<p>Columbia businss school Executive Education participants get Columba Alumi status even if they don’t get columbia degee. Non-degree special student also get alumni atatus. Non-degree continuing edcation students also get Alumni Status. </p>
<p>Some Barnard graduates are claimed as Columbia Alumni, but that does not mean that they got degree from Columbia.</p>
<p>Quote from the Organization and Governance Handbook:</p>
<p>“Two affiliated institutions Barnard College and Teachers College are also Faculties of the University.”
[Organization</a> and Governance of the University](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/handbook/organization.html]Organization”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/vpaa/handbook/organization.html)</p>
<p>So, I’m starting to narrow it down. Only star athletes, great writers and Barnard Faculty are part of Columbia. Regular students and cafeteria workers are not.</p>
<p>Mardad, the only logical conclusion that follows from the argument that the Columbia diploma issued to Barnard students is different by virtue of the signature and seal of the Barnard President would be that the Barnard/Columbia diploma has greater validity and weight. </p>
<p>There is no other possible logical conclusion. That is – I don’t think you could find any example of a legal document that was not enhanced by the presence of extra authorized signatures. If you receive a check from a corporation that is signed by the an officer, you would think it was valid. If you received a check from the same corporation that bore two signatures rather than one, signed by two officers --you wouldn’t think it was less valuable – rather, you would assume that the presence of the countersignature provided added assurance of validity. </p>
<p>However – as I’ve pointed out above – every Columbia U. diploma is signed by two authorities – the President of Columbia University and the titular head of the faculty under which the student studied and through which the diploma is awarded. The only exceptions are honorary diplomas, which of course are not true degrees. A diploma awarded to a Columbia College student would not be valid without the signature of the Dean of Columbia College.</p>
<p>Good points, Calmom.</p>
<p>I think I have decided to ignore Billkamix unless he comes up with something new. Even people over at the Columbia forum are fed up with his silliness.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The signature of Barnard president is not extra signature, but it is required signature.
Barnard Seal is not extra Seal. it is required for Barnard degree…
If the check say it requirs two signature and two seal, then you need to get two signatures for that check to be valid. The check with only signature won’t be valid.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes Columbia College degrees have signature of Dean of CC (who is Columbia Official) and Signature of President of CU( who is also Columbia official) with only ONE SEAL of Columbia. It is full columbia degree, because all required signatures and seals are from Columbia. </p>
<p>Barnard degree is signed by Barnard President ( who is NOT columbia official) with Barnard Seal (which is NOT Columbia Seal) and CU president and seal. Because Barnard degree REQUIRES non-Columbia signature and non-Columbia seal, it is not fully columbia degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barnard and Columbia U are two separate corporation. e.g. Barnard has separate Trustees.
You fail.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Harvard-MIT division of Health Sciences and Technology(HST) is one of the faculty/department at Engineering school of MIT. The tenure of MIT HST faculty must be approved by both Harvard and MIT. However, no one says Harvard is part of MIT.</p>
<p>No, I wouldn’t say that Harvard is part of MIT, but I would say that faculty in the HST were part of MIT. Following that same limitation I think you could say that only those Barnard faculty that were part of the Barnard Faculty served on a Columbia University faculty.</p>
<p>Harvard, MIT, and HST are governed by the terms of the agreement with HST – just as Columbia U. & Barnard are bound by the terms of their written agreements. </p>
<p>It happens that students can study via HST a variety of different graduate degrees. Students seeking an M.D. will graduate from Harvard, with HST qualifying as one of five academic “societies” that are part of the Harvard medical school course of study. (See [Harvard</a> Medical School: Academic Societies](<a href=“http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=societies]Harvard”>http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=societies) )</p>
<p>As far as faculty is concerned, it seems to me that the faculty of HST generally hold joint appointments, separate and apart from whatever positions they may also hold with MIT and/or Harvard. This wouldn’t give HST any role whatsoever in determining issues of hiring or tenure at the other schools. This would be similar to the many Barnard faculty who hold simultaneous positions with other Columbia graduate divisions, such as SIPA.</p>
<p>billkamix, you have made many valid points concerning Barnard and Columbia’s legal affiliation, showing that legally they may not be considered “the same school with different admissions processes,” which is what I believe you are arguing against. However, to quote one of the posters above, it has to be “the closest affiliation on the planet.” Do Harvard students have the opportunity to live in MIT dorms? Do MIT and Harvard share commencement exercises open to all students? How open is cross-school registration between the two schools? No, because they have a different KIND of affiliation. It’s really a pointless comparison. </p>
<p>Legal issues seem to pale in comparison to the everyday issues that the STUDENTS face. Do the campuses feel segregated? Is there open communication between club members who may be at different colleges but have a similar aim? What time will I meet my friend outside her Columbia dorm to sign me in for a study group? Things like these define the BC/CC affiliation to me; I’ll worry about what my diploma says when I get it in a couple of years. Seriously billkamix, why does it matter to you so much? If you’re going to define your college years by focusing on dry facts you learn instead of what you actually experience, you’re going to have a very empty four years.</p>