<p>I am a sophomore making my college wishlist, and I was just wondering what Barnard is like and what it has to offer. Any thoughts?</p>
<p>Barnard has some features that distinguish it from most other women's colleges. First, it's located right on Broadway in Manhattan's Upper West Side - if you'll thrive in a big-city environment, it's hard to imagine a better location. Second, by being part of Columbia University, Barnard has lots of resources that a smaller, standalone college might lack.</p>
<p>These strengths may create a few negatives (in the eyes of some). Barnard is probably somewhat less "single gender" than some women's colleges due to cross-enrollment in some classes and various shared activities. The presence of NYC and all of its attractions and opportunities makes the community aspect somewhat weaker than at more isolated schools.</p>
<p>Recommendation: when you begin college visits in earnest, visit Barnard and schedule an overnight stay. The Columbia/Barnard ambiance is unique, and experiencing it first-hand will guide your decision. Good luck!</p>
<p>My D visited both Barnard and Columbia. Columbia was her #1 on paper but she decided not to apply. She did apply to Barnard and was accepted but chose Smith instead.</p>
<p>She thought Columbia had a cog-in-the-machine feel for undergrads; in contrast, she thought Barnard was much more interested in students as individuals. As a ballet dancer, she found the ballet at Barnard to be the best she experienced while looking...she took class with Allegra Kent. (Smith was #2 on the ballet scale.)</p>
<p>Negatives about Barnard for her were a very compressed campus that felt almost claustrophobic. The fact that it was urban didn't bother her...she liked George Washington, for instance. The dorms were among the worst she saw on her various trips; apologists say, in essence, "Hey, whaddaya want, it's NYC?!" </p>
<p>Positives included cross-registration with Columbia and access to the Columbia library. And easier access to guys. (At Smith, you have to work at it.)</p>
<p>She liked NYC but didn't love it; I think you might have to love NYC for Barnard to be a top choice. Also note that even with student discounts all over the place the incidental expenses in NYC are going to be higher than almost anywhere else.</p>
<p>Actually, I really don't like NYC. I didn't apply to a single grad school in the city (even though a couple are very good). But the school itself was so unique and perfect for me otherwise that I didn't even care where it was.</p>
<p>And for the millionth time, there's nothing wrong with the dorms other than their size. "Apologists" (or, as I like to call then, realists) say, in essence, that they're your cheapest, nicest bet for living in the area. Equally nice apartments go for twice as much. True, if you want cheap, spacious living areas, I wouldn't recommend living in New York. That's hardly a criticism of the college, which, IMHO, does a very good job with the space they have. So it's pretty offensive to hear people who have no experience with living here claim that ResLife curtly brushes off the "terrible" quality of the dorms by saying, "whaddaya want, it's NYC?!"</p>
<p>It's not ResLife that makes the "Whaddaya want?" response. It's people who find it not to be a problem. None of the colleges with which I'm familiar have "cheap" accommodations, they're all expensive. But they vary greatly in quality. For people who don't spend much time in the dorm room, it may not be a problem. For those who do, it may. </p>
<p>The notion that one has to personally live at Barnard to offer some reasonable commentary is weak. Aside from having visited and made our own first-hand determination, we also know people who go or have gone there.</p>
<p>Every school has its pro's and con's.</p>
<p>The fact that "nice apartments go for twice as much" has no bearing on Barnard dorms.</p>
<p>No, but it does have bearing on your expectations. Barnard's offering a bargain. Everything's relative--you wouldn't argue if I said salaries should be lower in low COL areas, so why argue that housing should be just as large in very expensive areas?</p>
<p>It's not so much you saying that they're the worst dorms you saw (yes, if size is your major criterion, suburban and rural schools do have a lot more room to spread out), it's you frequently characterizing them as dark, dank, and dirty. And claiming that (if that were the case) no one would care because being in New York City would be justification for those conditions.</p>
<p>And yes, living at Barnard does make a big difference in the validity of commentary. I can say how often the cleaning staff comes by, how good of a job they do, how well rooms are cleaned before move-ins, how quickly maintenance responds to issues, etc., etc.</p>
<p>I've often acknowledged the cons of Barnard. I just don't think housing is a fair or valid one.</p>
<p>Anyway, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to counter with mine. No hard feelings, I hope. :) I just get a little snarky when I think people may be criticizing the staff here; they're really dedicated and caring people.</p>