<p>monydad - quite agreed, i was splitting hairs. </p>
<p>i mean essentially we have three things going on.</p>
<p>1) diploma as physical document - as it stands the diploma when viewed appears to be a columbia university degree. and it is printed on the same plates as columbia university and its diploma was controlled by the diploma task force of the university senate.</p>
<p>2) graduation to alumnae status and the division in terms of certain opportunities - bc is certainly excluded from some columbia official efforts and not excluded from others.</p>
<p>3) diploma as a legal document and the commencement as spectacle - as it stands the diploma appears to be a degree conferred co-equally with other schools by the trustees of columbia university and signed firstly (as his signature is for all other diplomas) by the president of columbia university, who acts dually as a representative of the trustees and the head of the entity Columbia University. i would be curious what the columbia charter or the barnard-columbia agreement would say of the officiality of president bollinger in both his ceremonial conferral during commencement and his signature of the diploma (the president of barnard actually asks the president of columbia to confer the degree). personally i think when it comes to questions of officiality and officially supported discourse he is acting as president of Columbia University, i’ll leave the legal officiality to someone with a legal background.</p>
<p>in the diploma it reads exactly the same as columbia college except it says praedis collegeii barnardini.</p>
<p>“And Has Accordingly Been Advanced To That Degree With All Rights, Privileges And Honors Customarily Pertaining Thereto.
In Fuller Testimony Of This Action, We Have Ensured That The Signatures Of The President Of The University And Of The President Of Barnard College
As Well As Our Common Seal Be Affixed To This Diploma.”</p>
<p>i agree: the resulting confusion creates semi-official recognition of barnard, in the same way that columbia’s dual process of hiring barnard faculty creates that same situation. the b-c relationship is a unique, complex and most likely not ideal compromise. i am curious what debora spar, bollinger and moody-adams do to resolve, clarify or modify these tensions if at all. spar comes from a business background and cares about branding, bollinger is a legal academic and moody-adams went to a women’s college and noted a great degree of admiration of barnard’s mission. it should be interesting few years.</p>
<p>Wow, this is truly the song that has no end…</p>
<p>okay, one more time:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you been to a Columbia University graduation? Here is what happens:</p>
<p>There is one big University-wide ceremony in which degrees are officially conferred upon the respective student bodies by their own officials (ie Barnard’s president, and the Deans of CC, FU, the med school, etc), one right after the other. And all those in attendance (at least this past year) get a horrific sunburn.</p>
<p>And in the days leading up to and immediately following this huge deal, each school gets their own ceremony. It is really quite lovely. Though this past year, the Barnard ceremony (with HRC as speaker) was COLD!!! So we got both extremes. </p>
<p>I don’t think you will find any Barnard grad involved in this argument. They know what is what and don’t care to sweat the details. I suspect those here who want to resurrect this tired discussion are insecure CC students…</p>
The only “tensions” are in the minds of a few disgruntled Columbia students (or wannabe’s) who are resentful of the partnership and affiliation between Barnard and Columbia. (I say “wannabes” because I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has spent any time at Columbia would indulge in such distinctions – outside issues of housing and the core curriculum, it has very little relevancy to student life and experience.) </p>
<p>Between the University and its various colleges and affiliates, it is a mutually beneficial arrangement that has served the University well for more than a century, and will probably continue to do so. There is no confusion at all to those who involved with any school – any more than there anybody is confused over whether a graduate of Cornell’s land grant colleges will earn degrees from Cornell, despite the large discrepancy in tuition charged to NY residents.</p>
<p>“There is no confusion at all to those who involved with any school – any more than there anybody is confused over whether a graduate of Cornell’s land grant colleges will earn degrees from Cornell,…”</p>
<p>From your mouth to ***'s ears, but I don’t agree. We’ve been reading these same varied opinions expressed on this sub-forum, for years now, by alumni as well as pre-matriculants and current students.The direct report I’ve read, from someone who attended both Barnard and Cornell, is that whatever “rivalry” exists between the undergraduate colleges at Cornell, it is trivial, almost completely jocular in nature and nowhere near the extent of seriousness or prominence as that between Columbia and Barnard. D2 gives the same report. Nobody from Cornell (except perhaps Ann Coulter, I hereby donate her to Columbia) believes someone in another college there won’t be ultimately receiving a diploma from the same university, but you can read the diversity of opinions expressed on this sub-forum for yourself, and D2 confirms that these diverse viewpoints remained in evidence once she was there. My nephew, a recent columbia graduate, certainly makes these distinctions. It seems to be part of the culture they’ve built up there, to make the their relationship humongously more contentious than it has to be, and far beyond anything along these lines that may occur at Cornell IMO.</p>
<p>But to say there is no actual confusion, on campus and even afterwards, that has not been what I’ve perceived, though one might wish it were so.</p>
<p>calmom - the agreement was only challenged because of columbia’s coeducation, which changed the relationship significantly.</p>
<p>i think in the daily life no student really worries or questions this. in fact the degree of collaboration and camaraderie between schools is pretty great. they fund student groups jointly, hold joint events, share space. it is not perceivable that these tensions exist on the ground. further, there are students at both schools that do not ever really interact with the other school or students.</p>
<p>but especially around two occasions: admission and graduation - the differences are most strongly enforced. to me - that affirms there is a crack in the relationship. cracks that are attacked by the likes of collegeboy and others that want to reinforce the stresses. to me: i find even someone dissing the contingency of columbia’s community online to be a problem worth solving. why wouldn’t he see barnard as a contingent part of columbia? why does he feel there is a need to dig into the cracks? or when the jokes against barnard go from being benign to offensive. there are stresses.</p>
<p>eventually i believe there is a cause and a reason for both sides of the debate to resolve, clarify or modify the relationship. in the long term, it will go a long way to making sure students enter into either school with clearer expectations.</p>
<p>“it is not perceivable that these tensions exist on the ground”
Evidently experiences differ on this point, D2 was there on the ground,and reported back a different picture than this. On one occasion she had two of her classmates over, this was discussed and none of them disagreed. Though the others reported finding overriding net positives to their experience, this aspect was not one of them.</p>
<p>Perhaps the “on the ground” experience depends on whether one is male or female. My first-year son has seen no tension, but he didn’t pay any attention to the “Mean Girls” drama in high school either. Based on the culture among the girls at our local high school, I can picture that the scene among Columbia/Barnard women may be a bit less serene, at least until they establish confidence in their new role as college students. (And I am not by any stretch arguing that one sex is more “mature” than the other; I’m simply extrapolating from high school to the early college experience.)</p>
<p>pbr, I suspect you might be correct. I know this was not a big issue at all for my Barnard daughter. But she had no desire at all to be a CC or SEAS student…was and is very, very proud of her Barnard experience. Many of her friends, male and female, were CC/SEAS students, though. Honestly, she did not seem to ever have an issue with this once she actually got to campus. She worried about it some before she started there, though, I believe.</p>
<p>I guess I just want to convey to any future Barnard students who might be reading this that those issues do not have to, in any way, define your college experience.</p>
I’m talking about the real life stuff, like post-college employment. My daughter’s resume lists her college as: “Barnard College, Columbia University (2006-present) - BA Expected 2010”. She has not had a single interviewer or prospective employer express any sort of confusion whatsoever.</p>
<p>In fact, I think she would have experienced more confusion if she had gone to her first choice school, and was now distributing a resume that said, “Gallatin School of Individualized Study, New York University” – because my guess is that there are fewer people who are familiar with the Gallatin school than Barnard. </p>
<p>I don’t think there is any “confusion” on campus either. “Resentment” is not the same as “confusion”. I’m only a parent, but I never met any student who didn’t know exactly which school they were enrolled in, and exactly what privileges their CUID entitled them to and what, if anything, was denied to them. That’s why I commented that the differences were mostly surrounding the core curriculum and housing. I would assume that there is a sense of some mutual camaraderie (or shared suffering) around the core that impacts Columbia students and not Barnard students, who are more likely to be found griping about being forced to take whatever coursed are required to meet the 8th & 9th “way of knowing.” And when room selection time rolls around, then there obviously is a huge difference in terms of housing options available. But if there is any other difference that has in any way impacted my d’s college life, I am totally unaware of it. I can look at her transcript and see that she has taken roughly half of her courses on the Columbia side of Broadway. I can look at the resume and see that her work history in terms of campus jobs is divided equally among Columbia & Barnard, and that her EC’s listed tend to lean toward Columbia (only 1 Barnard-only activity). </p>
<p>There’s a difference, but I don’t see how anyone can be “confused” about it any more than my daughter could have been “confused” about the fact that she was raised in a house with an older sibling who occupied a significantly larger bedroom. In other words she could understand at age 5 that she was at once an equal member of the family and a person of somewhat reduced status and privilege when compared to the older sibling. I actually don’t see anything that could possibly be “confusing” about the Barnard/Columbia relationship except for people who are blinded by their own cognitive dissonance.</p>
<p>Monydad, my daughter has never mentioned any sort of problem or tension to me, and I haven’t really asked. If anything, her problem was that she did not feel a good social fit with the Barnard students on her dorm floor the first year, and the only good friends she made at school were males at Columbia. Her sophomore year she ended up in a suite with Barnard students who became better friends, so it was more of a dorm-floor thing than a Barnard/Columbia thing. (Junior year she was again on a floor with students she did not relate well to, which contributed to her decision to study abroad in the spring, where she was among students who she got along with famously, and senior year she is delighted to be housed in a private studio apartment several blocks from campus). </p>
<p>But when I visited her, there wasn’t much of distinction. We walked around the Columbia campus, I attended a couple of classes at Barnard and a lecture at Columbia, and I was frustrated because as a visitor I was not allowed into Butler library, but this was a function about their policy toward visitors and guests, not my daughter’s status – her CUID got her in the front door any time she wanted.</p>
<p>Maybe the “tension” is a subjective thing and depends on particular lifestyle and social choices, as well as class schedules. Because my daughter studied Russian, she had to take a class in a small mixed group of Barnard & Columbia students, on the Columbia campus on an almost daily basis. That’s just how Russian language instruction is set up there. So maybe that colors her experience in a different way than Barnard students who did not have to take classes given only at Columbia.</p>
<p>Wellesley students, who cross-register at MIT, receive MIT student ID and can access all libraries, classes and labs of MIT but don’t receive MIT degree.
At Harvard-MIT division of health science and technology, MIT grads receive MIT degree at Harvard commencement at Harvard campus with other Harvard grads.</p>
<p>Participation of commencement does not mean that the degree is awarded from that university. </p>
<p>Columbia University’s insecure officials, such as CAA, Provost, Registrar, Career Services… etc., have already made decision NOT to recognize Barnard as Columbia degree. and there is nothing we can do about it …</p>
<p>You have to admit that its not their fault. you would do it if you were in their place too. the ones who do probably want better jobs. now that doesnt mean that they dont like their school or that the are “embarresed” of their school (which quite a few posters seem to think). i’ll explain it to you in an easier way. </p>
<p>I LOVE Vassar. I would attend vassar over HYPS or any other top school you can name but i also want to get a job. a very good, high paying one. so IF by some means i could say that i graduated from Harvard YET go to Vassar that would be ideal. </p>
<p>Thats what barnard girls do. It doesnt mean they dont like their school.</p>
Hmm … I can only speak for my Barnard kid and I know she picked Barnard because it was her favorite school (applied ED over many schools including Columbia) … and she is darn proud of being at Barnard. </p>
<p>My impression is that the Barnard-Columbia thing gets much more play and airtime on CC than it does in the day-to-day life of Barnard students … the students love the access to Columbia academically and socially … but consider it a nice benny of being at BARNARD!</p>
<p>Let me ask one thing: do Barnard girls take a vast majority (>90%) of their courses at Columbia?</p>
<p>If not, I would be pretty annoyed if some Barnard girl put Columbia University on her resume and her GPA. Does that GPA show she did well for Columbia’s standards or Barnard’s standards? Totally different.</p>
<p>Also: when you apply to medical/business/law school - what do you put as your undergraduate institution? Barnard or Columbia?</p>
<p>Columbia University, Columbia College 2007-Present
Bachelor of Arts in Economics Political Science Expected May 2011</p>
<p>Engineering would put </p>
<p>Columbia University, School of Engineering and Applied Science 2007-Present
Bachelor of Science in Applied Mathematics/Physics/OR/whatever Expected May 2011</p>
<p>Barnard could put</p>
<p>Columbia University, Barnard College 2007-Present
Bachelor of Arts in Major Expected May 2011</p>
<p>Seriously, 3togo nails it when he/she says that this topic gets way more attention on CC than in actual life. There’s also no ambiguity from an on-campus recruiting standpoint because CC/SEAS/GS go through a separate recruiting process from Barnard.</p>
<p>Are we allowed to say so on CV? Basically that would mean Barnard is a part of Columbia University. But what I see is Barnard and Columbia are two separate institutions. I also read some post saying CU has decided against considering Barnard degree as Columbia degree.</p>
<p>Apollo, Barnard is an affiliate of Columbia University. The Barnard letterhead uses the phrase, “Barnard College of Columbia University”. My d. puts “Barnard College, Columbia University” on her resume. (I don’t know if the order matters, but it makes sense to use to put the <em>smaller</em> and more specific name first, in the same way that you might write the name of a city before the name of the state.)</p>
<p>I don’t put SEAS on my resume because it’s impossible to write out CU, FFSEAS on one line of a resume. Most SEAS kids don’t seem to write FFSEAS on their resumes given that it’s perfectly clear from their BS in _________ Engineering that they’re engineers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In textual narratives of their educational experiences, CC alums generally don’t list CC – just as Harvard undergrad alums don’t list “Harvard College” and Penn alums don’t list “Penn College of Arts & Sciences” – because it’s unnecessary. It’s usually something like, “Mr. Lion holds a B.A. in Basketweaving from Columbia University and a J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Barnard girls who are secure would just put BC. The above begs the question, “did you go to two colleges?”</p>