This has been beaten to death, but...UGH

Colleges and Universities A-Z Barnard College
21

<p>Maybe its my legal training... I just don't see the situation as all that complicated. It's a relationship described by a contract. </p>

<p>Here's a analogy: think of Barnard/Columbia as a blended family -- Columbia is the father, Columbia College and SEAS are the father's natural children, and Barnard is a step daughter who tends to identify mostly with her mother... but the mother has married the father, and so she and her daughter are also part of his household. </p>

<p>Now it is possible that the father's natural children would reset their step-sister, but it is unlikely that the father would allow them to taunt and insult the step-sister. He'd demand that they treat the step-sister with respect, and emphasize that she was a full-fledged member of the family, even if she had come into it by virtue of the mother's marriage rather than birth. The step-sister would have full access to all the rooms of the house and all the food in the refrigerator, and for the most part be treated identically to the father's natural children. </p>

<p>I don't think anyone would think it strange or improper if the step-daughter called her step-father "Dad" or if she told others that she was a member of that family and that he was her father. And it would be perfectly acceptable and understandable that, depending on the context in which questions came up, she might identify one or the other or both her step-dad and her mom as her parents. In fact, in some circumstances it might seem quite rude if she made a big point of correcting someone who assumed that her step-dad was her father. </p>

<p>So that's how I see it basically.</p>

22

<p>nice analogy!</p>

23

<p>I really like that analogy, too :)</p>

24

<p>Thank you.</p>

25

<p>As to OP, if my daughter was confronted like this I'd guess she would say that she's quite comfortable with her college selection, and If someone else has some issue with it they can go take a leap.</p>

26

<p>This kind of talk is all about the sort of ridiculous jockeying for status that people do around college affiliations. It reminds me when I was at a party with some colleagues and we were approached by some really rude people who said, "Are you in _____ program? I've heard all people in your program are really full of themselves and think they're gods gift." Well, I've always tried to be humble but in fact these people proved themselves right -- we snubbed them right then and there, but unlike they probably figured it was not because of where they were going to school.</p>

<p>Anyway, in mixed company, IMO, it's best to keep your affiliations on the down low so as to avoid this kind of sour grapes reaction. But if you get that reaction, just say something like "Don't be an idiot. I chose Barnard above any other college in this city -- and I am Barnard all the way." Normally that kind of "I can trump you" response is not even worth it, but in this case I'd say learn to give it as you got it. And it's best delivered with a haughty laugh.</p>

27

<p>So..........let me see if I have this straight -- Barnard is the red-headed stepchild, right?</p>

28

<p>"Prior to 1970, 3 Ivies had affiliated women's colleges: Harvard/Radcliffe, Brown/Pembroke, and Columbia/Barnard. "</p>

<p>Good point, I guess when the female counterparts were established they were each set up using with this odd arrangement, for whatever reason. So there it is. But Columbia also has the same arrangement with its other schools, eg Teacher's College, and I'm not familiar with other universities in the US that use this construct. Are there others?</p>

29

<p>Monydad, I'm not sure I understand your question. Many universities have smaller colleges and schools which have separate admission processes and separate programs. I've cited the example of Cornell. It is very common for a programs such as nursing, teaching, business or engineering to be housed in different subsidiary colleges. If you are asking about the exact financial arrangement between Columbia and its teacher's college -- I have no clue. But if you are asking about universities where undergrads may apply to different subsidiary colleges for different programs.... well I think that's pretty much encompassed in the concept of a "university".</p>

30

<p>If I'm not mistaken, whatever the "official status" Barnard's existence has always been connected to Columbia. As I understand it, Barnard was a Columbia pres. who wanted CC to become co-ed. When the Board of Trustees wouldn't have it Barnard was begun as an independent institution and shortly thereafter achieved "affiliated" status. (More of a love-chld than stepchild!) Unlike other Seven Sister schools, Barnard's focus was solely on academics; this was especially true because it was begun as a commuter school. Barnard was not after the "finishing school" element of some of the other women's colleges, thus making the other schools somewhat uncomfortable. (See comments on Smith and Wellesley threads; there is often uneasiness about Barnard, although they identify with each other. In the 1980's it was Barnard's decision to remain separate from Columbia, making CC the last Ivy to go co-ed, and probably making CC a little uncomfortable as well.</p>

<p>I don't think this relationship can be trly compared to any other; it is unique in higher education. That it seems to make so many uncomfortable? To borrow from Emerson, than Barnard is doing something right. I suspect it will ever be so because Barnard's history and character are revealing of the nature of gender politics.</p>

<p>In case this post is ambiguous, I am not my daughter!</p>

31

<p>
[quote]
Prior to 1970, 3 Ivies had affiliated women's colleges: Harvard/Radcliffe, Brown/Pembroke, and Columbia/Barnard. Pembroke shut down when Brown went co-ed, Radcliffe merged over a longer time period, and Barnard didn't merge.

[/quote]
A couple of little-known historical footnotes involving women's colleges and other Ivies:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>Princeton had an affiliated women's college, Evelyn</a> College, from 1887 to 1897. It was never very large or successful, and didn't last long.</p></li>
<li><p>In the late 1960s, Vassar College (then a women's college) seriously considered an invitation to relocate to New Haven and to affiliate with Yale. However, Vassar ultimately decided to become an independent coed school instead.</p></li>
</ul>

32

<p>"Monydad, I'm not sure I understand your question. Many universities have smaller colleges and schools which have separate admission processes and separate programs. I've cited the example of Cornell. "</p>

<p>My question was: in these many cases, is the relationship among the colleges one of literal ownership/ governance/ administration of all the colleges by the "owning" university ? Or are there, in the current era, cases outside of Columbia where the relationship is one of (perhaps nominal )separate "ownership" but joined via an affiliation contract?</p>

<p>"If I'm not mistaken, whatever the "official status" Barnard's existence has always been connected to Columbia."</p>

<p>IMO, this is the substance of the matter. However there is a vocal group on CC that tries to make a big issue of the technical "official status", to the extent that it is different than "wholly owned". While ignoring the ramifications of "offical status" as "affiliate".</p>

33

<p>I'm sure there probably are, but I don't know how to go about finding that information. The reason I'm sure there would be is that there must be occasions when a specialty college has financial problems or enrollment issues and finds it appropriate to enter some sort of merger or partnership agreement with a nearby, larger institution. The larger institution would benefit from whatever additional program the specialty college offered.</p>

<p>I wouldn't pay attention to the vocal group on CC who don't seem to understand the concept of "affiliation"... they are inventing a specious distinctio. They remind me of the Colbert interview with Eleanor Holmes Norton, where he insists that the District of Columbia is not part of the United States because it isn't a state. *See: <a href="http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0607/cr072706bkad_dc.mov%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0607/cr072706bkad_dc.mov&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

34

<p>
[quote]
IMO, this is the substance of the matter. However there is a vocal group on CC that tries to make a big issue of the technical "official status", to the extent that it is different than "wholly owned". While ignoring the ramifications of "offical status" as "affiliate".

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Yes, it's ridiculous.</p>

35

<p>As an incoming Columbia SEAS freshman, I'd like to express some thoughts on this whole issue.
Basically, what I've learned that is simply that stereotyping students from a certain school is just like stereotyping in any other case: yes, it can be applied somewhat in describing the general trends of an entire body, but no, it cannot in any way, shape or form be applied to the individual off of assumption.</p>

<p>Here are some general admissions trends:
Lowest Acceptance Rate
1. CC
2. SEAS
3. Barnard</p>

<p>Highest Avg. SAT
1. SEAS
2. CC
3. Barnard</p>

<p>Highest Avg. GPA
1. SEAS
2. CC
3. Barnard (although this gap is narrower than the rest)</p>

<p>But of the students I know who will be attending one of these 3 schools next year, I'd rank them in terms of intellingence as:
1. SEAS
2. Barnard
3. CC
4. Barnard
5. Barnard
6. CC</p>

<h1>2 and #4 are Barnard students who know they are going to Barnard, not Columbia, and are proud of it.</h1>

<h1>5 is a Barnard student who thinks she's going to Columbia, and tells everyone that. This is upsetting in that, firstly, she is devaluing Barnard which is unfair to the two, BETTER students I know who are attending it. However, I can't say to myself "she's not good enough for Columbia," because the kid I'd rank as the definitively least qualified of the 6 is attending CC.</h1>

<p>On top of that, there is a slight complex between CC and SEAS students. The two CC students both think they're better than everyone attending simply because of the school's lower acceptance rate, completely ignoring the fact that SEAS has a higher average GPA and SAT score, and the fact that the student they know attending SEAS is MUCH more qualified than they are, as is one of the Barnard students. </p>

<p>It's just really frustrating. I'm not even at Colmbia yet and am alrighty being plagued by this unreliable hierarchy.</p>

36

<p>Interesting observations, s snack. I think you are right on target to resist either stereotyping of people based upon their respective schools or becoming overly stressed out about any one person's propensity to speak out in a manner with which you strongly disagree. Don't sweat it...learn that and you will live a longer, healthier life! :)</p>

<p>Also, you said:</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm not even at Colmbia yet and am alrighty being plagued by this unreliable hierarchy.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>See, that's the thing. There IS no hierarchy. Just an interesting and mutually beneficial association of undergrad schools. Learn to appreciate and, at times even be amused by the differences you see among them!</p>

<p>Best to you...I am sure you will have wonderful time at SEAS/Columbia University!</p>

37

<p>I don't know if I posted this before, but because there are MORE CC students than Barnard/SEAS, there are more CC at the lower end of the spectrum of qualifications than from the other schools. That is, the enrolled class at Barnard is about 40% the size of the enrolled class at CC -- so there are more students in the bottom half of the SAT or GPA spectrum at CC than the total enrollment at Barnard. You chances of meeting someone from the bottom 25% of the SAT range from CC are 2.4x higher than your chances of meeting someone in the bottom 25% from Barnard. </p>

<p>Anyway, the point mathematically you have a greater chance of meeting a CC student on either end of the spectrum - your chances of meeting a high-end CC'er are also greater -- even if the SEAS students are the only ones smart enough to figure out what I'm trying to say.</p>

<p>I don't know if any of this makes much sense. My d. seems to have met a disproportionate number of GS'ers, and she says they are without doubt the smartest students on campus. And test scores don't mean much anyway -- my d's scores are in the bottom 25th percentile for her entering class, but she's on Dean's list with a high GPA. So once you are actually on campus living and studying with people you are going to see a very different picture.</p>

38

<p>I'm getting you, calmom. I once made a similar argument for how CC students are actually using (proportionally) more resources at Barnard than BC students use at Columbia. I.e. the CC presence at BC is much stronger than vice versa.</p>

<p>The GS'ers have huuuge variance. I met 2-3 really smart ones, one being among the top undergrads I've ever met, and a good handful of irritating "contributors" who think their stories are educating the rest of the class. A good friend of mine started in CC but then had some problems he had to go take care of, and he's going back to finish in GS. He's one of the smartest people I've ever met. Generally, I find the younger GS students really smart, and they often have stories like that (or, in one case, served their few years in the Israeli military before deciding to apply to college). Then again, it's also harder to get to know the older students, so they could be brilliant despite their comments in class.</p>

39

<p>calmom:
Well, I think the GS students are probably smarter in the "older and wiser" type of way. But yeah, you definitely make a good point. The only discrepancy I can think of is (and this is really nitpicking) that the interquartile ranges are different for each school. So, since the lower end of Barnard's interquartile range is less than that at Columbia College, you are 2.4x as likely to find a CC student in the bottom 25%, but less likely than that to find one, comparatively, from CC that would fit into Barnard's bottom 25%, and more than 25% likely to find a CC student in Barnard's top 25%. </p>

<p>Another thing that's obvious, but never gets pointed out, is that, since Barnard's top 25% is higher than Columbia's average (50%), and that since most of the Barnard hate comes from the bottom half of Columbia's class, a more-than-significant number of kids at Barnard are getting "bashed" from kids that are without a doubt academically inferior to them.</p>

40

<p>Wow, this whole discussion seems really ivy-centric. Being from the West Coast, these things have not at all been clearcut to me. If I had met someone who said she went to Barnard, I basically assumed that she meant Columbia (just as when I meet older folks who went to Radcliffe and say that that they went to Harvard). I didn't know there was any distinction in terms of average student quality. And on the West Coast, I hazard, people don't really know this and don't really care.</p>

<p>Insider's baseball.</p>

<p>I still think the OP's problem doesn't get solved by getting sucked into a parsing rankings discussion or the true nature of collegiate affiliation. She just needs a pithy smackdown that can be delivered with a haughty laugh, and then: move on.</p>