<p>Does anyone have any experience with this? What are some typical reasons Columbia students would want to take classes at Barnard?</p>
<p>same amount of credits for a similar class, typically <em>much</em> easier grading if you catch my drift.</p>
<p>1) It is the only place that the course is given. Example: Architecture is all on the Barnard campus.</p>
<p>2) Time of day. Example: Math is totally integrated between the two faculties. You wouldn’t know if it is a Columbia or Barnard professor. You picked that class because it fit your schedule.</p>
<p>3) Particular upper level class. There can be duplication of lower level classes because of numbers who want to take them. There are enough students to have two intro to film or Biology classes or languages. In the upper level you will be at Columbia or Barnard because you want to take that particular subject. Look at the upper level classes on the Columbia scheduling pages in your proposed major. Because there is no duplication there is a larger number of subjects offered. Pick the subject then see where it is given. </p>
<p>4) I haven’t a clue what class the previous poster was talking about. Modern Dance?</p>
<p>Does it “look bad” on your transcript to take classes at Barnard?</p>
<p>I’m talking about classes that are offered at both Columbia and Barnard (particularly the intro classes).</p>
<p>Other than potentially “looking bad”, couldn’t the smaller class sizes at Barnard be advantageous (particularly in the intro classes)?</p>
<p>Barnard classes are not necessarily small – it probably varies, but I know that when my d. was at Barnard that several of her classes were lecture-hall size courses (more than 100 students – I think one class had 300 students though I could be mistaken). </p>
<p>My d’s experience was that grading was tougher at Barnard, but that could also be a function of the courses she took. But if you separated out the Barnard-housed courses from the Columbia courses, then she actually had above a 4.0 at Columbia, because apparently it is more common for an A+ grade to be given at Columbia. See [The</a> road to a new A+ policy](<a href=“http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/10/04/road-new-policy-runs-through-committee-you-ve-never-heard]The”>http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2010/10/04/road-new-policy-runs-through-committee-you-ve-never-heard) and [Students</a>, profs talk grade inflation](<a href=“http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/01/28/students-profs-talk-grade-inflation]Students”>Students, profs talk grade inflation - Columbia Spectator) and [url=<a href=“http://www.columbiaspectator.com/2011/01/27/least-8-percent-cc-seas-get-straight]At”>At least 8 percent CC, SEAS get straight As - Columbia Spectator]At</a> least 8 percent CC, SEAS get straight As<a href=“basically%20there’s%20something%20of%20a%20tempest%20brewing%20over%20claims%20of%20grade%20inflation%20at%20Columbia”>/url</a></p>
<p>There are profs at Barnard who are renowned as leaders in their field, and of course there are many profs at Columbia who are also renowned and highly respected. But I think that if you have the opportunity to take a course in something that you are interested in with an outstanding prof, then you would want to do that, no matter which side of the street the class was taught on. (Though you’d want to check CULPA first - the fact that someone is famous and highly accomplished does not necessarily make them a good teacher). But my point is that popular or well-respected profs probably have students wanting to sign up for their courses, irrespective of their particular affiliation. It could work the other way around, too – that is, students probably sometimes opt to cross the street to avoid a particular instructor. (Again, check CULPA – though you have to take all reviews with a grain of salt, you will probably find that both Barnard and Columbia have their share of bad teachers as well as excellent ones).</p>
<p>It is not quite as simple as Barnard vs. Columbia in any case. Barnard courses have a BC designation, and Columbia courses have a CC designation --but there are a large number of courses with a W or V designation. Those are deemed “interfaculty” and could be taught, at least in theory, at either school. So you could find a course taught at CC in the fall, and in the spring the same course is being taught at Barnard; or two or more sections of the same class in one semester, with one section at Barnard and another at CC. Many of the Barnard faculty hold dual appointments and also teach graduate courses at Columbia – and some departments operate jointly-- so it can be hard to tell sometimes which school a prof is affiliated with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. My d had a well-regarded Columbia prof tell her that he advises CC students to take as many classes at Barnard as they could.</p>
<p>And your transcript will not say where a class was taught.</p>
<p>I’ve felt that the barnard classes are graded a bit more generously, often like the graduate level courses at columbia where the subject matter might be harder but the grading compensates for it. And the transcript doesn’t say anything about where the course was taken.</p>
<p>Thanks for all the info!</p>
<p>So the transcript doesn’t list the courses like “BC__<strong><em>” or “CC</em></strong>_”?</p>
<p>Also, what is the difference between courses with a “W” and “V” designation? </p>
<p>Also, what types of scores (in general because I realize it can vary a lot) are considered “A-” material? Between 90-93%?</p>
<p>Correct classes are graded on the standard rubric. 90%-92.9% = A-
What you do have to take into account is the curve that each class grades on.</p>
<p>Are many intro classes (bio,chem, etc) graded on a normal curve? If so, is an “A” given to students who are 2 SDs above the median?</p>
<p>W and V designations both mean “interfaculty” – that is, that they are taught by faculty from more than one college. I believe W would mean that the course could be taught by either a Barnard or Columbia prof, whereas V would mean that the course might also be taught by faculty from one of the other schools at Columbia (such as one of the grad school) – but I might have that mixed up. (That is, maybe the V is the one which is only Barnard/Columbia). </p>
<p>My guess is that it is strictly a code for financial accounting purposes only. That is, because of the agreement that Columbia pays Barnard whenever a student takes a course there, and Barnard pays Columbia whenever a student takes a course there – I think that the W & V courses may be accounted for differently. I can’t really make sense of the difference between W & V for any other reason. </p>
<p>I believe that the letter designations do show up on the transcript, but they wouldn’t make sense to anyone who isn’t familiar with the system. (But I’m just basing this on memory of seeing my d’s Barnard transcript – so even there I might be mistaken).</p>
<p>Some departments (like Urban Studies) are only available at Barnard, and plenty of departments (like Anthropology and History) have amazing professors at both Barnard and Columbia. Robert McCaughey, THE authority on Columbia’s history, for example, is a Barnard professor. It really depends on what classes are open, what the professors are like, what classes you want to take, and so on. In general, Barnard classes are not less prestigious than Columbia classes and it’s not exactly accurate to say they are across-the-board easier either.</p>