<p>Relative to Columbia College, Barnard is, I'm afraid, "chopped liver."
US News and World Reports gives Barnard an extremely generous ranking -- especially considering the academic quality of its student body. Were it not for its access to Columbia's resources (and I include CC students in "resources"), Barnard's ranking would be significantly, and deservedly, lower.</p>
<p>What disturbs me when I read this thread it what is considered to be the goal of a college education. I can not see how people imply that Barnard is a mediocre school when a student can get an excellent liberal arts education. Many colleges have affiliation or cross listing programs. This adds to the quality of a college, it does not dilute it.</p>
<p>Cranberry,, what on earth is your goal in making sweeping judgements about Barnard, its students, and the quality of education offered there? Have you ever attended? You are apparently making judgements based upon reading some stats of students who post on these boards...not an accurate assessment.</p>
<p>Barnard's affiliation with Columbia is a significant factor that is not going to change any time soon. And members of the CC faculty with whom I have personally spoken acknowledge Barnard as a valuable resource for Columbia College students. </p>
<p>Since the students who attend Barnard are very intelligent and perceptive, they realize in full that Barnard does NOT, infact, offer a "cloistered all female environment" (your phrase), and that is part-and-parcel of its appeal. </p>
<p>Please get this huge chip off of your shoulder regarding Barnard, Columbia University and their relationship. There is nothing to be gained except a very, very negative impression of your own self-image.</p>
<p>Cranberry, do you also look with disdain at the Engineering students? They have an easier time gaining admission as well, or so I'm told. How about those doing joint degrees with JTS and Columbia General Studies? The affiliated schools may vary slightly in selectivity but there isn't the vast chasm in ability you're trying to suggest. For one thing, I'm personally acquainted with girls who actively chose Barnard over Columbia. For another, I believe a professor with 10 years teaching experience at Columbia posted on this site that she could not distinguish between female Columbia students and Barnard students. And finally, given the recent jump--err, make that catapult--up in selectivity at all colleges, I'd be willing to bet that the incoming Barnard students are an impressive bunch indeed.</p>
<p>I got a bit of insight into the bitterness experienced by a few Columbia students toward Barnard when I received a letter from our high school promoting our excellent music program. One student testimonial said something like, "I knew I couldn't get a 5.0 [weighted gpa] if I took orchestra all 4 years [because it's not a weighted honors class], but I did anyway and I got so much out of it..." I realized that many kids make tremendous sacrifices to realize their dream of an Ivy league education, including giving up many activities which enrich them in qualitative ways but don't enhance their stats. So when you do everything you believe possible and necessary to "succeed," perhaps to the point of starving your artistic and soul needs, and you go off to college and sit next to a girl [sic] who is well-rounded and artistic, and didn't drop orchestra or choir or art, didn't take SAT prep classes, didn't sign up for 7am zero hour classes, who is getting the same education as you....in a way, I can understand the bitterness, and I feel sad for the young people who've bought into the prestige/stats/high achievement mindset. I wish they had gotten better advice in HS.</p>
<p>My daughter, now 2nd year at Barnard, took several APs but not all, she took art and orchestra, she danced, she captained cross country and track, she's a wonderful, bright kid, but certainly had lower stats than the "gunners" at her school. Who cares, really? I always encouraged her to strive for balance and not just excellence. </p>
<p>Superiority is such a fragile stance.</p>
<p>I hear what you are saying ahimsa and I agree wholeheartedly with you about the importance of taking academic risks and fulfilling one's creative side. I'm not sure though that I'm willing to accept the suggestion that this is the widespread truth at the two schools: one filled with grade grubbing drones who worried obsessively about their stats, courses, and resume and the other with less traditionally qualified, "artsy" sorts of kids. The institutional priorities at the two schools affect the admissions decisions and there's plenty of room for more and less "qualified" kids being admitted to each.</p>
<p>I really like the parents who contribute regularly to the Barnard forum and I appreciate all the insight and advice you have offered. You've all but sold the school to me and I've tried to convey your feelings to my daughter. But then there's this huge sticking point. I wish this nagging Columbia/Barnard theme weren't always in the background. Despite all your efforts to clarify the issue, I am coming away quite concerned. Perhaps it's better that we hear of it now--the last thing I'd want is to allow my daughter to accept a place in a school where she'll have to spend four years defending her ability. Perhaps it's best left to those hardier and more mature souls who are able to ignore the insecure kids who buy into this fiction and to those who honestly don't care.</p>
<p>At the risk of "feeding the troll": </p>
<p>A. "US News and World Reports gives Barnard an extremely generous ranking -- especially considering the academic quality of its student body"</p>
<p>Barnard is ranked in the LAC category, against other LACs. It is not ranked against Columbia at all.</p>
<p>17 of the LACs US News ranks higher than Barnard overall are adjudged by US News to rank LOWER than Barnard in the selectivity category. So if you think Barnard "IS" chopped liver, you must think these other places are absolute mush. You probably would cross the street to avoid contact with the " absolute sub-cretins" at these other 17 schools.</p>
<p>B. "Were it not for its access to Columbia's resources (and I include CC students in "resources"), Barnard's ranking would be significantly, and deservedly, lower."</p>
<p>Well actually US News as far as I can tell does NOT acknowledge Barnard's access to Columbia's resources in its LAC rankings. From your post, it would appear that you agree these additional resources provide Barnard with substantial additional benefit.</p>
<p>Taken together, A + B, with the relevant factual corrections, must inevitably lead to:</p>
<p>CRANBERRY25 AGREES BARNARD IS UNDERRANKED.</p>
<p>In its LAC category, of course.</p>
<p>"Were it not for its access to Columbia's resources ....."</p>
<p>And were it not for the fact that the Earth is round, you'd probably fall off if you got to the end !!!</p>
<p>shoshi, I think it's a reasonable concern.</p>
<p>I know my daughter evaluated it and decided to attend anyway. But then she IS a hardy soul. And Barnard had what she wanted, where she wanted it, more than any other school in the country. The only thing she liked about Columbia is she could still take Barnard's dance program if she went there; she didn't even apply. She's a strong student; would have had some shot in ED if she wanted it. But, though she can "shoot" with them, she hates "the gunners" described above; wants to distance herself where possible.</p>
<p>We haven't really heard that this is a big deal to the students in their everyday experience when they are actually there. So that's what she's expecting to be the case. Cross fingers.</p>
<p>She didn't really see it as a "huge sticking point" though; more like "potential annoying background nuisance BS". She has a relative at Columbia now, with a Barnard girlfriend, who strongly encouraged her to go to Barnard. If he thought that was a bad thing presumably he would have said something. One hopes.</p>
<p>Monydad, kudos to your daughter. I think the hardy souls are our future leaders. This kind of nonsense is exactly the sort of thing women have to deal with in their academic and professional lives; those who can ignore the background noise now and take what they need from what's offered are giant steps beyond those mired in bitterness or uncertainty. I wish my own daughter were at that point now but I am not at all sure that she is. I don't want her taking this stuff to heart and I certainly don't want her to have to produce defensively her near perfect SAT scores, grades and awards in order to gain legitimacy. I also worry that if she were to stand out as a superior student in a Columbia class that this would evoke a new round of bitterness. (She thinks she's so smart and she's only a BARNARD student) Is this a paranoid fantasy or has that actually happened to anyone out there? </p>
<p>I see that Cranberry has posted over at the MIT forum as well, arguing bitterly that less worthy Wellesley students have no business interacting with MIT students. Hmm, maybe Ahimsa's comments were spot on. I get the sense that this is one unhappy kid who sacrificed all to be number one or two in her school and doesn't want anyone to forget it. Ever. I feel for her. She's about to get a shock of reality.</p>
<p>I don't think they wear their individual college beanies into class or anything. In many cases they probably don't really know who is in which school unless it comes up somehow. Remember there's CC, SEAS, GS, visiting students.. So there can be people in the classes from various places.</p>
<p>The former Barnard prof. who posted here previously said he/she didn't know who was in what college until the end of the year, filling out grade reports. Or something like that.</p>
<p>As a factual matter, Columbia college stats ARE higher- among the highest in the country now I think (my how times have changed). But there's a mean and then there's also a standard deviation. And Barnard is itself a strong school. From the stats, a large chunk of Barnard's class should be academically indistinguishable from the bulk of Columbia's other students in the classroom.</p>
<p>Shoshi, this Columbia antagonism toward Barnard is something that is on line only. I would like to point out something else: there is a tendency for particular Barnard-bashers to post very frequently, at all hours of the day or night. I also do post like that, but I'm a single parent with an empty nest, living in the burbs. Kids who are in college live in dorms surrounded by other kids, and they are far too busy with their real-world social lives, classes, studying, and other activities to spend much time browsing on internet boards, much less using that time to attack and insult others. So you are seeing the words of a few malcontents who obviously have no real-life friends at college and are taking out their frustrations on line. </p>
<p>You have to bear in mind that people who are constantly putting others down, especially in anonymous contexts online, are generally very insecure individuals. Barnard women tend not to be the insecure types -- on the contrary, my d. has mentioned repeatedly that she is surrounded by very ambitious, independent, goal-oriented women and my sense of the women I met there was that they were very poised and self-confident. So an online board is a "safe" place for insecure individuals who are not happy with their college lives to vent. </p>
<p>You will notice that there are not many actual Barnard students who post regularly on these boards, and the ones who do always are posting positive, supportive comments. The reason not many post is that they most Barnard students are too busy and engaged with their real lives to spend much time reading internet boards. </p>
<p>The reason their online persona's seem friendly, courteous and helpful is that there apparently is a "Barnard way". I guess somewhere along the way there is a modern, ambitious career-woman finishing school aspect to Barnard -- my d. seems to have picked up an instinct for maintaining an air of propriety. </p>
<p>My d. has not had any problem whatsoever with anyone at Columbia and she has friends, both male and female, who are Columbia students. In fact, she has always had boys as close friends and this has continued at Barnard. To my knowledge, nothing has ever been said to my daughter or in her presence that would indicate any sort of resentment toward Barnard students. </p>
<p>Obviously there are students who do feel resentment or jealousy towards Barnard students, and you can get hints of that from some articles in the Columbia Daily Spectator as well as on line board like this -- but they don't verbalize those feelings directly to Barnard students -- at least my d. has never mentioned anything like that. (Of course, it is possible that they simply are afraid to tangle with my d.)</p>
<p>The truth is that there are a large number of Columbia males who want to befriend and/or date Barnard females. These males are extremely friendly and often go out of their way to do nice things for Barnard women. (Obviously some of them are hoping that the Barnard women will reciprocate). </p>
<p>I would be glad to answer any questions you might have, either by posting or in PM's - and I am sure my d. would be happy to answer questions your daughter might have as well.</p>
<p>
As you may know, my d. does not have "near perfect" SAT scores - her scores are in the bottom quartile of admitted students She does not have any "awards" other than the distinguished something or other certificate that the College Board sent her for getting 4s & 5s on the requisite number of AP exams. She simply doesn't play the SAT-comparison game. </p>
<p>She feels that at the college, she is in the top quartile in terms of ability -- so she is not worried about defending anything. I specifically asked her whether that was in reference to Barnard students or Columbia students as well, and she said that it was the same with both groups -- there are some students who are really brilliant, but a whole the students tend to be bright but not amazing. She thinks the smartest students are from GS. (My d. is not one to brag -- this conversation was more talking about the surprise she felt on realizing where she stood vis a vis other students - naturally she had felt somewhat apprehensive before starting. It may be based largely on comparing her grades on papers and midterms with others -- she recently called me to happily report that she had 3 papers or midterms returned in different classes one week, and had receive an A+ on each). </p>
<p>I realized after she started school that her SAT Writing score is actually well above median for both Barnard & Columbia -- and that at college, that is the thing that matters most. (I have noticed on line that some of the Barnard-bashing posters who claim to be Columbia students are very limited when it comes to written expression; a couple of posters in particular are also quite dense when it comes to recognizing satire --the seem to take everything quite literally and get really hung up on word meaning.)</p>
<p>It is college. The only performance that counts is in the classrooms at Morningside Heights -- it doesn't matter what high school they came from, what awards they got there, or what their test scores are. My d. has A's in the classes she took at Columbia -- I assume there are some Columbia students with B's and C's. Once first semester grades are reported, no one is talking about their SAT scores any more.</p>
<p>The Barnard/Columbia differences are a far bigger deal in this forum than on campus. Shoshi, your daughter will not be bothered. She will be so busy with her friends and her classes, she will have no energy to indulge ungrounded resentment from a tiny handful. Judging from my D, it's not debated. In classes, there are no distinctions drawn. Socially as well, it's just not that big a deal. I suppose that could be partly a function of the friends my D has chosen, and the types of classes she takes. If someone decides it's a big deal, it WILL be a big deal, and vice versa. </p>
<p>As a Barnard student in the early 80s we did debate the B/C issue because Columbia College was just deciding to go coed, and we had to work on it as a community. Since then, Barnard's identity has become stronger and more distinct, and their admission standards have also risen. Still, the 2 colleges are looking for different kinds of students.</p>
<p>I have to say, too, that Columbia College students today are a far cry from the guys I remember from the 80s when NYC was still dangerous and Columbia not as "hot." Valedictorians went to HYP, not Columbia, unless they were renegades. We all prized our eccentricities, no one bragged about their GPAs, college pride was declasse. Smart, offbeat, ironic, odd people. Columbia by virtue of NYC still attracts some of these types (at the risk of generalizing), but the campus feels so much more traditionally Ivy League to me now in both good and bad ways. Both Barnard and Columbia have changed as NYC itself has changed--more mainstream (Walmart for god's sakes), more affluent, safer in all respects, more....corporate. For better and for worse.</p>
<p>" Barnard's identity has become stronger and more distinct, and their admission standards have also risen. "</p>
<p>Not really. More and more Barnard student emphasize their affiliation with Columbia, omitting the word 'Barnard' as much as possible from their record. </p>
<p>Looks like Barnard studens are admitting that their degree itself (without Columbia association) is not good enough...</p>
<p>Yeah like you would know what "more and more Barnard students emphasize". What are you, like 18?</p>
<p>Did you do some statistical survey to arrive at this stellar insight?</p>
<p>Their degree is from Columbia University. They pretty much have to say so, because that's the fact. </p>
<p>Anyway, they in fact HAVE a Columbia association, why should they want to act as if they don't? Nobody is denying that Barnard is part of Columbia, and takes benefit from that. You're certainly not. You just said so. I 'm guessing they don't feel ashamed of it, so no need to hide who actually gives them their degree.</p>
<p>The diploma has been printed out and translated on several threads, you can read it yourself.</p>
<p>It is not up to students at Columbia's other colleges to decide, or frame the discussion of, how Barnard College students should regard or use their degree, which is issued to them by Columbia University. Columbia University has given the degree recipients full rights in this regard, as stated in the language of the diploma itself.</p>
<p>If you are unhappy that Columbia University issues the degrees Barnard College students get, just like it issues Columbia College students degrees, and Columbia Fu College students degrees, suggest you take that up with Columbia University.</p>
<p>If you are upset that Barnard College is in fact integrated into Columbia University in every conceivable way save for some formal administrative arcana which you desperately cling to, take that up with Columbia University as well.</p>
<p>OR, if it bothers you enough and you go to Columbia, perhaps you should transfer to a different university community of which Barnard College is not an integral part.</p>
<p>Re. Barnard identity and name recognition:
When the topic of college came up in the 80s and 90s, I'd say I went to Barnard, and often, in the midwest where I live, people would respond quizzically. Then I'd say it's part of Columbia in NYC, and they'd nod. On my resume, I put "Barnard College, Columbia University." Sometime in the past 5 years or so, I dropped the Columbia mention and began leaving it as Barnard on my bio. These days, when the question comes up or when people ask where my D is in school, even midwesterners usually respond "Cool!" or "Wow! when I say Barnard (without mentioning Columbia). So definitely, name recognition has grown hugely. At our suburban high school in Wisconsin, nearly every year a handful of students apply. Not the case 10 or 20 years ago, I'm sure.</p>
<p>" Nobody is denying that Barnard is part of Columbia, "</p>
<p>This is not correct. Barnard is independent school which is "affiliated' with Columbia U. It is NOT part of Columbia</p>
<p>Columbia U says it is affiliate institution not Columbia Undergraduate School</p>
<p>Keep reciting that to yourself as you pass the Barnard students all over your campus, playing on your athletic teams, participating fully in your clubs, editing your student newspaper, and receiving their Columbia degrees. </p>
<p>An affiliate of a company is a fully-subordinate division of that company that is flimsily set up with window-dressing to look arguably (but implausibly) separate so the company doesn't have to put this asset on their books. But in reality is nowhere near separate, and the company knows it. As does everyone else, really. They can maintain to external reporting agencies that it is "independent", because they've structured it to somewhat look like that, but in reality that is a crock.</p>
<p>Suggest the same applies here. Wake up & smell the coffee, as you walk around your campus, watch your womens' sports teams, etc.</p>
<p>You are desparately trying to give actual substance to your university's structuring artifice.</p>
<p>Harvard students can take MIT courses, join MIT atheletic team and join MIT clubs, get MIT E-mail address and even get MIT student ID card through cross-registration but they get degree from Harvard not from MIT.</p>
<p>Look at this web site :
<a href="http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/degrees_awarded_2005.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/degrees_awarded_2005.html</a></p>
<p>Where is barnard ?
Looks like Columbia U does not award degree to Barnard students ...</p>
<p>If you would like to believe that MIT and Harvard are as integrated with each other as Barnard and Columbia are, go in piece. Keep reciting it to yourself as you pass the Barnard students all over your campus, playing on your athletic teams, participating fully in your clubs, editing your student newspaper, and receiving their Columbia degrees. </p>
<p>Maybe you can find some other human who also thinks these two situations are in fact the same. Good luck with that. The difference is, the separation of Harvard and MIT is real, The separation of Columbia and Barnard is a sham, a fiction cooked up for Columbia corporate purposes.</p>
<p>As for the degree here it is:</p>
<p>Here is the translation:</p>
<p>"The Trustees of Columbia University
in the City of New York</p>
<p>To all and sundry to whom this document shall come, greetings. Know ye that inasmuch as she has duly and lawfully completed all the exercises pertaining to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, we have advanced </p>
<hr>
<p>to that degree and have granted and given her all the rights, privileges, and honors which are customarily bestowed in such instances. In more complete testimony whereof we have directed that this diploma be validated by the signatures of the President of this University and the President of Barnard College and also by our common seal.
Granted in New York on the ___ day of the month of ___ in the year two thousand ____."</p>
<p>With the obvious and appropriate/commonsense adjustments for Barnard College, which has a President and its own seal too, instead of Columbia College which has a Dean and doesn't have its own seal, this diploma is only trivially different in format and content to a Columbia University diploma awarded to a graduate of Columbia College. </p>
<p>That signature and seal at the lower left are pretty clearly by the President of Columbia Unversity. (Unless you're going to now maintain that the signature is forged...) And the words emblazoned across the top in huge bold letters say Trustees of Columbia Unviersity.</p>
<p>Probably that particular website link you gave does not include degrees that are awarded by Columbia University to its other colleges that are structured as affiliates for technical corporate university purposes, such as circumvention of US News reporting.</p>