Barnard College ?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
21

<p>““The “affiliate” construct these institutions have operated under is rather bizarre;””
It is not bizarre. Columbia University web site clearly states that Barnard-Columbia are two separate institution and they both agreed to share the some of the university resources. and Columbia U agreed to sign Barnard Diploma under this ‘affiliation’ agreement. Both school Never agreed that Barnard is part of Columbia. </p>

<p>The relationship became bizarre after Barnard student started to claiming that they got
degrees from Columbia U, which is false statement. The following statements should be acceptable. </p>

<p>BA from Columbia U affiliate. (for those who don’t want write the word ‘Barnard’ from their record.) </p>

<p>BA from Columbia U. FALSE Barnard grad receive diploma signed by Columbia U trustee because of the ‘AFFILIATION’ agreement. Both school never agreed that Barnard is part of Columbia’ “BA from Columbia U” means Barnard is part of Columbia U and it violates that the agreement or contract between two schools. and it violates the signature on the Barnard diploma because that signature means Barnard is not part of Columbia but an affiliate.
Barnard student should sah ‘I go to columbia affiliate’ or I go to school affilated with Columbia .</p>

22

<p>An aspect of the Barnard-Columbia relationship worth considering is that Barnard faculty members undergo tenure reviews both at Barnard and at Columbia U. This is no trivial matter. Columbia has far fewer women as tenured professors. Barnard has around 50%. For Barnard College professors to receive tenure, they must undergo a tenure review at all levels at Barnard College, which includes the Department, the College, the President, AND at the corresponding Department at Columbia. A tenure review requires, among other things, having some 25 confidential letters of evaluation based on the candidate’s scholarship, forwarded to the committees responsible for the evaluation.</p>

<p>Similarly, although Barnard has its own Board of Trustees and separate endowment, members of the Columbia faculty were part of the search committee for Barnard’s new President. </p>

<p>One finds an analogous situation at Newnham, the women’s college at Cambridge (U.K.). The college is a part of Cambridge, students get a Cambridge degree, and the only professors who have tenure have had to undergo review at both the College and University levels. </p>

<p>Perhaps it is not important that Barnard professors must jump through more hoops. I am not sure, however, that cc posters have considered why there might be a place for women’s education, in so far as women are vastly outnumbered by men when it comes to to being hired to tenure-track jobs, being tenured, being promoted to full professor, etcetera. To put it another way, women vastly outnumber men at the lowest-paid levels of academia, and are underrepresented in the most competitive and best remunerated areas. </p>

<p>To end on a more cheerful note, a growing number of leading research universities have female presidents (Harvard, Princeton, Brown, Iowa, Michigan, Penn). Many received their B.A., got their first tenure-track job, or their first college presidency at women’s colleges: Harvard U. President Drew Gilpin Faust (BA Bryn Mawr), Penn President Amy Gutmann (B.A. Harvard-Radcliffe), Brown U. President Ruth Simmons (previously president of Spelman College, Atlanta and Smith College).</p>

23

<p>^if you’re implying that just a greater number of tenured men means there is discrimination against women in academia, then this is not necessarily true. There are many other factors and only after those factors are accounted for, can you make this judgment.</p>

<p>Importantly: your rant about female repression in academia has nothing to do with whether Barnard is part of Columbia or not. So save it for a different forum/thread, instead of derailing this one.</p>

24

<p>^ I thought that a forum called “Barnard College” would be a good place to point out that Barnard Colllege’s affiliate status with Columbia means that Barnard College faculty MUST meet the standards of the department at Barnard AND at Columbia University in order to get and keep their jobs. Thus, if you look at Columbia U. departments you will see a number of distinguished Barnard faculty who are tenured there. </p>

<p>Also a forum called “Barnard College” seems a good place to point out some of the strengths of a women’s college…</p>

25

<p>This forum is actually called Columbia University, if you didn’t notice.</p>

<p>My English teacher always taught me to read carefully.</p>

26

<p>No one is undermining the strength of Barnard as a school. It’s a fine women’s college which probably does surpass Columbia in some aspects- just like NYU has a better elibrary system than ours. IT’S JUST NOT COLUMBIA.</p>

27

<p>As a student who will be going to Barnard next year, I’d like to add my two cents. I have to say that I agree with some of you in some respects, it peeves me when people say that I am going to Columbia because I am not. I applied ED to Barnard (even though I had the stats to be competitive at Columbia as well) because I fell in love with the school and I am proud to be going there. It seems to me that those who identify themselves as Columbia students are the ones who used Barnard as a back door, or who are trying to avert confusion by avoiding an explanation of the complex relationship. </p>

<p>I will, however, probably put Barnard College of Columbia University or something similar (never just CU) on my resume because Barnard women DO receive CU degrees and there is no denying the strong connection and crossover between the two. </p>

<p>Of course, my opinion could change when I get there next year…</p>

28

<p>I love how mentioning Barnard is always the surefire way to get to get the party started here.</p>

29

<p>

</p>

<p>while CC posters might disagree with this, it leaves no ambiguity about where you study, so I personally don’t care.</p>

30

<p>"I will, however, probably put Barnard College of Columbia University "</p>

<p>This is a FALSE statement. “Barnard College of Columbia University” means Barnard is part of Columbia U. Barnard is not part of Columbia University. It is affiliate school. you should put </p>

<p>“Barnard College affiliated with Columbia University”. </p>

<p>Barnard diploma is signed by "Presidents"of both schools under affiliation agreement. Barnard president is not subordinate of Columbia President. If you put down ‘Barnard C of Columbia U, I am sure Barnard President will be very unhappy because her job is vewed as Columbia U presidents’ surbodinate.</p>

<p>Both Barnard and Columbia web site clearly state that Barnard is independent school affiliated with Columbia. Why do Barnard try to create confusion by omitting the word “affiliate” on their record ? Barnard C of Columbia U is not correct because the word “of” means one belongs(BC) to another(CU)</p>

<p>Why don’t you put “Barnard C of Harvard U”, which is as false as “Barnard C of Columbia U” ?</p>

31

<p>Why not just state that you went to “Barnard College”? Is there something wrong with that? Employers and graduate schools know what Barnard College is. If you seek to tag the word “Columbia” onto the name of this fine college, you will, at best, appear to be “puffing.” Barnard College stands on its own.</p>

32

<p>"Why not just state that you went to “Barnard College”? Is there something wrong with that? "</p>

<p>Why Barnard Students are trying to find every execuse to put word “Columbia” on their record ? ommiting the word “affiliate” ?<br>
We all know the answer including Barnard students.</p>

33

<p>So, by the same reasoning, Columbia undergraduates should put “Columbia College” since it is also an “affiliate” of Columbia University?</p>

34

<p>Columbia College and Engineering school are NOT independent school and they are part of Columbia U. CC/SEAS are not affiliate of Columbia U. They are Columbia U. </p>

<p>The highest ranking officer at CC/SEAS are not presidents, they are ‘Deans’ and surbordinates of Columbia U president.</p>

<p>In fact, many CC female students put just “Columbia College”, to make sure that they are not from Barnard nor GS. </p>

<p>Harvard College student also put “Harvard College” only, to clarify that they are not from
Harvard Extension School.</p>

35

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s exactly the point we’re trying to make. Barnard is not a CC or a SEAS. It is a separate, independent college that is completely different from CU- not a component of it like CC/SEAS.</p>

<p>It’s that insecurity and leeching aspect of some Barnard students that annoys me.</p>

36

<p>Okay this is getting ridiculous. As a CC grad I think the opinion expressed here by many is pretty absurd and is the reason why the divide over Broadway is so large.</p>

<p>1) In officialdom BC students are not Columbia Students.<br>
2) De facto they are Columbia Students and provide just as much to the undergraduate and postgraduate life of the university as any other graduate. They are part of a 4 undergraduate school consortium that make up undergraduate life at Columbia.
3) BC graduates are not considered official legacies when applying to Columbia - this is a fact often misrepresented. And yes that includes pre-1983 graduates. Legacy is a strict term that mostly relates to the way alumni relations handles students and not how students are treated significantly differently in admissions. My friend was able to go to a separate cocktail reception for legacies when she graduated from CU. Her family often got more mailings for participating as alumni or giving than my parents would have. That is all, so no one should feel inferior here. (I thought I’d nip this related topic in the butt)</p>

<p>I think that the split between BC and CU and this rather peculiar arrangement (one foot inside, the other foot outside of Columbia) is perhaps not ideal, but it is not for us here to solve, nor is it our responsibility to complain of leechers and the like. BC students are dealt a tough hand. In a world where many students have no idea where Columbia even is (no, it is not the country, it is not at the far end of Long Island like students in my high school thought) how are we to understand the disadvantage comparatively that Barnard students face (people just are not that aware of places unless they have a connection to it, few places transcend all boundaries and even in many communities Harvard doesn’t even do that). So if someone asks a BC student, “where do you study” and shes says Columbia - in a broad sense she would not be lying, in a narrow sense she would be. </p>

<p>I think everyone would prefer that each of us was secure enough in our person to be okay with the schools we attend. But there is enough inferiority around that might lead someone to perhaps seek the broader definition of Columbia. Hell you see Columbians with their inferiority brewing at times as they feel less than their Ivy brethren or complain about how they are just as good as the other schools (despite being rejected)</p>

<p>But a last comment about this - just because someone might take advantage of this loophole doesn’t mean they don’t like their school. People can feel multiple things that are often conflicting. You can love your school and still want to take advantage of the broader Columbia name. This is neither antithetical nor wrong, but oftentimes a practical solution. Further, the answer to the question where did you go to school shifts depending on the circumstance and the audience. If you were before an audience of many women who may have gone to women’s colleges you may say Barnard proudly, but on the trading floor you might say Columbia. To this degree, I think we should leave it to the student to figure out how to represent themselves with knowledge that if they truly lie (perhaps omit any mention of Barnard on their resume for instance) they will get caught and they will pay the consequences. But in some instances using Columbia may be useful to help someone understand where they studied and what community they were a part of.</p>

<p>In any case, as Concoll said, in the long run CC/SEAS grad will have advantages that BC cannot replicate because of its smaller size and smaller coffers that some how complaining about leechers is a rather petty and very elitist thing to do. I know you don’t mean it that way LionHeaded, but it is precisely this lack of understanding (why someone might use the CU name) that in the end makes CC/SEAS students look like elitist kids for hating on a school that is quite frankly just as much a part of the Columbia community as any other.</p>

37

<p>Very well put, admissionsgeek.</p>

38

<p>And JomJom - are you qualified to speak about what a Barnard student ought to do? Perhaps then we should also place a similar litmus test before Columbia in its interactions with BC students. Does this mean that Columbia should never claim BC graduates as part of their community? Should there be no mention of BC graduates at Commencement? No reference to them in the c250 campaign that touts Zora Neale Hurston among others for their accomplishments? It goes both ways - and though perhaps not in the most obvious of ways, Columbia has utilized the beneficiary aspects of Barnard to its advantage. So let President Spar worry about the dilution of her position and not have you worry for her.</p>

39

<p>““2) De facto they are Columbia Students and provide just as much to the undergraduate and postgraduate life of the university as any other graduate. They are part of a 4 undergraduate school consortium that make up undergraduate life at Columbia.””</p>

<p>FALSE.<br>
Columbia University comprises three undergraduate colleges and one close affiliate. Columbia College and The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science are both served by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions. The School of General Studies, is Columbia’s college for returning and nontraditional students. It maintains a separate admissions and application process. Barnard College, the closely affiliated but “independent” women’s college across the street, also has an entirely separate admissions and application process. </p>

<p>[Academic</a> Life | Columbia University Office of Undergraduate Admissions](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/university/academic]Academic”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/university/academic)</p>

40

<p>“Does this mean that Columbia should never claim BC graduates as part of their community? Should there be no mention of BC graduates at Commencement? No reference to them in the c250 campaign that touts Zora Neale Hurston among others for their accomplishments? It goes both ways - and though perhaps not in the most obvious of ways, Columbia has utilized the beneficiary aspects of Barnard to its advantage. So let President Spar worry about the dilution of her position and not have you worry for her.”</p>

<p>Under Barnard-Columbia “affiliation” agreement,
Barnard is part of Columbia community, can be present at the Commencement and can be referenced in the c250 campaign…etc.
And I think it is ok for Barnard to say " I went to Columbia" or " I studied at Columbia "
(* or You can take summer school at NYU and claim you studies at NYU or NYU student" or weny to NYU)</p>

<p>However, it it NOT OK for Barnard to say “BA from Columbia” or “BA Barnard College of Columbia U”, “I graduated from Columbia” or “received undergraduate degree from Columbia”. Non of these statements are true, why ? because Barnard does not belong to Columbia. Barnard is not part of Columbia but an “”“”““affiliate””“”“”" of Columbia. </p>

<p>Barnard is part of Columbia community as an ““affiliate””. It still does not belong to Columbia</p>