<p>Hey. Maybe it’s just me… but does anyone else feel that Barnards under ranked according to US News? It’s ranked 26. I kind of thought it would be higher, like in the top 10 LAC, based on it’s selectivity and education etc. everything really. I’ve read it’s lower because of low endowment and they look at it without considering it’s connection Columbia.</p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>I think that it is ranked as it should be.</p>
<p>I have heard the same reasons you mentioned and, if true, that is just silly since the Columbia "connection" is a significant factor, IMO. </p>
<p>On the other hand, rankings don't matter to me. What matters is that Barnard is the absolute perfect school for my d. She is achieving things I never imagined she would even attempt. Yesterday she was notified that she had been named to a pretty exclusive summer fellowship for scientific research! Before Barnard, she mostly wanted to dance (which she still love, BTW)!</p>
<p>All the women's colleges, with the exception of Wellesley, are underrated. That's because their single gender status removes half of the normal competition, bringing selectivity down (without sacrificing quality). </p>
<p>Peer institution assessment of these schools is generally high, however.</p>
<p>I wouldn't fret about the rankings. Barnard offers a first-rate undergraduate experience, with or without Columbia, and is well respected by the people who count.</p>
<p>Another big issue is the faculty resources score US News uses. Barnard is easily the liberal arts college in the highest cost city, and US News deflates salaries by cost of living. Meanwhile, Barnard actually draws BETTER professors due to its prime location--NYC is huge compensation, not just a detraction from gross salary. So Barnard has among the highest paid professors (see e.g. <a href="http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i32/32a01201.htm%5B/url%5D">http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i32/32a01201.htm</a> for old data) AND the huge draw of the city, but ranks above 100(!!!) in "faculty resources," which US News uses to measure faculty quality. Needless to say, I feel pretty strongly that our faculty is much better than 10Xth.</p>
<p>That's the only part I find really unfair. That, and I do think Barnard suffers in reputation scores because people automatically compare Barnard to Columbia, and not to e.g. Wellesley or Pomona or any fair comparison.</p>
<p>I sometimes wish it were ranked higher, but perhaps only because I'm a little tired of people not knowing what Barnard is when it isn't actually some podunk little school. Then again, perhaps the same people who don't recognize Barnard also wouldn't recognize Amherst or Swarthmore or any of the other top top ranked schools.
If it <em>were</em> ranked higher, I think Barnard would deserve it.</p>
<p>Rankings aside, aside from the differences between Columbia's core & Barnards degree requirements.... students at Barnard, Columbia, and Columbia School of General Studies are attending the same college, with the same choice of classes and profs. (I am including GS here because it is often overlooked, and my daughter says that GS has the smartest students). </p>
<p>When I went to visit my d. earlier this month, I met two of her professors. I was amazed that I was even able to do that -- I never expected to end up chatting with 2 profs, but that is how it was. In one case it was the prof who initiated contact with me -- my d. invited me to attend a class, telling me that visitors were welcome to that class and often came because the professor has some renown. When we were leaving class, he approached me and said he always enjoyed seeing parents come to the class. The other prof I met is also a woman with an impressive list of accomplishments -- and my d. is on a first-name basis with her. </p>
<p>So what I can see is that my d. is getting top-notch academics in a context where the faculty is very accessible and she has a good opportunity to work closely with many of her profs. </p>
<p>I think it just goes to show how silly the rankings are. I know that Barnard's advising is much better than Columbia's, and of course everything to do with student life (clubs, athletics, etc.) is shared -- so if anything Barnard is a value-added version of Columbia. Any ranking system based on the actual academics and quality of student life would have to leave the two schools as roughly equivalent. It's possible that Columbia may have some financial resources that directly benefit its students in a way that I am not aware of (for example, funding opportunities for research and internships) .... but other than that trying to separate the schools makes little sense. I mean, Barnard students have full access to the same faculty and the same libraries as Columbia students.</p>
<p>I would add my opinion to what Calmom is saying about the rankings. The rankings are not very precise. They are based upon opinion in some categories and ignore information in others as Primefactor points out. I have been polled on my opinion of other institutions for ratings and I have to say that I don't know enough about the particulars in that institution to give more than a gross impression. I would say that as a group the top fifty are probably better than the next fifty, but is number 40 necessarily better than number 55? All of these colleges offer more than one person can absorb. My D2 is a strong candidate for both CC and BC, and I have told her to compare "the core" with "nine ways of knowing" and to compare the dorms. Her sister goes to BC, so she is familiar with the dorms there.</p>
<p>hey everyone thanks for all your opinions, I agree that the rankings have flaws as stated, particularly with how it rates barnard. but of course the rankings shouldnt matter that much if the school fits you and you love what it has to offer (like I do).</p>
<p>mardad, how does your D1 like Barnard thus far? and is D2 a junior or senior?</p>
<p>D2 is a senior. D1 loves Barnard. She loves her classes.</p>
<p>Barnard has all the benefits of depth and breadth of Columbia College PLUS the benefits of personal mentoring. </p>
<p>Its a no brainer - and it certainly is one of THE most underrated jewels in academia.</p>
<p>Yes, the merits of attending Barnard are under-appreciated by US News methodology.</p>
<p>To consider Barnard in isolation seems to be, frankly, putting one’s head in the sand. By contract Barnard shares resources with Columbia University, and it functions as effectively part of Columbia in many meaningful respects. For gosh sakes, their students each routinely take 20,000 credit hours at the other’s campus each year. That ought to be hard to ignore. </p>
<p>Moreover, Barnard is in New York City, not some isolated small town.</p>
<p>Options for Barnard students are expanded, per above, to include the facilities, library, clubs, teams, course selection, faculty, etc of one of our great universities; As well as the entertainment, employment, internship possibilities and other resources of our greatest city. Students at many of the LACs ranked above Barnard by US News have nowhere near this level of resources at their disposal. Yet these real advantages, which Barnard students get and the others don’t, are not evaluated by US News.</p>
<p>Faculty resources are similarly expanded. I can readily accept primefactor’s contention that a “real” faculty resources rank would place Barnard relatively much higher. Location desirability, size of local professional network, Columbia affiliation, and, importantly, employment opportunities for spouses can be big issues in Barnard’s favor for many. All unevaluated by US News.</p>
<p>The “value-added version of Columbia” viewpoint can have some merit. My daughter is thinking of it, though, more as “value added version of a top LAC”. She was attracted to Barnard’s LAC environment, and doesn’t really prefer “big U” Columbia, in concept. That’s why she applied to Barnard and did not apply to Columbia. But most of the traditional downsides associated with LACs- e.g. course selection limitations- are eliminated for Barnard students via the Columbia affiliation. One can look at it either way, but neither of these perspectives supports looking at Barnard in isolation.</p>
<p>The applicant pool knows better. Barnard is ranked #9 overall in LAC selectivity despite its relatively less favorable overall ranking by US News. Though it has no male applicants, or (direct) male students (an issue reportedly mitigated via affiliation & location), Barnard has one of the lowest LAC acceptance rates, and a relatively high matriculation rate among accepted students,</p>
<p>i think that some rankings rank Columbia University, not the colleges invidividualy. When that occurs, Barnard is not lacking in rank!! I have not actually looked up the rank, but my friend said that he read somewhere where "Columbia University" was ranked 9. And he said, "So, where is Barnard?" He was trying to make fun of me, but I just replied, "Barnard is part of Columbia University."</p>
<p>monydad I completely agree with your post.</p>
<p>I vent to my dad about this sometimes. my dad told me he wrote a short thing and sent it to US news, apparently you can email them with thoughts on the rankings. the odds it makes a difference are very low but if you guys feel like sending them what you said about the ranking it could be cool </p>
<p>Ok so Columbia University (which Barnard is a part of!) is ranked ninth overall in National Universities. Barnard as a Liberal Arts College is ranked 26th. I don't understand how Bryn Mawr and Mount Holyoke are ahead of us and how their endowments are so much larger!! grrrrr that makes me mad.</p>
<p>1) They are ahead of Barnard because US News fails to consider Barnard's affiliation with Columbia</p>
<p>2) as far as I know, the rankings of Columbia are done without its affiliates, eg Barnard. Just as Barnard's rankings do not include Columbia.</p>
<p>3) I would imagine that Barnard's endowment is relatively small because for most of its history its graduates probably gave to Columbia- there was probably no real need to make distinction. Also perhaps its roots as a commuter school dampen alumni giving for the older set. Fortunately though for Barnard students, Columbia's endowment is quite large, and Barnard students get access to a great deal of Columbia's resources.</p>
<p>"Columbia University (which Barnard is a part of!) "</p>
<p>Barnard is not part of Columbia, it is 'affiliated' with Columbia</p>
<p>Barnard is in effect an "off balance sheet" subordiinated affiliate of Columbia University. Their assets are effectively pooled via the affiliation agreement, a result of which is that students at both nominally-separate institutions get wide access to the resources of the university. The distinction between affiliate and college seems to be trivial in substance, yet is held as quite important as a crutch by disgruntled Columbia students who are unhappy to learn that, via the affiliation agreement, Barnard College students in fact get a large chunk of their goodies. </p>
<p>Life is tough.</p>
<p>While Barnard is, unfortunately, affiliated with Columbia, there is a limit to the extent that it can bask in its neighbor's glory.<br>
Barnard's rating is generous. It's students, judging from those who have been accepted from my school, are consistently mediocre -- especially when compared to those admitted to Columbia College. As I have indicated on another thread, their SAT scores, GPAs, and difficulty of high school course load, are considerably below those of their Columbia peers. (A quick glance at any Admissions stats profile will confirm this assertion.)
There are constant cries of "it's all the same," "why worry," but I feel that such dismissals are disingenuous. What, after all, would be Barnard students' reactions if, say, Bronx Community College students were given degrees from Barnard College? And what would Barnard be without the resources of Columbia? The relationship is simply too one-sided. Obviously Barnard students benefit, and the value of Columbia degrees are thence somewhat diluted.
If Barnard students are so proud of their institution, why don't they take all their classes within their college boundaries? After all, Columbia College is co-ed, and definitely does not offer the cloistered all-female environment that they desire. The back door to Columbia should be closed.</p>
<p>US News & World Report evaluates selectivity of Barnard College, on its own, as #9 among all Liberal Arts colleges. While not as selective as Columbia College (in RD) this is not chopped liver. Especially given that only half the population can apply.</p>
<p>A number of multi-college universities have specialized divisions/colleges that have varying degrees of selectivity. Cornell comes immediately to mind. Columbia is another such university. Students at particular colleges of all such universities have to come to terms with these disparities.</p>
<p>Disgruntled Columbia students can whine about it but the fact is Barnard students get a bunch of the same stuff they do. These additional resources are very real - or you wouldn't be whining about it- and should be evaluated by US News when considering what Barnard students actually get. The fact that cranberry25 doesn't think they should get access to these considerable additional, yet unacknowledged, resources is quite beside the point.</p>
<p>As for what would Barnard be without the resources of Columbia- pretty much that's what US News evaluates it as , #26 LAC. Well, probably somewhat higher as previously posted. IMO Barnard does not really stand-alone without Columbia, probably never has. Fortunately for Barnard students, that is not its deal. It is a [subordinate] affiliate [read: division] of Columbia University. They say its separate, but in reality it isn't. Ultimately I don't think the Trustees of Columbia University really thinks it is either.The affiliation agreement is the instrument of Columbia's ultimate control.</p>