<p>I just don’t think the article is accurate. Yes, there are jokes cracked about Barnard students, but there are just jokes, not something that anyone takes seriously or makes a big deal about. The flip side is that there is a meme that the Barnard girls are gorgeous, while the Columbia girls are nerdy. Of course that is also an untrue generalization. It’s probably more of a “grass is greener” type mentality – if you are a guy living in a co-ed dorm at Columbia, the women in the all girls’ dorm across the street just somehow seem more attractive than the girls living down the hall.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>calmom, I am being reactionary here. That statement caught my attention for it being so one-sided. I thought Barbard may be a good choice for my D. I am not sure anymore. Now I am wondering what use is there for bloomers if girls can wear jeans?</p>
<p>
[quote[calmom, I am being reactionary here. That statement caught my attention for it being so one-sided. I thought Barbard may be a good choice for my D. I am not sure anymore. Now I am wondering what use is there for bloomers if girls can wear jeans?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe I am being obtuse, and I am obviously not Calmom, but I have NO CLUE what you mean by the bloomers/jeans thing.</p>
<p>Nothing much. I just meant that Women’s colleges had a place when it was hard for women go to co-ed schools and/or if they went, routinely ignored or intimidated by almost all guy campus. Now it’s so different. All this talk about bussing and others got me thinking that probably they have served their mission.</p>
<p>Mission aside, they are just good schools. For a particular candidate, one of these schools might be the best place for them based on their particular interests and abilities, without (positive) consideration of the “same sex” part. Due to the smaller applicant pool, they represent 'admissions bargains" insofar as what opportunities the various attainable schools offer a student with a given set of academic credentials.</p>
<p>Iglooo, I would refer you to:
[NASSPE:</a> Home > Introduction](<a href=“http://www.singlesexschools.org/]NASSPE:”>http://www.singlesexschools.org/)
The fact of the matter is that single sex education is better. Men and women do the same things, but they do them differently. They also learn differently. It’s just a matter of time before the parents of young men figure it out. There will be single gender schools for ever, long after there is a women president or the glass ceiling is broken. The education is simply better, and you will get fewer rather than more gender stereotypes. In single gender education, you will see more men in the arts and more women in science and math. Check it out.</p>
<p>Considering that Barnard shares everything with Columbia (including some dorms) I think that aside from some empowerment and a focus on women’s studies, it’s kind of irrelevant.</p>
<p>@Iglooo I completely agree that women’s colleges as far as locking young women up away from men to keep virtue safe is archaic. The fact that Barnard is a woman’s college means that certain services (health care, dorms etc) are catered specifically to women. Aside from empowerment and convenience I think the single sex aspect of Barnard has little impact on the everyday lives of the students who share classes, libraries, clubs etc with members of the opposite sex.
Not to be cliche, but it’s really the best of both worlds. We can interact with guys without having to deal with them 24/7. Unless you want to, in which case you can do that as well.</p>
<p>Ah, Igloo. Now I understand your reference. </p>
<p>I must say that I had no notion of any possible advantages of my daughter attending a “women’s college” when she initially discovered Barnard. Frankly, that part of it put me off at first. And then I just dealt with it as being pretty incidental since Barnard is so uniquely affiliated with Columbia and is, for many purposes, a co-ed institution.</p>
<p>However I cannot even begin to express to you the differences that I think Barnard’s focus on Women’s education and women’s issues has made in my d. She was lead to explore a field she had never considered; then she had the confidence and the training to apply for and secure prestigious fellowships in her field and then move on to graduate study. She is currently working on her PhD and this semester is acting as a teaching assistant for an undergrad science class. She made the observation that the women in the class at this fairly prestigious University RARELY speak up in class. She was actually pretty shocked at the differences she has observed in how the undergrad women seem to perceive themselves as compared to how Barnard students are perceived or act.</p>
<p>I am not great at explaining this, but I will say that without a doubt there IS a place for “single sex” education. And I never would have said that before.</p>
<p>
The bus thing referred to Wellesley. Barnard is directly across the street from Columbia. No buses; just Broadway.</p>
<p>My statement was in response to the fear that Barnard women were regarded as “sluts” by Columbia students – I was trying to say that I don’t think most Columbia men are prowling around the Barnard campus simply looking to get laid. I do think the students on both sides of the street are interested in dating and forming relationships.</p>
<p>(I’d note that when I spent time at the Barnard campus, I didn’t see any sign of such guys. There were a bunch of drunken frat guys who came into the Barnard courtyard late one night to loudly serenade the women, and my d. said that happened quite frequently on weekends… but the result was that women shouted at them to quiet down.)</p>
<p>As the mother of a son as well as a daughter, I get kind of irked at the constant depiction of males as lecherous beasts who objectify and attempt to repress all women around them. (This goes back to the “rape culture” thing). Maybe my son, who treats women with respect, is the exception to the rule, but I don’t think so. The guys I know who are Columbia grads, including my d’s current bf, lean more toward the quiet/serious types.</p>
<p>My d. did not choose Barnard because it was a women’s college; she chose Barnard in spite of that fact. She did not particularly like taking female-dominated courses. Her closest friends tended to be male – that was true in high school, and that remained true through college. That being said, I think that she definitely did benefit from the very strong support network that Barnard created at all levels for women, and the very strong female role models she found among the faculty. I don’t know if Barnard could achieve the same if it were co-ed; maybe so, but I doubt it. There is a Barnard culture, and it is a feminist-oriented culture – but it is a 21st century feminism – certainly not about “separation” of the sexes.</p>
<p>
That was never Barnard’s mission or raison d’etre. Barnard was created as the only mechanism for women to get a Columbia-quality education when Columbia refused to admit women. </p>
<p>90 years later, when Columbia was ready to merge with Barnard, Barnard had evolved enough that was not willing to give up what it had created – and hence resisted merger, in order to protect its own faculty and its own evolved mission. That it also happens to be all female is more of a collateral issue, I think. Connected, but it is only one piece of the whole.</p>
<p>I don’t know what Barnard & Columbia were like back in the 80’s when that non-merger decision was made, but I do know, as an observer, that today there are some stark differences which are unrelated to the gender issues. Barnard students have a very close relationship and rapport with their faculty and administration – they seem to be very happy with their President (both the current one and the past one, as my daughter’s 4 years saw a change in school administration). </p>
<p>Columbia students, at least the ones I have had contact with, seem to be at odds with their school administration.</p>
<p>Student/faculty/administration relations is one of those issues that I never see discussed among college applicants or ranked in any of the college guidebooks, but it is hugely important and between my kids and my own collegiate experience, I have seen situations all over the map. It really impacts day-to-day life on campus. At one extreme there can be a very supportive atmosphere where students have a sense that their administration is there to serve their interests – at the other extreme, there can be a lot of tension where students feel that their administration doesn’t care. I don’t know enough details about the tension with Columbia administration to know where I would place them along the spectrum – but I do have the sense that when it came to her education and academic environment, my d. was very happy that she was at Barnard. </p>
<p>If you just look at Barnard as “a women’s college” or think that it exists at a separate entity for that reason… then I think you really are missing the full story of what Barnard currently is all about.</p>
<p>I only wish same sex education were totally irrelevant. For women in math and science it can be a godsend to be in an environment where they are the norm, not the exception.</p>
<p>And I cannot tell you Igloo (hope I have that right) how inspiring the Barnard graduation was with a female president, dean, valedictorian and class president. And none of the pompous pontificating the men in my profession are prone to. (I am a college prof.) It was the true fulfillment of my own feminist dreams of the 1970’s.</p>
<p>That said, I want to say that my D, who is in a serious, committed relationship and in law school, was never locked away from guys.</p>
<p>Barnard was one of the first schools to have dorm curfews and visitation rules abolished, before the coed school I attended. The women staged a sit-in. I believe it was in 1968. Look it up.</p>
<p>mythmom, I am afraid you just solidified my prejudice about women’s colleges. In this day and time when girls are just as eager to get laid as any guy, locked in or curfew, even if it appears in denying, sounds outdated. If truly updated in 2010, it should simply not be something worthy of mention imo. The same goes about girls in math and science. My D goes to a coed private HS. It is always smart that wins out, not boy or girl, that in all subjects. The present youth culture is truly different. They don’t know what there was to fight about. It’s a windmill to them. And it should be.</p>
<p>^^^You know what? I really don’t mind if I solidified your prejudice. I am content knowing what a wonderful, empowering experience my daughter had. You are free to conclude as you choose.</p>
<p>
your loss, Iglooo. And possibly, your daughter’s as well.</p>
<p>Oh, I know. Shutting any door is loss. Certainly not saying it hsa its own merits.</p>
<p>I’m going to put in my own “youth culture” experience (I applied to Barnard ED this year and am eagerly waiting for result while I was already accepted with scholarship to a state school): Igloo, perhaps this is in my own mind, but every day I wonder why boys don’t look at me and why they can’t just be my friend. I’m nice. I’m pretty. I’m athletic. I’m smart. My parents say it’s because I am intimidating. I’m confident in my own judgments and don’t meet aggregation or gossip with a reply. I invest myself fully in whatever I’m doing without any distractions (whether it’s completing a project or reading a book). I’m very calm and don’t hold grudges. I have very few boys that are friends, much less boyfriends (my only experience is with my brother, who is old enough to be a mentor to me and has loved me and respect me all my life). I think college is going to be different from high school. Men might grow up or I might loosen up. But Barnard is a place where I know I’ll meet at least some girls who have had the same issues at me. The stories that these parents have told (about telling boys to hush up or doing a sit-in to get what they want) is something that inspires me. I would love to be surrounded by strong women who aren’t afraid to scare off the boys because they’re so determined and because they’re so intimidating. Barnard, however, isn’t an escape or an archaic “dungeon” where they will “lock me in”. It’s more of a think-tank for me (that is, if I get accepted). Barnard defines me and I define Barnard.</p>
<p>Good for you. I am glad you found a place you will be happy with.</p>
<p>Iglooo… do you know what confirmation bias is? You have admitted to having a “prejudice” against women’s colleges --and throughout this thread you seem to be twisting various comments of posters to mean something very different, often the opposite, of what was said. I’m thinking the only explanation is that you are distorting comments through the lens of your own bias.</p>
<p>Examples: </p>
<p>Monydad mentioned something about the bus that takes women from Wellesley to frat parties at MIT … you seemed surprised that there was a bus for the girls. (If you looked at a map you’d see that it is too far to walk – Wellesley is 16 miles from Cambridge; the reason there is a shuttle is that Wellesley students also have cross-registration privileges at MIT, so its important to provide transportation between the two campuses).</p>
<p>I pointed out that guys who want to meet Barnard girls are more likely interested in forming relationships than in casual sex (I don’t see why “feminism” needs to go hand in hand with male-bashing) – that whatever their fantasies about finding a gorgeous woman, they are mostly looking for girlfriends who would be attentive and affectionate. For reasons I still can’t fathom, you took issue with that. (I don’t understand why. Both my kids are heterosexual and both were equally interested in meeting and dating people of the opposite sex during their high school & college years). </p>
<p>Mythmom pointed out that Barnard was ahead of the curve in abolishing dorm curfews and other restrictions of women, back in the 1960’s, well ahead of most other colleges – and you said that “solidified” your prejudice. Again… I’m at a loss to see why. </p>
<p>I’d think you were here just ■■■■■■■■ for a fight, except that is not consistent with your other posts on CC, where you come across as a sensitive and caring person. So I can only conclude that your bias has taken hold so firmly that you are having a hard time getting the point of anyone’s comments. </p>
<p>The corollary to confirmation bias is cognitive dissonance – when information is so contrary to your preconceived notions that you can’t make sense of it. I’m thinking that must be what is going on. </p>
<p>The point those of us who have experience with Barnard are trying to make is that it is not a sex-segregated institution and there is not a sexist atmosphere on the Columbia campus, nor any sort of overwhelming attitude or bias expressed by Columbian’s towards Barnard students. It is very common for large universities to have multiple undergraduate colleges with somewhat different individual cultures and goals. In this case, it happens that Barnard has also maintained its historical status as a women’s college. In this respect the dynamic at Barnard may be similar to the dynamic of Scripps (of the Claremont Colleges). </p>
<p>I think from your posts that you have some mistaken assumptions of what a women’s college must be like. </p>
<p>I’d reiterate that my daughter chose Barnard for reasons other than its single-sex environment. She wanted to study in a co-ed environment, and in fact she did because that is what Barnard actually provides as a practical matter. I think she was like a lot of other Barnard applicants, very grateful to have the opportunity to attend a Manhattan-based LAC that is integrated with a large research university, so that she got the personalized, undergraduate-focused education that is typical of a LAC simultaneously with the resources of the large university. That the school happened to be women only was just something that worked to my daughter’s advantage in admissions.</p>
<p>Iglooo… do you know what confirmation bias is? You have admitted to having a “prejudice” against women’s colleges --and throughout this thread you seem to be twisting various comments of posters to mean something very different, often the opposite, of what was said. I’m thinking the only explanation is that you are distorting comments through the lens of your own bias.</p>
<p>Examples: </p>
<p>Monydad mentioned something about the bus that takes women from Wellesley to frat parties at MIT … you seemed surprised that there was a bus for the girls. (If you looked at a map you’d see that it is too far to walk – Wellesley is 16 miles from Cambridge; the reason there is a shuttle is that Wellesley students also have cross-registration privileges at MIT, so its important to provide transportation between the two campuses).</p>
<p>I pointed out that guys who want to meet Barnard girls are more likely interested in forming relationships than in casual sex (I don’t see why “feminism” needs to go hand in hand with male-bashing) – that whatever their fantasies about finding a gorgeous woman, they are mostly looking for girlfriends who would be attentive and affectionate. For reasons I still can’t fathom, you took issue with that. (I don’t understand why. Both my kids are heterosexual and both were equally interested in meeting and dating people of the opposite sex during their high school & college years). </p>
<p>Mythmom pointed out that Barnard was ahead of the curve in abolishing dorm curfews and other restrictions of women, back in the 1960’s, well ahead of most other colleges – and you said that “solidified” your prejudice. Again… I’m at a loss to see why. </p>
<p>I’d think you were here just ■■■■■■■■ for a fight, except that is not consistent with your other posts on CC, where you come across as a sensitive and caring person. So I can only conclude that your bias has taken hold so firmly that you are having a hard time viewing anyone’s comments in a positive light. </p>
<p>The corollary to confirmation bias is cognitive dissonance – when information is so contrary to your preconceived notions that you can’t make sense of it. I’m thinking that must be what is going on. Certainly your responsive comments have been strangely obtuse to the rest of us. </p>
<p>The point those of us who have experience with Barnard are trying to make is that it is not a sex-segregated institution and there is not a sexist atmosphere on the Columbia campus, nor any sort of overwhelming attitude or bias expressed by Columbian’s towards Barnard students. It is very common for large universities to have multiple undergraduate colleges with somewhat different individual cultures and goals. In this case, it happens that Barnard has also maintained its historical status as a women’s college. In this respect the dynamic at Barnard may be similar to the dynamic of Scripps (of the Claremont Colleges). </p>
<p>I’d reiterate that my daughter chose Barnard for reasons other than its single-sex environment. She wanted to study in a co-ed environment, and in fact she did because that is what Barnard actually provides as a practical matter. I think she was like a lot of other Barnard applicants, very grateful to have the opportunity to attend a Manhattan-based LAC that is integrated with a large research university, so that she got the personalized, undergraduate-focused education that is typical of a LAC simultaneously with the resources of the large university. That the school happened to be women only was just something that worked to my daughter’s advantage in admissions.</p>