Another Cheating Scandal

Parents Forum
81

<p>"I also happen to think that Barnard students who present themselves as Columbia and Ivy League graduates might shoot in their own foot.</p>

<p>HR. I see you graduated from Columbia. Was that SEAS or CC?
Applicant. Well my diploma is from Columbia University but I attended Barnard, and you know, it is the sam…
HR Thanks for your time."</p>

<hr>

<p>Haha! This is funny because it actually works the other way.</p>

<p>HR. I see you graduated from Barnard. Where is Barnard?</p>

<p>Applicant. Barnard is a women’s liberal arts college in NYC…</p>

<p>HR. (interrupting) Oh, that’s part of Columbia, right?</p>

<p>Applicant. No, it’s an affiliate college of Columbia but Barnard has its own identity…</p>

<p>HR. (interrupting again, this time emphatically and with a hint of exasperation, writing in file) Ok, Columbia. Now…</p>

<p>Slightly off topic here but: Barnard’s admit rate is low for any college at 20.5% this year and when you consider that it’s a women’s college, you end up feeling that admissions here too are a crapshoot. It’s hard for me to believe that applicants to either school continue to see Barnard as an easy back door to Columbia. More likely, there may be a sense that those who want to be in this larger university community have two chances to try for it rather than the single one that male applicants have.</p>

82

<p>

</p>

<p>In order to pass the class although doing less work, of course. </p>

<p>Honestly, I defy you to name ANY school where some people will not cheat. Some people will cheat ANYWHERE. I am willing to bet that even at schools where you can opt not to get grades or take almost everything pass/fail, SOME people will cheat.</p>

<p>Frankly, in this and other threads you seem to have a belief in some perfect LAC where no one drinks, no one is ever mean in any way, no one cheats, no one competes, and so forth.</p>

<p>That place does not exist.</p>

83

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, perhaps, you should try to see why your example works the … other way. What is the difference between presenting yourself as a proud graduate of one the best LACs in the country and … something different? Is there a difference between letting the interviewer make the connection to Columbia and … being misleading?</p>

<p>Not that hard!</p>

84

<p>

</p>

<p>I’d have to disagree.</p>

<p>[Wellesley</a> College Reports Most Selective Admission Rate in More Than 30 Years | Wellesley College](<a href=“http://www.wellesley.edu/news/2013/03/node/34484]Wellesley”>Wellesley College Reports Most Selective Admission Rate in More Than 30 Years | Wellesley College)</p>

<p>The acceptance rate this year was 28%. While lower than Barnard’s or other similarly ranked co-ed schools, that number does not indicate any problems with finding enough applicants to fill spots.</p>

<p>Wellesley’s yield last year, according to IPEDS, was 43%, higher than Amherst’s.</p>

85

<p>Wellesley is easily the most prestigious all-female school and benefits from movies and a number of politicians who have remained in the news. The school also benefits from its own version of affiliation with MIT, and its related academic and “social” transportation system. There are some parallels between Barnard/Columbia and Wellesley/MIT. A Penn/Bryn Mawr affiliation might yield similar boosts in admission rates, were it to be developed.</p>

<p>The other schools are not that lucky, and are challenged in terms of “first choice” admissions. as their ED rates and size easily confirm. </p>

<p>Yield comparisons are exercises in futility, as the metric might intimate a number of very different elements, including the total absence of more prestigious or more selective choices, as it is in the case around Northampton.</p>

86

<p>Xiggi, I have no idea what you are trying to say. My point is that out in the world, HR looks at Barnard grads as Columbia grads no matter how they present themselves. Yes, this is often to the exasperation of Barnard grads who don’t see themselves that way. But I assure you, those who present themselves as grads of Columbia University are not shown the door. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a Barnard grad holding herself out as a graduate of Columbia College. That, I suspect, would end the interview pretty quickly.</p>

87

<p>

</p>

<p>Cheating is everywhere. But it’s not pervasive everywhere. It’s important for Barnard and Columbia to demonstrate quickly and decisively that cheating does not pay. It’s also possible to build a culture where cheaters are thought pathetic by their peers rather than admired for getting one over on the professor. Status obsession and careerism drive young people everywhere to value appearances over substance. All selective and prestigious schools need to be aware of these motivations and combat them in order to maintain their academic integrity in the face of increased competition and public skepticism.</p>

88

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I don’t, and I have never said such a thing. I am not naive. But I do know that most of the LACs I visited with my son made a big deal about their honor codes–something that doesn’t exist at a lot of large universities, even Harvard (although they are now talking about whether they should institute one). I just believe that if one takes out the element of extreme competition (whether in high school, college, sports or whatever), a lot of the bad behavior goes away. Kids who are brought up in an intensely competitive environment don’t just turn it off once they get to college–especially when the stakes are so high, as an earlier poster said. I know several kids who have cheated on the SAT, embellished their ECs or otherwise shoved people out of the way to get ahead. In some cases, they have been encouraged by their parents. Now that they are in college, they retain the same “zero-sum game” mindset as they jockey for position with professors, internships and so on.</p>

89

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, but they are slight. The majority of Wellesley students never take classes at MIT. The cross-registration is a nice advantage, but were it to end next semester, it would have little effect on Wellesley’s academic organization or program offerings.</p>

90

<p>

</p>

<p>My point was very clear, and not too hard to understand. My example was one of an applicant misleading the HR. Yours was one of a correct way to present yourself. My other point was that Barnard’s graduates should present themselves accurately and not pretend to be CC or SEAS graduates. </p>

<p>But heck, I cannot really blame the B graduates that are finding the loopholes left by an institution that has shown a clear willingness to debase the value of an Ivy League degree by providing a haven for students who could never gain admission at their flagship schools, as well as a preference for large numbers of students to help balance the books at their undergraduate or their academic factory for teachers. The decision to reach out to different groups of students such as the ones admitted at Barnard, in the GS program, or the remaining backdoors for Jewish students or engineering transfers speaks volumes about Columbia’s love for smoke, mirrors, and obfuscation. Little wonder the graduates of CC aren’t thrilled.</p>

<p>But if you think everyone is fooled, power to you! In the end, that charade is all Columbia’s doing for not caring much about the value of its undergraduate degrees.</p>

91

<p>It’s probably not worth responding to this.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>It was hard for me to get what was going on in your head because it wasn’t communicated clearly. </p></li>
<li><p>Barnard grads are grads of Columbia University. It’s not fraudulent to indicate that.</p></li>
<li><p>Lol. Columbia is hardly debasing the value of an Ivy League degree by allowing Barnard students to cross register, many of whom COULD and DID get in to Columbia and all of whom are highly qualified to do the work at Columbia. Given the unpredictable nature of admissions at both schools, I don’t think it’s possible to draw the bright lines you’d like.</p></li>
</ol>

92

<p>Well, let’s try this for communicating clearly:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Many of whom COULD … means absolutely nothing. Most of the applicants COULD get in as all it takes is an application.</p>

<p>The second part, namely “many of whom DID get in to Columbia” is simply delusional and utter non-sense, unless your definition of many is none other than a handful, or that your use of Columbia is another game of semantics. </p>

<p>Do you happen to have any reasonable source to claim that there is a significant cross-admission between Columbia CC/SEAS and Barnard, and that if it exists, that there are more than a handful cross-admitted students who decided to enroll at Barnard over Columbia. </p>

<p>Considering elements such as financial aid, single sex limitations, and recognition, I believe that the claims of “many DID get in to Columbia” is entirely mythical.</p>

<p>And, worth repeating, none of my “points” are meant to belittle Barnard. Except that part of HAVING to cling to that We are Columbians over loving their schools for what it is.</p>

93

<p>Does it matter? The “cross” statistics of admits are very, very strong. But even if they weren’t, it wouldn’t make Columbia a better institution than it already is, or Barnard a worse one. There are plenty of students at Barnard who didn’t WANT to go to Columbia. And half the students at Columbia don’t QUALIFY to get into Barnard - they are inferior in a certain, uh, department. </p>

<p>I don’t see why GS debases the Columbia degree, much as I don’t see Harvard Extension debasing a Harvard one. </p>

<p>Silly discussion.</p>

94

<p>Thanks mini. Done.</p>

95

<p>

This is a dumb dichotomy, rather at odds with reality. The name of the school is “Barnard College of Columbia University” (note words printed on sign over gate in this picture: <a href=“http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/05/09/nyregion/cheating/cheating-articleLarge.jpg[/url]”>http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/05/09/nyregion/cheating/cheating-articleLarge.jpg&lt;/a&gt; ) </p>

<p>Students typically leave out the “of” on their resumes, instead writing:
Barnard College, Columbia University</p>

<p>This is simply the proper form on resumes. </p>

<p>For example, a graduate of Stern would probably write,
Stern School of Business, New York University</p>

<p>My daughter lives in Brooklyn – if you ask her where she lives, context would determine the answer – locally she would probably say Brooklyn – when traveling abroad she would be more likely to say New York – but when she lists her mailing address on her resume, she would always write out,
Brooklyn, New York</p>

<p>Employers and hiring managers do not ask students what college they attended; they can see it on the resume. They don’t give a crap about the distinction between Columbia College & Barnard in any case – a degree is a degree. Employers are looking at work (or internship) experience and work-related skills when they choose who to hire. </p>

<p>Barnard College has a very strong career center with mentorship and networking, and when my daughter looks for work she typically will try to find another Barnard alum employed with the target company or agency, and arrange to meet for an informational interview. I have seen her do that again and again. (Though the jobs she actually got were not attained that way – she also sends out resumes in response to published listings, and ends up being called in for interviews). </p>

<p>No one in the real world cares about the distinction, which is essentially an invention of prestige-obsessed high schoolers who somehow think that their education will be concluded when they are accepted to college.</p>

96

<p>“No one in the real world cares about the distinction, which is essentially an invention of prestige-obsessed high schoolers who somehow think that their education will be concluded when they are accepted to college.”</p>

<p>It’s like saying Williams College when everyone knows you mean William & Mary. ;)</p>

97

<p>

</p>

<p>GS is not really analogous to Harvard extension, because of Columbia’s policies – students who have been out of high school for several years are not even allowed to apply to Columbia College, they have to apply to GS. The GS students are full time students who take the Columbia Core and meet the same basic degree requirements as other Columbia College students. </p>

<p>(That’s not to criticize the Harvard program in any way - it is simply that they are different types of programs. For reasons that I don’t really understand, the Columbia administration has opted to channel non-traditional students through a different application path and school. I’m not sure if there are other colleges anywhere that do so – that is, I think that if a 26-year-old military vet wanted to apply to Barnard, she would be welcome. I know that Smith has a strong program for non-traditional students, but I don’t think they view it as a separate unit or school.)</p>

<p>Students who actually attend class at Columbia and Barnard are well aware that, in general, the GS students stand out as the smartest students in the class. They pick up on ideas and concepts more quickly, and contribute more sophisticated ideas during class discussions. That is not surprising, given that their average age is around 29. People in general get smarter and more capable as they grow older (at least up to a certain point, probably around age 50 or so), so you would expect a group of 29 year olds to be more capable students than a group of 19 year olds. </p>

<p>In terms of overall degree requirements, Columbia differs from Barnard primarily because of the core. However, Barnard majors typically require a senior thesis, whereas analogous majors at Columbia typically do not, although they may provide for an honors thesis. Given the effort put into the thesis, I would consider the Barnard degree be more rigorous than the non-honors Columbia College student. (It’s not just the writing of the thesis; it is also the involvement of the thesis advisor and participation in the senior seminar with other thesis-writers). But that’s a generalization, because degree requirements vary by major, and department, and some Barnard students take their majors at Columbia College, whereas some Columbia Columbia students take their majors at Barnard, and some students have double majors on both sides of the street.</p>

98

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, I already pointed you to the source of data on that point. </p>

<p>There are a relatively high number of cross-admits each year. Barnard assembles statistics via surveys of admitted students even numbered years. In 2004, 33% of the cross-admits chose Barnard over CC. In 2006, 22% chose Barnard. In 2008, 14% chose Barnard. And in 2010, out of 96 reported cross admits, 16% chose Barnard. (As the numbers are determined by surveys, the actual raw number of cross-admits would be somewhat larger. There were 219 responses to the 2010 survey; presumably many cross-admitted students did not respond to surveys. But we know from the data that at a minimum, there were at least 15 students who enrolled in Barnard in 2010 who had turned down Columbia. Overall, Barnard lost 7% of its admitted students to CC. From those numbers it is mathematically possible to project an overall number of cross-admits, based on the total admissions figures for the year).</p>

<p>There are many reasons that students would prefer Barnard to Columbia. One of the most obvious would be feelings toward the core. Other factors would be choice of major and Barnard’s superior advising system. Some students probably simply make their choices after an admitted students day visit – they might simply feel a better sense of fit with Barnard at that point.</p>

99

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. Are you arguing that Wellesley’s yield is higher than Amherst’s because Wellesley applicants don’t have other more attractive options? That makes no sense to me.</p>

<p>My point was that applicant pool and yield statistics for Wellesley, the women’s college with which I am most familiar, do not indicate that they are facing any admissions crisis. I also somewhat familiar with Bryn Mawr, Mount Holyoke, and Smith, and I think they are doing just fine. I get tired of the constant doom-and-gloom message regarding women’s colleges when it’s not borne out by the facts.</p>

100

<p>I have no problem whatsoever with Barnard students and alums identifying their institution as “Barnard College, Columbia University.” Just as Oxford is a federation of self-governing colleges, Columbia University is partially that; Columbia College, SEAS, the School of General Studies, and most of its graduate divisions are wholly owned subsidiaries, while Barnard College, Teachers College, Union Theological Seminary, and Jewish Theological Seminary are self-governing units that are members of the Columbia federation. So for a Barnard alum to identify herself as having a degree from “Barnard College, Columbia University” is no more dishonest or misleading than for a Balliol College grad to identify herself as having a degree from “Balliol College, Oxford.” In the case of the Barnard grad it would be misleading to just say “Columbia” without making reference to Barnard, however, because that invites confusion as to whether she graduated from Columbia College or SEAS. </p>

<p>I do have a problem with Columbia excluding admissions stats for Barnard and the School of General Studies. Reporting only the figures for Columbia’s most selective undergraduate units is hugely misleading, if not downright dishonest. It’s as if Cornell reported only the admissions stats for its College of Engineering and College of Arts and Sciences–its most selective units–and excluded stats for its “contract colleges” which by all accounts are less selective. But Cornell does report combined admissions stats across all its colleges, and as a consequence gets tagged with the reputations as the “least selective Ivy,” when in fact its engineering and liberal arts schools are substantially more selective than the university’s overall rate.</p>

<p>Nor is the School of General Studies at Columbia analogous to Harvard Extension. The difference is that GS students at Columbia are sitting in the same classrooms with CC, SEAS, and Barnard students, while Harvard Extension is a separate operation consisting of Extension-specific evening and online classes that have no bearing on what happens inside the classrooms where Harvard College students are taking classes. </p>

<p>We frequently hear the argument made on College Confidential that the admissions stats of entering students are an important indicator of academic quality because the caliber of the students sitting next to you in the classroom makes a difference in what goes on in that classroom. But the admissions stats Columbia reports do not honestly reflect that, because Barnard and GS students are also in those classrooms in substantial numbers alongside the CC and SEAS students (except for a small number of Columbia College “core” classes, from which Barnard and GS students are excluded).</p>

<p>We have no idea what Columbia GS admissions stats look like, because they don’t tell us. We do know about Barnard, which reports its admissions stats separately. And make no mistake, while Barnard’s stats are very good, they’re nowhere near Columbia’s CC/SEAS figures. Barnard’s average SAT CR score (674) is 16 points below Columbia’s reported 25th percentile CR score of 690. And Barnard’s average SAT M score (663) is 37 points below Columbia’s reported 25th percentile M score (700). From this we can surmise that, while there’s some substantial overlap in the stats of Barnard and CC/SEAS students, well over half the class at Barnard would be in bottom quartile at CC/SEAS, as measured by SAT scores. Reporting a blended rate would make Columbia’s selectivity appear less impressive; but it would be more honest.</p>

<p>I think we have here a situation where both Columbia and Barnard find it convenient to obfuscate, claiming the two institutions are one when it conveniently suits their purposes to do so, and insisting they are separate when that is more convenient.</p>