<p>even if it were, it's moot, because <em>columbia</em> is in the ivy league, not columbia college and seas respectively. barnard athletes are ivy athletes, barnard students are not.</p>
<p>What I find most humorous about this thread is the obvious silent elephant in the room: GS. </p>
<p>I tend to side with Barnard in these arguments (though I did not do my undergraduate work at Columbia, so I can look at this somewhat pragmatically), but what I find interesting is that nobody is questioning the legitimacy of GS students as bona fide members of the Columbia undergraduate community. By all accounts, GS is the easiest division of Columbia to get into (far easier than Barnard), and it doesn't publish the statistical averages of its incoming students, because they are all non-traditional, though some have simply taken a year or two off before returning to school. Yet, because General Studies is a co-ed program on the Columbia side of Broadway, nobody seems to question its legitimacy as a "true" Columbia program.</p>
<p>At any rate, I see both Barnard girls and GS students as members of the greater Columbia community. I've found that Columbia is highly disjointed and is more a collection of smaller academic communities under a bureaucratic umbrella than it is a singular entity with its own identity. </p>
<p>I am a graduate student here in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, and even I have been told by undergraduates that I am not a true Columbia student, because, they say, <em>true</em> Columbians must live the undergraduate experience, should have their first drink at the West End, should take LitHum, etc. Regardless, I have taken courses with students from almost every graduate and undergraduate division (SIPA, GSAS, the College, Barnard, GS, and even SEAS), and I find it very difficult to distinguish between them in an academic setting.</p>
<p>I went to undergrad at Northwestern, which with 6 undergraduate schools, was disjointed in its own right, but never was any student in, say, the School of Music or the School of Education or even the affiliated seminaries made to feel as though he or she was not welcome in his or her own academic community. </p>
<p>This argument clearly will not be settled on this thread or elsewhere, but as a fairly neutral observer, I see everybody on this campus as intelligent people, all of whom are part of an excellent academic tradition, be it that of Barnard, Columbia, or both. From where I sit, it's discouraging and disappointing that they would be reduced to petty bickering over something as inconsequential in the grand scheme of things as the wording on the Barnard diploma.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just as you wouldnt say there are actually 9 ivy leagues and include seas in that count
[/quote]
</p>
<p>just when i thought these comments couldnt get any worst.....
NOONE....ABSOLUETLY NOONE says there are 9 ivy leagues....NOONE EVER! SEAS is an undergraduate college of Columbia U it is in NO WAY like barnard which is its OWN institution. Also, the least barnard can do is let us use their athletes since we let them use our facilities but that does NOT make barnard part of columbia and it certainly doesnt make it part of the ivy league!</p>
<p>Er, Shraf, can you explain to me why all tenure decisions for Barnard faculty are made by a committee with two representatives from Barnard and two from Columbia College, and why the president of Columbia University has the power to override any tenure decision made by that committee?</p>
<p>I'm just having a hard time understanding why a complete, separate, college doesn't get to have completely separate control over its own faculty.</p>
1 Like
<p>Calmon, actually Barnard has complete control over it tenure system. I am taking a class right now with the head of Barnard economics department and he had to take a call from from an assistant professor who is seeking tenure during class to tell him the outcome of the commitee. </p>
<p>The tenure system requires that you have outside members on the committee to ensure fairness(although a lot of the old professors still have a lot of influence). In todays Spectator, an assistant professor who used to be at Columbia wrote about how flawed the whole system is.</p>
<p>It actually does not matter if someone went to Columbia or Barnard, when you look at the big picture what matters is whether you were able to take advantage of all the resources available at both institutions.</p>
<p>Tega, my source of information about the tenure system is here:</p>
<h2>
[quote]
Barnard and Columbia cooperate on the appointment of faculty in order to reduce duplication and maximize resources. Barnard faculty seeking tenure pass review both by Barnard and by the University-wide tenure system.
[/quote]
<a href="http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/about/columbia.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/about/columbia.html</a></h2>
<p>
[quote]
At Barnard, critics of the process say that there are additional obstacles to tenure. They argue that its two-year review (as opposed to one at most institutions) and two-tier process, with Columbia as the final arbiter, have instilled in Barnard what English Department Chair William Sharpe called "a crisis of morale."</p>
<p>The two-tier, two-year process involves a series of reviews, first at Barnard, and then at Columbia. The second review step is unique to Barnard.</p>
<p>After gaining departmental approval at Barnard and Columbia, the candidate must be evaluated by the ATP. If the ATP ratifies the candidate and Barnard's President approves, the candidate's dossier moves across the street, where an Ad Hoc committee made up of five senior faculty--two from Barnard, two from Columbia, and one expert from outside the University--evaluate the candidate's file.</p>
<p>The Columbia Provost can overturn the Ad Hoc committee decision or pass affirmative cases on to the Columbia President and the Columbia Board of Trustees, who make the final decision on all Barnard tenure appointments.</p>
<h2>"Even at Barnard, it is not clear that what we do will be evaluated by a committee that is thinking about our needs rather than Columbia," Sharpe said.
<p>
[quote]
Pursuant to an affiliation agreement between Columbia and Barnard, the Byzantine tenure process for Barnard faculty proceeds through the following votes.</p>
<p>First, (1) the faculty member's academic department at Barnard; (2) the Barnard Committee on Appointments, Tenure and Promotions; and (3) the counterpart department at Columbia, all must vote in favor of tenure. Then, Barnard's President decides whether to recommend that the process move forward. If the President of Barnard votes favorably, she forwards the nomination to the Provost of Columbia. The Provost then convenes a five-person University ad hoc committee to review the nomination. Under the terms of the affiliation agreement, the ad hoc committee consists of two faculty members designated by the Provost, two Barnard faculty members, and one faculty member from an outside institution. The tenure appointment will be made if: (1) the review of the ad hoc committee is favorable; (2) the Provost accepts that review; (3) the President of Columbia follows the advice of the Provost; and, finally, (4) the Trustees of Barnard and Columbia grant tenure.
[/quote]
Weinstock vs. Columbia University, 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=case&no=997979&exact=1%5B/url%5D">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=2nd&navby=case&no=997979&exact=1</a></p>
<p>If things have changed since 2003, when the above article from the Spectator was written - then I'm glad to hear it. But if not, then I wonder why it is that a Barnard chemistry professor was suing Columbia over the denial of tenure when she had the support of her department, the Barnard tenure committee, and the Barnard president.</p>
1 Like
<p>Calmon you might be right. I made an inference from the way my professor talked about it. He never gave the impression that the assistant professor has to be also approved by the President of Columbia.</p>
<p>It does not seem fair to me that Barnard professors have to go through a review by Columbia. I am wondering if they do it the other way also. The tenure system is such a complicated issue, you really have to be willing to kowtow to senior professors to stand a chance of being granted tenure.</p>
<p>I think I should have read more on it before posting.</p>
<p>Interesting case...thanks for posting it. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I wonder why it is that a Barnard chemistry professor was suing Columbia over the denial of tenure when she had the support of her department, the Barnard tenure committee, and the Barnard president.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It doesn't seem like she <em>really</em> had the support of any of these bodies when push comes to shove.</p>
<p>
[quote]
It does not seem fair to me that Barnard professors have to go through a review by Columbia.
[/quote]
But that's the point - Barnard IS part of Columbia University. There is a unique arrangement that gives Barnard a separate identity, but Barnard is not entirely independent. There is an affiliation agreement that puts Barnard on equal footing in some ways, but makes it a subsidiary in others. </p>
<p>This also an evolving relationship that has changed over the years. It is not ad hoc; it is something determined by a written contract that is periodically reviewed and revised. The example I gave of the tenure situation is something that has been a hot button issue for years, so maybe it will get changed. It is also one of the major issues that stood in the way of merger between Barnard & Columbia 25 years ago.</p>
1 Like
<p>similar pre-frosh story...</p>
<p>Some girls (who got into barnard, I found later on) came up to me and asked me what Columbia college I'm going to and I was quite taken aback...
"Uh...Columbia..?!" Since when has Barnard been simply a "Columbia college?" </p>
<p>And we got to watch some of the Varsity show at Columbia and they guys were making cruel jokes about Barnard students. I don't go there yet, but some students really seemed to dislike the Barnard=Columbia association that Barnard students tend to assume.</p>
<p>Also about GS...the applicant pool is from a completely different set of students (not graduating seniors, etc), whereas Barnard's and Columbia's are from the same...</p>
<p>I don't actually have anything against Barnard, but i do have to say, as an applicant this year...</p>
<p>Fun Fact:
any "UNIVERSITY OF COLUMBIA" application DOES NOT have Barnard College as a choice to apply to (or even mentions Barnard)...</p>
<p>good point hedwig.....</p>
<p>the columbia undergrad application lets you check off CC or SEAS with no mention of barnard. Its not a part of columbia and calmom is just an example of how much barnard girls (and their parents) want to lie to themselves to try to seem like they have achieved more. </p>
<p>I'm sure all the prefroshes will quickly realize that Columbia2002, the other Columbia students and I are just telling it like it is from experience and that people who are far removed from the situation are just browsing the internet and trying to interpret differnet things to conform to their own reality.</p>
<p>I find it amazing how dense some people can be when the specifics of the longstanding association between Columbia & Barnard are clearly accessible via the internet. You can twist things any way you wants to assuage your delicate egos, but the fact remains that all Barnard students graduate with a degree that says "Columbia University" on it; and as far as applications go, the application form for Barnard students has the words "Admissions Office, Barnard College, Columbia University" written on the top. </p>
<p>Do you even know why the school is named "Barnard"? Assuming you don't:
[quote]
The College gets its name from Frederick A.P. Barnard (1809-89), an American educator and mathematician, who served as then-Columbia College's president from 1864 to 1889. Frederick Barnard advocated equal educational privileges for men and women (but preferably in a coeducational setting). The school's founding, however, is largely due to the determined efforts of Annie Nathan Meyer, a talented student and writer who was not satsified with what she saw as Columbia's half-hearted, token effort to educate women.</p>
<p>Meyer later wrote: "I confess to a pride in having defended the affiliated college at a time when it was neither popular or understood. To me nothing in the education of women mattered so much as the creation of right standards, and this was effected by the establishment of the affiliated college. My faith was surely justified, for in 1891 I was happy to proclaim (to the Council of Women in Washington) as an established fact: 'Barnard College is Columbia.'"</p>
<p>Barnard College was one of the Seven Sisters founded to provide an education for women comparable to that of the Ivy League schools, which (with the exception of Cornell University and the University of Pennsylvania) only admitted men for undergraduate study into the 1960s. Barnard was the sister school of Columbia College, one of the undergraduate schools of Columbia University. Columbia College began admitting women in 1983 after a decade of failed negotiations with Barnard for a merger along the lines of Harvard College and Radcliffe College. Today, Barnard is one of five Seven Sisters that remain single-sex in admissions. The school's classes and activities, however, are open to all members of Columbia University, male or female, in a reciprocal arrangement to benefit the academic and social life of the entire University community.</p>
<p>source: Wikipedia
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Judging by the acidity of your comments directed at people at most half your age, I would say your ego is about as delicate as theirs. To my knowledge, no one has affronted you personally, with the exception of perhaps Shraf.</p>
<p>A lot of girls I know and respect on an academic level got rejected from Barnard. I respect Barnard as an institution, yet I also really resent it. I'm also a first-year student. I resent people assuming that I'm a Barnard student because I'm female. I resent Barnard students representing themselves as ME, a Columbia College student, on their applications. It's my ego that tells me that I'm smarter than most Barnard girls because I got in to a school with a 10% admit rate and they, a close to 30%. I resent Barnard students registering for my classes before me. I'm also irritated when girls from Barnard refer to themselves as Ivy Leaguers. I also register for Barnard classes, eat at Barnard dining hall, go to Barnard plays, and have Barnard friends. It's really is a complex issue, and I blame Columbia University and Barnard for making their relationsihp so ambiguous. Please read:
<a href="http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/20/44473b2921270?in_archive=1%5B/url%5D">http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/20/44473b2921270?in_archive=1</a></p>
<p>*disclaimer: I don't claim that any side is more right than the other. Like I said, I blame Columbia University and Barnard for not making their relationship CLEARER on paper, and conveying it to their students.</p>
<p>Do you <em>really</em> spend time thinking about these things? Does it really bother you that much? Are you <em>that</em> impressed with yourself and with Columbia College's 10% admit rate that you have to harbor resentment towards Barnard students and their 24% (or whatever) admit rate (and do you really think that this admission rate automatically makes you smarter than most Barnard girls? 'Cause I can tell you that it certainly does not)?</p>
<p>Listen, I understand the sentiment, but it just seems petty and immature and unnecessary, and I know that you are far from the only one who feels this way. </p>
<p>Yes, it is Columbia's fault for making the relationship so ambiguous, but at the same time, is Barnard such a black mark on your Columbia pedigree that you must resent it and those who take advantage of the Barnard-Columbia relationship? It's not as if you have CUNY students running around campus registering for "your" classes before you and putting "Columbia University" on their resumes. </p>
<p>When you came to Columbia, you signed up for a comprehensive academic community that does not simply include Columbia College and its most selective (and apparently most resentful and bitter) student body. </p>
<p>I've always contended that 18-year-old high school graduates, no matter how talented they may be, lack (as a rule) the maturity to effectively deal with the social heirarchy into which admission to elite colleges places them, and this whole ugly Columbia-Barnard situation is living proof of that.</p>
1 Like
<p>I never said I was proud of it. I don't validate these statements as right. A bit of sarcasm was meant in that post. But, yes, a lot of Columbia girls have this sentiment. I completely agree that it IS immature, petty, and unnecessary, but it IS a real feeling. My post was meant partially meant to lead up to the article which states that first year students feel resentment, but as they get older, it goes away, which was why I pointed out that I was a first year. I feel like you deeply misread my post, which is why I feel the need to respond quickly, because I'm worried my post wasn't written clearly enough.</p>
<p>I see. I'm sorry if my post seemed preachy.</p>
<p>Maybe it takes hindsight to realize just how inconsequential this all is, and I'm sure that people calm down about it all as the years go on and they realize that it's not a battle worth fighting. It's just amazing how acrimonious this particular debate gets.</p>
<p>lilsmileycolumbian, I appreciate your efforts to be honest about your conflicted feelings -- but I honestly don't see what the difference is between the situation at Columbia U. and at many other large universities that are comprised of a number of separate undergraduate colleges and graduate schools. I don't see this sort of tension evident among Cornell students, which not only has seven different undergraduate colleges, but also the anomolous structure of being a hybrid of private and public "contract" schools.</p>
<p>I don't know anything about Cornell's hybrid private and public "contract" schools other than it exists and I do hear of people looking down upon the Cornell public part of the College, but as to other large universities comprised of a number of seperate undergraduate colleges, I am under the impression that these relationships are clear. As in, when you apply to college, you apply into one of these undergraduate institutions and only one. Therefore, if Barnard was listed on the Columbia application as SEAS and Columbia College was, and you could only apply into one of these colleges, I feel as if that would truly establish Barnard as an undergraduate college of Columbia. Barnard maintains its independence as a liberal arts college and is ranked as a liberal arts college. Also, currently, you can apply into both Columbia College and Barnard College, which I'm not sure you could do at other schools. As for a Cornell/Wells College model, or a Harvard/Wellesley model, those schools aren't directly across the street nor are they nearly as integrated as Barnard is. This is a VERY touchy subject, and as an undergraduate, I would really like to see Columbia and Barnard clarify their relationship and I would LOVE to see Columbia students stop their hostility. I feel like clarifying their relationship with one another would make it so there was less resentment amongst the students, either integrating it completely into the Columbia University system or maintaining a relationship where Barnard students do not get Columbia email addresses and diplomas, but can still maintain a shared system in classes similar to many schools. I actually do like the model that is currently running right now because I do support women colleges (I went to an all girls high school and found that to be a very wonderful environment for me), but the hostility isn't going to stop until Barnard students can either concretely point out that they are Columbia University students in every possible way, or that Barnard IS a liberal arts college completely seperate from Columbia, but can still maintain a relationship where they can petition to take classes at Columbia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
or maintaining a relationship where Barnard students do not get Columbia email addresses and diplomas,
[/quote]
That will never happen, because Barnard is and has always been a subsidiary college of Columbia University. It was that way the day it opened. (I'm talking about the diploma part, not the email). </p>
<p>Up until 1983, if you as a female had wanted to study at Columbia University, the only way you could have done so would have been to enroll at Barnard. The admission rate for Columbia in 1982 was in excess of 50% -- I don't know what it was at Barnard. If Columbia had not gone co-ed, I'm pretty sure that today Barnard would be far more selective than Columbia College, simply because it is smaller and more women than men apply to college. </p>
<p>So basically the thing that is causing you resentment is the fact that 23 years ago, Columbia University created a second option for women: because Barnard remained intact, female applicants had a choice - they could apply to either Columbia College or Barnard, or both. Rather than being happy that you have that option... you choose to resent the students who choose the different school.</p>
<p>I just don't get it. It can't really be the admit rate, because as I pointed out before, 42% of the Columbia class are ED admits, and the ED admit rate is significantly higher than the Barnard RD admit rate; numerically, the Columbia ED admit group is larger than the entire Barnard entering class. Why isn't the resentment directed toward them? I'm not saying it should be- obviously percentages tell very little and its a mistake to read too much into them.</p>
<p>The "hostility" is going to stop when Columbia students drop their misguided sense of entitlement. I'm sure that back when Barnard first opened, there was a lot of hostility from Columbia men who didn't like the idea of women attending classes on their campus, just like the hostility I felt when I was part of a wave of women changing the gender balance at a male-dominated law school.</p>
1 Like