The last paragraph of #79 may be true, but jealousy is not the reason that the relationship issues exist.
At least, that’s not how I read the six zillion CC threads on this topic. I invite others to read them and draw their own conclusion.
IMO, it’s resentment.
Some people are oh so proud of surviving a near-zero percent admissions rate. It is the defining accomplishment of their young lives. They resent the fact that other people who had an easier admissions hurdle get much of the same benefits, environment, and even get a degree from the university. Some of them feel that, since Barnard is on the one hand a separate college, Barnard students are misrepresenting themselves to the extent that they “advertise” their own connection to the university. They feel they have been invited to a party at an exclusive “club”, and Barnard students are crashing the party. To the point of even claiming they are club members.
I’m not saying they are right. I think they are wrong. That is the deal these institutions have, and it is not a secret. Anyone who applies has no excuse for not already understanding the deal.
But that kind of feeling is why this persists. Not jealousy . If there were no differences whatsoever in advising, etc, the same situation would exist. It has to do with relative selectivity and feelings about who justly has access to use the “brand” name.
Note that I am not suggesting that everyone at Columbia feels this way.
Read the threads yourselves, you’ll see.
I think a lot of the hostility would dry up overnight if Columbia stopped issuing and signing Barnard diplomas, without changing anything else. We never hear about this sort of thing between Haverford-Bryn Mawr, or the Claremont consortium colleges…
[quote]
I think a lot of the hostility would dry up overnight if Columbia stopped issuing and signing Barnard diplomas, without changing anything else]/quote]
That’s not possible because Barnard is, and always has been, a subsidiary undergraduate college of Columbia University. The University issues diplomas; the individual schools and colleges do not.
I believe it is possible. The institutions are structured as separate institutions, related to each other by an affiliation agreement governing their relationship, which is subject to periodic renewal. I see no reason why the terms of this agreement cannot be renegotiated, and changed, at the point of subsequent renewal. If not before. I bet it probably has changed, in various particulars, over the years.
Issuing and signing the diplomas by Columbia is just one particular. They do do it that way, but I don’t see why they absolutely have to keep doing it that way.
That doesn’t mean they are going to change it to remove the practice of Columbia issuing and signing the diplomas of the affiliates… They likely won’t. But they can. It is possible. Or at least I don’t see why it is not possible.
My point wasn’t that it was likely to change. I don’t think it is likely. But my point was that, IMO, the issues that some Columbia students have would not exist if this practice was changed. If this one thing were were changed, then their relationship would look much more like Haverford- Bryn Mawr or the Claremont colleges. Therefore their issue is not jealousy because Barnard students have better advising, etc. It is that Barnard students can lay claim to Columbia too, which they don’t like, And that claim is legitimized, at least in part, by this practice of the university issuing and co-signing their diplomas…
I’ve never heard of any university structured differently for diplomas. It is pretty much the nature of a university to be made up of a bunch of subsidiary schools and colleges, with students getting degrees issued under the authority of the governing university.
Haverford/Bryn Mawr are separate colleges, not subsidiary schools of a major university. Same with the Claremont Colleges-- they have a strong affiliation, but there is no Claremont University.
Barnard College students “lay claim” to Columbia University because Barnard is an undergraduate college of Columbia University, and always has been-- and in fact was created in the first place specifically for that purpose, because the Columbia trustees did not want to permit co-ed education.
Unlike the situation at typical multi-college universities (such as Columbia proper), Barnard and Columbia are separate institutions. With separate boards of directors, trustees, endowments, administration…
Their connection is by a negotiated affiliation agreement between these separate institutions.
Since, unlike all the other curent situations that I’m familiar with they are structured as separate institutions, they could, individually, issue their own diplomas. If that’s what they mutually agree to do.
As far as I’m aware, the affiliate structure is rare in the current era, possibly unique currently. There used to be other cases where the affiliate structure was utilized, but I don’t know of any others in operation right now, in the US. This doesn’t mean there aren’t any. If one site I found is correct, there are divinity/ theology schools that are affiliates of universities yet issue their own diplomas. I don’t care to corroborate it. It’s not important to me. Even to this thread it is not important.
The only recent case I’m aware of is Brooklyn Polytechnic institute, which affiliated with NYU in 2008, and merged with it in 2014. After the merger it apparently changed its name to “Polytechnic Institute of New York University”. So I’ll give you that. But its diplomas before 2014 were diplomas of that institution (Polytech), signed by its president and trustees. Not diplomas of NYU, and not signed by an officer of NYU. So far as I can tell.
So there are different ways to do it, evidently. There is no law. And when there is only one case existing, they can do it whatever way they want. then that will be the way it is done.
Re #84, to be clear, It’s not just Columbia- Barnard, also Columbia-Teacher’s College and Columbia- a few others.
I can’t think of any others besides the ones that Columbia has now though, in the current era, in the US.
The recent Brooklyn Poly-NYU one is over now, they changed it by merger, it is now no longer an affiliate, but actually part of NYU.
But clearly there may be some others (and the article I read suggests there are, with divinity/theology schools)… I have not devoted my life to investigating this. And I don’t plan to.
But it doesn’t really matter. I don’t think they will issue separate diplomas.
Also re #84, “After the merger it apparently changed …”. That should read “After they became affiliated it apparently changed …”.
This is incorrect. Columbia U. maintains control over faculty tenure at Barnard, and Barnard is also part ot the Columbia U Senate (the main governing body of Columbia).
Barnard never existed as a stand-alone institution like Brooklyn Polytechnic It has always been subject to Columbia’s oversight, particularly with regard to faculty hiring and tenure.
It is true that it also has separate endowments, administration, etc. – and I can’t think offhand of another undergraduate college affiliated with a university that is similarly structured, but it is fairly common of graduate schools - for example, my law school operates pretty much independently of the university when it comes to administration, fundraising, etc – but my law degree is still from the university. But I’m not really sure how things work with Cornell’s land grant schools either – I assume there must be some segregation of funds and administration given the tuition differential – essentially you’ve got a combination of public/private colleges under the umbrella of a private university.
As far as Columbia’s structure, you might want to look at the history of Bard College, which operated as an independent undergraduate college of Columbia U. from 1928-1944.
I’d just like to say, as a student who wants to apply ED to the school, one of the things I really like about Barnard is its unique connection to Columbia. I like that I get to experience the feel of both a small women’s college and a huge co-ed university. I couldn’t decide between small vs big so Barnard is a great fit for me. I love that I get to access the resources of a huge Ivy League school. I mean, Columbia kids get to take classes at Barnard too, and most of them are co-ed. The people I met on campus say that you can be as involved at Columbia as you want. I’m personally interested in the SIPA 5 year program at Columbia, which you have to apply for once you’ve been at any of the undergrad colleges, so it’s not like the kids from Barnard who take advantage of such programs are any less qualified than those from Columbia. It’s honestly unfair if this rivalry is as bad as people say it is. It’s an undergrad collee of CU just like the engineering school, and has different standards. Barnard is much more holistic, and it’s still more competitive than most schools.
Just a note— the SIPA 5 year program is extremely difficult to get into. My daughter applied – my daughter had a very strong GPA (graduated summa cum laude) and had an amazing overseas internship with a UN agency after her sophomore year-- and the Dean who coordinated the applications felt she had a very strong app, but she was turned down. Only one student was accepted from Barnard into SIPA that year, and that apparently is typical (at least at the time my daughter was there).
Interestingly enough, several years later when my D was again applying to grad schools she applied to SIPA and was admitted --but turned down the spot at that point.
So definitely it’s worth looking into… and if you do attend Barnard I would encourage you to apply – but don’t apply to Barnard because of the SIPA program… there really is no reliable path to being admitted. I think that overall they really prefer students with some post-college work experience. On the other hand, you should know that as an undergrad at Barnard you can enroll in some courses at SIPA, and you have full access to the SIPA library.
And my daughter was like you – torn between wanting the resources of a large university, but preferring the more undergraduate focused education of a smaller school. Her other top choice as an alternative to Barnard was Gallatin School of Individualized Study at NYU. It’s a good mix, and much more of a matter of resources (course selection, library, lab facilities, etc.) than prestige or rankings.
“Columbia U. maintains control over faculty tenure at Barnard,”
True, but that has not always been the case, which just shows how the relationship, and affiliation agreement, can be changed. It only came about as part of the deal to allow Columbia College to go co-ed.
Part of that deal was the schools were to share course enrollment, and the Columbia faculty said if our students will be taking courses at Barnard then we want a say in who is teaching them. Before that, this was not the case. Though they were still affiliated.That is my recollection. One of the “good” CC Columbia subforum posters brought this to my attention, back in the day when this was of more interest to me.
"I’m not really sure how things work with Cornell’s land grant schools either "
That’s another, but different, weird case. But they are not affiliates of Cornell University. They are wholly part of Cornell University. Like Columbia College and Columbia SEAS are part of Columbia University. None of these schools relate to their universities via an affiliation agreement. There is one single Board of Trustees governing the whole university, and the deans of all the colleges report to the President of Cornell University.
Institutions that are actually structured as affiliates will probably say so, someplace. If they don’t say so, they probably aren’t. Is my guess.
Re #89: “One of the “good” CC Columbia subforum posters brought this to my attention…”
I think it was @ConfucianNemisis
And it may have been via PM since he didn’t want some of the haters there to latch onto it. He was (and is, hopefully) a good guy. But it was a long time ago, so…
That’s not accurate. There’s a good book about the history of Columbia that has detailed info about the Barnard/Columbia relationship called Stand, Columbia: A History of Columbia University in the City of New York by Robert McCaughey, who is a history prof at Barnard. The specific process has evolved over the years, but the process of review of tenure decisions by university ad hoc committees and approval of the Columbia President. was established in the 1973 intercorporate agreement (roughly 8 years prior to Columbia going co-ed).
But the 1900 intercorporate agreement had also required that Barnard tenure decisions be approved by Columbia. The difference is that Barnard controlled the nomination process for tenure, whereas after 1973, the nominations were shifted to an ad-hoc committee, of which only 2 of 5 members came from Barnard.
Thanks for corrections.
FWiW I would guess changes in 1973 did have to do with Columbia College going coed?
Or rather taking measures to keep Columbia College from going coed ?
Because, as all of you no doubt clearly remember like I do, that is closer to the era that lots of the other schools were going coed. A couple years late, actually. They were probably losing ground by then.
So more integration of classes with Barnard, then Columbia wants more say over faculty tenure, more or less as I recall he told me. But I guess it was in an attempt to avoid literal coeducation, rather than what I thought? And I had some other particulars wrong as well.
Obviously it was a failed attempt, because the college still went through with it later. And part of that deal was they had to represent that Barnard would still be viable, so they did not roll this back. Whereas I presumed they initiated it then, for the same reason.
I’d think the “keep Columbia from going coed” was the more likely motive on Columbia’s side; on Barnard’s side, it was for greater access to Columbia resources and courses.
But my point was simply that whatever the balance between the colleges, Columbia University has always maintained control over selection of Barnard’s permanent faculty. “So more integration of classes with Barnard, then Columbia wants more say over faculty tenure, more or less as I recall he told me” – that would be correct, but there is confusion between the concept of Columbia University and Columbia College. The President of Columbia Universityalways had final say on who gets tenure at Barnard — and that is what I was referencing in terms of the degree coming from the University.The 1973 agreement changed the nomination process for tenure, and gave Columbia College equal representation to Barnard on the ad hoc committee. So from 1973 onward, the College – which does not issue a degree of any sort to Barnard students, is getting to vote on tenure decisions.
Have you attended a Columbia-wide graduation ceremony? To me that really clarified the concept of the University being made up of large and varied group of separate “faculties”, with the titular head of each faculty being responsible for nominating students to receive the Columbia degrees. It also is a very helpful reminder that Columbia University is a body largely focused on graduate level education.
Hey guys! Im late to the game on here but I am also applying to Barnard Class of 2022 ED! I live in Brooklyn so I was fortunate enough to visit Barnard a couple of times. I also attended Barnards High School College Planning Day and I fell in love with the campus and what it has to offer!!! Did you guys start on your applications yet?
Hi! like #94, I am also extremely late to this forum and I am planning to apply ED. I have not done a damn thing in terms of college apps. I did search the Barnard website but didn’t see anything about a supplementary essay. Can someone please tell me what the question is (or if there is one)? Thank you in advance and much love from NJ
As the relative of a current Barnard student who is very active in both Barnard and Columbia activities, I believe this supposed ‘tension’ between Barnard and Columbia is largely the pre-occupation of applicants. For current students, it really isn’t an issue. Some–a very few–students at BC or CC may harbor resentment, envy or hatred, but they are the RARE exception. Barnard may be statistically easier to get into, but as its acceptance rate plunges, this becomes a rather tired and irrelevant issue. Indeed, you can find HPY students who look down on Columbia. So what.
I’d invite anyone who is concerned to visit Barnard and speak to students at BC and CC. You’ll find they are for the most part an integrated community. Some students want the structure of Columbia’s Core; others delight in Barnard’s greater flexibility. And as for the partnership agreement with Columbia, most students know little of it and care less. Once you get to BC, these concerns become ancient history.
@calmom I also wanted to respond to your comment regarding SIPA. Having spent most of my post-academic career with the UN and World Bank, I can attest to the fact that SIPA is under-represented at these organisations. Harvard’s Kennedy School, Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School, Georgetown SFS and SAIS have far more alums on their respective staff. I had a member of my family at Barnard who didn’t get into the SIPA program but after serving in the Peace Corps, she went to Princeton’s Woodrow Wilson School and will join the World Bank next month as part of its Young Professionals Program. She didn’t have a stellar GPA at Barnard but with the help of Barnard and her faculty adviser, had two incredible internships with the UN in Zimbabwe and the European Commission in Russia. All of which is to say that SIPA is a good program but there are many others. And it also should be noted that SIPA is very expensive and offers little financial aid, whereas at the Woodrow Wilson School 95% of its students are fully funded by the university.
@calmom I’m old enough to have been at Harvard during the “absorption” of Radcliffe. I recall HC students complaining that the integration of Harvard and Radcliffe admissions would result in a deterioration in Harvard’s admissions standards, And prior to the establishment of a single admissions process, there were perennial arguments over how Radcliffe was a “backdoor” into Harvard since it was easier to get into than HC. Radcliffe was also far poorer, so some people suggested that it was piggy backing on Harvard and “robbing” it of resources.
This is all ancient history now but I still think Harvard is the poorer for having effectively destroyed Radcliffe. Gone are all the special programs for Radcliffe women and depending on how you massage the numbers, female appointments at the College have fallen. I think Columbia should celebrate Barnard’s existence as it adds to the entire university. Indeed, just recently Harvard has reopened the issue of whether the Radcliffe seal should again appear on female Harvard College diplomas.
@exlibris97, re your post #97 – my daughter would concur, she also thinks that other schools offer better programs. She worked with an agency closely tied to the UN for two years after she graduated, and had a high regard for the Fletcher School at Tufts. However, funding is very limited for most programs, with Woodrow Wilson being the exception – but admissions there are extremely competitive. Her rationale in applying to the 5-year combined SIPA was simply that the costs would be reduced as she would only have to finance one year, with Barnard financial aid for her senior year. But she definitely was not broken hearted about being turned down. She had a very relaxing senior year at Barnard and plenty of time to delve deeply into her senior thesis – plus ended up with that UN job when she gradutad.
The same year DD turned down a spot at SIPA (3+ years after graduation from Barnard), she was admitted to equivalent masters’ programs at Chicago & JHU with substantial financial aid… but not nearly enough to finance her to attend full time unfortunately. She would have gone to Woodrow Wilson in a heartbeat, but didn’t get in – and as far as I know that’s the only grad program that didn’t admit her. So congrats to your family member – my daughter had a top GPA coming out of Barnard and good work &internship credentials & recs. But I’d guess that the Peace Corps service was a substantial boost for your family member-- it just demonstrates a level of commitment that is above and beyond various internships. (My DD ended up getting an MPA via a part-time program while she was working full time; even with a 50% scholarship she still ended up taking on a lot of debt for the degree, but at least she didn’t have to borrow to pay living expenses).
