<p>FYI:
This is a translation of what a Barnard diploma says (it’s in latin):</p>
<p>Translation:
"The Trustees of Columbia University
in the City of New York</p>
<p>To all and sundry to whom this document shall come, greetings. Know ye that inasmuch as she has duly and lawfully completed all the exercises pertaining to the degree of Bachelor of Arts, we have advanced</p>
<hr>
<p>to that degree and have granted and given her all the rights, privileges, and honors which are customarily bestowed in such instances. In more complete testimony whereof we have directed that this diploma be validated by the signatures of the President of this University and the President of Barnard College and also by our common seal.
Granted in New York on the ___ day of the month of ___ in the year two thousand ____."</p>
<p>Yes. Barnard graduates receive a diploma signed by two presidents (B & C) of two separate and independent school. </p>
<p>Still. Barnard is not part of Columbia, because both Barnard and Columbia document say so. “”““Barnard is legally separate and financially independent from Columbia U.””“”
This is what barnard’s official documents say. </p>
<p>Under the affiliation agreeement between two completely separate and independent schools, Barnard diploma is signed by two presidents from two separate school. and “Barnard college of Columbia U” does not exist. According to Barnard’s official document it is illegal to say “Barnard Collge of Columbia”.</p>
<p>Really, your issue is with Columbia University. These people are receiving these diplomas, per above, and not only is Columbia not suing them for it but they are actually signing them !! It’s almost as if your university itself was party to this!! And not only that, but these same people are using your campus, your facilities, your extracurriculars, your faculty, and you are using theirs, almost interchangably, thereby encouraging them to think they may actually be part of the university, in some fashion as affiliate at least, and by virtue of same entitled to certain things they are actually given. Like their diplomas.</p>
<p>All you need to do is tell the university of their mistake, have them end or change the affiliation agreement with respect to the aspects you don’t like, and then it will stop.</p>
<p>It would only stop if Columbia University was to stop participating in the arrangement as it stands. Unless this happens, you will not be happy I’m afraid.</p>
<p>Urgh. Semantics settled then. Gee wonder how that little bitty stayed off the radar for what 6 pages?</p>
<p>Glad to see the diploma argument- and really the entire freaking issue- settled. </p>
<p>Delude yourself with semantics if you want; this pretty much rests the discussion. I honestly didn’t think Barnard parents had such chips on their shoulders. Your children go to Barnard, which is not Columbia. Accept that.</p>
<p>According to Barnard Columbia official documents :
Under affiliacation agreement between two ‘separate’ school, Columbia and Barnard can share each other’s resources . They both also agreed that Barnard diploma is signed by presidents of two ‘separate’ schools while Barnard remaining “”““legally separate and financially independent from Columbia U.””“”"
These agreements are available online at both Barnard & Columbia web sites. </p>
<p>These agreements are clearly understood by everyone except Barnard students and parents ( intentionally and conveniently ) . </p>
<p>
What mistake ? I think both school’s officials clearly state that Barnard is legally separate and independent from Columbia.
I like the idea of sharing resources of two equally great ‘separate’ indepent schools.</p>
<p>Not sure to whom this is specifically directed but, just in case I am included (I am a Barnard parent after all), let it be known there are no chips here. My kid attends Barnard and is very, very pleased to do so. Her time at Barnard has served her well and she will be attending her first choice grad program due in large part, I believe, to the tremendous support she has received from her faculty mentor and advisors and the fantastic education she has received there. And also due to Barnard’s reputation. So I have no quarrel at all here. My goal in posting was to lend clarity of fact (of the wording of the diploma) to the discussion.
I have seen these types of threads pop up time and again on the Columbia boards (and at times on the Barnard one) and it’s interesting to see how they inevitably play out. Some people get all hot and bothered about this, but my instinct and experience tells me that the ones who do (on either side of the argument/discussion) are those who either have no direct experience with the Columbia University environment at all or who have some insecurity issues one way or another. And I find it interesting that the syntax of the OP on this thread is strikingly similar to that employed by at least one other poster who started a very similar thread a year or two ago. This does make me wonder…</p>
<p>The Barnard/Columbia University affiliation is what it is and it has been a significant and beneficial part of my daughter’s undergraduate experience. She is proud to be a (well, in a couple of months, any way!) Barnard graduate.</p>
<p>from your perspective:
Active and willing participation in the practice of issuing Columbia University diplomas to graduates of the university’s affiliated colleges.</p>
<p>If columbia U did not do this your issues would vanish in a nanosecond.
But as long as people are receiving diplomas that say what is stated in #81 above, signed by Columbia University Trustees, you will continue to be unhappy. So sorry for you. But you ought to take this up with Columbia U, it is completely in their power to change it. If they wanted to.</p>
<p>The issue at stake here is that regardless of who signs the diplomas, Barnard College is not an undergraduate college of Columbia University and as such, it would be wrong to say that a Barnard College degree is a Columbia degree. All of you are pussyfooting around that little fact.</p>
<p>Those of you who are trying to play the “oh, it’s just insecure kids or people who know nothing about Columbia” card are simply trying to sweep the fact that you’re wrong under the rug. As confidentialcoll has asserted several times, it would just be wrong for a Princeton, Harvard, [insert prestigious school] graduate to say that they graduated from Columbia. This has nothing to do with whether or not Barnard is a better school than CC, SEAS, or GS.</p>
<p>It’s simply an irrefutable fact that Barnard College is not one of the three undergraduate colleges of Columbia University. One can argue that it may have been, or that it should be. However, as it turned out, it did not become and is not an undergraduate college of Columbia University.</p>
<p>I have no problem with this the because the affiliation agreement between B and C states that Barnard student receive diploma signed by both president.</p>
<p>My problem is Barnard students saying that Barnard is part of Columbia. which is NOT true, because Barnard is ‘Barnard is legally separate and financially independent from Columbia U.’ It is WRONG to say ‘Barnard College of Columbia’ . because Barnard is NOT part of Columbia</p>
<p>Princeton and Harvard are not affiliated institutions of columbia University, and their graduates do not receive diplomas of, and signed by, Columbia University. Teacher’s college grads are, and do, they are the most relevant comparison. I guess that place in cambridge mentioned earlier might also be relevant. I’m pretty sure that, back in the day, a Radcliffe graduate could have written BA harvard, which is who issued and signed her diploma, and nobody would have been trying to tar and feather her because Radcliffe was actually set up as an affiliate.</p>
<p>I think these are longstanding practices that have only become controversial since columbia’s coeducation.</p>
<p>The Teachers College is not a particularly apt example because the affiliation agreement stipulates that the College is Columbia University’s Graduate School of Education.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Barnard is an independent undergraduate school that can neither claim to be an undergraduate school of Columbia nor claim to fulfill a vital function by admitting women (as Columbia’s undergraduate colleges are now coeducational).</p>
<p>I have no plans to read Teacher’s College’s affiliation agreement, as you evidently have. Please post the excerpt from it that says degrees from it are awarded by Columbia in a procedure different than the procedure followed by columbia and Barnard. Otherwise, the default presumption would be that the nature of the affiliation agreements are quite comparable.</p>
<p>So your point is that Barnard is part of Columbia because Barnard’s diploma is signed by two presidents from two separate school (Barnard & Columbia )??</p>
<p>what about legal affiliation agreement stating that “Barnard is legally separate and financially independent from Columbia U”"</p>
<p>Monydad, teacher’s college is a graduate institution, not an undergraduate institution. So I don’t really think the comparison is applicable. </p>
<p>It’s like any other university graduation, though, where all undergrad colleges (and affiliates, in the case of Barnard) as well as the graduate program degrees are awarded in one huge ceremony. </p>
<p>It’s no big thing, people. Why are folks all bothered about any of this? I truly do not think students on campus are. I know for a fact that I am not.</p>
<p>Churchmusicmom, not many people are bothered by the issuing of Barnard degrees that are signed by Columbia trustees. That’s no big deal at all.</p>
<p>However, I think that both of us would be bothered by Barnard graduates misrepresenting themselves as Columbia graduates. Barnard College is an excellent school for young women and its merits should stand alone.</p>
<p>Most people are merely bothered by a misrepresentation of facts (however convenient) when a Barnard student claims to attend Columbia without adding that she attends Barnard, which is an affiliated school.</p>
<p>In truth, I don’t understand why some Barnard parents or students are so defensive in this regard. A Barnard alumna who hides her alma mater affects from Barnard’s reputation as well.</p>
<p>That’s all. I’m done with this thread unless someone manages to introduce nonredundant information or opinions.</p>
[quote]
Most people are merely bothered by a misrepresentation of facts (however convenient) when a Barnard student claims to attend Columbia without adding that she attends Barnard, which is an affiliated school.[\quote]</p>
<p>No argument here. None at all. And i have never personally witnessed this and do not think it happens all that often. If/when it does, it would indeed be sad.</p>
<p>And I too am done with attempting to contribute constructively to this thread…</p>
<p>it is contractually separate and financially independent, but functionally a dependent subordinate, controlled by Columbia via an instrument called the affiliation agreement. There are many shell subsidiaries ( affiliates) of major corporations that use similar structures, so that the parent can keep them off-balance sheet. Sale-leaseback transactions involve similar structures. The affiliate can technically operate on its own, but functionally it wouldn’t since it would be a shell of itself. So it must maintain the affiliation agreeement, and hence is a controlled, functionally subordinate entity, though set up to be legally distinct.</p>
<p>IIRC, this has been the situation since 1900, and Columbia degrees have been issued to Barnard and Teacher’s College grads this whole time. They set it up that way because they wanted to have women, but they wanted also to deny to the outside world that they were educating women. So on the one hand they issued degrees but on the other hand told people outside they were not educating women. Having cake and eating it too, so to speak. If there was no stigma at the time it wouldn’t have been set up that way.</p>
<p>Of course the control is not complete, and certain circumstances have obviously changed.</p>
<p>But fundamentally that is how I see it. A structuring artifice set up so as to be able to assert one thing to the outside world, but conduct yourself otherwise in fact. Set up that way as a historical artifact of a past era.</p>
<p>However they choose to arrange such a relationship, including granting of parent degrees to the subordinate affiliate, is not up to me to decide, it is dictated by the affiliation agreement.</p>