<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Seriously? People whose odds are as good as anyone’s have done things like winning international math/science competitions, publishing research/literature in major magazines, etc. And people like that do not apply ED to Barnard.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A bit of a stretch to say she had a “fair shot at acceptance” at Columbia, which takes 8% of its applicants, wouldn’t you agree?</p>
<p>^ Whatever … I did not say she was a hooked superstar … however, her academics and ECs easily made her a good candidate for any school … and any research into admissions stas at any of these schools backs up this statement. I did not say she was a sure acceptance I said she had a fair shot … and at a school with an 8% acceptance rate to me a fair shot would be odds somewhere near the acceptance rate (not 0% becasue it is a pipedream or 100% because they are a superstar). I certainly can see why applicants would pick Columbia as their first pick; it’s a GREAT school … it’s too bad you can’t see that other students might actually prefer Barnard. For my two oldest I’ve been to lot of schools and I’ve seen probably 40 schools (research univerisites and LACs) that would be great first choices for top students and their individual preferences.</p>
<p>I thought we agreed to let this thread die. It is very sad and arrogant to denounce other people. Ivy league students arguing about other people and denouncing them only makes them look more arrogant. Seriously can we stop arguing over a topic that really does nothing to help prospective students or current students</p>
<p>The University actually enhances the confusion people already has by listing their schools in this manner. You can’t blame some people for thinking Barnard is part of Columbia. Take a look:</p>
<p>[Schools</a> | Columbia University in the City of New York (beta)](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/newcuhome/content/schools-3.html]Schools”>http://www.columbia.edu/newcuhome/content/schools-3.html)</p>
<p>^^ Very true</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not “confusion” – Barnard is “part” of Columbia, in the same way that, Puerto Rico is “part” of the United States. Columbia is a big umbrella university, that happens to have different legal and practical relationships with a variety of subsidiary and affiliated undergraduate colleges and graduate schools. </p>
<p>The problem is one of “cognitive dissonance”, not confusion – people who can’t manage to wrap their head around the idea that a major university can have different relationships with various institutions under its umbrella. It might be analogous to a blended family – perhaps there are several kids, some are the husband’s offspring, some are his wife’s offspring, and some are the offspring of both – yet all have become part of a single family unit. In many settings – such as Thanksgiving Dinner – it probably doesn’t matter which kid is genetically connected to which parent; for other settings – such as figuring out the legal distribution of an inheritance – it could be very important. </p>
<p>Barnard has a separate administration to govern many aspects of student life, including admissions. It has a separate but overlapping faculty and academic departments. The degree is awarded by Columbia University, upon the recommendation of Barnard faculty, as is reflected on the diploma.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really, Barnard diploma is signed by two presidents from two independent and separate schools.
It also carries two separate seals from two separate schools.
Barnard degree is NOT FULLY columbia degree.</p>
<p>CC/SEAS diplomas are signed by only ONE president and carries only ONE seal of the university. CC/SEAS are fully Columbia degree.</p>
<p>bilkamix, I find it amusing that you apparently only come to CC to almost exclusively say the same thing over and over again on various threads. What in the world could motivate someone to be that obsessed with Barnard?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t forget that Barnard has separate Trustees.</p>
<p>
Nope, Barnard has separate Trustees.
Barnard and Columbia are accredited separately , thus viewed as two separate school, by US education department. On the other hand, CC/SEAS are not accredited separately because CC/SEAS are fully part of Columbia U.</p>
<p>calmom, your PR/US analogy is false. Puerto Rico isn’t part of the United States. Puerto Rico is “commonwealth” of the United States. This means that they share similar political ideologies, advantages, etc. etc. The US in no way owns PR. Likewise, Columbia in no way owns Barnard. You could also argue that Barnard is a commonwealth of Columbia.</p>
<p>On another note, I really cannot believe we’re still arguing on a topic that was brought up in 2006.</p>
<p>This is off-topic BUT:</p>
<p>I must applaud Columbia2002 for joining the conversation in this topic since 2006 and still continuing in it to this very day! That’s impressive :P</p>
<p>Re post #690: Actually, technically speaking, Puerto Rico is a territory of the US, subject to US sovereignty (US Const Art 4, Sec. 3) which would imply that the US does “own” PR, though that wasn’t a term that I used. It is also a commonwealth, but it is not independent. Whatever powers it has are those delegated to it by act of Congress. More significant for purposes of analogy is that individuals born in Puerto Rico are US Citizens. </p>
<p>But my main point is that entities may form multiple and complex relationships. I do not know why anyone would think that it helps Columbia University to deny its influence over the administration, faculty and curriculum of Barnard… and it is possible that some prospective Columbia students may be in for a surprise if they happen to choose a Columbia major that is housed wholly or partly at Barnard, or simply find that some courses they want or need are available to them only at Barnard. No one helps the prospective students by misrepresenting the close association between the two schools, and no one is doing Columbia University any favors by trying to deny that Barnard is the entity with the subordinate role in the affiliation agreement.</p>
<p>i don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about barnard and columbia’s relationship.</p>
<p>columbia university is affiliated with barnard. they have an agreement where they can share resources. columbian’s don’t go to barnard, and barnardian’s don’t go to columbia. barnard is its own entity while at the same time being part of a larger entity.</p>
<p>i guess if one were to personify barnard and columbia’s relationship, barnard would be like a cousin to columbia.</p>
<p>"…barnard would be like a cousin to columbia. "</p>
<p>Relative yes, but this was settled years ago here, “cousin” is not the right relative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Besides the incorrect punctuation, the above statement is patently untrue.</p>
<p>And, yes, this thread has gone on for many, many years.</p>
<p>Yes. They are more like kissing cousins.</p>
<p>I actually think my step-child and blended family analogy makes more sense, if we are looking to family structure. Maybe one with with a written pre-nuptual agreement that clearly sets forth the lines between “mine” and “ours”.</p>
<p>@churchmusicmom i don’t mean that people from columbia don’t go to barnard and vice versa in the physical sense, i know that they go to each others classes and such. what i mean is, if you go to columbia, it doesn’t mean you also go to barnard, as in, you are not a barnard student as well. just like just because you go to barnard doesn’t mean you go to columbia. you are not a columbia student, you’re a barnard student.</p>
<p>Wombat, I understood what you meant, but I think part of the problem is that college & university students don’t usually use the phrase “go to” in describing their schools – that’s more of a high school thing, perhaps because college students tend to live on or near their campuses, rather than going “to” them each day. </p>
<p>A more accurate way of describing it would be “matriculate” – but you have to keep in mind that most universities are made up of subsidiary colleges. When I was an undergrad, I was at a public u. enrolled in one school (college of letters and science), but discovered that another school on the same campus (college of agriculture) had the major I wanted, so I transferred. It wasn’t as difficult as transferring to a whole new university, but I did have to fill out a bunch of paperwork, and I did have a whole different set of basic general ed requirements at the different school, where I was studying for a B.S. degree rather than the B.A. I would have earned if I had stayed at the first college. Also, it was a big campus and the buildings for the college of agriculture were in an area clearly separate from the other buildings. There was also a school of engineering at that university – again, separate and distinct from the other undergraduate colleges, but I took a couple of classes there. There was no impediment to course enrollment – that is, I could sign up for classes anywhere.</p>
<p>That’s why its hard for me to see why there is so much difficulty in people wrapping their brains around the Columbia/Barnard relationship. Of course, I am older and also grew up in a time when most of the Ivies were male-only, and several had partnership-type relationships with women colleges. It wasn’t just Ivies – I remember my mom suggesting that I look into attending college at Sophie Newcomb (then Tulane’s sister college). Everyone understood that Radcliffe was “part” of Harvard, etc. </p>
<p>I do think part of it stems from confusion between Columbia University and Columbia college – I wonder if the undergraduate college had a different name – such as “Kings College” - whether there would be the same degree of confusion. Obviously, Barnard students are not enrolled at Columbia college, and Columbia college students are not enrolled at Barnard. But the <em>University</em> encompasses them both, and that includes the reality that a very large number of courses are taught by “joint” faculty (the “W” and “V” courses) – which means that in the eyes of the Columbia administration the college faculties are interchangeable as to those courses.</p>