<p>Thanks for the interesting, informative discussion, Calmom and ComaPrison!</p>
<p>I looked at the Barnard diploma.
On top it says âTrustees of Columbia Uâ (in latin) which is not the same as Columbia Univerisyt. </p>
<p>It also says that Barnard degrees is validated by both President of Barnard and President of Columbia, and seals of Barnard and Columbia. </p>
<p>I guess it means Barnard degree is not fully Columbia degree because it is not valid without signature of Barnard President and seal.</p>
<p>Columbiaâs core courses are not open to Barnard students.
For example., contemporary civ course
[Spring</a> 2010 Contemporary Civilization C1102 section 003](<a href=âhttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/COCI/C1102-20101-003/]Springâ>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/COCI/C1102-20101-003/)</p>
<p>is open to only CC/SEAS. ( look at the category of 'open to ')</p>
<p>Barnard can take W-classes and V-classes. Many Columbia College students take a variety of W and V-classes too. Not to mention the fact that non-core C-classes are open to all undergraduate schools under Columbia University. The point is that there is a significant degree of overlap in instruction and peer groups. No one ever argued that Barnard College = Columbia College. </p>
<p>As many Ivy League administrators/presidents/deans say (whether in private or public), what people are really paying for is their peer group. By that logic, having a different peer group but the same quality of academic instruction, is a valid, and sometimes preferable option.</p>
<p>Also, anyone whoâs pre-medicine/dental/pharmacy cares a million times more about the quality of their major/prep courses than the core. The core is an opportunity to broaden your horizons, but many people are capable of doing just that without being led by a T.A., grad student, or faculty member.</p>
<p>Knowledge you might gain and lessons you might learn in [Spring</a> 2010 Contemporary Civilization C1102 section 003](<a href=âhttp://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/COCI/C1102-20101-003/]Springâ>http://www.columbia.edu/cu/bulletin/uwb/subj/COCI/C1102-20101-003/) are things you can just as easily learn at a public library, or on the internet. Also, no offense, but if youâre still studying contemporary western civilization in 2010, youâre way behind the curve. You should be studying contemporary eastern civilization if you want to have useful modern knowledge that is relevant to the 21st century and beyond.</p>
<p>Billkamix â hereâs a picture of the Columbia College diploma:
<a href=âHugeDomains.comâ>HugeDomains.com;
<p>And hereâs a picture of a Columbia U. diploma written in English, which happens to be a diploma from the Graduate School of Arts:
<a href=âHugeDomains.comâ>HugeDomains.com;
<p>What do those diplomas say at the top? How many signatures do they have at the bottom?</p>
<p>ALL diplomas issued by Columbia U. say âTrustees of Columbia Universityâ (or âCuratoresâ, which means the same in Latin) â and ALL must be signed both by the President of Columbia University AND by the head of the âFacultyâ under which the student studied, either a âDeanâ or a âPresident.â</p>
<p>Thatâs just the way Columbia works. There are no other kind of Columbia University diplomas.</p>
<p>Your links confirm that all Columbia diplomas have only ONE Presidentsâ signature and ONE
seal of the university. Barnard diploma is signed by TWO presidents and TWO seals of school and one of them does not belong to Columbia. ( note that it is not signed by dean of Barnard)</p>
<p>Barnard diploma is validated by TWO separate schools. It means it is not entirely Colmbia degree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You just donât get it. The point is that we wish to be able to test the veracity of your post without having to read 7 different sources to determine what in your post is BS / opinion / exaggeration / stretching the sources / etc.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Another problem is that your diatribe doesnât distinguish between the facts, othersâ interpretation of the facts, your interpretation of the facts, and your interpretation of othersâ interpretation of the facts.</p>
<p>And what did you do to determine which facts âcould reasonably be subject to disputeâ? Are you relying on your personal belief as to what reasonable folk could dispute about? Or do particular sources opine as to what reasonable men can and canât disagree about? Youâre digging this grave deeper and deeper.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>While weâre on geopolitical analogies, perhaps we could compare the Columbia/Barnard relationship relationship to that of Israel and Gaza. Israel would be perfectly happy for Gaza to cease existing (that is, not existing in a âpoof, disappearâ way, not incorporated into Israel) because it wouldnât have to deal with any of the baggage that comes with Gazaâs existence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I get it. I posted objective facts. I cited my sources.</p>
<p>You donât like the facts. You have no possible way of disproving them, because (a) they are true, and (b) you apparently havenât figured out how to use Google â so you change the subject and complain that it would be incredibly difficult to click on the links I provided. </p>
<p>If you dispute the facts â then say what it is that you dispute and cite your sources. </p>
<p>Again, I supplied page references for the 3 books I cited. There are maybe 10 pages in all. And the answer to your question about <em>which</em> source referred to <em>which</em> fact is that they âAll of the aboveâ. All of the sources I cited covered pretty much the same time line of events. So given that it so very difficult for you to do any sort of independent reading, I would suggest that you could simply choose one if you so desire. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Even if you knew how to read and do research, you wouldnât be able to find any source with contrary information to what I posted, because what I posted was historical FACT. How do I know? Because I checked THREE SEPARATE REFERENCES â and cited them. Which of course is the very thing that has got you all in a tizzy. </p>
<p>Itâs not a matter of âpersonal beliefâ. Itâs a matter of doing research and being able to cite to reliable sources. </p>
<p>
And Columbia Trustees actively resisted going co-ed for almost two decades after most other Ivies started accepting women, precisely because they thought it would hurt Barnard. The Columbia administration very much wants the presence of a strong and vibrant Barnard, and they are probably very grateful to Ellen Futter for having done such an excellent job of carrying Barnard through that transition. </p>
<p>Columbia went co-ed unilaterally because it was losing money and was in the position of having to accept half its applicant pool. Columbia chose to keep the size of its entering class the same, but set an admission target of 40% women for the first year; with the anticipated doubling of the applicant pool â regaining the level of selectivity that they wanted.</p>
<p>Calmom â I would just drop this. These people are both silly and undeserving of a response. Time to move on :).</p>
<p>Columbia2002 and billkamix, neither of you should be claiming to understand the politics of higher education institutions (especially between such specific colleges and one specific university) unless you happen to be a current or former dean/president of one. If one of you can go ask Lee C. Bollinger what the relationship and politics between Barnard College, Columbia College, School of GS, and Columbia University really are (not the official lines of course), and upload the transcript/video/audio recording, then your words might actually be worth more than nothing.</p>
<p>Until then, I canât really see that Columbia2002 is anything more than someone who has not managed to achieve anything in life that he can be more proud of than his undergraduate diploma. And billkamix, if youâre really 45, you should grow out of this need to â â â â â people on the internet. Go get married and have kids if you havenât already. If youâre already married, then go spend more time with your wife before she leaves you. If youâre divorced, then go find someone new. If youâre too ugly/fat to find someone to marry/remarry, then go start up and follow a fitness regimen. Have the willpower to get off your ass and make yourself into someone somebody would want.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thatâs because in 1953, Barnard decided to start calling its âDeanâ by the designation âPresidentâ instead - and then Millicent McIntosh, who had become Barnardâs 4th Dean in 1949, assumed the new title of President. </p>
<p>In order to graduate from Columbia, the studentâs diploma must be signed by the titular head of the faculty under which that student studied. Columbia diplomas issued to CC graduates in 2010 bear the signature of Columbia Collegeâs current Dean, Michele Moody-Adams.</p>
<p>
Iâm having fun posting Barnard trivia. Iâve actually managed to learn some new stuff along the way, like finally discerning the difference between a V course and W course. And really cool stuff about the history of the various Deans & Presidents of the two schools. I mean â its cool know something about the people whose names are on many of the buildings on both sides of the street. (And I am sadder than ever that they tore down McIntosh.)</p>
<p>Calmom - Actually, Iâm learning alot through your posts too :). But, we could start a different post on Barnard history and get off of this Columbia/Barnard stuff.</p>
<p>I think itâs great that Calmom is posting such interesting info here for those who may be interested in Barnard and concerned about the relationship between Columbia and Barnard. Itâs great to have some perspective on this based in fact rather than on personal âissuesâ.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny that youâve praised calmomâs posts about âthe politics of higher education institutions.â</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Youâre incorrigible, I guess. Iâm shocked that someone canât see the difference between providing a laundry list of references at the end of a diatribe and providing citations that support each fact upon which you rely.</p>
<p>Please go back to Barnard forum to talk about Barnard history. Most Columbia students donât care about that.</p>
<p>There is a separate site for discussion of barnard history.
[Barnard</a> College - College Confidential](<a href=âhttp://talk.collegeconfidential.com/barnard-college/]Barnardâ>Barnard College - College Confidential Forums)</p>
<p>Barnard college is not part of Columbia.
Barnard degree is not fully Columbia degree (e.g. the diploma shows that barnard degree is validated by Barnard President and Seal of Barnard and Columbia ).
it is not even listed here : <a href=âColumbia OPIRâ>Columbia OPIR;
<p>Billkamix: Seems that you feel it very important to drive a rift between the student bodies.</p>
<p>Donât be so afraid of Barnardâs relationship to Columbia. I do believe some of you folks are trying to hard to twist this. In the real world WHAT you major in and how well you do in that major will be a bit more important. I say this as a state university graduate who has several Harvard and MIT people working for me.</p>
<p>Let it go â itâs not like the Columbia or Barnard President is going to ask for your vote on this anyway. My daughter is quite proud to be a Barnard person and she had many options (including just Columbia). She is thrilled with her pick of the school.</p>
<p>BTW⊠Columbiaâs best female basketball player, J. Lomax (nationally ranked) is a Barnard woman. She wears the Columbia jersey with pride and the university loves her. You want to take it up with President Bollinger on whether or not she is part of Columbia? The university is overjoyed on the affiliation or whatever you want to call it. Please let us know how that conversation goes.</p>
<p>Let it go unless you have something better to offer the world. Life is too short for this.</p>
<p>J. Lomax can be at Columbia team because of Barnard-Columbia âconsortiumâ agreement.
Columbia College/SEAS does not need âconsortiumâ becaseu CC/SEAS is part of Columbia.</p>
<p>Let me know when you have clarified the relationship with Bollinger. Until then, peace</p>