<p>My point is that you seized upon a semantic difference in job titles in order to create a specious distinction between the Columbia University degrees issued to students in various schools or divisions. Barnard had a Dean for the first half-century of its existence, and then somewhere along the line the title was changed to “President” – the role that the person played as head of the school did not. Maybe the payscale did, I don’t know.</p>
<p>Columbia U is structured around the notion that it is made up of multiple “faculties” - of which Barnard is one. Each faculty has a titular head – but whether that person is called “Dean”, “President”, or “Vice-President” is irrelevant. </p>
<p>All students at all schools and divisions under the Columbia umbrella are issued Columbia University degrees upon recommendation of their respective faculties. </p>
<p>I don’t see the words “some faculties are better than others” anywhere in that language. The words I am reading say there 15 faculties of the University, of which Barnard is one in class of two affiliates. </p>
<p>I have no clue about how USNWR does its rankings. I find a lot “odd” about the US News rankings- for example, I think it is “odd” that they include the US Naval Academy on their list of liberal arts colleges, but not Sarah Lawrence. </p>
<p>I also think that it is “odd” that someone would cite USNWR rankings as a primary source of information about a school’s structure or academic quality – kind of the equivalent of writing a college paper and citing to Wikipedia. All they are doing is collecting a set of arbitrary data points, applying an arbitrary metric and weighting system, making somewhat arbitrary decisions about which colleges to include and where to include them – and then printing the rank order of the list. </p>
<p>I also think it “odd” that Columbia does not report stats from its GS students. Would it also be your contention that GS students are guilty of some sort of misrepresentation when they put “Columbia University” on their resumes? Are they somehow receiving lesser degrees because they committed the unpardonable sin of doing something else (such as enlisting in the military) rather than enter college immediately upon their high school graduation? </p>
<p>You’re not understanding what I’m trying to say. You’re still on this defensive stance like I’m out to call Barnard a bunch of stupid girls across the street. If I’m coming off like that I apologize, it’s really not my intention. </p>
<ol>
<li>Different (in this case “distinct” institutions) does NOT mean some sort of all-encompassing evaluation of “better”. </li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>I haven’t made any evaluative claims on the overall strength of two schools holistically (at least stemming from the Barnard vs Columbia University distinction), even though I’d like to think I’ve been overall fair in my evaluation of individual aspects, such as the career services. For example I’ve expressed that IMO Columbia is a stronger name on a resume over Barnard, but that’s definitely different than say, academic teaching quality. Those were my really only two evaluative aspects: Columbia has a better OCR, and Columbia has a better name recognition. If you remember, this whole ordeal came up because I tried to explain why some Columbia students were aggravated by the relationship when Barnard students attempt to write Columbia on their resumes. </p>
<ol>
<li>I’m not arguing that Barnard is different from Columbia, in a sense that I’m trying to convince you of it one way or the other. Clearly you’re adamant about your stance and that’s fine I respect your opinion on the matter even if I disagree. </li>
</ol>
<p>What I’m trying to say (and I have been repeatedly) is re the OP’s question, a perspective student needs to realize that the Barnard vs Columbia issue is not simple, and it can strike a nerve with people on campus if you’re not careful. In the process, I’m attempting to explain why students feel this way one way or another. What I don’t want to happen is a reader thinking that your perspective of the issue is the only one there is (or even a large majority) on campus, somehow I’m an anomaly that shares this strange and uninformed opinion, such that they don’t take into consideration how they should act regarding the issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I consider to be normal? The source is myself. No offense but are you really sure you’re reading what I’m posting? I’ve said multiple times that its subjective, but just because something is subjective doesn’t make it illegitimate enough to ignore. I’m not trying to build an academic argument up as to why Barnard and Columbia, under rigorous scrutiny, are separate institutions, I’m trying to explain what characteristics of the relationship build upon people’s subjective opinion that they’re different. </p>
<p>Since you don’t really buy anything that I’m saying, you must at least realize this debate has been ongoing for a while, and is much more popular of a topic than someone debating whether Stern is NYU. I challenge you to give your opinion as to why this issue even comes up if everything is just like any other undergrad.</p>
<p>Masochist, thank you for your patience and your courtesy in your responses.</p>
<p>The point that I keep trying to make – and which you don’t seem to acknowledge, is that Columbia is a university comprised of multiple graduate and undergraduate institutions. In that respect it is similar to other large universities. </p>
<p>You seem to think that Columbia’s affiliation is so unique that it changes the equation somehow – that the degree that CU issues to Barnard students is somehow less genuine because of that. But other universities have very complex relationships with their various schools and colleges/ While the Barnard/Columbia affiliation is anachronistic, it’s not unique.</p>
<p>I never posted that there are no CC students who bear resentment toward Barnard…I just am puzzled as to why they have those feelings to the extent of denying the fact that Barnard students are awarded degrees from Columbia University. I understand why prestige-obsessed high school seniors may be resentful-- but I don’t get why those feelings would persist once the students are on campus – or at least I don’t know of reasons that reflect very well on the students who harbor those sentiments. I mean, I’d think that once enrolled in college the students would come to understand the relationship.</p>
<p>The reason I countered many of the specific details you posted is that they are rather trivial issues- they don’t explain the resentment. And if you come back to citing differential admission requirements – then you are back to the same types of differences that separate the disparate undergraduate schools at NYU or Cornell or many other universities. </p>
<p>This has indeed been a fairly polite and civil discussion of the topic and I have enjoyed reading it. Thanks, guys. </p>
<p>Masochist, you said:
</p>
<p>See, that right there----I think you meant “…stemming from the Barnard vs Columbia COLLEGE distinction” . Any Barnard vs Columbia UNIVERSITY comparison would be silly, since Barnard is an affiliated MEMBER of Columbia University. </p>
<p>I think confusion and possibly resentment arises when people innocently just use “Columbia” when talking about the (very selective, Ivy League) COLLEGE vs. the UNIVERSITY (which includes Barnard and various other entities, but undergrad and graduate level). I know of NO Barnard graduate who would ever try to claim that their degree is from Columbia COLLEGE. But they would correctly list Barnard College, Columbia University on their resume. </p>
<p>I will also note that my D, a graduate of Barnard, never encountered significant resentment from CC students. She is very proud of her Barnard degree…it has served her well. </p>
<p>No one at Columbia University thinks highly of Barnard. It’s a historical relic. President William McGill tried in vain to make it at part of Columbia, but Barnard refused. It wasn’t until 1983 that Columbia College, the only remaining all-male part went coed. Indeed, Pembroke and Radcliff college were no longer in existence by 1983.</p>
<p>So today Barnard remains as parasite institution with lower admission standards than Columbia’s SEAS or CC. Columbia’s relationship with Barnard is a money loser for Columbia and a back door to CU for Barnard students. Why Columbia doesn’t ditch its outdated ties with Barnard remains unclear. </p>
<p>What a silly statement to make. I personally know Columbia alums AND well-known faculty members who definitely “think highly of Barnard”.</p>
<p>Perhaps that is your experience with people around you; However, that does not make it universally true. You did make me smile, though, so I appreciate that.</p>
<p>You are right, this is definitely where we disagree. I do acknowledge the idea of a umbrella institution, I just think the situation is unique. I’ll attempt to build a case as to why I think so in more detail than before.</p>
<p>If you read the entire Barnard website page, I feel like it goes opposite to the crux of your argument. While it’s unclear whether Barnard is Columbia, they attempt to define the complexity of the relationship that I feel you gloss over. The fact that the Barnard website has a separate page attempting to clarify the relationship should signal a uniqueness. </p>
<p>Ok well that seemed pretty clear to me. I don’t see any complexity here. I also briefly glanced at NYUPoly and they’re also very clear about a “merger” that had happened.</p>
<p>Here is a search on spec about the topic. In 2012 there was a series of articles written to attempt to explain and reflect the relationship. Here in this snippet, you can see that there is a discussion (like I said before) between a merger between Barnard and Columbia University. I ask once again, how can you merge if you’re already the same? At the very least, given this definition, an “affiliation” is a weaker relationship than one that would come in a “merger”. </p>
<p>This is a quote from the article whose snippet I just cited. I want you to pay attention to the language being used. I feel like the point of that article is Barnard isn’t Columbia, and because its this way, this is a beneficial relationship.</p>
<p>Another article from that series. This is consistent with my opinion. The line is subjective, and defined individually.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(same article as above)</p>
<p>This is once again unclear what “independently affiliated schools” means, but I guarantee you a CC tour guide would not define CC in the same manner. </p>
<p>This entire series is very enlightening on the relationship as a whole and I encourage all perspective students to take a look.</p>
<p>For those who don’t know WikiCU is Columbia’s unofficial wiki. The citation for this particular line is broken, Wiki’s admittedly are not reliable, but either way I think it echos at least a partial sentiment of students in regards to the relationship. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They really don’t (come to understand the relationship more). It’s honestly complex and I think after you enroll in the college, rather than clarify the complexity, you come to experience the complexity in its fullest degree. As you can imagine, before this point I’ve never even read those articles I just cited before, but I feel like they reflect my overall sentiments pretty closely, and this is probably a product of my 4 years experiencing it firsthand. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree they are trivial in terms of a practical effect on the student body, but they are often not trivial when it comes to forming one’s own opinion on whether Barnard is or is not Columbia. If those issues come to make someone believe that Barnard is really not Columbia, then under this premise the resentment can be explained easily by the resource sharing issue (among other issues) between two separate institutions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it’s not silly, the comparison is real (see cited articles above). I didn’t mean Columbia College, I meant the distinction between Barnard and CC/SEAS/GS (as I term it, Columbia University, which maybe was not clear). What does “member” mean? What does “affiliation” mean? To me, and to much of the CU student body, this is not clearly defined hence the confusion.</p>
<p>I have a hard time deciding whether you’re a ■■■■■ or not. I think you genuinely want to help provide information, but stuff like this just discredits your opinions altogether. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think its very clear. There has been a hundred year old relationship. The schools are so socially, politically, academically, and in all other ways intertwined, that a full split at this point is not only impractical but unthinkable given the history. The only way I see of clarifying the relationship would be this “merger” where we officially define the boundaries, and this has indeed been what some students have asked to happen from both sides. </p>
<p>@Calmom While I was trying to figure out if rhg3rd was a ■■■■■ or not I stumbled upon that Amherst vs Barnard thread you and him were a part. In regards to the discussions about the Barnard vs Columbia relationship that was covered in that thread, I just think in some ways you’re too optimistic. I know you love Barnard just like I love Columbia, but to realistically depict a school you have to acknowledge its problems. </p>
<p>The “second class citizen” problem isn’t a myth, it inherently stems from this relationship discussion we’ve had this entire time. Is it a large problem that would systemically affect every student? Absolutely not, I doubt the effects are very large at all. Is it even based on grounded issues that affect the student body day to day? No, but perception matter even if the underlying issues are insignificant.</p>
<p>I can cite tons of articles and instances that cause divisiveness among the student body, precisely because no one has divided the line for us. Two examples from recent years that I was there to see:</p>
<p>(in response to the controversy surrounding the Obama commencement attendance at Barnard)</p>
<p>I think as a perspective Columbia or Barnard applicant/student, one should fully attempt to understand the complexities of the issues, and be prepared to weigh the consequences (and of course, benefits) that come with the relationship between the schools. While this forum seems to make it a bickering about prestige whoring prefrosh, this issue is much larger than that.</p>
<p>Masochist, again the Barnard/Columbia relationship is anachronistic, not unique. Until the 1970’s, many elite colleges admitted only men but maintained affiliations with women’s colleges. Examples: Harvard/Radcliffe; Brown/Pembroke; Tulane/Sophie Newcomb. </p>
<p>Barnard survives precisely because of its strength as an institution. In the early 1980’s, when a merger with CC was proposed, CU was also facing significant financial challenges and the admit rate for CC was roughly 50%. US News hadn’t yet hit on the idea of a phony ranking system to sell magazines, and CC was not particularly well regarded among the Ivies. So at that time, CC needed Barnard more than Barnard needed CC-- and Barnard opted to continue with the arrangement it had already enjoyed for roughly 85 years.</p>
<p>Basically, the trustees of CU missed the boat on merger by their recalcitrance with respect to gender discrimination. They should have simply opted to admit women in the 1880’s; then Barnard would not have existed or evolved to become such a focal point of CC student’s envy. </p>
<p>In any case, I am sorry that you still don’t seem to understand the legal concept of “affiliation” or the structure of Columbia University – which is far more than merely a coalition of undergraduate colleges. Perhaps if you had a better understanding of the way in which graduate institutions operating under the umbrella of a university typically manage their own affairs, you wouldn’t find the concept of a semi-autonomous undergraduate college so confusing. In any case, I’m tired of trying to explain it. </p>
<p>I guess that in the end that if some small fraction of CC students who choose to pretend that the large cohort of Barnard students who receive degrees from Columbia University each year don’t exist … well that’s their problem. </p>
<p>Masochist – if you look at the posting history of rhg3rd, you will see that ■■■■■ or not, the poster is a basher – constantly posted negative, bashing remarks related to all sorts of colleges, almost always based on perceived prestige --but not averse to personally humiliating teenagers who post on chances threads when their test scores don’t meet with the poster’s approval. Said poster most recently has been having an apoplectic fit over Wesleyen’s decision to go test optional. I have no idea why. I’d set the posts to “ignore” but so far it hasn’t been worth my energy with that particular poster. </p>
<p>Barnard diploma is signed by the Columbia University president and Barnard College President.
There are TWO seals on Barnard diploma. One is Barnard Seal and the other is Columbia University Seal. </p>
<p>Because Barnard degree is endorsed by TWO PRESIDENTs and TWO SEALS, it is not fully a Columbia University degree. </p>
<p>Gee, that’s funny.Could you cite to the link where the Columbia/Barnard affiliation agreement was declared invalid?? Perhaps you might want to call President Bollinger on Monday to let him know that he doesn’t have to sign all those diplomas for Barnard students after all. Hurry up – the 2014 commencement is this coming Wednesday! . </p>
<p>Masochist, my daughter is a very confident person. Barnard now asks its applicants to write a supplemental essay offering their interpretation of Barnard alumna Anna Quindlen’s statement that she “majored in unafraid.” Maybe that reflects a deliberate desire on the part of Barnard admissions to seek out strong-willed and confident women like my daughter – or at least women who have the capacity to develop such qualities. </p>
<p>My d. is the type of person who was always coming to the defense of others in middle school and high school – if someone was a victim of bullying, my daughter would confront the bullier. (And in most of the instances that I remember, the bullier was an authority figure like a teacher-.) So she’s not the type of person to buy into the “second class citizen” frame. She’d recognize that those attitudes stem from immaturity, envy, or other personality flaws held by the people who feel the need to bolster their own self-esteem by demeaning others. </p>
<p>My daughter didn’t personally experience any sort of difficulty with CC students, and in fact I think that on balance she has more close friends who were CC students than Barnard students. Maybe she just didn’t move in the same circles as those malcontents, or maybe it’s because the problem is inflated because of the tendency of people who to post vitriol on the internet under the cloak of anonymity – or maybe it’s just because my d. was focused on more important things (like her coursework, jobs, internships, etc.)</p>
<p>Being accepted to a prestigious university is an opportunity, but it is not an accomplishment. It may feel like one to the high schooler who has set such admission as a paramount goal --but it is what the person does with the opportunity that is presented that counts. I think the academic playing field is pretty level for students among the four separate undergraduate schools at Columbia University --that is, all have pretty much the same opportunities to excel, or not; to achieve their academic goals, or not. Maybe things are somewhat more difficult for GS students because of their school’s lesser commitment to financial aid-- I think it is more common for them to drop out for financial reasons, but it’s hard to find good statistics about GS. </p>
<p>Columbia University<br>
Degrees and Certificates Awarded, 2012-2013 </p>
<p>UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS 1,959 0 0 0 117 2,076
Columbia College 1,154 0 0 0 0 1,154
Engineering 431 0 0 0 0 431
General Studies 374 0 0 0 117 491
MORNINGSIDE GRADUATE & PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS 0 5,599 603 437 684 7,323
.
.
Barnard degrees are not listed here.</p>
<p>Again since Barnard diplomas are endorsed by TWO signatures of TWO presidents and TWO seals (Barnard Seal & Columbia U Seal), Barnard degrees are not fully Columbia U degree. It is probably 50% Columbia U degree, that is why Barnard is not listed there. </p>
<p>CC/SEAS/GS are signed by only ONE president and approved by only ONE Columbia U seal. </p>
<p>LOL, Churchmusicmom. It’s cognitive dissonance. Sometimes people have to come up with nonsensical arguments to support nonsensical conclusions. </p>