oldman79

here are the facts from a time magazine article in 1983. You can also check many web sites. Since I was at columbia between 1975-84, I remember the conflict quite well. Barnard felt there was not advantage to them to merge. And I agree with Phantom, this is turning into a pointless discussion.

Barnard College was founded in 1889 because Columbia would not accept women students. In the half-century that followed, Barnard became one of the top schools in the country, with a tough liberal arts curriculum, fiercely proud of its role in educating women. In the 1970s wave of mergers and alliances that saw other Ivy League institutions go coed, Columbia College held out as a school for men only. But last week Columbia finally broke with its tradition. The college announced that it will begin accepting female students by the fall of 1983. Barnard, meanwhile, declared that it will remain a college for women, but with a special relation to Columbia.

The announcements ended more than a decade of merger talk. In 1973 the two made an agreement for something called "integration without assimilation," which meant that students could share libraries and many courses. Columbia, in need of women students to increase its pool of applicants, was soon describing single-sex education as "an anachronism" and urgently proposing marriage.

Barnard kept replying that it wanted to maintain its independence, but it yielded some of its autonomy in return for the privilege of cross-registering for a number of courses. This agreement placed Barnard tenure decisions in the hands of a faculty committee in which Barnard was outnumbered by Columbia 3 to 2. Last fall when Ellen Futter, 32, became president of Barnard, she referred to the "strange and wonderful" relationship with Columbia. Strained was more like it. Hardly had she been chosen when Columbia University President Michael Sovern, 50, who had taught Futter at Columbia's law school, threatened that if Banard would not merge completely, Columbia would go coed by itself, thus competing directly for Barnard's students.

In the bargaining that followed, Futter gradually agreed to sharing classes, dormitories and dining halls. But having observed how coordinates turned into conglomerates (Brown and Pembroke, Harvard and Radcliffe, Tulane and Sophie Newcomb), she held out for control over faculty tenure appointments and most of Barnard's undergraduate degree requirements. On these issues the negotiations collapsed.

To listen to the two presidents, the new arrangement is the best of all possible non-unions. Boasted Futter: "The agreement reached today is a tremendous triumph for Barnard College." Said Sovern: "I don't see any snakes in this Eden." In the short term, both appeared to be right. For seven years, under contract, the two institutions will continue to cross-register courses and share facilities. (Barnard's library has 150,000 volumes, Columbia University's 5 million.) Barnard will regain control over its own faculty (tenure will be decided by a committee of two Barnard and two Columbia professors, plus one outside scholar). Futter insists that the contract will provide stability and that Barnard's $25 million endowment can support its program. The college emphasizes strong teaching and has a largely female faculty who can serve as role models for students. The policy works: Barnard has seen its pool of applicants increase by 51% in the past four years. Says Elizabeth Kennan, president of Mount Holyoke, another top women's college: "Barnard should not fear competition from a coed Columbia. There is an intense interest among young women today for women's colleges that will put Barnard in a strong position."

Columbia's drawing power, by contrast, has declined in recent years, partly because of its city location. Also it has a faculty heavily oriented toward graduate study and research. The number of Columbia's applicants is well below the competition's. More important, its yield ratio (those who actually attend after being admitted) is near the bottom of the Ivy League. By admitting women, Sovern estimates, Columbia will double the applicant pool from 3,500 to 7,000.

Most of the new applicants will be women, but some will be men, "because there are many men who don't want to go to a male college." Sovern, in fact, predicts a booming future for everyone concerned. Says he: "We now have the complete choice for the young American woman—she can go single-sex at Barnard or coeducational at Columbia. My guess is that Columbia recruiters will find some women who would really rather go to a single-sex college in the city, and they will go to Barnard."

collegeisfun

And what is the story with Teacher's College, JTS and Union...

Columbia2002

But Harvard extension school students have to comply with strict requirements, I believe. They can't say Harvard College. They have to write that they have an ALB (not a AB/BA), which most informed employers would know means Extension school.

It is what it is. You attended Barnard College, an independent university affiliated with Columbia. Your transcript is issued by Barnard's registrar. Your diploma apparently says Columbia on it *somewhere.* I don't know what you mean by "real."

Columbia2002

Oldman, thanks for posting that article. It alludes to the tenure issue that I presented, and there's clearly more to the story. While I wasn't there, Time seems to paint a rosier picture than what was really the case. I've read a number of other articles about it, and the prof that I did research for (who was on some task force / committee at the time) remembered the details like it was yesterday.

oldman79

Only Columbia University can grant degrees. All of the schools including Barnard and Columbia College are divisions of columbia and cannot grant degrees. Only the university grants degrees. Thus, at commencement, for example, all schools are present and they all receive Columbia degrees and wear Columbia robes including Barnard. All diplomas say Columbia University.

I think the issue of what the diplomas say is a bit variable. When i was a med student there, our class voted to design our own diploma, so there is not a standard diploma.

The story of the merger is covered in many different places including the NYTimes, Columbia Spectator etc.

This whole issue is crazy. I know many Barnard women including many who are there now. They are proud to be at Barnard. Noone I know would purposefully try to pretend to not be at Barnard. Maybe this school could use an honor code ala Haverford or Swarthmore or Princeton. This whole issue would go away.

Columbia2002

I wouldn't say most. But it is a widespread problem.

I don't think they're ashamed of Barnard at all. I think they figure they can "steal the $20 that is sitting on the table and not get caught." They're hoping to improve their chances of getting a job, impressing a guy (like any guy would care... hell, they probably prefer Barnard girls in many ways), etc.

It isn't pride, necessarily. Why have the Camry when you can drive the Benz?

typhoeus11

what would happen if an employer discovered that an employee lied on her resume by saying that she went to Columbia when she really attended Barnard?

crazyapp2010

Technically, it's not lying. The Princeton Review says, "The four colleges of Columbia University (Columbia College, the Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Barnard, and General Studies) all share the same pool of academic resources provided by the University."
But I agree, Barnard is a great school in its own right.

Columbia2002

Um, the Princeton Review isn't the gospel. Barnard isn't a college of Columbia like the other 3. It is an affliated university.

Probably nothing. If the employee is competent, they wouldn't fire her. It isn't like finding out you're employing an axe murderer.

Some are, some aren't, as with anything else.

crazyapp2010

Columbia2002: Whoa! Calm down. You may be right; I was just saying what the Princeton Review advertises.

scarfmadness

barnard actually does have an honor code (which the other schools of columbia do not) and they are quite proud of it. it only refers to cheating on assignments though.. not to trying to take advantage of one's degree by not putting all your info on a resume.

Columbia2002

Nobody gives a sh1t about honor codes. You'll get flunked / kicked out of school for cheating whether or not the school has an honor code.

loving_life

well i'm going to barnard next year (rejected columbia) but i actually don't tell people those things. my mom did and i yelled at her because i know that i didn't get into columbia, i got a nice big fat rejection letter to remind me, and while I understand the anger columbia students feel towards barnard girls that DO do those things, please remember that not all of us are like that. Also, my cousin-in-law went to barnard and i think she might say that she went to columbia because she was a computer-science major and 70% of her classes WERE columbia classes. anyway, remember, please don't make judgements on ALL the barnard girls, not all of us are like that.

Columbia2002

This can't be rationalized. Your cousin-in-law DID NOT go to Columbia. If she tells people that, she's a fraud.

Monkeys have 99% of the same DNA as we do. That don't make us monkeys!

scarfmadness

how can you say that? she DID go to columbia. she didnt just sit in on classes and rue the fact that she wasnt smart enough to be a member of the arrogant columbia elite. she took a majority of her classes there, did well enough in them to stay in the program, studied with columbia students, and did her senior thesis under a columbia professor. she went to barnard... of columbia. i'm sorry you've run into a few barnard women, columbia2002, who are not as proud of barnard as i would like them to be, or who maybe assume employers arent familiar with barnard, but you cannot generalize for all barnard women, especially when there are some who by virtue of their program of study do seem more like columbia students.