<p>Some of you might have heard of Barnard which is in association with Columbia. Anyway my cousin got into Barnard but she tells people its Columbia. Barnard is not the same as Columbia!!! Someone explain please</p>
<p>to my knowledge barnard is just an affiliated all girls school that basically students of both schools can use the otherâs resourcesâŠand thatâs about it i thinkâŠits just like a really close consortium but they are still 2 separate entities</p>
<p>*prefrosh, not completely informed tho</p>
<p>Barnard is a seperate school with a seperate faculty and admissions department. It is affiliated with Columbia, because Columbia historically was all male - in past times Barnard basically served as Columbia for girls. Now itâs a highly controversial topic that seems to spark scandal every time itâs mentioned, especially on this board.</p>
<p>Barnard is a respectable institution in itâs own right, but it most definitely is not Columbia in a literal sense. Your cousin telling people she goes to Columbia when she really goes to Barnard is the kind of thing that sparks the heated debate and controversy I mentioned above. Some Columbia students take offense at Barnard girls doing this, and although I believe that theyâre usually grossly overreacting, sheâs still asking for trouble.</p>
<p>What your cousin is doing is what plenty of Barnard girls do â misrepresent themselves to try to pass themselves off as Columbia students (to get a job, to amuse laymen, to impress guys, etc.).</p>
<p>
As sad as it is, Columbia2002 is right: many (though certainly not all) Barnard girls try to pretend they go to Columbia. They are assigned a Columbia e-mail address in addition to one for Barnard, which they use to their advantage when applying for jobs online. Their diplomas will say Columbia University on them, and many will put âColumbiaâ (and not âBarnardâ) on their resumes. While itâs sometimes the topic of conversation among Columbia students, no one can really openly complain about it because they donât want to promote elitism at Columbia (which, I will say tongue-in-cheek, Columbia definitely doesnât want to do at all). I certainly donât blame Barnard people for wanting to ride on Columbiaâs coattails, but for some people it gets a bit out of hand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Has anyone seen the Barnard diplomas? I never have. Do they actually say THE TRUSTEES OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK (or the latin equivalent) at the top and look exactly like the ones that Columbia people get (SEAS, CC, Law, Business, Medicine)? Or do they just say Columbia somewhere small on them?</p>
<p>
<a href=âhttp://www.barnard.columbia.edu/about/columbia.html[/url]â>http://www.barnard.columbia.edu/about/columbia.html</a>
looks like it.</p>
<p>That doesnât definitively answer the question, I donât think. Not clear if âthe diploma of the Universityâ is the same image that everyone else gets. I wonder if there is an image of one somewhere.</p>
<p>aparrently her acceptance letter says âBarnard/Columbiaâ o.O
It makes sense for people to pass off as Columbians since Columbia is by far more prestigious, but it gets annoying when my cousin goes around saying she is going to Columbia, when really if she did apply there, she wouldnt have the stats to get admitted.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is academic dishonesty and fraud to put âColumbia U, B.A.â on your resume. Iâve seen it, and it is quite commonplace.</p>
<p>actually Barnard is a component of Columbia University. It would be fraud to say Columbia College which is not Barnard College. But I remind you of the fact that many Columbia majors are based at Barnard. The major in theater arts or Dance or example, which are listed as majors in the columbia catalog are wholly contained at Barnard. So both schools benefit from the arrangement. Columbia students can take classes freely at Barnard and vice versa. Columbia students can also live in the dorms at Barnard. I think this discussion is much a do about nothing. yes, the standards at columbia are higher than barnard but barnard chose not to be swallowed by columbia college in the mid eighties when columbia decided to go coed. As the last of the ivies to remain all men, columbia was the least selective of the ivies and realized for their survival that they had to become co-ed to be competitive with the other schools. Barnard didnât feel this pressure and decided to remain as an all womenâs school. Barnardâs stats for the number of students that go on to get PhDâs are among the highest in the country and much higher than for Columbia College.</p>
<p>lol iâm not even at columbia yet and i feel a little resentment building up already. lol iâll have to decide for myself later.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This isnât what happened. The administrations of both Barnard and Columbia wanted a full merger. The Columbia faculty thwarted the merger by refusing to accept the Barnard faculty into their departments and give them full Columbia tenure. I donât think it is accurate at all to say that Barnard resisted any pressure to merge, when the exact opposite seems to have been the case.</p>
<p>letâs drop this now, shall we? (before it becomes a spin-off of the last thread that became so inflammatory it was deleted by the mods)</p>
<p>You have to assume that the girls at Barnard have to be quite bright to be able to keep up in Columbia classes⊠so lay off of themâŠlol!</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The announcements ended more than a decade of merger talk. In 1973 the two made an agreement for something called âintegration without assimilation,â 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 âan anachronismâ and urgently proposing marriage.</p>
<p>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 âstrange and wonderfulâ 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 Columbiaâs law school, threatened that if Banard would not merge completely, Columbia would go coed by itself, thus competing directly for Barnardâs students.</p>
<p>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 Barnardâs undergraduate degree requirements. On these issues the negotiations collapsed.</p>
<p>To listen to the two presidents, the new arrangement is the best of all possible non-unions. Boasted Futter: âThe agreement reached today is a tremendous triumph for Barnard College.â Said Sovern: âI donât see any snakes in this Eden.â 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. (Barnardâs library has 150,000 volumes, Columbia Universityâs 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 Barnardâs $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 womenâs college: âBarnard should not fear competition from a coed Columbia. There is an intense interest among young women today for womenâs colleges that will put Barnard in a strong position.â</p>
<p>Columbiaâs 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 Columbiaâs applicants is well below the competitionâs. 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.</p>
<p>Most of the new applicants will be women, but some will be men, âbecause there are many men who donât want to go to a male college.â Sovern, in fact, predicts a booming future for everyone concerned. Says he: âWe now have the complete choice for the young American womanÂshe 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.â</p>
<p>And what is the story with Teacherâs College, JTS and UnionâŠ</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But Harvard extension school students have to comply with strict requirements, I believe. They canât 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.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is what it is. You attended Barnard College, an independent university affiliated with Columbia. Your transcript is issued by Barnardâs registrar. Your diploma apparently says Columbia on it <em>somewhere.</em> I donât know what you mean by âreal.â</p>
<p>Oldman, thanks for posting that article. It alludes to the tenure issue that I presented, and thereâs clearly more to the story. While I wasnât there, Time seems to paint a rosier picture than what was really the case. Iâve 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.</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>The story of the merger is covered in many different places including the NYTimes, Columbia Spectator etc. </p>
<p>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.</p>