<p>nope </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/degrees%20and%20certificates%20awarded%202007-2008.htm[/url]”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/degrees%20and%20certificates%20awarded%202007-2008.htm</a></p>
<p>look at the list of degrees awarded by Columbia U. THere is no Barnard</p>
<p>Is that why Barnard students may receive a masters from Columbia in the five year accelerated program at SIPA?</p>
<p>yes of course.</p>
<p>First off, stop feeding the ■■■■■.</p>
<p>Secondly, it is true that Columbia University only acknowledges three official undergraduate colleges: Columbia College, Fu SEAS, and the General School; you can check the columbia.edu website if you doubt this fact. This is not to say that Barnard is not a member of the overal Columbia University community, but to adamantly insist that it is one of Columbia University’s official undergraduate college is wrong. There is a reason that Barnard is considered an affiliate. If you really want to get into the semantics, Barnard College is associated with Columbia University. However, it is neither owned nor controlled by Columbia University. This independence in admissions, finances, and name are what separate Barnard from Columbia’s official undergraduate colleges. Granted, Barnard professors must be approved for tenure by Columbia, but this is more of a byproduct of the crossregistration agreement (and some elitist Columbia professors) than anything else. Furthermore, arguments that Barnard College diplomas are "granted’ by Columbia University (they’re granted by Barnard; Columbia just kind of cosigns) are moot because that is how things are stipulated in the affiliate agreement. If Barnard College were actually an official undergraduate college of Columbia, there would be no need for the affiliate agreement.</p>
<p>If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk.When you give him the milk, he’ll probably ask you for a straw. When he’s finished, he’ll ask for a napkin. Then he will want to look in a mirror to make sure he doesn’t have a milk mustache. When he looks into the mirror, he might notice his hair needs a trim. So he will probably ask for a pair of nail scissors. When he’s finished giving himself a trim, he’ll want a broom to sweep up. He’ll start sweeping. He might get carried away and sweep every room in the house. He may even end up washing the floors as well! When he’s done, he’ll probably want to take a nap. You will have to fix a little box for him with a blanket and a pillow. He’ll crawl in, make himself comfortable and fluff the pillow a few times. He’ll probably ask you to read him a story. So you’ll read him one from one of your books, and he’ll ask to see the pictures. When he looks at the pictures, he’ll get so excited he’ll want to draw one of his own. He’ll ask for paper and crayons. He’ll draw a picture. When the picture is finished, he’ll want to sign his name with a pen. Then he’ll want to hang his picture on your refrigerator. Which means he will need…scotch tape. He’ll hang up his drawing and stand back to look at it. Looking at the refrigerator will remind him that he’s thirsty so…he’ll ask for a glass of milk. And chances are if he asks for a glass of milk, he’s going to want a cookie to go with it. -Laura Joffe Numeroff</p>
<p>so uh would you guys get mad if barnard students joined the columbia network on facebook?</p>
<p>As someone who attended Barnard College and passed every day under a gate that read “Barnard College of Columbia University”, and found herself mostly in classes on Columbia College’s campus as a result of a political science major, and received a diploma where (although it is in Latin) “Columbia University” features prominently AND who sat for a graduation convocation where all the schools that make up the university shared one stage, it is very correct to say I attended Columbia University. </p>
<p>I am proud that I attended Barnard AND Columbia U. The education I received was of the same quality as those who went to Columbia College or GS. To say I attended Columbia College would be dishonest. However, I am entitled to say I attended Columbia University just as much as anyone to come out of GS or CC. On my CV I indicate that I attended Barnard College, Columbia University to give credit to the institution (college AND university) where I received my undergraduate education.</p>
<p>Everything you said is factual! I might also add that my ex-girlfriend went to the Phillips Exeter of the west coast, received every academic award and got into every school she applied to: Harvard, Yale, Columbia…</p>
<p>But, she chose Barnard for personal reasons. She graduated Summa, then went to Yale Law School, where she graduated in the top 1% of her class. Now, she just finished a clerkship for a federal judge (landing a federal clerkship about as hard, or harder, than getting into Yale Law School).</p>
<p>People choose where they go to undergrad for different reasons. She chose Barnard, and she certainly made the right choice! Message Board snobbery does not exist in the real world.</p>
<p>^Exactly. Your ex-girlfriend chose Barnard, an excellent institution on its own, saw that Barnard and Columbia were distinct (albeit affiliated) schools, and made huge strides and accomplishments on her own. Unlike a handful of her fellow classmates, she did not have to claim that she was a degree-holding candidate from Columbia University in order to be who she is today.</p>
<p>One of the questions in this thread is whether or not it is fair for a Barnard graduate to singularly call herself a Columbia graduate. Judging from the sample resumes Barnards Career Development Center has on its website ([Resume</a> & Letters | Barnard College](<a href=“http://barnard.edu/cd/students/tipsheets/resume-letters]Resume”>http://barnard.edu/cd/students/tipsheets/resume-letters)), the most suitable ways to note the institution on a resume are Barnard College, Barnard College of Columbia University, and Barnard College, Columbia University. The concern is that some students claim to have graduated from “Columbia University” without mentioning Barnard on their resumes, which is deceptive and incorrect.</p>
<p>With regards to whether Barnard is better or worse than Columbia’s, I think that academically, although both are exceptional, in most (but not all) departments Columbia is better. But there are reasons other than academics in deciding where to attend a college. Students might choose Barnard (even if they are admitted or qualified to attend Columbia) in search of a smaller community, a women’s college, Nine Ways of Knowing, etc. Rankings and admit rate alone do not paint the full picture of a college.</p>
<p>I am no expert on the official relationship between Columbia and Barnard, so I won’t comment that here–but it’s been addressed in this thread so many times I do not see any reason to bring it up again.</p>
<p>
I doubt seriously that any Barnard graduate would be dumb enough to do that, given that the resumes will be screened by HR personnel who are likely to do a quick verification of enrollment or degree before passing the resume on. Employers also like to see references and transcripts, and the Barnard alumna network is amazing. Why pass on that? </p>
<p>(Human nature is such that there tend to be greater feelings of loyalty among people toward a smaller rather than a larger group, and the Barnard name also taps into the whole womens’ college / Seven Sisters network as well.)</p>
<p>
As you are still in high school, I can understand that you have not yet experienced the nuances of college academics. My d. is firmly convinced that Barnard is far more rigorous than Columbia. I won’t debate the point, it could simply be based on the specific courses she took – there is grade inflation at both schools, but it seems like it was somewhat easier for her to pull A’s in Columbia classes – but I do know that most Barnard majors require a senior thesis, and Columbia generally does not have similar requirements. So at least in my daughter’s major, she had to work a lot harder than her Columbia friends with the same major. </p>
<p>Similarly, Barnard students are likely to take more seminar and colloquia type classes. Smaller classes tend to be very demanding because you can’t really get away with missing class and written work is read & critiqued very closely. In a large lecture course the grading is more likely to be based on exams, and often most of the grading is done by TA’s rather than the profs. The TA’s have been instructed on the rubric to apply in grading, but they aren’t likely to focus much on details beyond that. So basically in a larger class a student can get away with doing the minimum expected and still pull an A, whereas in a small setting the student is likely to be pushed to do a lot more. (Note: Barnard also has many large lecture courses and I am sure that there are plenty of small seminars at Columbia, it’s just that on balance the Barnard student is more likely to be taking more seminar style courses)</p>
<p>A good deal of a university’s departmental reputation comes from their graduate level offerings, and the research or publications of their top professors. But undergrads may have little contact with the stellar profs who give the school its top academic reputation, at least not within their first couple of years. </p>
<p>That’s the whole LAC vs. large university debate in a nutshell – you might as well be debating whether someone will get better academics at Harvard vs. Swarthmore. Barnard is simply unique because of its ability to combine the LAC-environment with large-U type resources. </p>
<p>I mean, years ago I took chemistry at a highly regarded research university, in a class of hundreds of students, attending labs with a TA who barely spoke English. My son took chemistry at a LAC not known for sciences, in a class of roughly 10 students, where he became close friends with his chem prof and did most of his lab work one-on-one with the prof. Which university had the better chem department? Which student ended up with the better learning experience? I’d advise a prospective chem major to look for something in-between, but the undergraduate student is probably going to learn more in the smaller environment – and I think you would find that sentiment echoed by many Barnard students in the sciences. On the other hand, Columbia students are free to enroll in lab sciences at Barnard if they prefer the smaller classes, and I think that many of them do – that’s one way that Barnard’s presence gives Columbia students a benefit not available at many other larger universities. </p>
<p>I think Barnard students who are seeking to challenge themselves may have something of an advantage because students at both Barnard and Columbia are free to enroll in courses at any level, but Barnard students don’t have the core. That means that a first year Barnard student can sign up for advanced level courses at Columbia, including graduate level courses – the Columbia student would have the same opportunity in theory, but might find it harder to fit within their schedule. (I don’t think it’s a particularly good idea for first year students to sign up for graduate courses, but I know that it can be done.). But that flexibility is something that a highly motivated student with a clear idea of what she wants to study might be considering, especially if the student wants a double major. </p>
<p>On the other hand, I’m sure that a Barnard student who wanted to go light on academics could probably settle on an easier major and opt for the easiest courses, so in the end its up to each student. The information on CULPA is pretty extensive, and makes it easy enough to figure out which courses and which instructors are the most vs. least demanding. So on both sides of the street, there is going to be a wide range of experiences and it really depends a lot on the individual student.</p>
<p>^ I am sure you believe everything you said. Your d may even believe it too. But please don’t let the secrets out. Otherwise, the dumb kids will know it and won’t go to Columbia anymore.</p>