Which one to choose? Barnard, Wesleyan or Tufts??

<p>Hey guys! My daughter has been accepted by Barnard, Wesleyan and Tufts, but she is having trouble deciding which one to choose. She is a dancer and she really wants to continue dancing at colleges. She used to be a journalist and hostess in the national Chanel and she is especially interested in preserving Oral and Intangible Heritage. Last summer she did an interview about Chinese Qiang Culture and she will go to CERS for a two-month-internship about cultures as well. She wants to work at the UNESCO, Oral and Intangible Heritage department in the future. About perspective majors, she would like to major in Art History, Sociology and Anthropology. </p>

<p>Those three schools are amazing. She loves meeting new people and learn from others. I think Tufts has a great intellectual commiunity, especially it is very close to MIT & Harvard. So maybe she can benefit from the resources. Also, Wesleyan is in the countryside. It is quiet enough for her to totally focus on study. Barnard is really small and NYC is quite noisy and unsafe. </p>

<p>So which one among the three do you think is a perfect school for her? Thank you for your help and suggestions.</p>

<p>I know two dancers who chose Barnard and loved it–lots of fabulous dance opportunities. If she wants to work for an NGO, it seems like NYC would be the place for that as well. Barnard/Columbia Chinese Studies is also very strong. But they’re all great choices and she really can’t go wrong.</p>

<p>

Irrelevant.</p>

<p>

It’s not. Not if you mean Wesleyan University in Middletown, Ct. (not one of the other schools with “Wesleyan” in the name). Middletown, Ct. is an old light-industrial New England town, not a bucolic village like Middlebury Vt. </p>

<p>

Barnard itself is not significantly smaller than Wesleyan University in Middletown, Ct. Moreover, Barnard College is part of Columbia University, which is significantly larger than either Tufts or Wesleyan University in Middletown. And I don’t think the Morningside Heights neighborhood of NYC is especially dangerous. </p>

<p>I recommend your daughter go visit these 3 schools to develop a clearer picture of what she’s dealing with. They are all good, but with different pros/cons. Wesleyan has a robust program in ethnomusicology, which is close enough to your D’s interests that she should check it out. NYC and Columbia have advantages, though.</p>

<p>Morning side Heights is the second safest district in Manhattan.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Strictly speaking, it’s located three blocks from Main Street; I’ve seen traffic during the day nearly as busy as anything in Manhattan. However, it is pretty quiet on school nights. There’s a definite Wesleyan bubble.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Barnard may even be a little bigger than Wesleyan. But, the campus itself has only enough room to sleep, eat and go to the library; you could literally fit about thirty Barnards on the Wesleyan campus.</p>

<p>Hi! Thank you so much for sharing this information. It’s been really helpful. And what about the quality of education at these three schools? Barnard does have a close relationship with Columbia, but are there any limitions? For instance, when there are some hot courses, do Columbia students have the privilage to choose first?</p>

<p>Thanks for the reply. By Wesleyan, I do mean the liberal arts college in the Middletown. I’ve heard that Wesleyan, Williams and Amherst are called together as “little three”, does it mean that it has better reputation than Barnard and Tufts? What about the quality of education and the professors in those three schools? Furthermore, it seems like there are more resources at Barnard and Tufts than Wesleyan, right? Does Wesleyan have lots of museums, libraries and internship chances?</p>

<p>^^Here’s the deal: if you are looking for a safe, supportive, redoubt from which to explore and experience New York City, there are few better places than Barnard, Columbia, and NYU. There are a few other places in and around the city, including Wagner College, St. John’s University, and Fordham that offer residential accomodations to out-of-state students, but, I wouldn’t put them in the same category as those three. </p>

<p>I can’t think of any LACs located outside of New York that can replicate the experience of living in a big city. Vassar, Swarthmore, Bryn Mawr and Haverford are all located near commuter rails that will get you into a city for a visit, but, none would call itself an urban campus by ay means.</p>

<p>Wesleyan, Williams and Amherst were all, in a sense, founded by sponsors anxious to get away from the influences of the big city; they were men’s colleges built in an era when the main function of higher education in America was to supply the country with an educated learned class whose members included all the mainline Protestant ministries.</p>

<p>I wouldn’t place any special significance in the term Little Three; it is mainly a testament to the length of time each has been competing with the other on the athletic field. As the country became less secular – beginning around the late 1800s – and certain big-city influences began to be felt even in faraway Middletown, Connecticut – Amherst, Williams and Wesleyan all began to make accomodations to what one historian refers to as the increasingly “metropolitan” <em>zeitgeist</em> of the times. The establishment of inter-collegiate athletic competition was one result and, because they were among the first small colleges to do so, they became known as the Little Three.</p>

<p>That doesn’t mean, however, that they opted to become big universities (despite Wesleyan’s name) or to duplicate all the resources of a big city. Williams shares locations with the Clark Museum, internationally known for its Renoir collection and is near MassMoca in North Adams, Massachusetts.</p>

<p>Amherst is located in one of the country’s most densely populated college towns, host to no less than five nationally known colleges, including the state’s flagship university of close to 30,000 students. It shares locations with the Emily Dickinson Museum.</p>

<p>Wesleyan holds the dubious distinction of being the main cultural stay of an area of New England that is poorly served by its neighbors to the south (New York) and north (Western Massachusetts.) to compensate for its relative isolation, it has made itself over (some say, by default) into a mecca for future performing artists as well as doctors, lawyers, scientists – and, ministers. Over the space of the last thirty years, there has seldom been a year when a Wesleyan alumnus hasn’t been in competition for an Oscar, an Emmy, a Grammy or a Tony – and, sometimes all four. And, thanks to its Cinema Archives (a kind of museum, if you will) you can occasionally spot the likes of Clint Eastwood, Martin Scorcese, Isabella Rossellini, John Waters, and Joss Whedon eating lunch at the local hash house downtown.</p>

<p>But, those are mainly historical narratives and lifestyle issues. Academically, as others have posted, you will find strengths at all three schools mentioned in your OP. Anthropology (or, a subset of cultural anthropology) happens to be one of Wesleyan’s. It’s hard to believe that a student at Barnard would be at a disadvantage in that regard. Or, Tufts for that matter.</p>

<p>

It should be added that all three were single-sex at the time, with Amherst, Williams, and Wesleyan going co-ed in 1975, 1970, and 1970, respectively. </p>

<p>Barnard is a member of the female equivalent, the Seven Sisters. That group also included Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, Smith, Vassar (co-ed in 1969), and Radcliffe (effectively merged with Harvard in the 70s and definitively in 1999).</p>

<p>Unless I’m mistaken, Tufts doesn’t have a similar grouping, possibly because it has been co-ed since 1892. That says nothing about its quality, of course.</p>

<p>Tufts has a reputable anthro department – and is strong in Psych as well. Barnard offers the same level of academic excellence in a close-knit NYC environment – Wesleyan is a small school with the same level of excellence in a rural community in Connecticut. What you have are all wonderful programs in these terrific schools – What I suggest is that you visit to know the proper fit and environment for you – What school do you love the most and can live in for 4 years? After all, they are in very different locations. Barnard is in global, multicultural NYC, Tufts is in the suave, happening Boston metropolis, and Wesleyan is tucked behind the inspiring, surreal beauty of the Connecticut woodlands. Visit the schools, decide which environment you prefer, and make your decision. You really can’t go wrong on these schools – They’re all solid. Good luck!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Make that, <em>more</em> secular.</p>

<p>It seems that you really know a lot about American universities and colleges!! I think the three schools are all great about their academic. But my daughter is from China and her critical reading and writing abilities are not as strong as those native speakers. Therefore, as an international student, which do you think is more suitable for her? The liberal arts college or the universities?</p>

<p>Since Barnard belongs to the Seven Sisters, do these schools have many contacts and communications? Can she take courses weekly or monthly in the other six schools at Barnard?</p>

<p>Actually she has been to the three schools last winter, and she loves all of them! She is from China, so which school is better for an international student like her, especially her reading and writing abilities are not as strong as others? Furthermore, I may concern that how do Columbia students see Barnard students? As friends? Competitors? Or look upon them since Barnard is not as strong as Columbia? No offense to Columbia and Barnard.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is what I can tell you: the Asian internationals at Wesleyan form a noticeably tight group, perhaps for the reasons you suggest; one doesn’t hear a lot of stories about them flunking out for lack of a social network. OTOH, the non-internationals feel a little guilty about not knowing more of them individually, and this points perhaps to one difference between a small college and a research university: students at a big research university wouldn’t feel nearly as guilty.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not really. They’re too spread apart geographically and strategically to make it work. Radcliffe, as Warblersrule pointed out, no longer exists. Barnard and Bryn Mawr are already in awkward relationships with co-ed neighbors (see, below), so it probably doesn’t pay for them to invest too heavily in a far-flung “sisterhood”; Vassar is too busy trying to attract more male students. Only Wellesley, Mount Holyoke and Smith are in a formal exchange program, but, it is part of the larger Twelve-College Exchange made up of New England LACs that, frankly, hasn’t been active since the 1970s.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Um, this could be a problem. I don’t think Columbia boys care one way or the other, but, Columbia girls can be mean. :(</p>

<p>I would think she might be most comfortable in NYC where she’d have access to many of the things from home–foods, a large chinese community, etc.</p>

<p>^ agree with that. Boston also has a sizable Chinese population as well with many cultural restaurants (Asian). As an Asian myself, I can vouch that Barnard and Tufts would be your top choices right now.</p>

<p>Barnard’s student body is about 17% Asian, Tufts 13%, Wesleyan 8%. </p>

<p>I don’t think there’s really any tension between Barnard and Columbia. Except for the Columbia “core,” Barnard students can take any classes they want at Columbia, and vice versa; and as far as I know there’s not even any kind of preference based on which school you’re enrolled in. I think most Barnard students take most of their classes at Barnard, but there’s a lot of interaction between the two campuses. What’s especially attractive about Barnard is that you’re part of a small, close-knit, supportive community of women, with total access to the resources of a major research university. There’s a way in which Barnard is like Columbia’s “kid sister,” but that’s not such a bad thing.</p>

<p>All three are very good schools, but given what you’ve said about your daughter, Barnard might be the best fit. Ultimately that’s something she needs to decide, though, and I really think she can’t go wrong with any of these schools.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I have some up-close experience with both of these relationships and I don’t think they’re nearly as “awkward” as you make them out to be. Bryn Mawr and Haverford have an extremely close and highly functional relationship that works well for both schools, dramatically increasing the curricular and extracurricular resources available to students at either school, while each maintains a strong distinctive identity. My D1 attends Haverford, but she takes some classes at Bryn Mawr, has friends at Bryn Mawr, does some ECs at Bryn Mawr, and is part of several “Bi-Co” student groups that include students from both campuses. There’s just really no tension or awkwardness there at all; I’ve never seen two administratively independent schools have a closer, more cooperative relationship. Oh, there might be the occasional unattached straight female student who wishes there were more available straight men around, but that’s hardly unique to Bryn Mawr; you’re going to get that at any women’s college, and to some degree even at many co-ed LACs, because most are actually predominantly female and a non-trivial faction of the men are gay. As for there being bad blood between Haverford women and Bryn Mawr women over the available straight males, I think that’s much exaggerated; I’ve far more often heard Haverford women and Bryn Mawr women making common cause around the perception that as a group Haverford men are too geeky and socially awkward to count as attractive dating material, so if they’re seriously on the hunt (which only a few are, by the way, since some aren’t hetero and some are already in relationships and many have decided dating takes a back seat to their studies), they need to expand their social radius. Which it’s actually much easier to do from Bryn Mawr or Haverford, with literally dozens of colleges nearby, than, say, Middlebury, or even Wesleyan.</p>

<p>The Barnard-Columbia relationship is not terribly awkward, either. Barnard is part of Columbia University; it’s just a women’s LAC within the larger university, while Columbia College is slightly larger co-ed college of arts & sciences within the same university, and Columbia SEAS is an engineering school within the same university, and so on. Barnard College and Columbia College each has a strong, distinctive identity, and each inspires a lot of loyalty from its current students and alums; yet the students at each seem perfectly comfortable taking classes at either school, participating in joint ECs, and so on. I would describe the relationship as no more awkward, and possibly less so, than the relationship between Columbia College and SEAS, Columbia’s engineering school, which does more piggybacking off the Columbia College brand than Barnard does; and definitely less awkward than that between Columbia College and Columbia’s School of General Studies, an undergraduate school for “non-traditional” students that I think in some ways represents a significant dilution of the Columbia College experience (though SGS is certainly a great opportunity for those who are admitted to the program).</p>

<p>^^Agreed, that these are <em>degrees</em> of awkwardness, none particularly debillitating. The main thrust of my reply was in answer to whether the Seven Sisters maintain a regular organizational umbrella of some sort that would permit OP’s dd to take classes at the other six? The answer, as you’ve so persuasively demonstrated, is that, at least in the case of Bryn Mawr and Barnard, they have bigger fish to fry.</p>