<p>barnard is not an undergraduate college of columbia</p>
<p>it is its own seperate school, having an affiliation with columbia university</p>
<p>the only undergrad colleges of columbia university are columbia college and F.U. foundation</p>
<p>See, this is what I'm talking about - it all depends on how you choose to define words like "belong" and "affiliation". </p>
<p>Barnard may or may not be part of Columbia, depending on your point of view. Then again, I would say that the SUNY parts of Cornell may or may not actually be part of Cornell, again, depending on one's point of view. Radcliffe may or may not have been part of Harvard prior to 1977, depending on your point of view.</p>
<p>is there such a thing as the "SUNY" part of Cornell. I attended Cornell, aren't they contract units, that have a loose affiliation with NYS.</p>
<p>Again, I think it all depends on how you define the term 'affiliation'.</p>
<p>sakky, of course there is the question of "why are or aren't the influencing parties influencing in whatever ways they are or not influencing," but what I've read of the report presents it as if each student is an autonomous islands, free from any "tainting" factors, be it from rankings, websites, or other people they know. I think it takes all of these things into account with what it measures, where students end up, but from what I've read, it should figure out why those students choose to go where, or make it seem less like each student is an autonomous brain. </p>
<p>This Barnard thing is just irritating. How powerful is the leading official, and how much control does Columbia's leading official have over Barnard?</p>
<p>Drab, of course what you are saying is true, but I think that again gets down to the power of marketing and branding. Let's face it. When you, I, or anybody else decides where to go for lunch, what shirt to buy, what coffee to buy, what kind of car to drive, where to go on vacation, and any other consumer purchase, marketing and branding play a part in our decision. That's why companies spend many billions of dollars in marketing and branding. These companies aren't stupidly throwing money down the toilet. They realize that the more they spend on developing a brand name, the more popular they will be. So why should we expect college matriculation to be any different? At the end of the day, college choice is just another consumer choice. For example, if you buy a BMW, people are going to think you are successful. In fact, lots of people buy Beamers PRECISELY because they want people to think they are successful. That's because BMW has spent billions of dollars to build a brand name that is synonymous with luxury and success. </p>
<p>Besides, I would point out that a lot of people choose to go to Berkeley precisely because their parents and their teachers want them to go, because it was the most prestigious school they got into. Like I said, I know a lot of people whose strategy was simple - apply to all of the UC's, and go to the most prestigious one that admits them. They would have gone to HYPSM, but they didn't get in. The point is, I don't see how people choosing Berkeley because of parental/teacher considerations of prestige is any better than people choosing Harvard for the same reason. </p>
<p>
[quote]
This Barnard thing is just irritating. How powerful is the leading official, and how much control does Columbia's leading official have over Barnard?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, I'll put it to you this way. How much power does the President of Harvard have over the constituent Harvard bodies? From what we've seen from the experience of Larry Summers, not much power at all. Larry Summers came into Harvard trying to create change, and the backlash has ultimately forced him to resign. So does that mean that Harvard should not be considered as one school, but rather as multiple schools?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Besides, I would point out that a lot of people choose to go to Berkeley precisely because their parents and their teachers want them to go, because it was the most prestigious school they got into. Like I said, I know a lot of people whose strategy was simple - apply to all of the UC's, and go to the most prestigious one that admits them. They would have gone to HYPSM, but they didn't get in. The point is, I don't see how people choosing Berkeley because of parental/teacher considerations of prestige is any better than people choosing Harvard for the same reason.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, it really isn't.</p>
<p>Barnard is still annoying.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Barnard is located just across Broadway from Columbia's main campus and is one of four undergraduate schools within the Columbia University system (the others are Columbia College, the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the School of General Studies). In an arrangement unique in American higher education, Barnard has its own campus, faculty, administration, trustees, operating budget and endowment, while students earn the degree of the University.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, that's just stupid. What's the point of Barnard's existence? Why not just absorb it into Columbia?</p>
<p>Going to Barnard to get a degee from Columbia is cheating. :( I'd be ****ed at Barnard students if I had actually worked hard enough to get into the real Columbia.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Wow, that's just stupid. What's the point of Barnard's existence? Why not just absorb it into Columbia?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think it's the same reason that Radcliffe existed as an entity separate from Harvard for many decades. True, Radcliffe was ultimately absorbed into Harvard and Barnard may one day be absorbed into Columbia. But every university is allowed to set its own administrative rules.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Going to Barnard to get a degee from Columbia is cheating. I'd be ****ed at Barnard students if I had actually worked hard enough to get into the real Columbia.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, I don't know. I don't think it's any worse than schools admitting unstudious people just because they can play football. Moreover, most universities are actually comprised of multiple different programs. Harvard, for example, consists of a number of different schools (the College, the Business School, the Law School, the Medical School, the Dental School, etc.) each of which has its own admissions committee. Some programs at Harvard are easier to get into than others. But that doesn't mean that the easier progams aren't part of "real Harvard".</p>
<p>Yes, and the degree is specified (as in, they must say they went to Barnard, not Columbia, on their resume)</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, lots of people buy Beamers PRECISELY because they want people to think they are successful.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>as an aside: it's actually "bimmer" rather than "beamer"...</p>
<p>Most BMW enthusiasts recognize the term "bimmer" for their cars as opposed to "beamers" for their motorbikes (but never "beamer" for their cars - though the moniker is commonly misused).</p>
<p>Just a small side note...</p>
<p>bball, sakky, here's more information about the contract colleges at Cornell:</p>
<p>read, learn, be informed. </p>
<p>also, from the main Cornell wikipedia website:</p>
<p>"Cornell is a private institution, receiving most of its funding through tuition, research grants, and alumni contributions. Three of its undergraduate colleges and the graduate-level College of Veterinary Medicine are called contract or statutory colleges. These divisions receive partial funding from the state of New York to support their research and service mission in niche fields. Residents of New York enrolled in the contract colleges pay reduced tuition. Further, the governor of the state serves as an ex-officio member of the board of trustees. It is a common misconception that Cornell's contract colleges are public institutions. They are notthey are private institutions that Cornell operates by contract with the state government."</p>
<p>Gomestar, trust me, I am quite well informed about the way that Cornell works. </p>
<p>My point is simply to ask, where do you draw the line? If Barnard isn't "really" considered to be part of Columbia, then does that mean that the Cornell statutory colleges aren't "really" part of Cornell? Does that mean that Harvard Extension School is not "really" part of Harvard? How about the various joint MIT-Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute (WHOI) marine science degree programs? After all, those programs are funded almost entirely by WHOI, and some students in those programs never step foot on the MIT campus, taking all of their classes, doing all of their research, and living at WHOI. So does that mean that the MIT-WHOI program isn't "really" part of MIT?</p>
<p>"does that mean that the Cornell statutory colleges aren't 'really' part of Cornell?"</p>
<p>not in the least. I'm rather unfamiliar with Barnard's relation to Columbia or MIT's WHOI program, but i do know alot about Cornell (I am, after all, a Cornell student). My reasons include the links I provided (I posted them since I thought they should have been included in your previous wikipedia/cornell link post, sakky), the fact that students in contract colleges recieve degrees from Cornell and not SUNY, students in any college at Cornell can take any class in any other college at Cornell with no extra charges (in face, some required classes for ILR are in CAS), teachers in a department in ILR can also work for another department in CAS, and students can switch between schools with ease. </p>
<p>The only difference between the contract colleges and the endowed ones is the funding aspect. NY State students catch a nice $11,000 break. This is about it. There's an old thread on the Cornell forum labeled something like "SUNY and Cornell" that goes into this much deeper. </p>
<p>You raise an interesting point, but I dont think we can compare Barnard and Columbia with SUNY and Cornell. It's not like students apply to SUNY to get into Cornell. SUNY really has no right to put a picture of Cornell in their viewbook, but if it's between that and severly reduced funding, keep the damn picture in!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only difference between the contract colleges and the endowed ones is the funding aspect. NY State students catch a nice $11,000 break. This is about it. There's an old thread on the Cornell forum labeled something like "SUNY and Cornell" that goes into this much deeper. </p>
<p>You raise an interesting point, but I dont think we can compare Barnard and Columbia with SUNY and Cornell. It's not like students apply to SUNY to get into Cornell. SUNY really has no right to put a picture of Cornell in their viewbook, but if it's between that and severly reduced funding, keep the damn picture in!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Actually, I think there is one more highly interesting difference - which is that admissions is far easier for New York state residents to get into one of the Cornell statutory colleges than into any of the other Cornell schools. </p>
<p>Besides, you talk about the Cornell statutory students obtaining Cornell-endorsed degrees. However, Barnard students officially obtain Columbia-endorsed degrees, MIT-WHOI students obtain MIT-endorsed degrees, and Harvard extension students obtain Harvard-endorsed degrees. Students at any of those programs have some ability to take courses in other divisions, and professors switch back and forth between the various divisions. So, again, it's an open question as to where do you draw the line. The whole discussion is predicated on the fact that some people say that Barnard is not "really" Columbia, yet I am saying that if that is true, then one could say that other schools have divisions that are not "really" part of those schools.</p>
<p>"admissions is far easier for New York state residents to get into one of the Cornell statutory colleges than into any of the other Cornell schools."</p>
<p>maybe at one point in time this was true, but not any more. I have discussed this a few times with the dean of admissions at ILR, and they no longer have any preference to NY State residents. the large proportion is NY State residents at the contract colleges is a reflection of the applicant pool rather than an admission officer's preference. </p>
<p>I don't think this line should be drawn anywheres near Cornell. Contract students get cheaper tuition, this is where the difference stops. Everything else is the same, fully integrated into every other aspect of Cornell.</p>
<p>And they SAY that the reason why the acceptance rate for EA is so high is due to the "strength of the applicant pool" when I think that's not really the case.</p>
<p>what the heck are you talking about?</p>
<p>
[quote]
maybe at one point in time this was true, but not any more.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>For the purposes of this discussion, the fact that it was true at some time is what matters. After all, we're comparing people who came from Cornell (however you choose to define 'Cornell') whether they had come from one of the statutory colleges whether resident admission was easier at the time they were there or not. </p>
<p>I did find a blurb that discusses the Cornell Vet School's preference for state residents. Granted, it was from 6 years ago, and it only speaks specifically about the Vet School. But it does indicate that, at least in the past, the statutory colleges provided admissions preferences to state residents. </p>
<p>you bring up the vet school over the other 3 colleges, while the first line in the link you posted was "All veterinary schools in the US save a majority of their seats for their state residents." We, therefore, must not use the vet school as an example. </p>
<p>In fact, just today (luck us!), one of the deans of admission to a statutory college discussed the recent increase in out of state applications and how it's really helping to round out the class. (this may sound like it's made up just to prove a point on CC, but it actually happened, PM if you crave more).</p>