’s coattails, but Barnard was started by Dr. Barnard, president of Columbia, in 1889 because the trustees of Columbia did not support his idea of admitting women into Columbia College. Barnard is and has always been affiliated with Columbia University, a situation many find hard to understand.</p>
<p>And I readily admit that Barnard is not as hard to be admitted to as Columbia College, but for the recent past Barnard’s admit rate has been under 30%, on a par with Vassar, Wesleyan, many selective LAC’s. Of course, the school only wants to admit those who can succeed in Columbia’s classes, because the women will be studying in those.</p>
<p>And the classes need to be rigorous at Barnard as well. Columbia students take classes there too.</p>
<p>In fact, Barnard is the most selective women’s college.</p>
<p>By some scales that would make it “the best”, just as Wellesley’s USWR ranking would make it “the best” for others.</p>
<p>I myself do not think Barnard is the “the best.” I think the distinctions between the student bodies of these five women’s colleges are minor. All are well qualified student bodies who engage in rigorous academic work. I would not like to rank them in any way.</p>
<p>I will comfortably say Smith is the largest in terms of students, Barnard the smallest in terms of acreage. Those rankings seem very appropriate to me.</p>
<p>Xiggi: I have no particular argument with you. I enjoy your presence on the boards. There have been some sneering comments here. I introduced my pedigree as a Barnard mom just to locate myself in terms of Smith/Mt. Holyoke. I did not make any judgments, I merely mentioned the name.</p>
<p>I would have been content to restrict my remarks to Smith/Mt. Holyoke, but there was a remark made that I felt was inaccurate.</p>
<p>Now Smith and Mt. Holyoke are both delightful schools. Ah. Mt. Holyoke is the oldest women’s college. I really feel comfortable saying that, too. And Emily Dickinson attended when it was Mt. Holyoke Seminary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barnard receives far more applications due to their affiliation with Columbia, and to a lesser degree, the NYC location. No other sister has the same relationship with an IVY. Let’s be honest, If CC was removed from the equation, Barnard would receive half the applications and their acceptance rate would be equal to the other sisters</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>As I recall it was a lot of justifying and explaining. So much so that it bordered on apologizing for being a women’s college. </p>
<p>I think it was more a question of emphasis. The other other three schools were trying to sell us on women’s colleges. The Wellesley rep was trying to sell us on Wellesley - an approached that impressed my daughter more than the others. As with anything, your mileage may vary.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Wow, really? Were they equal before CC came along? I’d be surprised if CC by itself could drive huge swings in application numbers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then the rep should be fired.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>We’re only talking a few thousand students difference. If you don’t believe at least that many apply b/c of CC, then you’re not very familiar with Barnard’s applicant pool. Why do you think Barnard stresses the CC connection?</p>
<p>CrewDad: That may be true, or it may, in fact, be NYC. That was the draw for my D. But so what.</p>
<p>I patently said Barnard wasn’t better. I don’t understand the need for that comment. I might just as easily say that it’s wealth is what gives Wellesley it’s USNWR rating. But who cares?</p>
<p>These are all wonderful schools.</p>
<p>My only point in saying what I did is to answer the perception that Barnard is somewhat degraded.</p>
<p>Yes, it is less selective that CC. However, it is a selective LAC in its own right.</p>
<p>The achievements of graduates of all the women’s colleges do their colleges proud.</p>
<p>Edith Hamilton … Bryn Mawr
Hilary Clinton … Wellesley
Sylvia Plath …Smith
Wendy Wasserstein…Mt. Holyoke
Margaret Mead…Barnard</p>
<p>among many other illustrious graduates.</p>
<p>I am not going to parse these differences. Coureur, perhaps you ran into some untalented admissions reps, preferred Wellesley for any number of reasons (certainly okay to be sure) or came in with preconceptions.</p>
<p>I would say after being at numerous functions at Barnard over the four years of my daughter’s attendance there I might know a bit more about the institution and its values, whatever impression you got at an info session.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, despite often expressing my views a bit bluntly, I hope that my comments about Barnard and the other schools discussed herein are not considered to be the sneering type. All I was trying to share is that I think the parental analysis of how well the schools have performed for their daughters easily dwarfs the … statistics. I also believe that it does not help the “cause” when diluting the benefits of a Liberal Arts college by stressing the close "relationship with a large research university, regardless of the great reputation of Columbia. For instance, I would have the same opinion if Penn would enter into a similar agreement with Swarthmore or Haverford. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, the finer points of position might be hard to convey accurately. :(</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was only pointing out selectivity numbers can be misleading and dictated by many factors unrelated to quality. I was very clumsy, (i.e. rude) in my attempt. For that I apologize.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Untalented reps maybe, preconceptions no. I had an open mind, in fact a nearly empty mind, on the topic of women’s colleges prior to D1’s college search. I had no reason to favor one over any other.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I have no doubt this is true. I’m only commenting on how they present and sell themselves to the public, not on the reality of attending the school.</p>
<p>Peace all.</p>
<p>Long may Smith and Mt. Holyoke reign. And congratulations to the women going to the class of 2013, and those considering the class of 2014. Whichever you choose, or chooses you, you are bound to have a great education.</p>
<p>Most of us here at Mt Holyoke are proud to be here. It is not about glossy resumes or post graduation plans or internships or how rigorous the curriculum is. We do things we do because we’re passionate about them or simply because we want to explore and expand our horizons. Its wonderful to be a part of an old history and a supportive community. We go to Hampshire, UMass, Amherst or Noho when/if we want, there’s no problem with accessibility. Some weekends we just decide to finish off the reading for the next three weeks… Everybody has their own subjective experience of college. It it not fair for parents to generalize about Mount Holyoke or any college for that matter…</p>
<p>glad to see this thread resurface.
As a girl with Smith as a first choice, I enjoy all the info i can get</p>
<p>As a proud Smith alum, celebrating my 25th reunion this year, it amazes me that so little has changed when discussing the differences among the women’s colleges. I think you definitely will sense a difference when you visit and will know what is right for you. Other than that, the primary question is why a women’s college? It is a distinctly unique experience; one that I think changed me forever. </p>
<p>Once you have made the decision, it seems that you are grappling with the same issues as at any other school. Do you like Noho vs. Boston vs. NYC vs. S. Hadley, etc… Is your academic major/faculty strong at the school of your choice? Career Services/Placement (Smith is extraordinary here - I have used their services at many points in my career; networking has been easy and a great chance to meet some incredible women) </p>
<p>All are fine choices. Good luck to all of you.</p>
<p>"It it not fair for parents to generalize about Mount Holyoke or any college for that matter…</p>
<p>I don’t see this as a matter of “fairness.” Parents and prospects have little to rely upon except generalizations in the form of guide books, rankings, college websites and review/info websites (like CC), college visits (see the thread on the problems w/ colelge visits) and the occasional anecdote from a friend, neighbor or family member.</p>
<p>Smith, MHC, Barnard. Wellesley or BMC – variations on a wonderful theme. Each offers something wonderful that the others don’t; each is a gem. To quibble over which is “better” is largely a matter of personal preferance. (In hs, D and her friends often engaged in similar hair-splitting: which is better – Amhers, Williams or Swatty?)</p>