barnard?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Columbia University
601

<p>Er, Columbia2002 – I gave the references so that intelligent people can LOOK THEM UP and read them on their own. The books I cites have text that is searchable online at Amazon or Google books, but you can’t cut and paste, and every page has the words “COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL” printed in bold letters at the top. So I summarize everything I read in my own words. If it will help, here’s some page references: McCaughey, pp. 188-189; Rosenberg, pp 53-56, 84-88, 292; Summerfield & Devine, p. 36. </p>

<p>I find it difficult to believe that someone who would complain about the provision of references actually ever went to college… given that all academic writing requires proper citation to references for just about everything that is said, and certainly providing such reference in the form of end notes or a bibliography is quite common. Also, academic writing looks unkindly on plagiarism – another reason for me to rephrase and summarize rather than to cut and paste. </p>

<p>Also, I’d suggest that you look up the definition of the word [url=<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/diatribe]diatribe[/url”>Diatribe Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com]diatribe[/url</a>] – as clearly that word doesn’t apply in the context that you used it. To call someone [url=<a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disingenuous]disingenous[/url”>Disingenuous Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com]disingenous[/url</a>] because they provided specific references to support a fact-based narrative also leaves me baffled.</p>

<p>I’ll admit that none of the text that I referenced from used the word “cooties” to describe the attitude of Columbia faculty in the late 19th century to the idea of co-education. Instead there were pages and pages of discussion as to why some males were horrified at the idea and other’s weren’t. There’s a whole lot of stuff about the conflict between Columbia’s President Low and the Dean of Political Science, John Burgess, who was adamantly opposed to “matters relating to the higher education of women”. (McCaughey, page 188). So my point about Low being “savvy” was partly a reference to the way he outmaneuvered Burgess (“ingenious”, according to McCaughey). Low actually personally donated $36K of his own money to underwrite the salaries of the first 3 new profs hired at Barnard, and selected profs with impressive credentials – so basically he was doing an end run around Burgess’ influence by bringing in new faculty via Barnard.</p>

602

<p>To calmom: Yes, but a “laundry list” of sources is not nearly as helpful as proper citations, where every statement/assertion is directly linked to its source, through footnotes or in-text parentheses. Endnotes, by the way, are like footnotes except that everything’s collected at the end.</p>

<p>Here are the sources that have informed what I wrote:
MLA styleguide
APA styleguide
Chicago styleguide
Diana Hacker’s styleguide
Wikipedia</p>

603

<p>And if CC had a footnoting capability and I were writing an academic paper, I would use an appropriate style format; I usually use APA format in the stuff that I w rite and publish.</p>

<p>However, given the informality of an internet bb - and the fact that my summary was only about 500 words long… I figured that merely citing the refs at the end would be more than enough for anyone who was interested to pursue the research on their own. </p>

<p>I do realize that I continually make the mistake of overestimating the intelligence of posters on this board/thread. I keep thinking that everyone is capable of using Google and reading text for themselves. </p>

<p>By the way, I don’t see how anyone could even claim to have a passing familiarity with Columbia’s history and not already be familiar with Prof. McCaughey’s work. So my citation to McCaughey should not really be a surprise to anyone.</p>

604

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>If you’re truly baffled, you really don’t get it.</p>

<p>The point is that, since you didn’t provide specific authority in support of any of the supposed “facts” in your post, we can’t verify whether your post is full of sh-- or not. Giving a laundry list of books and articles at the end of your post is simply blowing smoke up our rears.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This is a straw man. It’s about substance, not style and format. </p>

<p>It’s not that hard to learn how to copy and paste your sources into the end of your sentence. (See <a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut,_copy,_and_paste[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut,_copy,_and_paste&lt;/a&gt; ) There are many places online that can teach you how to do this. (E.g., <a href=“http://www.wikihow.com/Copy-and-Paste[/url]”>http://www.wikihow.com/Copy-and-Paste&lt;/a&gt; )</p>

605

<p>I supplied the references and page numbers for the individuals who are capable of reading; there’s not much I can do for the people here who can’t. </p>

<p>In any case, I didn’t post any facts that could reasonably be subject to dispute.</p>

<p>If the question is, do Barnard students get a degree from Columbia University – the answer is yes. Barnard students have always received Columbia U diplomas, from the first graduating class in 1893 to the present day. (Though technically, from 1893-1895 and possibly 1896, the degree would have had to come from “Columbia College” because the name was not changed to “Columbia University” until some time in 1896. But as noted above, the curriculum would have been the same at that time, and Barnard women would have been taught entirely by Columbia faculty). The whole reason Barnard was created in the first place was to provide an avenue for women to get a degrees from Columbia at a time when there was opposition to co-educational education. </p>

<p>[People who don’t like that can whine all they want; but my daughter picked up her diploma at noon on May 18th, it looked just like Sherina’s and says CVRATORES VNIVERSITATIS COLVMBIAE at the top. It has since been framed].</p>

<p>If the question is, is Barnard the same as Columbia – then the answer is clearly no - it is a separate undergraduate college under the aegis of the same University, which is pretty typical of most universities. In the case of Barnard and Columbia U, they share resources but have physically separate but closely proximate campuses, and keep the finances and administration separate, but collaborate on faculty hiring and in operating some academic departments. </p>

<p>If people are confused about the financial and administrative terms of the affiliation agreements that Columbia has set up over the years with many of its subordinate colleges, then I guess they will just have to stay confused. Its just the way Columbia has done things since the 19th century. They have a similar affiliation agreement with the Columbia Teachers College, in part (historically) because the Teachers College had women students and back in the 19th century awarded a bachelors degree, so the same concern about intermingling of the sexes was raised. Columbia U also had a similar affiliation agreement with [Bard</a> College, from 1928-1944](<a href=“http://www.bard.edu/about/history/]Bard”>Bard College History) – whereby Bard operated independently at its Annandale-on-Hudson location, but degrees were awarded from Columbia U. (Bard was then all male, and the affiliation agreement was terminated in 1944 apparently because of Bard’s decision to start accepting women when its enrollment fell during WWII – I don’t know why Columbia U. would not accept co-ed education at an affiliate college located 90 miles up the Hudson, but I guess it was still a bone of contention in the mid-1940’s).</p>

<p>Again… I really don’t see anything all that obtuse about it. It’s a written agreement that sets forth terms in a clearly understandable fashion. I’ve spent my whole life dealing with that sort of agreement. For example, law firms usually hire associates as employees and pay them salaries; but sometimes law firms enter association agreements with lawyers whereby the lawyers work as independent contractors and provide a certain amount of work for the firm, but also maintain their own independent practices. It’s a fairly common arrangement, and is done because it is mutually beneficial to the contracting parties. Generally the bigger firm saves money on salaries and related expenses, and the associated attorneys have the benefit of maintaining some independence and saving money on shared resources.</p>

606

<p>calmom, quite frankly, you’re wasting your time trying to convince some of these posters of anything. People like them are a dime a dozen on the internet. Disgruntled (often due to a lack of fulfillment in their own personal or professional lives) members of society that have found the internet as a good way to blow off steam in a highly anonymous fashion. This is often accomplished by getting people riled up over something controversial, or by laying excrement on other people’s pride (raising suspicion about the fragility of their own egos and/or their insecurity). You’ll find that many people who are successful in both their personal and professional lives are either far too busy enjoying life to bother with this kind of bs, or would frown upon this kind of behavior anyways.</p>

<p>You’ll find that many people who are attempting to “■■■■■” (■■■■■■■■ is the act of purposefully antagonizing other people on the internet, generally on message boards) you, do so either by quoting things out of context, by reinterpreting that text to their liking, or by arguing over semantics.</p>

607

<p>To clarify about any distinction vs integration issue between Columbia College and Barnard College. Is it not true in our world that two contradictory facts can both be held true simultaneously? Take China for example. Is China rich or poor? Strong or weak? The answer to both those questions is “yes”. Likewise, is Columbia College and Barnard College distinct or integrated? The answer is yes. Columbia College students should have pride in the fact that they’ve delayed gratification during high school in order to bust their asses and get into such a great university. Likewise, Barnard College students should have pride in the fact that they’ve earned admission into a great institution that fought to pave the way for women to have the opportunity to earn the kind of top notch education that is provided at an institution like Columbia University.</p>

<p>In terms of integration, as I’ve already clarified in another thread, C classes (which fall under the Columbia College division) are open to all students from Columbia College, Engineering and Applied Science, General Studies, School of Continuing Education, and Barnard. Further elaboration is provided at this link. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-school-general-studies/940792-order-lay-rest-any-concerns-about-c-division-vs-f-division-courses.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/columbia-school-general-studies/940792-order-lay-rest-any-concerns-about-c-division-vs-f-division-courses.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>In terms of distinctions, the two institutions are separate in administrative and legal matters. Rather than a weakness, this should be seen as a strength, as Columbia College is certainly not perfect about making all the right decisions for maintaining and improving the quality and standing of the school. The benefits of autonomy can clearly be seen by a real-world example of Taiwan vs China. Certainly, it’s Taiwan that has made the “right” decisions when it comes to providing a better balance of liberty vs security, for example.</p>

608

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, I’m not trying to convince people who have their minds made up, no matter what the facts.</p>

<p>I’m trying to post accurate information for many casual visitors or lurkers who may actually be interested in learning something, particularly prospective students and their parents who might curious or confused about the Columbia/Barnard relationship and come upon this thread after a Google search for related terms. (Quite typical, as CC is well spidered by Google).</p>

<p>That’s why I also thought it was helpful to post links to the resources I relied on. McCaughey’s book and the detailed timelines he has posted online are particularly informative, and probably make a very intriguing read for anyone interested in the history of Columbia U. as a whole, as well as the Columbia/Barnard relationship. I wish I had discovered the book sooner – I think it would make a great high school graduation gift for any Columbia-bound student, because if the information in the book essentially brings the names on all the buildings to life. (And that would include students headed off to Barnard, because there’s plenty of Barnard-specific information, as well as the fact that Barnard students are probably equally as interested in knowing who “Low” and “Butler” were)</p>

609

<p>

</p>

<p>I think a better example, more comparable to the Columbia/Barnard relationship, would be the current status of Hong Kong and Macau – which clearly are “part” of China but under the principle of [“one</a> country, two systems”](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems]"one”>One country, two systems - Wikipedia) are administered separately, so as to allow the maintenance of independent capitalist systems under the umbrella of a Communist nation. The benefit to the People’s Republic of China is clear – they get the benefit of the economic strength of the two “special administrative regions” — and the benefit to the people of those regions is that they have more personal freedom than is enjoyed by residents of the Communist mainland.</p>

610

<p>Agreed. I like your example better.</p>

611

<p>

</p>

<p>To clarify, again in the interest of accuracy, you can’t really tell from the letter designation C or BC whether the class is open to all. In general, classes with the designation C probably are open to students from all undergraduate colleges (including GS and Barnard), but that would not be true of many of the core classes – for example, [Fall</a> 2010 Humanities C1001 section 001](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/HUMA/C1001-20103-001/]Fall”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/HUMA/C1001-20103-001/) – and may not be true of some advanced level courses limited to students within a major (though I can’t find an example of the latter right now). </p>

<p>The converse is true of courses with the BC (Barnard) designation - most Barnard classes are open to students from all colleges, but not classes within the required first year sequence - example [Fall</a> 2010 English BC1201 section 001](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/ENGL/BC1201-20103-001/]Fall”>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/ENGL/BC1201-20103-001/) - </p>

<p>Some courses have limited enrollment or require specific advance permission from the instructor to enroll, sometimes with a written application, and in practice there may be a preference for one college over another, which may make it difficult for students from a different college to get into some popular courses with limited enrollment.</p>

<p>During my d’s time at Barnard she only took two courses with a C designation (both science labs), but she took many courses given by Columbia faculty in Hamilton Hall and other Columbia buildings – but they were designated with the letters V or W. To this day I can’t figure out what those letters mean or the difference between them. **</p>

<p>** OK, I’ve found a partial answer, it is explained in this post - <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/4059311-post7.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/4059311-post7.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>V = Joint undergraduate course
W = other interfaculty course</p>

<p>I am still not exactly sure what that means, but I do know that many of my d’s “V” courses were in Russian, and that Barnard & Columbia operate their slavic languages department jointly. On the other hand, my d. also had a “V” course in political science, and I thought that the Barnard & CC poli sci departments were independent of one another… so I still remain somewhat puzzled…</p>

612

<p>W is an interfaculty course, which I take to mean that it can be taught by any of the faculty of Columbia University. V is an undergraduate course given jointly with Barnard College, which I take to mean that it is only taught by the faculty of Columbia College and Barnard College. Also, let’s be honest here in saying that the “core” is a bunch of stuff that anyone can learn by ordering the right books off of amazon, and doing their reading. All it takes is a little willpower and motivation. I can only say that I’m personally here just to take my pre-med requirements for the most part, so the core is of little to no relevance to me. I’ve already completed all of my general education with the exception of 1 course, prior to transferring, and all of my credits are being accepted for transfer (with the exception of some of the credits for my major requirements), so I’m hoping that exempts me from the core (sans one course).</p>

<p>**Perhaps there was also a C-designated poli sci course but your d. chose to take the V-designated course (for whatever reason, convenience in scheduling, or simply availability).</p>

613

<p>I don’t think that we need to demean the core – the same could be said of most college courses. With the possible exception of the lab part of lab sciences, a determined student could self-study anything, with enough discipline and determination. </p>

<p>I do think that the content of the core is replicated in other courses (history, philosophy, etc.) – and so any student at any college has <em>access</em> to the subject matter through alternative courses. </p>

<p>Here’s something I don’t know, as a parent: If you have access to courseworks, can you access the course syllabi for classes other than the ones you are enrolled in? (You need a UNI to log in to courseworks, so I’m not familiar with its offerings beyond knowing that it exists). I ask because if you can access a syllabi and reading list, you have all the info needed for self-study of a subject.</p>

<p>I’d note that you can also find many courses from top universities available free online via open courseware --here’s a site with a good list:
[25</a> Colleges and Universities Ranked by Their OpenCourseWare](<a href=“http://degreedirectory.org/articles/25_Colleges_and_Universities_Ranked_by_Their_OpenCourseWare.html]25”>25 Colleges and Universities Ranked by Their OpenCourseWare)</p>

614

<p>My intention was not to demean the core. It was only to point out the obvious, which is that the material from any course can be self-studied with the exception of lab courses. </p>

<p>If you are not enrolled in that particular course, you can’t access the syllabi directly through UNI, but there ARE ways of getting around it successfully.</p>

615

<p>

No, there’s no equivalent C-designated course. Actually, I’ve never seen much overlap in courses except at the introductory level. That particular “V” course is given only at Barnard … but I think the answer to the mysterious “V” is that the prof. holds an appointment with SIPA --so even though the undergrad departments are separate, the individual prof. appears to hold a “joint” appointment on both the Columbia & Barnard faculty.</p>

616

<p>

</p>

<p>In general, no. The professors of most current courses restrict access only to those enrolled. If you search on Courseworks for past courses, there may be professors who made the syllabus open to all after their classes were finished.</p>

<p>Also don’t forget that not all profs post syllabi on courseworks or use courseworks at all.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s absolutely wrong and ■■■■■■■■. Unless you’re some kind of genius who can carry on a conversation among 17 voices in your head, you’re not going to get the same thing. (That’s probably why there’s no comparable core in NYU)</p>

617

<p>

Yeah, typing the name of the course along with the words “course syllabus” into Google seems to work pretty well – and has the added advantage of pulling up the syllabi from similar courses at different universities, allowing the diligent self-studier to expand their horizons beyond the bounds of Morningside Heights.</p>

618

<p>Epaminondas. There’s this thing called the internet. And then there are these things called message boards, which come in all shapes, sizes, and flavors, where you can carry out conversations with far more than just seventeen people. If you cared to look, you could find message boards where some of the most thought-provoking and controversial topics (both historical and contemporary) are being discussed by some very intelligent and creative people.</p>

<p>Isn’t it ironic that you’re arguing on a message board (where a limitless number of people can participate) that it’s impossible to have an adequate discussion about subject material outside of a classroom (and outside of a T.A./Grad student/Faculty member’s guidance)? It’s pretty epic failure on your part to not see the irony in your own words.</p>

619

<p>

Yes, but the quality of the course can vary depending on the quality of the 17 other voices. I would assume that some of the core instructors are much better at teaching the course and engaging their class than others… so the individual experience might vary depending on what section they happen to be enrolled in. (Not to mention that the dynamics between the enrolled students in one section or another would vary considerably, and is largely due to chance … there might be a few of those 17 voices that you end up wishing you never have to listen to again.)</p>

<p>As I said, I in no way want to demean the content, but the core was set up because of the faculty’s consensus on what was essential to the type of education they wanted to offer – not because there is some secret body of knowledge that can only be discovered in a classroom at Columbia. It’s mostly based on reading classical works of literature that are indeed not only widely available, but widely assigned and read at many colleges. </p>

<p>I do think there is a value to providing a structure – after all, that’s what you are paying for when you go to college – and I also think that most 18 year olds really can benefit from the guidance and knowledge their professors can lend to a course. So I would assume that the 18 year old who decides to read it all on his own is not getting the same quality of understanding and insight, and that a small class setting taught by a knowledgeable professor would be a more ideal way to learn. </p>

<p>The LitHum syllabus is available here, by the way:
[Literature</a> Humanities | Columbia College](<a href=“http://www.college.columbia.edu/core/classes/lh.php]Literature”>Literature Humanities | Columbia College)</p>

<p>I think it is simply a fact that CC students are enrolled in the core, and that non-CC & non-SEAS students don’t have access to the same sections of the same course. Students who major in classics or literature at other universities probably end up getting the same exposure at different times and in different contexts; students who major in other areas at schools with weaker general ed or distribution requirements may miss that exposure. Whether it is a <em>good</em> or <em>necessary</em> thing or not is a matter of opinion.</p>

620

<p>Followup to my previous posts #610 & 614 — I’ve figured out the V / W thing:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>See: [Key</a> to Course Listings | General Studies](<a href=“http://www.gs.columbia.edu/key-course-listings]Key”>http://www.gs.columbia.edu/key-course-listings)</p>

<p>So basically a “V” course is a CC/Barnard crossover, whereas a W course involves any other type of CC+ or Barnard+ something else crossover. (So for example, one of my d’s W courses was a film class, which was CC + School of the Arts. </p>

<p>It kind of makes sense going back to the notion that Columbia U seems to have of being a collection of different “faculties”. So now I see that ALL undergraduate Film classes at Columbia are designated “W” – because of course they are taught by profs from the graduate School of the Arts “faculty”. However, Barnard has its own Film department, so their classes are designated BC. I see the same thing going on with some of the graduate level courses offered by Barnard – I guess since Barnard needs to rely on faculty with ties to a graduate-level Columbia schools to teach them. </p>

<p>Just another example of how convoluted the whole system is. I am guessing that it probably has more to do with accounting and budgeting issues than anything else – I mean somewhere there’s an accountant that needs to know where to slot a particular course when it comes to keeping the books on it all.</p>