<p>Yesterday I went to a friend’s party, and a girl there (who goes to NYU) asked me if when I transferred to Barnard in the fall, I’d be “one of those snooty Barnard girls who tell people they’re from Columbia.” She then proceeded to inform me that Barnard is a “just a back door to Columbia” and that the girls who go there only go there because they couldn’t get into Columbia. (She was laughing and slightly buzzed, but I still found it really offensive.)</p>
<p>I wouldn’t ever say that I went to Columbia, as I think that going to Barnard is enough of a privilege in and of itself. (I don’t dispute other girls’ right to say whatever they want, as the relationship is so ambiguous, but as a personal preference, I’d just say Barnard.) It was the “back door” comment that really frustrated me. It was both unfair and impolite. So what I want to know is, does anyone have a good, pat answer for people like this? I’m sure it comes up often enough. </p>
<p>I do wish the B-C relationship was a little less ambiguous (amazing though it is). Barnard’s claiming affiliation and independence is a little like something that looks, walks, and sounds like a duck informing you that it isn’t a duck, though it calls itself that sometimes. Confusing.</p>
<p>Wow, that girl was incredibly rude! For one thing, I would consider the source... she goes to NYU! :)</p>
<p>I am not sure where you are located, but this has not come up at all in social situations for my d. She has NEVER mentioned having issues with anyone about this! The only time she has ever said she even really heard a lot of comments about Barnard girls was in the Varsity show last year where much good sport was evidently had in that regard.</p>
<p>My advice is to relax and enjoy all aspects of the Barnard/Columbia University relationship. If anyone is ever this rude to you again, perhaps you could just smile sweetly and say you are sorry if that person has issues with their college choice, but you are very pleased with your own. And then walk away.</p>
<p>The Barnard/Columbia relationship is what it is and has been that way for a long time and is beneficial to both Barnard and Columbia. Perhaps it will seem less confusing to you when you actually get there...just take advantage of it and enjoy!</p>
<p>In response to that, I once said something like, "Really? I much prefer going to Barnard rather than Columbia. It makes it so easy to figure out quickly which people aren't worth talking to." and walked away.</p>
<p>But I was in a snitty mood and didn't like that person to begin with. I wouldn't suggest reacting to rudeness with more rudeness, generally. churchmusicmom's response is the much better course of action.</p>
<p>First of all, the NYU girl who made that comment likely couldn't get into either college.... so you might take that with the same grain of salt as people who diss Hah-vahd.</p>
<p>Secondly, the REALITY is that many Barnard women are very much a involved in Columbia campus life, via clubs or athletics, and depending on their major they may take many of their courses at Columbia. </p>
<p>Because my d. studies Russian, she is on the Columbia campus 5 days a week -- it is virtually impossible for any Barnard student taking Russian to avoid that, because Slavic languages is a joint department, and ALL of the language classes for the first two years are taught at Columbia, and most are scheduled 5 days a week. (I guess the idea is that you learn the language better with constant, daily reinforcement). I think it would be very difficult to go to school <em>every day</em> at a place and not feel a part of that school. Of course she also attends class at Barnard and lives there. I suppose the most accurate thing for her to say when asked what school she attends would be to say "Barnard AND Columbia".... I mean, don't her teachers at Columbia deserve the respect of being acknowledged for their contribution to her education? </p>
<p>I really think that the people who do make comments and are upset by it are both ignorant about Barnard and very small minded, because they are focusing on "Ivy" prestige and not on the reality. </p>
<p>But I wouldn't really waste my time worrying about it -- as I said, for the most part these people are either ignorant or envious. </p>
<p>For what its worth, if I break out my d's Barnard/Columbia GPA and calculate them separately, her Columbia GPA is 4.05 -- so personally I figure she's got every right to be there. (And I know exactly what she can say if and when any Columbia student ever makes any sort of comment directed to her... but I doubt she has to worry about that from anyone who knows her.)</p>
<p>Im not a student yet, but have, unfortunately, had to deal with these sentiments already. I just explained to the offending party that Barnard is actually pretty different from CU, and as someone looking primarily at liberal arts colleges with <4000 people I liked it because it offered a smaller community, better advising system, great writing program etc but of course its nice to have the breadth of classes that Columbia has to offer - "the best of both worlds".</p>
<p>I totally agree that its better to say (proudly) you go to Barnard. I dont even want to join any Columbia "facebook" groups because I dont want to mislead people into thinking I go to Columbia COllege or claim I do. When I tell someone Im going to be attending BArnard, if they dont know what Barnard it is, I then explain its affiliation with Columbia - but most normal people are impressed in the first place and know its a great school</p>
<p>and ultimately, I agree with primefactor that anyone who thinks Barnard is a "backdoor" and is somehow offended that we have the great opportunity to use their resources...has their priorities screwed up.</p>
<p>Anyone who is that concerned with the exact level of assumed prestige of where you go to college is clearly not very secure with themselves, whether they are a student from another school entirely who perhaps couldn't get in to Barnard or Columbia, or a Columbia college student who isn't confident enough in their academic worth to not feel threatened by students who might have had a couple fewer AP classes in high school or something but still take the same classes and do the same work. And anyone that insecure and/or petty isn't worth worrying about.</p>
<p>A related thought: are people as bothered by students from the school of engineering and sciences saying that they go to Columbia? Or is it different since it's not such a separate entity?</p>
<p>I wasn't asserting anything in general about CC students' feelings about Barnard or their academic confidence, merely that when someone like the girl in the original post makes a snooty comment about someone else (whether it be that person's school, their appearance, where they live, whatever) she is probably just channeling her own insecurities.</p>
<p>I am a rising junior at Barnard writing on my mother's username. She has been showing me these threads for weeks now and I feel I really need to respond to these posts. For one thing these resentments are not just from elitism but also from misogyny which is part of the reason the other undergraduate schools do not get the same treatment as Barnard students. </p>
<p>In reality the difference in the admissions standards between Barnard and Columbia is that Barnard students have a higher GPA and Columbia students have higher test scores. I am doing the human rights concentration and am therefore in many Columbia classes and have never seen any different in the work done by the students or had any teacher comment on it. On the contrary I have had to help Columbia friends study for tests in classes we are both in. </p>
<p>I always proudly say I go to Barnard, as do all of my friends, and we greatly dislike any girl who acts as if she is only going to Barnard as a back door to Columbia. If Barnard were absorbed into Columbia it would no longer exist which would be a great academic loss since studies have shown girls do much better in the world after having gone to a women's college. Barnard is very elite and hard to get into itself as the most selective women's college in the country at the moment. </p>
<p>Barnard also just offers a slightly different environment for girls as a smaller school with a much more supportive and better advisment system. It is also very important to note that Columbia students greatly benefit from Barnard as well. Not only do they use our dining hall, live in our dorms, and take many of our classes, but our professors also teach many Columbia grad courses. There are also majors that are only at Barnard such as dance and architecture. A friend recently told me there are more Columbia students taking classes at Barnard than the other way around. Barnard would not let students in who could not succeed in Columbia classes, which I think is shown by the results.</p>
<p>Finally if you still think Barnard has lower standards than Columbia I would tell you to look at my stats having taken APs in math, science, history, and english (multiple ones and in some areas), presitigious extra curriculars such as a science program at SUNY Stony Brook, as well as very good test scores and every other thing you could think of that you are supposed to have in preparation for college. I have friends who are conert pianists with all 5s on APs having come from very elite private schools all over the country and the World. </p>
<p>Lastly, someone should also mention that right now it is much easier for boys to get into college as there are fewer of them applying who have the same stats, especially at small liberal arts schools and are therefore getting a bit of affirmative action themselves.</p>
<p>I'd like to note: the claim that Columbia has "higher standards" for admission is based on a misunderstanding of statistics among highly selective colleges. The <em>standards</em> for admission are approximately the same for both institutions -- the only difference that I am aware of is with standardized testing: Columbia requires ACT submitters to also submit 2 SAT II tests, whereas Barnard does not require SAT IIs from students who submit the ACT with writing. In that respect, Columbia SEAS requirements also differ from CC, as SEAS specifically requires that applicants submit an SAT II math test and a test in physics or chemistry.</p>
<p>I am unable to find any other differences in requirements -- i.e. "standards", for any of the three colleges. If you simply equate "standards" with "percentage admitted", you would have to conclude that SEAS had the weakest standards, because it has the highest percentage of admits. Of course, the contrary is true: SEAS has the most rigorous "standards" because it requires all of its applicants to have done demonstrably well in math and science -- and simply has far fewer applicants. </p>
<p>The main difference between Columbia and Barnard is that Columbia turns away many more unqualified applicants who would not pass muster at either Barnard or Columbia. This is what the larger applicant pool means: more unqualified people apply. Of course many well-qualified people apply as well -- but that doesn't mean that there is any material difference in the group accepted student pool. Each college only accepts students that meet their admission standards. </p>
<p>When it comes to looking at the reported SATs, it's important to remember that a range is being reported. 25% of admitted Columbia students have SAT scores below 670 on each test; that equates to approx. 315 students. Barnard's SAT range is about 30 points lower, so 25% of their students have SAT's below 640... but that number represents a smaller number of students, about 130. In other words, among the campuses, you are about 3 times as likely to meet a Columbia student with an SAT score under about ~650 than you are to meet a Barnard student in that range. So if Columbia students are worried about having to attend class with lower-scoring students -- then they have to keep in mind that it is their own tail end of the distribution pool that dominates.</p>
<p>And eliminate the only small, selective, liberal arts college in New York City? You wouldn't be integrating Barnard into Columbia, as few of the people who would normally have applied to Barnard, wouldn't.</p>
<p>For one thing I was by no means suggesting that the male students at Columbia are any less qualified than the female students at either Columbia or Barnard. Rather what I was saying was that across the country more women are applying to college as there are more jobs available for men without a college education and therefore it is helpful to have some colleges specifically devoted to women getting an education so they are not pushed out by colleges wanting to keep an equal amount of each gender.</p>
<p>Also my claim about the need for women's colleges certainly has validity in Barnard's case. Our administration is extremely supportive of women and feminists. Yes we have classes with men but we also have classes that are only women and we have an administration that is very encouraging towards women.</p>
<p>Finally by integrating Barnard into Columbia, Barnard would disappear all together. I believe the example of Radcliffe and Harvard was used earlier to support this claim which is very silly since Radcliffe does not exist at all anymore. These are two affiliated, but very different, institutions. They have different requirements, administrations, advisement systems and so on, and therefore there is a very clear reason to have there be separate admissions since the schools are looking for different things in their students.</p>
<p>Oh and to fampots89 specifically, if you do not go to Columbia why are you spending all this time and energy on insulting Barnard girls and giving opinions for Columbia students (why do you care at all)? Also, frankly I know quite a few Columbia students (male and female) who would be pretty upset to think their views about Barnard were being represented by you.</p>
<p>My son is a rising junior at CC and has taken one Barnard class each year due to scheduling conflicts at Columbia. He has not once told people that he attends Barnard AND Columbia. That would be ridiculous. When people ask what school you attend, they simply want to know where you are matriculated -- not where you are physically taking classes.</p>
<p>Well, I'm guessing your son doesn't have "Barnard" on his diploma, either. Neither here nor there.</p>
<p>I guess the biggest problem is that Barnard students seem to be considered inherently inferior to Columbia students. It seems unlikely that every single student at Columbia earned his or her way there. I went to a very prestigious preparatory school, and believe me, there were some terrible students there who deserved to be neither there nor at the Ivy League school at which they went on to matriculate (hello, legacies and huge donations...). I'd put serious money on the fact that not EVERY Columbia student "deserves" to be there. To assume that getting into Columbia means more than succeeding there is incredibly stupid. The college admissions process for elite schools these days is, after a certain point, very arbitrary; it is just so subjective. </p>
<p>Anyway, while the Barnard-Columbia relationship causes so much confusion, perhaps it would be nice if the Columbia students would blame their institution for maintaining the relationship, rather than Barnard students for taking advantage of it.</p>
<p>Also, with regard to the back door comment - I guess I resent it because it implies that Barnard can't stand on its own. Yes, the relationship is fantastic, advantageous to both parties, and unique. Yes, people who wanted to go to Columbia may end up at Barnard. But Barnard is a great school on its own, and to regard it as a "back door" is to reduce it to much less than what it really is: a great institution that has produced many tremendously successful women, and a wonderful experience, period.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in a similar post, it is impossible to compare the acceptance rates of Barnard and Columbia because only women apply to Barnard.</p>
<p>According to the Barnard website, the admissions office accepted 1299 out of 4572 applicants, a 28.4% acceptance rate. However, if you doubled the number of applicants to 9144 (aka allowed men to apply as well) and still only accepted 1299, you would get an acceptance rate of 14.2%, higher than several Ivy League schools, including Cornell (20.5%), Dartmouth (15.3%), and Penn (16%).</p>
<p>However, I don't really understand why CC students are so obsessed with the rate discrepancy. The fact is, Barnard and CC are looking for different things in their applicants. Columbia weighs SAT scores much higher than Barnard, accounting for those discrepancies. However, I think any educated person would agree that SAT scores account for very little once accepted into college. More important is you GPA, which is a testament of your work ethic, and the ability to write, both of which Barnard emphasizes more heavily.</p>
<p>Regardless, this perpetual argument is moot. The fact is that Barnard women are just as capable as CC students, but chose the benefits of Barnard (i.e. better advising, supportive administration, better food) over the bragging rights to an Ivy League school. Let us all remember that a good chunk of the applicants to CC never had a chance of getting in, another chunk doesn't really care about the school but they want to be in NYC and their parents won't settle for anything less than Ivy League, and another chunk are applying as a backup in case HYP doesn't work out. When you take all of that into consideration, the 8.9% acceptance rate doesn't look as impressive.</p>
<p>I don't know why the Barnard-Columbia relationship should cause any confusion at all. Many universities have separate undergraduate colleges that have differing educational programs and philosophies and separate admissions. (Examples: Cornell; NYU; Oxford). </p>
<p>Prior to 1970, 3 Ivies had affiliated women's colleges: Harvard/Radcliffe, Brown/Pembroke, and Columbia/Barnard. Pembroke shut down when Brown went co-ed, Radcliffe merged over a longer time period, and Barnard didn't merge. </p>
<p>Several of the other seven sister colleges -- Smith, Mt. Holyoke, Bryn Mawr - were members of consortiums with male-only colleges and retained their women-only status even after their male partner colleges went coed, as did Scripps in California. </p>
<p>It's confusing, because while the schools use the term "affiliated," Barnard is often treated like one of the undergraduate colleges of Columbia University - which it isn't. There are the Barnard-Columbia letterheads and diplomas, the fact that Barnard students can take Columbia classes with very little restriction, the fact that Barnard students can use Columbia's dining and recreational facilities, participate in Columbia's clubs and sports, and even live with Columbia students in their dorms (and vice versa). But then you have the separate admissions (like most separate undergraduate colleges within a university, actually), the separate financial organization, and the fact that the schools claim that Barnard is "independently affiliated." So, yes, I still think it's confusing. It's a great relationship; I'm not trying to complain (though I do wish I understood it better).</p>
<p>Marta, I agree that the relationship can seem confusing to those who have not yet had the opportunity to experience it. I suggest you continue as you have done and gain useful info in preparation for your own experiences at Barnard. I also suggest, however, that you not let snarky remarks by some on these boards make you feel that there is any sort of pervasive negativity on campus which will affect you as a Barnard student. I truly do not anticipate that happening!</p>
<p>But Marta, if you went to Pitzer college you could participate on sports teams with Pomona, eat at Claremont McKenna, and generally hang around with kids from 5 different colleges all located on adjacent plots of land, each with its separate admissions policies and financial aid. If you went to Cornell and attended the School of Industrial and Labor Relations you would be on the same campus with students from the colleges of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Arts and Sciences, Engineering, Hotel Administration, Human Ecology.... all would end up with degrees from Cornell, but not only are the colleges very different, but some are private and some are public land grant colleges administered by the state. </p>
<p>My point is that most large universities are made up of smaller units, very often several different undergraduate colleges. I attended a public university which had more than one undergraduate college and decided I wanted a major offered by a different college the one I attended, and had to apply for transfer as part of the process of changing my major. That university happened to have separate undergraduate colleges of arts & sciences, agriculture & engineering, but students from all schools lived in the same dorms and played on the same sports teams. </p>
<p>My point is that it is not at all unusual -- the specific Barnard/Columbia relationship is unique, but not because of the fact that there is an affiliated college. It's just that wherever similar affiliations exists -- and it is common to many large universities -- the practices in terms of cross-registration, financial dealings, residential life, etc. differ.</p>
<p>IMO, what's unusual is the "affiliate" structure. It interjects a level of ambiguity into the relationship between the schools; neither fish nor fowl.</p>
<p>Whenever I see similar arrangements existing they are NOT structured as "affiliates"; they are unambiguously "wholly-owned" colleges of the university.</p>
<p>For example, it seems more like Cornell's arrangement than anything else. However, though students at Cornell are aware that its different colleges have different admissions departments and students with varying interests and profiles, nobody there has any rope to cling to the notion that the other schools there aren't part of Cornell University.</p>
<p>The one exception is Claremont colleges seem similar to a degree, and these schools are clearly set up to be separate; a unique confederation. But I don't know whether the Claremont colleges coordinate offerings and Professor hirings the way you've decribed that Columbia -Barnard do. Moreover I bet Pitzer grads do not get "Claremont" degrees, and probably Pomona Professors do not necessarily sit in judgement on Pitzer tenure decisions, the way Columbia Profs do on Barnard tenure decisions. So they seem to actually be more separate than Columbia and Barnard are.</p>
<p>I've heard Oxford's system might be similar; don't know though.</p>