<p>Will have to call and tell D2 that she was misinformed.</p>
<p>"There are always a few Barnard girls who insist they belong to the “larger columbia community”, which is annoying "</p>
<p>Out of all the posts I can recall on this topic on CC, yours is the first I recall that would deny even this.</p>
<p>“only because they refuse to embrace the Barnard community”
IMO “the barnard community” is not really designed to be truly independent of Columbia. Clubs, sororities, teams, etc.are at Columbia, as an affiliate it does not really stand alone so well in isolation. And you may have noticed, they have no boys there. Some of them would prefer to embrace elsewhere.</p>
<p>actually monydad - the first affiliation agreement didn’t happen until 1900, over a decade after Barnard’s founding.</p>
<p>I stand corrected. Since 1900 then. But wasn’t it that before that they were just waiting to see if the place could/would actually survive, before they “bought in”?</p>
<p>Since Columbia is already coed, can Columbia officially cut off its affiliation with Barnard now?</p>
<p>Leaving aside the deal that was struck per #17: whether or not they can, the benefits the university receives per #17 above outweigh the detriment that wifey99999999 doesn’t like it, IMO. Despite some grumbling, the College has a sub-10% admissions rate; it’s hard to maintain that the university is being materially damaged in such a way as to offest the benefits the university receives from the affiliation.</p>
<p>
The agreement (or some for of agreement) has been in place for about 40 years now since Columbia went coed … it seems both Barnard and Columbia prefer keeping things as they are … however ambiguous the relationship is and even though some don’t like it.</p>
<p>hey wifey, why are you so fascinated/preoccupied with this topic!? Give it a break already and move on. You really give people not familiar with the actual attitudes on campus a poor name, which not only reflects poorly on CU but makes you look less than impressive and insecure. There is absolutely no way to feel that way, btw. </p>
<p>Just my 2 cents…</p>
<p>Really. There is 0 demand at Columbia or Barnard to separate the two colleges further, or to merge them. Barnard is part of Columbia University, period. When Columbia started accepting women, I’m sure the issues of merging Barnard (as happened at almost every other university that had a women’s college) or maintaining it as a separate college were thoroughly vetted, and the current structure is the one the institution chose. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.</p>
<p>There isn’t even a whisper of a chance that the two colleges will separate. They are really significantly integrated. There are whole academic departments or programs housed entirely or primarily in one college or the other, and in most academic departments hiring and tenure are completely coordinated so that university resources are allocated efficiently. In a few cases, the departments essentially don’t speak to one another, but even there they tend to represent different approaches and thus to strengthen the offerings of the university as a whole.</p>
<p>I do think it’s a little optimistic to say that there is no disrespect for Barnard students at Columbia. I have seen some Columbia students, including women, with attitudes I found troubling, and some not. I know some Columbia women who moved into Barnard as sophomores and never left, too. It’s really, truly not a big deal to anyone, though.</p>
<p>“anyone” is also a little optimistic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, you are mistaken – but I understand where you are getting that from. (There is printed information suggesting that – it’s just not accurate-- what would be more accurate is to say that the CURRENT affiliation agreement between Barnard/Columbia dates from 1900, which replaced the previous agreement under which Barnard was established). In other words, the 1900 affiliation agreement was at least the SECOND affiliation agreement.</p>
<p>Barnard was founded as an affiliate of Columbia in 1889 – at that time it was called a “women’s annex”. See [Barnard</a> College (college, New York City, New York, United States) – Britannica Online Encyclopedia](<a href=“Barnard College | Women’s College, Liberal Arts, Ivy League | Britannica”>Barnard College | Women’s College, Liberal Arts, Ivy League | Britannica)</p>
<p>The best source of information is Robert McCaughey’s book, Stand, Columbia : a history of Columbia University in the city of New York. McCaughey writes that Barnard was set up under the approval of the Columbia Trustees, with its own separate board of trustees, constitution, and regulations. (at p. 168) See <a href=“http://■■■■■■■.com/2euro55[/url]”>http://■■■■■■■.com/2euro55</a></p>
<p>Keep in mind that Columbia was a set of fragmented schools, not united under the umbrella of “Columbia University” until 1896, 7 years after the founding of Barnard; and it did not move to the Morningside Height location until the following year:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See: [Columbia</a> University: About Columbia](<a href=“http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/history.html]Columbia”>http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/history.html)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nope. Barnard is not part of Columbia University, period.</p>
<p>This is so much more interesting than the Barnard/Columbia debate:</p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - whistle](<a href=“whistle - YouTube”>whistle - YouTube)</p>
<p>Also, ever since Athena and Alma got married, we’re all family. Let’s try and enjoy the holidays, please.</p>
<p>Columbia TRIED to buy Barnard. Barnard rejected the offer.</p>
<p>If Barnard is not apart of Columbia University, why is it called the Barnard College of Columbia University? Billkamix’s ■■■■■■■■ on this topic is tired. </p>
<p>I personally chose Barnard over Columbia because I disliked the core aspect and the vastness of the campus. I feel that I would have been competitive for CC admission.</p>
<p>Er… Columbia’s campus isn’t exactly “vast”. Its resources might be fairly characterized as vast, but the campus is pretty small. Larger than Barnard’s neighboring campus, of course - but by any other metric, much smaller than the typical college campus. ;)</p>
<p>Columbia’s campus is larger than Barnard’s, particularly if you include all those buildings that aren’t on the campus proper (like the School of Social Work). But it’s absolutely a moot point, since people regularly take classes at both schools that meet in buildings all around campus. A friend of mine from John Jay took a met at Milbank at 9 am…very painful morning commute. By the same token, a friend of mine from Reed took an econ course that with a recitation section in IAB. I guess it’s better than Yale, where buildings can be acres apart, but still.</p>
<p>Hey ya’ll random question
On a scale of 1-10, how hot are Barnard chicks?
just wondering ;D</p>
<p>It may not seem like a vast campus compared to other universities, but for me I prefer a smaller community.</p>