Brown or Barnard?

<p>Which do you like better overall?
Which is better in the following depts - English, History, Linguistics?</p>

<p>They're essentially of the same quality for undergrad, really. But they do have very different environments. Choosing on quality here does not make sense because they are both so good. Anything Barnard lacks, Columbia helps it make up through the ability to take classes. New York City and Providence are very different places, and the teaching philosophy of Barnard and Brown are quite different as well.</p>

<p>Here's something that might be of interest. Brown has a very good linguistics department, where Barnard does not seem to have a linguistics major, and Columbia has a special program ( <a href=""&gt;;/a> ) which is interdiciplinary. They make you learn a language and fufill the following-</p>

<p>"For a Special Concentration in Linguistics</p>

<p>The special concentration in linguistics is not as of itself sufficient for graduation. It must be taken in conjunction with a major or a full concentration in another discipline.</p>

<p>Requirements: In addition to fulfilling the requirements for a departmental major or a full concentration, students must take 18 points of courses in the linguistics program as follows:</p>


Three core courses in linguistics

Two additional courses in linguistics and related fields (e.g. the history or structure of individual languages, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence, sociology)

At least one language course beyond the general language requirement (preferably, not an Indo-European language) at the intermediate level." Most schools will have fine History and English departments and offerings, but linguistics is more uncommon.

<p>Thanks for the info. I think I may be applying to Barnard because of the location can't be beat, but it is good to know that I shouldn't say I want to major in linguistics during an interview!</p>

<p>Brown, this isn't even close. Barnard, as good as it has become, isn't Columbia and Columbia students have a tendency to look down on Barnard people. the Barnard girls I know are always complaining about the lack of guys on campus and really have to try hard to fit into the Columbia community. Brown is an amazing balance between a city/ urban environment and a true college. At Columbia Friday nights are dead, whereas Brown has so much going on. NYC is fun, but are you willing to have a less cohesive undergrad experience just so you cna shop at Prada?</p>

<p>Academically Barnard is a great program, but Brown is another level.</p>

<p>Agree with Slipper, they are not in the same league. Keep in mind that your peers are everything, and most Barnard atendees couldn't get into Brown.</p>

<p>Barnard - 1270-1430 SAT, 27 % acceptance rate, 72% in top 10%
Brown - 1310-1520 17%, 90%</p>

<p>Does that really make a huge difference in quality of students? This may be faulty reasoning, but I made a 1330 (M+V) the first time I took the SAT and a 1530 the second. If the difference in accepted SAT scores varies less than my own did, I don't think the quality of the students could be vastly different.</p>

<p>Most individuals don't differ that much when they take the SATs. There is a difference in students, believe me as having been a transfer between two schools of similar SAT differences. That being said, if this poster would be more of a middle student at Brown and more of a 75-80% student at Barnard, they might benefit more from the extra attention they'd receive at Barnard.</p>

<p>Actually a hundred points is a decently sized difference, but overall in your life and career unless you say a white lie and say you went to columbia on your resume you will find Barnard isn't nearly as strong or recognized. I guess you can say prestige doesn't matter, but conversely you can go to Ohio State and be successful too. Brown's competitor is Columbia College, Barnard is a couple levels below.</p>

<p>Less cohesive undergrad experience? Barnard? Than what, the military academy? Barnard girls are crazy about Barnard.</p>

<p>And let's not put on airs now. If Brown and Columbia are such higher level schools, Barnard students wouldn't do as well in Columbia classes. Which they do. The "top" schools are all pretty much the same in terms of difficulty (except maybe the engineering schools), and I speak from several levels of comparison. Besides, she didn't say she was applying to Columbia- she wanted to know about Brown vs. Barnard. (Which, no, doesn't have a linguistics major.)</p>

<p>As a transfer student myself, and a friend of many, I never heard of anyone mention a difference between their old school and their new one that they attributed to the higher or lower SAT score range. That's just silly. I don't think I'm sooo much smarter than people I outscored by 100-200 points on a standardized test, and you shouldn't, either. If you can't have an intelligent conversation with someone with a 1350, I think the problem is with you.</p>

<p>Barnard is a very well recognized school; the idea that you'd have to "lie" and say you went to Columbia on your resume because no one's heard of Barnard is patently absurd. I have friends who are now working in Ireland or South Africa, and their employers know Barnard.</p>

<p>Most students who like Columbia College would never apply to Brown, and vice versa. Barnard is much more a "competitor" than a school entirely unlike Brown.</p>

<p>Barnard has great resources for a women's college, b/c when it comes to classes its practically part of Columbia. Those of the Barnard students who are good enough to take advantage of Columbia's resources, do quite well at acceptance to professional schools, grad schools, etc. Therefore I think comparing Barnard and Brown is fine. It makes more sense than say, comparing Brown and Smith, or Brown and some other LAC of Barnard's caliber that was not closely affiliated with an ivy league...</p>

<p>Well, my point was that all Barnard students are "good enough" to take advantage of the resources. Seriously, the Ivy League isn't some academy of geniuses pushed to the intellectual limit. It's just students taking classes like anywhere else.</p>

<p>I haven't attended Barnard, so I wouldn't know for sure. I feel that MANY students at Smith are not as prepared/energized/capable as MANY students at UChicago. Absolutely there is some overlap at all of these top schools. SAT scores are something which I feel for a given individual may or may not be terribly meaningful, but averaged over a school population of 100s, I feel means something. Judging only by SAT scores, the student populations of Columbia and Barnard overlap by half the student populations at least. I would pit the top half of students at Barnard against students at Columbia. I don't know if I would put the bottom quartile of Barnard students against Columbia students, if that makes any sense... Only my personal speculation of course, but do consider it.</p>

<p>Since so many students change their majors anyway, if you have the chance to choose between Barnard and Brown, I think you should choose based on the environment you'd be happiest in.</p>

<p>I would echo ecape's idea that this comes down to personal preference. If you have an application that puts you in the position to choose between these two schools, you will attend a very good school either way. So academic strength becomes less of a selection criterion than personal feelings about the places. Attending a small LAC is like trying to drink all the water in a 40,000 gallon pool while going to an Ivy is like trying to drink all of the water in a 100,000 gallon pool. You can't begin to absorb all of the information in either school. In the LAC you will get some more attention and some smaller classes, while at the IVY you will be more independent. A friend who attended an HYP and who was the smartest peer I met in HS told me that his Ivy was perfect if you knew what you wanted to do, but for exploration in was not ideal and he wished he had gone to an LAC.
At Barnard the student has the advantage of more attention as in the other LACs and the wide range of classes at Columbia across the street. (Bengali anyone? Or is Kyrgyz more to your taste?)</p>

<p>What you're saying is great, guys, but if the school is lacking a program the student is seriously considering, that's problematic.</p>

<p>This isn't a LAC vs. University debate. I greatly prefer LACs to be honest. But the LACs competitive with Brown are Amherst, Williams, Swarthmore. Just because Barnard students can take classes at Columbia and compete doesn't mean it is Columbia. Barnard is competitive with places like Hamilton, Colgate, and Bucknell. A hundered points is substantial, the difference between Princeton and Amherst/ Dartmouth is something like 20 points. I have many friends who go to Barnard and for every positive thing I have heard a negative. Barnard is a great school but it isn't Brown.</p>

<p>No one said it is Columbia, or Brown. I just think it's a better place to be than both. Not everyone decides what schools they want to apply to based on how similar the SAT ranges are. And again, I can't imagine many Brown prospectives being that interested in Princeton, Dartmouth, or Amherst, unless they don't care at all about what their undergrad experience will be like and are just applying to a bunch of schools they've heard on TV.</p>

<p>And for every postitive thing I've heard about Brown, I've heard a negative, too. I have a friend who transferred from Brown because she hated it. Does that mean it's a bad school? Of course not. All schools have their negatives; Brown's just didn't suit her well. I think it's rather simple minded to give someone asking for a comparison between schools the response- "Oh, school X. The SAT range is higher!"</p>

<p>Actually I know a ton of Brown prospectives interested in Dartmouth and Amherst, it is much more similar to those schools in many respects than it is to Barnard. All these schools have a community oriented social life and aren't part of a big university. Barnard students have the West End, 1020, and a couple other bars for their social scene. Butler library is so quiet and anti-social vs. social libraries at the other schools. Brown/ Dartmouth/ Amherst fill college up with undergrad oriented events.. There is more going on in a weekend at Brown than in a month at Barnard. Its not a slap against Barnard or Columbia, its just that these two schools are in NYC. You are trading a college experience for NYC, don't think NYC comes without a downside. Personally hanging out at fancy restaurants downtown (45 min away) isn't worth not getting to hang out with my friends all together for four years. Everyone ends up in NYC anyway so why rush. Other people disagree and prefer to be more anonymous. Its a choice but be aware a choice exists. </p>

<p>Back to Barnard - You go to College to get the best education possible around the best students. Brown students are better than Barnard students. And as much as it sucks, Columbia students don't think of Barnard as the same school. I know, I am at Columbia. I hate defending elitism, but sometimes you gotta defend the truth.</p>

<p>Again, as I've said before, Barnard has an insanely tight knit community. You should be on campus on spirit day, or the greek games, or fall fest, or midnight breakfast, or any of the other many many traditions. You don't seem to know what you're talking about. I don't know where you're getting this idea that everyone runs off to eat alone in fancy downtown restaurants every night. People study, watch movies in the student center, go to dorm parties, all the things that normal college people do. You don't have time or money to leave campus every weekend, and you wouldn't want to, anyway, given everything going on on campus.</p>

<p>And having taken classes and lived with Columbia, Barnard, and Harvard undergraduates now, I can honestly say that I sensed no intellectual difference in the student bodies, and maybe even a negative difference in the teaching quality. Brown is probably different, because it has more of an undergraduate focus, but no, your elitism is not warranted. I went to the college where I got the best education possible, and met some of the best people imaginable.</p>

<p>And no one cares if Columbia thinks of Barnard as the same school. It's Barnard, and it's great for that.</p>

<p>I just don't think you've been to other colleges. Barnard has some fun weekends and events here and there, but compared to other colleges they are a joke. I am sure Barnard is great. I am also sure other places are greater. The first week Columbia is really happening but it get much quieter after this. Have you been to Spring Fling at Brown or Green Key at Dartmouth or Spring Weekend at Penn? I've been to all of them and Bacchanal doesn't even come close. Not even remotely.</p>

<p>I can talk all day about why Bucknell is a better experience than Duke. But they aren't in the same league, same goes for Barnard/ Brown.</p>