<blockquote>
<p>Because you want a liberal arts college with an attentive administration, the history of a women's college, the old girls' network of alumnae, a more cohesive community (and that fabulous special atmosphere), no Core curriculum, higher quality/less diluted student services, resources and opportunities designed with women only in mind, a thorough advising system, its own set of doofy traditions... etc., etc., etc.<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Sounds great. So why doesn't Barnard sell themselves on this basis? Instead they are forever saying: We are next door to Columbia; You can take classes at Columbia; You can park your car at Columbia. etc, etc.</p>
<p>They should be proud of what they are and promote that instead of apologizing for it by waving the Columbia flag as some sort of a decoy.</p>
<p>Oh, they do. They sell themselves on that basis AND the huge fact that you have the resources of an excellent university. That IS what they are, and they're proud of it. The website sells all of these features, one of which is "The Columbia Connection." That particular point is just a little more complicated than most of the usual great features of a liberal arts college, and thus needs more explanation and gets more questions at college fairs and things. They're not selling themselves in opposition to Columbia. They're just saying- look at all of these resources we have that other places don't. Most universities aren't as caring as LACs, and most LACs don't have the resources of a university. Come here.</p>
<p>After we attended Barnard's presentation at the 5 Sisters college fair, my daughter turned to me and said: "Kinda makes me want to go to Columbia. Sounds like the Barnard people think that Columbia is a great place."</p>
<p>My own impresion was that Barnard was selling itself as a sort of back door into Columbia, for girls who didn't have the stats to get in the front door.</p>
<p>In fact the only one of the 5 sisters that wasn't constantly apologizing for, explaining, and justifying their all-women status was Wellesley. They seemed to be the only school there with the institutional self-confidence to stand on their own.</p>
<p>Well, that's your impression, and I'm sorry you came to it. As someone involved in admissions, I know that Barnard is not selling itself as such at all.</p>
<p>Naturally, Barnard would be pointing out its connection to Columbia as something the other sisters don't have (they're all women's colleges and thus offer most of the same fringe benefits). I'm sure Barnard boasted at length of its location in NYC, another unique feature (internship opportunities! Broadway plays! Great museums!). I'm also pretty confident that Mt. Holyoke or Smith spoke of the Consortium as a way to expand their course offerings and social life, too. Call that a lack of self-confidence if you want, but it seems more like an honest statement of benefits. Wellesley also usually mentions enrollment opportunities at MIT, but they're harder to take advantage of and consequently aren't as much of a benefit.</p>
<p>After attending an info-session at Barnard, I definitely felt they were playing a double-card--we're a women's college, a seven sister, BUT, yep, we have Columbia and all the men, and the fluidity of enrolling in classes next door is amazing. It was a very precarious balancing act--alluring both sides. I don't know whether it's a lack of self-confidence either, but for Barnard, and Smith and MHC within the Five Colleges, it is a legitimate claim of coed mingling. MHC and Smith emphasized it in tours too. Barnard in particular is unique, with men allowed to live in Barnard dorms and vice versa. Our tour guide even claimed more people from Columbia are attending Barnard classes than the other way around (I am not too sure about this, but that's what she said). On the most basic academic level, having access to thousands more courses is what makes Barnard, MHC and Smith have an additional edge. </p>
<p>Also, Smith has the largest library of any liberal arts college in the country.</p>
<p>That statistic about classes is true, but you have to take into account that Columbia has twice the students Barnard does. Of course there'll be more of them total, but proportionally it's about the same. On average, each student takes ~1/3 of their classes at the other school.</p>
<p>It is a very difficult balancing act, deroute, and it's going to turn some people off on both sides. But I think omission in either direction would be misleading and unfair to students who did eventually enroll. To go back to that old saw, no college is right for everyone.</p>
<p>I visited the Barnard campus this summer, and while they do play up the fact that they have a strong affiliation with Columbia (it's hard to ignore, as it's right across the street), the main emphasis was on the facilities, classes and general community offered specifically at Barnard. That's probably harder to convey at a convention or something of the like. Personally, I really liked the idea of their general education requirements, 9 "ways of knowing" (I believe that's how it was described) in which classes must be fulfilled. They included things like:
reason and value
lab science
visual and performing arts
language
literature</p>
<p>and I forget the rest, but you get the general idea. They seem to develop well-rounded students who know what they want to pursue. I don't have much specific info about Columbia, so I wouldn't be able to tell you how it compares, but I definitely liked the uniquely Barnard atmosphere.</p>
<p>Also, primefactor - do you work specifically with Barnard?</p>
<p>That's too cool! Maybe when you get back you could answer a question I've had for a while. When we visited, I got definite mixed signals about the Juilliard/Manhattan School of the Arts exchange. They said that it's a great program, but then an admissions counselor said that nobody is ever able to do the Juilliard thing, and that MSA doesn't offer voice (which is completely untrue)...do you know anybody who was able to do the exchange?</p>
<p>Even though I know these are all good reasons and I personally want to go to a women's college, I go to a girls' high school and we have a high turnover rate for people who just can't deal with the women's atmosphere. I also know that Smith and many other women's colleges have high turnover rates that they just downplay really well.</p>
<p>Sorry, what I should have clarified was the male factor with Five Colleges/Columbia was not emphasized I think anywhere near as much at MHC and Smith as it was at Barnard. Of all the women's colleges I've looked at, MHC definitely put the least emphasis on guys on campus (but their viewbook did). But it sounds like people are saying Wellesley is the least "apologetic."</p>
<p>As for turnover, I've never really thought much about it.</p>
<p>i think turnover is pretty important at such a small school, because having your friends leave all the time basically sucks, plus it means the students aren't happy. even though I'm applying to Wellesley, Smith, MHC and possibly Barnard, that is something that really worries me</p>
<p>I would guess that more women go to MHC because of what it offers than because it is a women's college but they are women who can appreciate some of the advantages of the all-female environment and who do not overvalue "meeting guys" at this point in their lives. They are more likely to emphasize learning and personal growth through academics, arts, sports...or to prefer separation betwen academic life and social life.</p>
<p>Oh, don't worry about it. This may not be you at all, but I went on a mission to find faults in women's colleges at one point, because I found myself leaning towards them but didn't trust my instinct, it's not easy. It took me a significant amount of time to appreciate the benefits. I can totally understand what you're saying about students up and leaving. That's not fun. And for some schools that is a serious problem.</p>
<p>I guess the best explanation I can fathom is the fact it is a women's college is an easy target for their decision to leave. And it may be true. But unfortunately, or fortunately, those who do leave for one reason or other will merely be strengthening those existing students who genuinely want to be there. That's the case with any transfer I should hope. If one of these women's colleges was not your first choice, and you were rejected by your first choice but end up there, then clearly discontent may arise. But, hey, you do well for a year and transfer elsewhere. That's why I really hope the notion of the self-selecting applicant pool conquers all. Right now I am toying with applying ED to one of them, which I can say I never thought I would do.</p>
<p>Simply correct for family income (number of low-income students), and you'll find about 90% of the reason for slightly lower retention rate (It's also why, within the group, Wellesley and Barnard retention are slightly higher than MHC and Smith.) (And it is NOT because the students can't do the work, but because families live on the edge. It is similar to why William & Mary, a public school, has such a high retention rate, and Berkeley a much lower one.)</p>
<p>As for Barnard, remember Columbia is fully coed by itself. The Columbia guys must have it pretty good. (Same for the Haverford guys.)</p>
<p>But Barnard does seem to have the "best of both worlds" in some respects, it seems to me. Full liberal arts college curriculum/feel, if you like that, but the big university fully available across the street to take the courses your little school lacks. Plus living in the dorms with all these other people (either a plus or a minus).</p>