Anonymous wrote:The diploma is signed by both presidents.

But you don't show the diploma itself to prospective employers. You will need to make a choice about what you put on your resume. If you went to Barnard and you put Columbia University, there's some risk one of your new coworkers is going to try to bond with you over reading Herodotus, so better not to do that.

The diploma is signed by both presidents.

Anonymous wrote:It's a good school and degree, but people well-versed in higher education will view a degree from Columbia as an Ivy degree and a Barnard degree as similar to a Smith or Sarah Lawrence degree.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean. Smith, for example, is very well regarded in higher ed circles and has a very high quality faculty. The admission rate and yield have suffered somewhat because it remains a women's college and because of the college's unfair lesbian taint. But I understand they are working to change that.

Don't Barnard grads get Barnard and Columbia degrees?

Anonymous wrote:When Columbia was still all male, Columbia sought a merger with Barnard, bit Barnyard declined due to Columbia's poor financial condition! Today, Barnard and students to state "Barnard College, Columbia University" or "Barnard College of Columbia University" on résumés.

Next to Cornell's Ag school, Barnard is the easy way to get into the Ivies.

But you don'to be a sheep or a cow to get into Cornell's Ag school, but you do have to be a girl to get into"Barnyard."

Anonymous wrote:

Haverford/Bryn Mawr are the same way. Haverford usually ranks in the top 10 and Bryn Mawr more like top 30, yet you can take any class on either campus--there is literally one course catalog for the two schools--and you can major at either school. Each campus has its own culture, but if academics are what schools are ranked on, it doesn't make any sense that they are so far apart.

It makes sense to me. The acceptance rate for all women's schools is usually pretty high relative to their academic rigor because 1) only half the college aged population can apply, 2) even among women, there is a lot of self-selection and not everyone wants to be in a single sex environment, and 3) because of this, a lot of women use all women's SLACS as safeties. Acceptance rate and yield factors a lot in the US news rankings. That said, I think you would get a fantastic education at any of these schools.

Agree with this. Barnard offers a terrific education, and the acceptance rate is lower than their acadamic rigor would warrant because the applicant pool is smaller, for a variety of reasons PP has listed.

Columbia University has several component schools/colleges: Columbia College, Barnard, Law, Medicine, General Studies, Teaching, and probably some more I've not been able to remember.

Columbia College has a pretty intense Core Curriculum that requires a you to spend a number of semesters studying the Classics, modern philosophers, art and music history, basic science, and such. Barnard doesn't have this requirement. You can debate the pros and cons of the Core--and everybody does!--but this will probably be the biggest difference in a degree from Columbia vs. Barnard.

Other than the Core, a lot of students take classes at the "other" school. Agree that there's lots of social interaction between the two schools, too.

Anonymous wrote:When Columbia was still all male, Columbia sought a merger with Barnard, bit Barnyard declined due to Columbia's poor financial condition! Today, Barnard and students to state "Barnard College, Columbia University" or "Barnard College of Columbia University" on résumés.

Bet wrong, it seems.

Haverford/Bryn Mawr are the same way. Haverford usually ranks in the top 10 and Bryn Mawr more like top 30, yet you can take any class on either campus--there is literally one course catalog for the two schools--and you can major at either school. Each campus has its own culture, but if academics are what schools are ranked on, it doesn't make any sense that they are so far apart.

It makes sense to me. The acceptance rate for all women's schools is usually pretty high relative to their academic rigor because 1) only half the college aged population can apply, 2) even among women, there is a lot of self-selection and not everyone wants to be in a single sex environment, and 3) because of this, a lot of women use all women's SLACS as safeties. Acceptance rate and yield factors a lot in the US news rankings. That said, I think you would get a fantastic education at any of these schools.

When Columbia was still all male, Columbia sought a merger with Barnard, bit Barnyard declined due to Columbia's poor financial condition! Today, Barnard and students to state "Barnard College, Columbia University" or "Barnard College of Columbia University" on résumés.

Next to Cornell's Ag school, Barnard is the easy way to get into the Ivies.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the Barnard/Columbia consortium to me? Columbia is a Top 5 national, while Barnard is the #32 SLAC. From what I've read online, it seems that Barnard students can enroll in all Columbia classes and use all Columbia facilities. How then is a Barnard education different from a Columbia education? How does the market view a Barnard degree?

Haverford/Bryn Mawr are the same way. Haverford usually ranks in the top 10 and Bryn Mawr more like top 30, yet you can take any class on either campus--there is literally one course catalog for the two schools--and you can major at either school. Each campus has its own culture, but if academics are what schools are ranked on, it doesn't make any sense that they are so far apart.

Barnard is a whole separate school from Columbia College with its own admissions, academic departments, dorms, and requirements. Many/most Barnard students highly value being at a women's college and choose to focus on that environment for their classes. So Barnard students take the vast majority of classes at Barnard, not Columbia College. There is no Core Curriculum requirement and they have a different set of courses in each academic department. There are some students who transfer from Barnard to the College every year. Students flow pretty freely across Broadway and social life is pretty closely integrated. Barnard admissions is pretty good at spotting applicants who are looking for a back door to the College. While it is legitimate for Barnard grads to work in "of Columbia University" on their resumes, it is considered deceptive to simply drop Barnard completely.

It's a good school and degree, but people well-versed in higher education will view a degree from Columbia as an Ivy degree and a Barnard degree as similar to a Smith or Sarah Lawrence degree.

Barnard College of Columbia University.

Can someone explain the Barnard/Columbia consortium to me? Columbia is a Top 5 national, while Barnard is the #32 SLAC. From what I've read online, it seems that Barnard students can enroll in all Columbia classes and use all Columbia facilities. How then is a Barnard education different from a Columbia education? How does the market view a Barnard degree?