Talk:Columbia University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Architectural history.	Architecture Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

To-do list for Columbia University:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Here are some tasks you can do:

Contents 1 Columbia University has been moved to Columbia University in the City of New York 2 The Johnson ambiguity 3 Location 4 Alumni 5 school traditions 6 ARTICLE ON STUDENT NEWSPAPER 7 Info table 8 Movies 9 Nobel prize winners 10 Images 11 Timeline links 12 Information box 13 Combining Columbia-related content 14 Columbia or UPenn: which came first 15 An exercise in masturbation? 16 "prestige" comment 17 Statistics in the box 18 "Midwestern Ivy League" ? 19 Notable alumni 20 References to Teachers College, Columbia University? 21 Endowment, real estate, etc. 22 Library volume count 23 School of General Studies 24 new infobox 25 Bring Your Flippers 26 The Newspaper 27 Cruft 28 By the close of the nineteenth century, Columbia was the world's leading producer of academic doctorates? 29 "One of the earliest centers for graduate education." Why we should mention the others 30 Fifth/sixth oldest 31 Revert - help 32 Tradtions include minor club events 33 In film, television and the arts 34 Ficticious Columbians 35 Al Gore? 36 History of Columbia University 37 Washington Monthly? 38 Columbia Libraries 39 MinuteMen Protest 40 removal of "Barnard jokes" 41 WP:RFC response

[edit] Columbia University has been moved to Columbia University in the City of New York

I disagree with this recent move which appears to have been done without prior consultation. "Columbia University" is almost never referred to as "Columbia University in the City of New York". I vote to move it back to "Columbia University". mat334 | talk 16:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

The name of the university is Columbia University, NOT Columbia University in the City of New York. The name of the associated corporation which holds the university, its holdings, and is enacted via its charter (which says Kings College in the first place) is formally "The Trustees of Columbia University in the City Of New York. Columbia University is only legally called Columbia University in the City of New York for the sake of specificity. The legal and corporate body of the university were the trustees, (The trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York were actually sued for some sort of trademark infringement for calling themseleves the trustees of Columbia University. Thus, the name was changed). Columbia University is not a legal entity or corporate entity, it is only the educational entity.

1. School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, est. 1896
2. School of the Arts, est. 1948
3. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, est. 1880
4. Graduate School of Business, est. 1916
5. Columbia College, est. 1754
6. School of Continuing Education, est. 2002
7. School of Dental and Oral Surgery, est 1917
8. The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, est. 1864
9. School of General Studies, est. 1904
10. School of International and Public Affairs, est. 1946
11. School of Journalism, est. 1912
12. School of Law, est. 1858
13. College of Physicians and Surgeons, est. 1767
14. School of Nursing, est. 1892
15. Mailman School of Public Health, est.1921
16. School of Social Work, est. 1898.

Affiliated Institutions:

1. Barnard College
2. Teachers College, Columbia University
3. Jewish Theological Seminary
4. Union Theological Seminary.

History:

• In 1787: "NY Legislature approves new charter for "Columbia College in the City of New York," by which the College reverted to its earlier status as a privately governed college primarily serving New York City; state-appointed Regents replaced by self-perpetuating 24 Trustees with no ex officio public members; charter provided basic governance framework that has since prevailed." [1]
• In 1896: "May 2 -- President Low leads dedication of the Morningside campus; speaks of University's responsibilities to the City of New York; Trustees adopt institutional designation of "Columbia University in the City of New York"; undergraduate school hereinafter "Columbia College"" [2]
• In 1912: "Corporate name changed by order of the New York Supreme Court to "The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York" [3]

--Ctrl build^talk 19:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I moved it back to Columbia University since no consensus had been reached (nor was the topic even discussed) before the original move took place. Additionally, no articles link to Columbia University in the City of New York. Darkcore 20:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Johnson ambiguity

In July 1754, Samuel Johnson held the first classes.

The reader wonders whether this was Dr Johnson (1709-1784), or another Samuel Johnson.

Sebastjan

It is a different person; I have clarified the text.

Somebody should contribute an article on this Samuel Johnson.

Sebastjan

• Done- see Samuel Johnson (1696-1772)

--cjs 03:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Location

Columbia isn't exactly on the Upper West Side, which some would say ends at 110th Street -- the campus starts at 114th in Morningside Heights. However, I admit this may not be interesting, useful, or even coherent to anyone who doesn't actually live here. --Calieber 20:00, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• We could use a stub on Upper West Side.
• If it's technically not in Upper West, which region is it in?

--Menchi 20:05, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was just about to write one when I realized the pejoritive and utterly non-NPOV nature of the entry I was drafting in my head :). In my defense, the bias is against the side I'm on. Anyway, the neighborhood is called "Morningside Heights" -- the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in the south part is on the highest point in Manhattan, hence the name. --Calieber 20:22, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• I've added an Upper West Side but needs more. Please add. Columbia is generally lumped into Upper West Side even if it formally may not be. Fuzheado 23:24, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Heh, at Columbia, we said "Upper West Side", but now that I live downtown I realize that everyone else says "Harlem". The neighborhood really is "Morningside Heights", regardless of what it's called colloquially DropDeadGorgias 19:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• definitely use "Morningside Heights". Columbia's own about page calls it "the historic, neoclassical campus in the Morningside Heights neighborhood". TheEngineer 00:58, Oct 14,2004 (EDT)

[edit] Alumni

Just to clarify something- I'm fairly certain that some of the people on the 'alumni' list have not graduated yet (Like Utada Hikaru). Should we create a separate section for "Famous Students Currently In Attendance"? - DropDeadGorgias 19:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Just another note- Huck Hodge is listed as a "notable student", but I can't find any information on him. I have listed his page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please comment there if you have any information. - DropDeadGorgias 22:29, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• I've also removed Lauryn Hill as she never graduated, and so is therefore not an alumna. Also, why is the alumni list alphabetized by first name? If no one can provide a good reason, I'm going to reformat it. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:58, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton never graduated either, but I'm not prepared to strike him. How about changing the name of the section to "Notable students and alumni"? I'm gonna go for it. Wikisux 06:36, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

• I am in favor of the phrase "Notable Columbians"... that way we can include any famous people associated in any way with columbia? TheEngineer 08:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] school traditions

How about creating a section of unique columbia traditions/events? I have a few so far:

Orgo Night

Track Team Naked Run

Scream Night (when everyone screams into the shafts/streets the night before finals)

Swim Team's semi-nide trip to Times Sq.

Take Back the Night (when people march down B'way and Amersterdam against domestic violence)

Exploring the tunnels underneath the school

Sitting on the steps

CU Alum 02

Don't forget

The Varsity Show

Senior Wednesdays at the Heights (well... this one might not be encyclopedic)

As for the ones you mentioned above, definitely Orgo night and Track Team. I never made it down to the tunnels (because of the spookiness of the CUTV movie "Tunnel vision"). I also think that Take back the night is part of a larger intercollegiate organization, and that scream nights are found just about everywhere. As an fellow 2002 alum, the most common question I get from pre-frosh is about Urban New York, actually... Maybe they talk about it in Days on Campus now...

- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:54, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

None of this has been added yet. I revived the publications section for the Columbia page. If someone would like to spearhead a "traditions" section, that would be great. Eal2119 02:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good traditions section, and I would've added it myself if I had the skill but yea from my experience this summer at Harvard (hearing tour guides every day) I'm as sure as I can be that Harvard has the tradition as well. Just sayin.

I made a change a while back in the Orgo night section -- Barnard should be referred to as an all WOMEN'S college, not an all GIRL'S school. This is just as offensive as the much-debated "Barnard Jokes" section -- one does not refer to college students, aged 18-22, as girls. Why was my change reverted?

[edit] ARTICLE ON STUDENT NEWSPAPER

Spectator Writer:

Could someone create an article about the Columbia Daily Spectator student newspaper? Every other Ivy has an article for their paper. We're ranked with the Harvard Crimson and Yale Daily News in college newpaper reporting, so could we please have an article? Just a thought.

[edit] Info table

Would anyone mind if I updated the info table and overhauled its design? It's out of date and it looks REALLY ugly right now. I think I'm gonna do it within a couple hours, unless anyone objects... Wikisux 09:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Movies

The events of the film Graduate happen entirely in California. The main character drives up Interstate 5 to UC-Berkeley. So I doubt that Columbia plays much of a part of that film. Also, what ever happened to the traditions section? Dyl 23:51, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

To the point about the graduate (the movie) and mona lisa smiles: Classrooms and buildings were used. We are talking about columbia here as a filming location, not necessarily central to the plot of the movie. Many movies use alternate sites to "represent" the places in which they are set.

In Mona Lisa Smile, for example, The Classroom used for Julia Robert's class is the grand Columbia U Chemistry classroom in Havermyer Hall (in which I have spent countless hours over the years). They also use two other sites at the university in the movie - although the movie was set at wellesly.

If you need proof, check out the internet movie database, or, as i did, the credits of the movie.

Sean 04:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Havemeyer's main lecture hall is a popular movie set. Though I would say that we should keep this list to only those which depict Columbia in the movies, not just using Columbia facilities as a set. Fuzheado | Talk 15:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Havermeyer room is worth mentioning if only because that particular room has been in so many different movies. The point below about UCLA is well-put, but that campus is used as a whole, whereas the Havemeyer room alone is remarkable.

I think being the set of a movie versus being a location within a movie is pretty obscure. If that's a cause for fame, then UCLA would be the most famous university in the world, due to the number of films using that location as a set (representing other schools). Dyl 08:10, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I seem to remember Woody Allen filming on campus (perhaps a few times) in the late 80's or early '90s. Does anybody remember for which film(s)? Dyl 14:29, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Everyone Says I Love You have scenes that were filmed on Morningside campus; Husbands and Wives was shot at Barnard. Darkcore 22:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Also A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy

My vote would be to add these films to the movies section and remove The Graduate and Mona Lisa Smiles. It's much more glamorous being part of the storyline as opposed to being the set. Dyl 00:08, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Added. Darkcore 02:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have seen The Graduate several times since my student days at Columbia and nothing in the movie has ever reminded me of the CU campus, either indoors or out. It is true that several movies have used Columbia classrooms etc. as stand-ins for other places, but those movies were all filmed in the NYC area and Columbia was just a convenient place to film. The Graduate was filmed in California (USC stood in for some outdoor shots that were supposedly of UC-Berkeley), so the cast and crew whould have had to fly cross-country to film at Columbia. That would have been an awful waste of money, especially since they were already filming on a college campus in L.A. Whoever listed The Graduate may have been thinking of Marathon Man -- another Dustin Hoffman film and one which actually did include scenes filmed at Columbia.

[edit] Nobel prize winners

There were more this year, but its hard to count becuase of where each one is working. I believe the total is 71 now, but it would work well as a table. Ctrlbuild 14:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Following the recent announcement of the 2006 Nobels, Columbia's (somewhat conservative) official total is 76. They are listed at List of Columbia University People.

[edit] Images

Image scanned from original PD source for this article no longer being used moved here to talk in case anyone ever has some use for it. -- Infrogmation 23:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Timeline links

Do we really need all of them, or even any? Is someone planning to work on them? Mat334 04:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I added them, so I guess I will remove them, but I will keep the section heading, as a suggestion. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 05:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Mat334 05:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Information box

Nooooo!!! What happened? The table looked good before. Now someone has got rid of the lines. It isn't as good anymore. The lines make it nice and neat. Somebody change it back. Please. Mat334 21:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• And take note of the University of California table. Mat334 21:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I did that, I made the templates for all the ivy leauges conform-- execpt for U of P. Anyway, so all the ivies conform to the standard template infobox universities2 instead of having all their own tables which are impossible to edit. One side effect is it is no longer in table form. What you can do is go to the infobox template, the link is, Template:Infobox University2 and edit it so it conforms to your stylistic tastes and see how people react to the new style. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 07:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Combining Columbia-related content

As I am not affiliated with Columbia in any way, I wanted to post a proposal and see what the general consensus would be.

At present, every division of Columbia has an article with a brief description, including Columbia Business School, Columbia College of Columbia University, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University School of Social Work, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Teachers College, Union Theological Seminary. However, many of these school divisions within Columbia really don't deserve their own article, and on their merits should be at best a subsection of the Columbia University article. Perhaps Union Theological and Barnard should be independent, but they are the exceptions. I would like to see an exceptional edit where these divisions, and possibly the other Columbia-related pages including Clubs and organizations of Columbia University, Columbia University Tunnels, Core Curriculum, Go Ask Alice!, List of Columbia University people, be merged into the Columbia University article.

As it current stands, the abundance of minutiae on Columbia is bordering on fancruft, and many of these articles should abolished (turned into redirects) with their content made more pithy and concise to be summarized on the Columbia University page.

Further, the [[Category:Columbia University]] should be rescoped to connect the articles listed in List of Columbia University people, and the content of the list itself should be placed within the article under section headings of "Notable Faculty" or "Notable Alumni."

I look forward to your comments. —ExplorerCDT 20:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I understand your viewpoint, but understand that given the length of the columbia university article, much of this recombining is not possible. Many of the schools you have listed were redirected, but please understand that certain articles, like the business school, the coolege, the engineering school, teachers college, the uts, and the school of socila work have recently been expanded or have within the last month finished a major expansion. Understand that many major universites have satalittle pages like this, and given the nature of columbia univeristy, being a complex agglomeration of schools that are more affiliated than connected to some extent. Please understand that they are works in progress, and several articles right now are having close calls, like the core curriculum article. I am updating that later, but I am arguing against its deletion now. As for the manner of the list of people, I think a lot of universitiy pages have problems with their lists, and its due the limitations of wikipedia. Once the new category system comes in, I think the way it works will work much better. Overall these articles you mentioned will be less nelogistic in the coming weeks, but I think the discussions I have been having with a few people have exhibited that certainly, some of these pages will get absorbed or even deleted. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 21:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• They should be absorbed, period. The problem with the Columbia University article is that it has not been copyedited like it should be. If it is copyedited, all of that will fit in one article—albeit one that comes close to the 32Kb threshold. The problem with "major expansions," as you have said occurred recently on several Columbia-related pages, is that the level of detail and poor writing style tends to render the article as lacking conciseness. From looking at those major expansions, they can easily be rewritten with half as many words. I intend to copyedit the Columbia article's content, no matter what the consensus, but I'm looking for what the response would be before I decide how drastic and insensitive a job I do. —ExplorerCDT 22:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok I am starting to understand. This is a big job, so when I get a chance, I may create project, but I want to point out stats:

Category Columbia University:
 articles: 20
 subcategories: 2
Category Brown University:
 articles: 14
 subcategories: 1
Category Cornell University:
 articles: 13
 subcategories: 0
Category Princeton University:
 articles: 4
 subcategories: 0
Category Yale University:
 articles: 10
 subcategories: 2
Category Harvard University:
 articles: 23
 subcategories: 1
Category Dartmouth College (smallest of the ivies):
 articles: 7
 subcategories: 0
Category University of Pennsylvania (I suggest putting UofP in its own category)
 articles: 2
 subcategories: 0
Category MIT:
 articles: 15
 subcategories: 0

So Yes there is bloat, but you are suggesting unilaterially cutting out all of columbia's subpages. Unlike other schools columbia is a conglomeration, not an association, therefore, in example unlike harvard encompassing radcliffe and harvard college, columbia university has barnard nearly seperate, and seas, cc, gs, etc, nearly separate, so I agree some deadheading has to be done before columbicruft becomes a word in the OED, but what I encourage you is to be very careful about things being done unilatially. The seas article was a stub for months. The social work article just suddenly got a major (and very good) major editor. So I agree with you in ideas, but not in method. This is my last major comment on this for a while. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 00:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Princeton should be down to 3...I moved Residential colleges (Princeton University) to the Princeton University page. Thanks for laying out a lot of projects to work on. —ExplorerCDT 02:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Columbia's numbers aren't so bloated, since it has more individual colleges and schools (18 including Barnard and Teachers College, plus at least three that are now closed) than any of the other Ivies -- and probably more students and alumni as well. The reason there are fewer Princeton articles, for example, is partly that Princeton is much smaller and has fewer components to write about. Fourteen articles about Brown seems much more bloated than twenty about Columbia.

[edit] Columbia or UPenn: which came first

This is in reference to an edit war over whether Columbia was fifth-oldest or sixth-oldest in the United States. Both Slw2014 and 160.39.208.194 (they may be one and the same) edited the opening paragraph stating it was fifth-oldest. I reverted the article—summarizing the edit with an admonish that (both) users didn't know how to count—to reflect that it was indeed the sixth-oldest institution of higher learning established in the colonies. I'm also formatting this discussion with its own section, since it does not belong in the above section. —ExplorerCDT 16:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude, ExplorerCDT. I can count very well thank you very much. The point of the matter is, UPENN was not an institution of higher learning until 1755, before then it was an Academy for boys, so therefore it is not "the fifth oldest institution of higher learning." Columbia was an institution of higher learning before PENN, in 1754. I will not change it again, but please note the historical evidence on Columbia's own webpage http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/history.html

(NOTE: posted without signature by Slw2014 on 21 December 2004 at 19:35)

• Webpage noted. However, UPenn seems to disagree and refute your claim. In retort, see: http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/genlhistory/brief.html. Columbia is sixth oldest, at 1754. UPenn, fifth-oldest, proposed in 1749 (starting with a pamphlet where Benjamin Franklin expounded the idea and curriculum of the proposed institution of higher education) and opened its doors 1751. While it may have not been chartered until 1755, it was operating as an institution of higher learning (as intended by Franklin) four years earlier...and three years before Columbia was founded and chartered as Kings. You still can't count. —ExplorerCDT 16:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I do not want to get into a fight, but how abotu we just qualify it. t if either is stated, it should be qualified with either "the fifth instution of higher learning estabilished" or "the 6th oldest institution of higher learning" perhaps "......nevermind, I just qualified it, tell me if you guys agree with how I did it, I even put a comment into the text to make sure no one goes crazy and says 5 =5, not 5 and 6. Especially since we all know 2+2 = 5. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ]] 18:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I don't agree. 1749 (foundation) and 1751 (opening) still came well before 1754. The 1755 chartering, according to UPenn's history and the 1911 Britannica, was "confirmatory" to an institution of higher learning already existing. You're attempting split hairs where there are no hairs to split. It's simple, unconfusing, and should be obvious to any reasonable person (something you don't seem to be showing yourself as). 1749 makes Penn 5th, and 1754 makes Columbia (Kings) 6th. What is so hard about it that you can't wrap your noggin around that?

Neither you nor I can change the mathematics of sequential order or the passing of history. Dubious (and unnecessarily confusing) "superqualification" thus reverted. —ExplorerCDT 18:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but in the interests of completeness in wikipedia, we should mention somewhere, if someone used this as a source, that the dates of chartering are a different order, but I do agree with your asessment, 6th in order------BUT 5th to be chartered. I do agree though chartering is not like patenting, where the guy who does it first is the guy who made it. It is not like UPenn is the Elisha Gray of colleges, it came 5th, but we should make sure its clear the dates of chartering in each article does not = date of estabilishment. I can't believe I finally got a chance to use that useless fact. --[[User:Ctrl build|User:Ctrl_build^talk ]] 23:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whether someone was late in signing a piece of paper does not change the fact that three years after Penn started instruction, Columbia was founded. To say Columbia is sixth-oldest (which it is) but it was fifth if you count it this way and tenth if you count it another is a.) not concise and b.) confusing. The date of chartering is insignificant, it's a footnote. The only way to count it, as it has been counted for ages, is through the date the institution was created. Penn was in existence before Columbia. Enough said. To risk being the Thrasymachus here, there's nothing more to debate. When reduced to the simple fact of 1749, vs. 1754, Columbia is younger than Penn, no matter how you want to slice it. —ExplorerCDT 00:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Understood, thats that.

Yes, Penn opened before Columbia did but it was essentially a high school until 1755, when it actually became what we would call a college. Dartmouth has a similar history (it was originally a school for Indian boys) but it dates its founding to the year it became a college. If Penn had started as, say, a bakery in 1751 and then became a college in 1755 we wouldn't be having this argument, since bakeries are not the same thing as colleges. Neither are high schools.

On other notes, I have finally found a reason why there are so many columbia articles. I did some talking among friends. Just among my small group, 5 of them contibute to wikipedia. I got them all to agree to help me do editing after december 25th. I you would like to help expanding the articles thats fine, but please understand if there is enough information on a subject, it deserves its own article. I hope you agree on that last statement I made. I do not believe articles should be killed if there is enough information on them. I am fairly sure columbia's article count will go down to about 17, but please remember, columbia has 20 schools in the first place, most of them major institutions of more than 700 people, each with their own separate histories, so I would like an agreement from you.

1. Your disagreement is NOT on the number of articles, but the number of informationless articles.

2. If we actually end up with for example 25 fully detailed articles, that since these articles are fully detailed, they cannot be intergrated into the central document, and thusly should not be deleted.

I believe given the unique nature of wikipedia, full coverage on the range of topical encyclopedias can be achieved. Given that, 3 articles on a school like princeton university is woefully inadequate. Columbia has an active editing base, and I think we have a duty to drum up an editing base at other universities. If you have encoutered items like the facebook, then you understand how once around 50 college students from the big name schools are doing something in unison, a snow ball effect follows. Now I am not saying we can gain 10,000 wikipedia editors that way, but starting from 20 and going to 100 would not be bad. --[[User:Ctrl build|User:Ctrl_build^talk ]] 06:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (moving back over to the left) I hate expansion for the sake of expansion. Consolidate, don't expand. Don't give me the nonsense that Wikipedia isn't paper either, because the abundancy of articles has no other purpose than delving into insignificant minutiae and produces nothing more than wasteful writing. Most other Universities (even large ones with a similar number of subdivisions and schools) boil it down to a page, maybe two if they add a list of notable alumni or faculty separate. Why is Columbia so special? It isn't. It's just another school. I could care less if you have an active editing base, or that you can write volumes on Columbia's subdivisions. Consolidation is what is called for, not expansion. The ad absurdam is that you'll expand to write articles on every school, then some schmuck will come along somewhere down the road and think every building, every walk, every bar near campus students go to get wasted, every insignificant student organization, etc. deserves an article. Take a look at what I did with the Rutgers University (my alma mater) article if you want a good idea of what I would like to see with Columbia. I've heard several writers say that the mark of a good writer is one who can take a text he's written, reduce it by half, and by half again without losing a single thought. Conciseness. Columbia isn't served here by having a myriad of articles all over the place, but by one (maybe a handful) of concise article. —ExplorerCDT 13:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Charity school (1740) is earlier than Franklin's Academy (1749), which is earlier than kings college (1754), which is ealier than the college of philidephia (1755), which is earlier than university of pennsylvania (1791) which is earlier than columbia university (1896)--take what you will from that. --Ctrl build^talk 19:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I ended up changing the article so that it says sixth-oldest, because ExplorerCDT's arguments make sense. However, I do want to make clear that there is precedence for it being named fifth oldest. Ths institution itself considers it fifth-oldest. Many encyclopedias and sites also consider it fifth oldest:

http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=11112 http://www.uscampus.com/research_options/build_understand/build_article6.htm http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/ColumbU.html http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0812980.html http://nyjobsource.com/columbia.html http://www.siemensenterprise.com/attachments/solutions/higher_ed/columbia_university-x723.pdf

Sean 16:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An exercise in masturbation?

Folks, this page is pathetically self-aggrandizing. Speaking as a College alum, I'm embarrassed to be associated with such pap. Please remedy. 69.203.80.227 02:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some of the speak is over the top. Have edited some appropriately. Fuzheado | Talk 07:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with the anonymous user above. The style is completely papped. In addition...too many pictures too unaesthetically placed, still too much of a spread of articles on Columbia minutiae (really in need of consolidation into one comprehensive article...even if it is long). This could be such a great article, but the last time I tried to get involved, I ran into a bunch of kids with a hard-on for Columbia that it ended up causing this masturbatory result. —ExplorerCDT 05:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article not a profile for traveler magazine. This irritates me in particular

  "mmersed in the cosmopolitan culture of the nation's most    
  international city—or perhaps just tempted by Wall Street's 
  commercial riches—Columbia is unique among the Ivies for its 
  outward-directed gaze and engagement with local talent, perhaps 
  most notably in business, literature and the arts, and 
  journalism (as the administrator of the Pulitzer Prize)."

Tempted by Wall Street's commercial riches? Sure that may be reason for some, but having been a student there for a number of years, in my opinion it certainly isn't a dominant enough reason to deserve mention. "outward directed gaze and engagement with local talent" this is possible too, but it is no more unique in this respect than Harvard or Stanford or Georgetown. Lets focus more on the facts. COULD WE PLEASE return this to a more encylopediesque style. More like the introductory paragraph of Dec 2004. 160.39.232.221 01:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Seeing no objections to the above, I have made a modification to make the introduction at least a bit more encyclopedic. The previous statement sounds like something out of an advertisement or viewbook. Being a student of the university, I think the changes fairly represent it and removes the embarassment that the previous statements illicited. Sean 06:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The following paragraph also has the "travel magazine" style problem outlined above (especially the "these revered repositories of cultural significance" part):

  "In addition to its academic ties, the school also maintains relationships with The Metropolitan
   Museum, The Museum of Modern Art, The Whitney Museum, The Museum of Natural History and other   
   major museums throughout New York City, allowing students free or discounted access to these 
   revered repositories of cultural significance."

Also, why is the "Student Life" section first? It seems the least encyclopedic part of the article. Perhaps a "Geography of Columbia" could replace some of it, with other parts moving into the mooted "Traditions" section?

• Nice try trying to perpetuate the "fifth oldest" b.s. (not you Sean, the anon who edited before you) I have altered the awkwardness of the "(see Colonial Colleges)" parenthetic quod vide to conform with how the other 8 Colonial colleges treat the link. To the anon...Don't try to revert the sixth oldest edit. 1749 comes before 1754, and UPenn wins this one despite some of the pro-Columbia boosterism. —ExplorerCDT 07:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "prestige" comment

Watchers of this page should see this poll about whether this page should contain a phrase like "widely considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world". Nohat 15:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please leave the comment "one of the most prestigious universities in the world" in the news body. There is sufficient evidence that many of Columbia's faculties are among the best in the world. The "world rankings" link is a good indication of this.

First, "among the best in the world" is vacuously true but meaningless. The University of Wisconsin is among the best in the world—the best twenty in the world, according to the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings. West Virginia University is also among the best in the world—the best five hundred in the world. Perhaps the average reader, thinking of "best in the world," is thinking "win, place, or show" (i.e. the top three); if so, Columbia is only an also-ran.

Second, "prestige" and academic quality are not at all the same thing.

Third, once you've said that Columbia is a member of the Ivy League, you've said everything it is necessary to say about prestige. It's not necessary to hammer it home. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics in the box

I'm really surprised to learn that Columbia only has less than 8000 undergrads, yet it has more than 3000 faculties. Is it a typo? Bobbybuilder 13:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the College and SEAS comprises about 4000 undergrads. GS and Barnard add a couple more thousand. The rest are graduate schools. You wil find that this is not much different from any of the other ivies, with the exception perhaps of Cornell (which has many more undergrads than grads) and princeton (which has a very small grad student population) IvyLeagueGrunt 13:20, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I can understand the smaller proportion of the undergrads, I just want to check it really has 3000 faculties, 'cos that is less than 10 students for each 'faculty'. Bobbybuilder 22:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

YEs, it is a research university, many of the faculty are not involved in actual teaching, but are scientists, physicians, scholars, etc... IvyLeagueGrunt 13:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Columbia actually has about 4,400 faculty, but most of them are clinical faculty at the medical school and other health sciences divisions. Most leading medical schools have far more faculty than students, and Columbia is no exception. In fact, its faculty/student ratio is higher than most because it has the resources to support a larger faculty and because its primary teaching hospitals are in Manhattan and have many physicians on staff.

[edit] "Midwestern Ivy League" ?

Contributors to this page may be interested in this article, which has been proposed for deletion:

Midwestern Ivy League

Please review the article and provide your input on that article's Votes for Deletion page. - 18.95.1.22 03:58, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable alumni

Notable alumni are usually a separate section in these articles. It is interesting information, particularly to people that have an interest in the school, but it is not the sort of fundamental information that belongs in a concise, introductory summary. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I took a look at other university pages, and all have something they brag about in the intoductory section -- something that sets them apart.

Yes, but they shouldn't, per Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism.

Penn talks about their high alumni contributions to fundraising. Cornell details their national rankings. Brown brags about their low admissions rates. Harvard brags about their endowment. Yale pretty much brags about everything.

Yes, but they shouldn't, per Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism. Boosterism is an arms race and everyone justifies it by pointing to boosterism in other articles. There shouldn't be boosterism in any of them.

While Columbia is usually top ten in alumni contributions, admissions rate, national rankings, and endowment, none of these criteria set Columbia apart. What sets Columbia apart is how productive its alumni are. Around 1900 Columbia actively started recruiting poor kids from NYC public schools that had a lot of talent but no money. This practice turned Columbia from a school for New York's elite into one of the very few most productive American institutions. And nowhere can this fact be better demonstrated than in the accomplishments of its alumni.

I dug into it a bit, and found that the richest of the Columbia alumni, Warren Buffet (business school) was the son of a congressman and stockbroker, so he wasn't exactly one of the "poor kids" you're talking about. In the rest of the top ten I couldn't find another Columbia grad, though I will admit I didn't check #4, 5, 6, 7, or 8, who are all family of gazillionaire Sam Walton (who grew up in a town called Columbia, but I don't think that counts), and so they're not really salt-of-the-earth folks, either. JDoorjam 01:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

No one said this generalization is true of every single one of Columbia's many thousands of graduates, so finding a counterexample -- even a very prominent one -- doesn't prove anything. FWIW, John Kluge (Columbia College '37) came from a poor family and got through Columbia by earning a scholarship and working multiple jobs. He got into the radio business, parlayed his holdings into what was later called Metromedia, and was No. 1 on the Forbes list by the late 1980s. The rise of tech stocks and the division of the Walton fortune among several of Sam's heirs pushed him out of the top ten but, last I heard, he was still No. 11. And as it happens, one of the Waltons in the top ten (J. Robson Walton, No. 5) went to Columbia Law School, though like Warren Buffet he was no Horatio Alger story.

As alumni productivity defines Columbia, this fact should be presented in the first paragraph.

I don't think this is a "defining characteristic of Columbia." If you have a good verifiable source citation that Columbia alumni are really more productive than those of other Ivy League schools, I'd like to see it. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm with Mr. Smith on this one -- the alumni section should not be in the introductory section. That they were Columbia people is worthy of mentioning; it simply doesn't belong in the opening. JDoorjam 21:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I hope you distribute your inquisition evenly among all schools. As far as verification: I defined three categories (# US senators, source US Gov't; # Nobel Lareates, source Nobel.org; #CEO's, source NY Times), and the sources are solid.

Maybe they are, but you haven't cited them, and you really, really should. But that's not really what's needed. I'm content to leave these unsourced but plausible statements in the "notable alumni" section.

What's needed is source for your assertion that alumni "productivity" is a defining characteristic of Columbia and one that distinguishes it from other leading schools, and therefore belongs in the introductory section.

For example, can you find a speech from a Columbia president that says this? Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Three Columbia Degreed Folks in top 11 Fortune Richest 2005.

2 Warren Buffett (Economics M.A.) 5? J. Robson Walton (Law) -- clearly not hurting. 11 John Werner Kluge (College) -- a scholarship student.

Ok, granted, two of three were not poor. If you are questioning whether Columbia is a "poor man's Ivy", you clearly did not do to school there. One of the beautiful things about the school was the complete absence of social snobbery.

As long as we need sources, Columbia Senators:

Frank Lautenberg (D, NJ) (College) -- scholarship student (also founded ADP, the payroll co.) Judd Gregg (R, NH) (College) -- Exeter grad and rich Barak Obama (D, IL) -- scholarship student

CEO's

Spencer Stuart CEO's in Fortune 500s, cited in NY Times "Who's in the Corner Office?"

Nobel Laureates

This Wikipedia page is accurate, but can be verified individually at Nobel.org. Count them: 37.

Regarding poor students, take a look at:

www.jbhe.com/features/45_pellgrant.html

That's about all the time I can spend on this matter. It was fun (really), and I wish you both well. I won't be changing the page. Good Luck!

[edit] References to Teachers College, Columbia University?

Teachers College, Columbia University (referred to by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools Middle States Commission on Higher Education as Teachers Collge of Columbia University) is the correct name of this separate but affiliated institution whose graduates are awarded a degree from Columbia University itself. It is the only one of the four affiliated institutions whose name includes "Columbia University." Some anonymous posters apparently object to listing the correct name, but do not explain why.

I don't have strong opinions on this, but if you're insistent on the point I think you need to explain a) why you think it's the correct name and b) why you think it's important. I notice that http://www.tc.columbia.edu/ is a little vague about this. The top of the page reads

TEACHERS COLLEGE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

It then goes on to make frequent references to "TC" (not "TCCU"). The copyright notice at the bottom of the page, where you'd think they'd be punctilious for legal reasons, reads

Copyright ©2004 Teachers College

not "Copyright ©2004 Teachers College, Columbia University"

The About TC page opens "Introducing Teachers College;" the Letter from the President refers to the institution simply as "Teachers College" seven times, and in contexts such as "The most valuable possession we have at Teachers College is our name."

The letter finally does close "Arthur E. Levine, President, Teachers College, Columbia University," but I perceive that as being like saying "Paris, France" or "Boston, Massachusetts."

I think you're on shaky ground. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

P. S. I just did an online search of The New York Times and the first reference I could find, March 19, 1893, p. 11 is headlined "Gift to Teachers' College — A Mechanic Arts Building To Be Erected at a Cost of $200,000 — The Board of Trustees of the Teachers' College announced that a lady whose identity is kept secret has offered to erect a building... "

An article March 21, 1893 p . 8, "TEACHERS' COLLEGE EXHIBIT." opens "One of the interesting and instructed exhibits at the World's Fair, and one of which New-York may well be proud, will be the display made by the Teachers' College of 9 University Place... The alliance with Columbia College, which the Teachers' College has recently entered into, will prove valuable in many ways to all concerned."

Searching for recent entries, I find: (December 30, 2005) "MILLER--Shirley (nee Buchsbaum)...graduated from New College of Teachers College, Columbia University; (December 14, 2005) "Arthur E. Levine, president of Teachers College at Columbia University;" (November 23, 2005) "GRINELL--Martha M.... was a graduate of Lehman College and received her Master's in education from Columbia Teachers College." The most recent story about the institution seems to be one published on October 6, 2002 length: "NEIGHBORHOOD REPORT: MORNINGSIDE HEIGHTS - A Dispute With Teachers College Adds a Twist to Town-Gown Tensions." It opens

The traditional town-gown friction pitting Morningside Heights residents against Columbia University has turned upside down, with neighbors praising the university and developers criticizing it. The sore point concerns Teachers College, which is affiliated with the university but separate from it. Teachers College plans to break ground next month for a 19-story dormitory on an empty site that occupies part of the block bounded by Broadway, Amsterdam Avenue and 121st and 122nd Streets.

At this point, it really seems to me that the "Columbia University" part is merely descriptive. The historical name of the institution was "Teachers' College," and the "Columbia" is just tacked on any old way when, as, and if needed. Dpbsmith

(talk) 02:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The full legal name is "Teachers College, Columbia University", a New York educational corporation in the City of New York. http://www.tc.columbia.edu/supporttc/plannedGiving.htm?Id=Types+of+Planned+Gifts&Info=Charitable+Bequests

It is accredited by The Middle States Commission on Higher Education as "Teachers College of Columbia University". http://www.msche.org/institutions_directory.asp?txtRange=t

It is accredited in teacher education by the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) as "Teachers College Columbia University." http://www.ncate.org/public/institDetails.asp?ch=106&CO_ID=14919&state=NY

It is accredited in clinical psychology by the American Psychological Association (APA) Committee on Accreditation (CoA) as "Teachers College, Columbia University." http://www.apa.org/ed/accreditation/clinpsymz.html

It is accredited in audiology and speech-language pathology by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) Council on Academic Accreditation in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology "Teachers College, Columbia University." http://www.asha.org/gradguide/grad_guide.cfm?StateAbrev=NY

It cannot truly be said that "[t]he historical name of the institution was 'Teachers' College'...": From 1887 to 1892 (five years) it was New York School for the Training of Teachers. From 1892 to 1898 (six years) it was Teachers College. From 1898 to the present (ninety-seven years) it has been Teachers College, Columbia University

http://www.tc.edu/abouttc/heritage.htm?id=Historical+Timeline

There are probably two reasons why the shortening of the name occurs so often. First of all, the full name is overly long. Secondly, despite its officially independent status, its degrees are actually awarded by Columbia University, so it functions in effect as Columbia University's graduate school of education and its clinical psychology department.

The name "Teachers College, Columbia University" reflects TC's status as a member of the Columbia University system as opposed to being a wholly separate institution. It is like "Balliol College, Oxford", "King's College, Cambridge" or "Imperial College, London". Each of those institutions is a separate legal entity like TC but also part of the larger university around it. Such a structure is common among British universities but rare in America; Columbia's relationships with Barnard College and TC are the ones most directly analogous in the U.S., though the relationship between the Claremont Colleges in California is similar in many ways.

Internal TC communications refer to "Teachers College" or "TC" without adding the university's name because everyone there knows of the Columbia connection. Just as family members refer to one another by first name only without adding the last name, members of the TC community know which teachers' college one another is talking about. Internal communications of Columbia's schools of engineering, law, etc. also seldom use the full university name, and for the same reason; this does not suggest that they are separate institutions or that the use of the Columbia name is meaningless.

The articles, etc. which you cite don't prove much, since at least as many others refer to the institution as "Teachers College, Columbia University". The 1893 article you cite is even less informative, since TC did not formally become a Columbia affiliate until 1898.

[edit] Endowment, real estate, etc.

I'm not quite sure what's going on here... and I am not an accountant... but I did spent a couple of weeks cramming accounting for an exam some years ago, and I believe that it is standard accounting practice to value all assets at the actual price paid, not what someone guesses it might be worth.

Yes, here it is: http://www.riskglossary.com/link/valuation.htm

Traditionally, accounting has been based on book valuation. This can be ascribed to the historically general applicability of that approach. Even today, book valuation is the norm.

The basic problem is that market valuation is a guess. It isn't for things like stocks that are traded frequently in a liquid market, but it certainly is for real estate. Also, at least in a business, the baseline assumption--at least this is what I crammed--is that a business intends to be a going concern, and the market value isn't relevant because the assets are there to further the operation of the business, not to be sold.

I.e. it doesn't really matter what the Butler Library building would fetch on the open market because the basic assumption is that Columbia plans to continue to operate as a university and needs a place to put a couple of million books and has no plans to put them anywhere else.

So, I am not an accountant, but it seems to me that Columbia is doing exactly what would be expected. I'm not quite sure what 68.162.106.110 means when he writes things like "even when the structure was purchased one hundred or more years ago. Columbia argues that valuing its real estate at market rates would overstate the university's true financial position." This phrasing seems to me to carry the inference that Columbia is doing something odd, or questionable, or trying to conceal something.

I don't think Columbia is doing anything here but following the accounting "norm."

Doubtless people who, unlike me, actually know something about accounting will have more to say about this. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The real estate Columbia revalued is not its campus (which is not part of its endowment) but rather the 180 or so nearby apartment buildings which it uses to house faculty and graduate students. These buildings were originally treated like any other investment because they appreciate in value, generate income, can be used as collateral and can be sold if need be. The reality, though, is that Columbia needs the housing and isn't going to sell these properties unless it somehow gets into serious financial trouble. Further, Columbia subsidizes the rent in order to compete with schools in less expensive environments. Because the university isn't trying to maximize its return, it doesn't really treat the buildings as investments. But because it can still borrow against them or sell them, they aren't facilities either. Carrying them at marked value while Manhattan real estate prices soar would have made the university appear far wealthier than it really is.

[edit] Library volume count

Since the American Library Association thinks Columbia has 7,697,488 volumes, I'm citing that number. I'm sure there's a good citation for the 8.6 million volumes, so anyone that has a citation for it should by all means put it back. No doubt the ALA number is a couple of years old. I love it that the ALA list shows Stanford is listed as having exactly 8,000,000 volumes. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

In 2004 Columbia acquired the entire collection of the Union Theological Seminary's Burke Library. This collection has about 750,000 items, including well over 500,000 volumes. The ALS figure you cite pre-dates this development. Combined with the usual yearly acquisitions of about 125,000 volumes, this acquisition boosted Columbia's collections from about 7.7 million volumes to about 8.4 million in a single year.

[edit] School of General Studies

There's a little edit war in progress over whether or not to count the School of General Studies in the total for undergraduate enrollment. Howzabout let's talk about it instead of just reverting? I note that The About GS website says "GS students... take the same courses with the same faculty and major in the same departments as all other undergraduates on the Columbia campus." Dpbsmith (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, GS is undergraduate. A much smaller percentage of them graduate, because they are usually working during the day and can only take a class or two a semester. So a lot just give up. If there is a single other true Columbian reading this, dpbsmith is right here, and we should use the total number (college+engineering+gs), which should be around 7000.

Now, on another issue: Dan, why the fascination with Columbia and MIT? If you were rejected at these schools, take my apology. Most of the leading schools have become excessively competitive, and turn away many people who will do great things one day. Columbia rejected about 16,500 applicants for undergraduate admission alone, and most of them probably would have done well at Columbia.

But, if you would, kindly use your razor editing on the king of Boosterism: the University of Chicago. Go ahead, and take a look at the opening paragraph of their page. "Renowned", "teacher of teachers", lists of faculty, etc. etc. No sources cited. Every rule broken. The king of Peacocks. It's the biggest puff paragraph on Wikipedia. Not that Chicago is not a great school. It's just that you've pruned all the leading universities, but not Chicago. Please direct your efforts there so we have consistency. Thanks!

I couldn't prune all the academic boosterism in Wikipedia unless I did nothing else. I nip away at it here or there as I see it and as it comes to my attention. I just peeked at Chicago, and I agree with you that it is nauseating, but I do not accept that one nauseating article justifies other nauseating articles. If you think University of Chicago is the king of boosterism, you didn't see what Babson College looked like a few weeks ago. Click on that link, I dare you.

I am not the self-appointed smiter of boosterism and I'd like a little help from other Wikipedians committed to neutrality. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new infobox

Who agrees the new university infobox is ugly? should change back to the original one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.113.111.203 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Bring Your Flippers

Columbia University requires all of its undergraduates to pass a swimming test in order to graduate. The test consists of swimming three lengths of the pool without stopping and it is the bane of all seniors trying to fulfill every last requirement.

from the College Prowler guidebook, Columbia University - Off the Record

This is hardly interesting in itself; many colleges have or had such a requirement. MIT did during the 1960s; and a relative of mine who attended Cornell in the 1920s not only mentioned such a requirement, but told me (as true) the urban legend, universal at schools with swimming requirements: that the requirement was instituted at the behest of the wealthy parent of a drowned student, who made a huge donation to the school on condition that it require a swimming test.

On the other hand, the factoid, mentioned in the Snopes link above, about Mortimer Adler, could conceivably be worth a mention:

Dr. Mortimer J. Adler, who earned a PhD from Columbia University, wrote more than 30 books, taught at Columbia University, and was chairman of the board of editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, was denied his bachelor's degree by Columbia in 1923 — despite his completing their four-year curriculum in three years and finishing at the top of his class — because he failed to pass the swimming test required for graduation. He was finally granted his degree sixty years later after informing Columbia that he had since learned how to swim and asking them to waive his disqualification

Dpbsmith (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Newspaper

I'm a Columbia undergrad and I am shocked that there is not article on the Columbia Daily Spectator. We're the nation's second-oldest daily college paper and we're considered as good as the Yale Daily News and the Harvard Crimson. EVERY other Ivy has an article on their campus newspaper, so PLEASE SOMEONE HERE CREATE AN ARTICLE FOR THE COLUMBIA SPECTATOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A.Lucas, Columbia College.

Welcome to Wikipedia, the place where you can create your own article. "Every other ivy" has an article on their campus paper because someone created one. This is your big chance. Just start an article. I promise once you start one, others will add to it and edit it. -Bindingtheory 02:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's a good idea to create an account so that you can have a watchlist to keep track of articles that interest you, get your own user page, and hide your ip address from other users. (Plus you actually need to have one to start a new article) Then sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. -Bindingtheory 03:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

A good reason for writing about the Columbia Spectator would be because of its importance.

A bad reason for writing about it would because "every other Ivy has an article on their campus newspaper."

Since there's nothing in Columbia University about the Spectator currently, I think it would be much wiser to add a few sentences to that article than to start an entire article. You can do this right now, without even needing to create a free account, although creating an account is so easy I'd suggest doing it, for reasons mentioned by Bindingtheory.

I'm personally not familiar with the paper. I'd suggest beginning by assembling some facts about it that affected the world outside Columbia. Was it ever the first to break a story that was then picked up by the national media, for example? Did any household-name-famous journalists get their start there? Dpbsmith (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The Spec article is looking good; it's now up and running. Would like to get a picture or two, though. Eal2119 02:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruft

How did this article get so crufty? Koronet's pizza? Please stop adding information unrelated to Columbia University. Much of this information would be better placed in the Morningside Heights article or not at all. --DDG 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But Koronet's kicks ass! :P --Tyrant007 01:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Koronet's does kick ass. Or at least its pizza causes digestive problems. Regardless, that isn't the point of the article. :D DCB4W 03:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the close of the nineteenth century, Columbia was the world's leading producer of academic doctorates?

An anon recently added

By the close of the nineteenth century, Columbia was the world's leading producer of academic doctorates

along with some other blatant boosterism.

I think this statement is flat-out factually wrong and have snipped it.

Stand, Columbia, appendix E, table 3.2 (a Columbia source!) says:

3.2 Leading American University Producers of PhDs, 1861–1900

First PhD, Institution, Total to 1900 1878, Johns Hopkins, 549

1861, Yale, 346

1873, Harvard, 272

1875, Columbia. 264

1892, Chicago, 179

1872, Cornell, 146

"one of the nation's earliest centers for graduate education" seems justified, but Columbia was obviously just part of the crest of a wave. Yale is the only one that stands out of the pack as "early," and Johns Hopkins clearly was the "leading producer" at the close of the 1900s. Columbia produced about half as many as Johns Hopkins, and fewer than Yale or Harvard. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This is not boosterism, since it refers to quantity rather than quality. I'm sure the numbers you cite are accurate, but by 1900 (remember that the article refers to the END of the 19th century; your figures are from earlier periods) Columbia had overtaken its peers and was awarding more than 8% of all doctorates granted in the U.S. each year. No other American institution granted as many. Columbia's percentage did not begin to shrink substantially until after World War II, when the G.I. Bill and other government programs enabled many smaller universities to either open or expand their own graduate schools.

[edit] "One of the earliest centers for graduate education." Why we should mention the others

On 9 March, 64.61.107.115 added the unsourced item:

The development of the Graduate Faculties in Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science established Columbia as one of the nation's earliest centers for graduate education.

It was coupled with an inaccurate claim that "By the close of the nineteenth century, Columbia was the world's leading producer of academic doctorates" when, in fact, it wasn't even close to being the leading producer of doctorates even in the United States.

You are mistaken. See the prior section.

Now, "one of the earliest" is one of these peacocky claims that means nothing in particular by itself. Does it mean one of the first three? The first ten? the first hundred? My experience so far is that these vaguely worded "one of the most" claims are usually made when the thing is not, in fact, in the top three. If we're to mention it at all, and mentioning it was not my idea, we should provide more specific context. So, I edited it to read:

The development of the Graduate Faculties in Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science established Columbia as an early center for graduate education, awarding its first PhD in 1875 (following Yale in 1862, Cornell in 1872, and Harvard in 1873).[4]

I think this puts things clearly into context. Yale actually does lead everyone else, and by more than a decade. What follows then is a number of universities, all introducing Ph.D. programs at about the same time, during what was obviously a wave of post-Civil-War university expansion. In that context, Columbia is certainly early, but not a pioneer. It is not, in fact, a particularly notable characteristic of Columbia. With regard to when they introduced European-style Ph.D. programs, Yale is notable as being the first, and Johns Hopkins is notable as being by far the most productive. Columbia was just doing what all the leading U. S. universities were doing.

141.152.246.127 snipped the mention of the colleges with earlier graduate programs with the edit comment "why compare who was first?" (I am also extremely annoyed that 141.152.246.127 also removed the supporting reference.)

Now, why even say that Columbia's program was "early?" I'd be perfectly happy to say that "Columbia issued its first Ph.D. in 1975" and leave it at that. But if we must characterize it as "early," then it is only reasonable to show the reader what exactly is meant by early. I've moved this to a footnote, but making a comparative characterization ("early") but suppressing the basis for comparison (who, exactly, was earlier and by how much) is dishonest. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• On the other hand a recent change ("an early" to "yet another") seems tendentious to me in the other direction... I'm happy enough with "an early" as long as the footnote is only a click away to give a specific answer to the question "what do they mean by that, exactly?'" That is, the specific names of the earlier institutions need to be there, but don't necessarily need to be in the reader's face. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fifth/sixth oldest

IMHO the only neutral thing to do is to say "fifth or sixth oldest" and present the details in a note.

We should acknowledge Columbia's own claim to be fifth[5], and the AFAIK undisputed fact that it was chartered fifth.

However, Penn, though chartered after Columbia, was founded before Columbia. Even if one thinks Penn's 1740 date is bogus (and I am one who does think so), Penn was certainly founded no later than 1749, earlier than Columbia. So AFAIK it is also undisputed that Columbia was founded sixth.

Now, as to whether "founding" or "chartering" should "count," I think the date of "founding" is the one that is customarily used. The order of march in university processions is traditionally based on the date of founding (and the hosting institution customarily accepts the founding date self-reported by the guest institutions).

It's not neutral to selectively present only the definition of age that happens to give the more venerable result. I think it is patently dishonest to say simply "fifth" without explanation. Nor does "fifth oldest chartered" cut it. "Chartered fifth" would, but neutrality would still require something like "chartered fifth (founded sixth)." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert - help

I've seen that the article text was duplicated, and reverted to the Revision as of 08:27, 22 April 2006. Now I see that maybe I missed something. Pls check the required correction. Thanks, Noon 14:21, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tradtions include minor club events

Events like the bad poetry contest aren't really school tradtions, they're just relatively obscure events which are held every year by relatively obscure clubs. Doesn't the inclusion of something like this amount to a plug for that student group? Erase? Jiggz84 16:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is an annual event sponsored by (the current incarnation of) a very old organization, so it probably would qualify as a tradition. It was never particularly well-attended when I was a student, though, so even though it's a tradition it may not be notable enough to mention. DCB4W 03:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• It drew a lot of people this year...lots of alumni and students from UPenn, even.

--cjs 03:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In film, television and the arts

Someone added "citation needed" tags to several movies in this section. I have two problems with that. Firstly, with the header at the top of the section asking for sources, putting another flag on each line item is 1) ugly, and 2) redundant. Secondly, the standard being used there was wrong. The linked articles don't need to mention the Columbia appearance; as long as the film itself did in fact feature a Columbia character or scene, it is appropriate to mention, so the specific complaints (visible when you edit the field, and I left them even when I deleted the tags) don't really make sense to me. I'm also not sure what sources the other editor is looking for; the most obvious source would be the film itself. DCB4W 03:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ficticious Columbians

Sorry, but Marvel Comics' "Peter Parker" attends the similarly fictitious "Empire University". While bearing a striking resemblence to the Morningside Heights campus (alright, the movie was *filmed* there), in fact the character is always refered in all the literature and other media as attending Emprire U.

Not that I think it should be in the article, but in the start of the first movie they DO call the place Columbia University at the beginning of the spider-exhibit tour, not Empire University. 64.131.190.113 16:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be in the article, true. Remove? Regardless, though I don't have a copy of the film handy, there is this resource from the owners of the character: http://www.marvel.com/universe/Spider-Man_(Peter_Parker). It plainly refers to "Empire State University". Perhaps there is an inconsistancy between the print world and the cinematic world on this issue.--Shoreranger 14:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Gore?

The postcolonial scholar Edward Said taught at Columbia, where he spent virtually the entirety of his academic career, until his death in 2003. as was former Vice President and unsuccessful presidential candidate Al Gore, at the School of Journalism.

I'm not exactly sure what that's supposed to say? Green Eyes On Television 03:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is ambiguous, but I think we can assume the author advocates for the inclusionn of Mr. Gore and Mr. Said in the text of the article.--Shoreranger 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore was a visiting professor at the journalism school for a single semester. He showed up once a week to co-teach a noncredit (but required) course. He also did some work outside of the classroom, but his visit is too insignificant to be included in this article or to justify calling him a Columbia faculty member.

[edit] History of Columbia University

The history section, while good, is overwhelmingly large. Consider breaking it off into a History of Columbia University article. Then, leave a brief history on the main page. --Xtreambar 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm British, and I've never been near NY - but shouldn't there be something about Columbia's core curriculum? Isn't this a distinctive and historically important feature of Columbia education? If someone has already covered this and I haven't noticed, please bite me. Notreallydavid 15:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Core is not required throughout the University, only at Columbia College where it is noted, and discussed more fully in its own article at "Core Curriculum". Consider yourself bit, Brit.Shoreranger 20:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. It's all for my own good.Notreallydavid 16:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Washington Monthly?

What makes the blog "Washington Monthly" an authority on college rankings? Seems odd to place this into rankings compared to the Princeton Review or Newsweek. I suggest deletion.--Chuck Griffith 17:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, it is a printed publication, not simply a "blog". For another: the debate on who is an "authority on college rankings" is just the point of an alternative to US News' version - such as the Washington Monthly's version. Just as good a questions is: What makes US News the *only* authority on college rankings? Further, the transparent method and clearly unique focus of the WM version makes it a viable and noteworthy counterpart to the US News rankings, and has been treated as a legitimate alternative by established media. I propose the notation stays.Shoreranger 18:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I would not call the methods used by "smart people" (to use the language they use in their "methodology") as transparent. The methodology suggested by WM does not have any transparency at all, and I would challenge you to reveal this as it is not on their website at this point. To paraphrase, they suggest a "trust us, we're smart" ideal. There's no quantiative research or study behind the methodology by WM. Being a printed publication is laughable when comparing the circulation and readership of other publications. Society has placed US News and the Princeton Review as legitimate sources of college rankings because of their actual transparent research/formulas. WM should not be placed above any other publication where WM does not provide any sources to their rankings or how they actually arrived to those rankings. If WM is intending to be an authority for college rankings, then perhaps, rather than single out Columbia, WM should try have their PR interns insert in all of the college wikis.--Chuck Griffith 18:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I object to the use of Washington Monthly rankings in college articles for the following reasons:

1) It tends to be used selectively, i.e. it is typically cited when the Washington Monthly ranking is higher than the U. S. News ranking. (This does not apply in the case of Columbia, of course).

2) I've seen no evidence that it is taken seriously by ambitious parents, high school guidance counselors, etc. It is not considered a "real" ranking by those people foolish enough to pay much attention to school rankings;

3) It is a subversive effort on the part of Washington Monthly to change the way in which people evaluate schools. I personally happen to be in strong sympathy with this effort and I wish them the best of success, but it is an attempt to push a point of view. Citing a Washington Monthly ranking for a university is rather like citing an ADA ranking as a measure of the quality of a senator.

4) Their methodology is questionable, because Washington Monthly rankings have fluctuated bizarrely from year to year, even more widely than U. S. News ratings. The year it ranked MIT #1, the MIT boosters were hot to have it in the article, but the year before it had ranked number 20 or something like that, and nobody was able to come up with any halfway plausible explanation of what, exactly, MIT had done to merit a jump of twenty places in the ranking. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well said!--Chuck Griffith 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

If you truely object to the use of WM ranking "in college articles" and not only for some unexplained reason for this Columbia article, you should get cracking at removing it from the significant number of references in a number of other college articles. A quick look at the "what links here" choice at the WU page shows a numbe of institution's articles have it. Conversely, since it is a fact that CU was ranked by WM, and that reference is also made to competing ranking systems with plainly stated different foci, I suggest you replace the mention of WU's ranking in this article.Shoreranger 01:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Cornell, MIT, and Penn all have the WU ranking mentioned on their Wiki page, I see no reason it cannot be included here, despite the opinions noted above. I have returned the notation to this Wiki article myself. Everything is linked to. The reader can make up their own mind.Shoreranger 01:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep trying to remove it from the MIT article. It was one of the first articles to mention the Washington Monthly, and for no obvious reason I can determine other than MIT happened to rank #1. I don't believe many MIT article editors were even aware of the existence of the Washington Monthly until that magazine paid MIT a compliment. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the entire class of schools that include Columbia should delete all references to magazine rankings to justify their reputation.

There's a slim justification for uniformly citing the U. S. News and World Report overall ranking number from the "top national universities" list, simply because this number is so influential. As nearly as I can tell, just about every other ranking number you see in Wikipedia articles about university rankings is invariably a case of selective citation. If a school mentions the number of Rhodes Scholars but not the number of Nobel Laureates, you can bet money it's because it has more of the former and fewer of the latter than its rivals. "Putting your best foot forward" is quite appropriate for a university's admission department or public relations "news" office, but a clear violation of neutrality in a Wikipedia article. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia Libraries

I checked Columbia web pages, and they state the library has 9.3, 9.2, and 8.6 million volumes. Which is accurate?

I doubt that it's even a meaningful question, for two reasons:

Although I'm sure some administator pencil-whips a column of numbers on pieces of paper and comes up with total, I seriously doubt that it is possible to count the number of "volumes" in a "university library" to an accuracy better than +/-10%, both because of vagueness in what counts as a "volume" and vagueness as to what counts as a "university library" (most universities contain big rooms full of books that are not administratively part of "the library." And most universities have outlying campuses, field stations, outreach programs etc. at varying distances from the central campus. Columbia has a geological laboratory located at Palisades, NY, for example. I'll bet it's got a big room full of books in it. Do they count?

Nor, even if it could be answered, do I think it's any more important that a count of, say, the number of electrical sockets in the Columbia libraries. Either of them is some kind of measure of how big the library is, and neither of them is more than the roughest indication of anything in particular.

My suggestion (as always) is to go with the American Library Association, on the assumption that they are a) library professionals, who b) presumably have made some effort to come up with comparable volume counts of different libraries, and the number they give is 7,697,488.

"About eight or nine million" would work, too.

(So... I did both. Worded it as "eight or nine million volumes," retained the reference to the 9.3 million "printed volumes" figure, and added the reference to the ALA's "7,697,488 volumes held" figure). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you ever check the dates each of these webpages were updated? Perhaps they have accumulated more volumes during the interim. Or lost a whole bunch... Valley2city 18:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MinuteMen Protest

Changing "students attacked". There was no attack or even vague threats against the speakers' safety. In fact, reporters caught -- on tape -- Minutemen kicking a student in the HEAD right before the speech. The students stormed the stage, not attacked it.

[edit] removal of "Barnard jokes"

I removed a sub-section of “tradition” about Barnard jokes, due to its inappropriate nature to an encyclopedia. Matan 02:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I previously deleted the Barnard jokes article, so this user is clearly trying an alternative route to get this offensive nonsense in. If this becomes persistent behaviour, I'm prepared to take appropriate action such as protection or a user block. jimfbleak 07:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it very disappointing that you use your power as editors to enforce with such authority something of which you know nothing about. anybody who is part of the Columbia comunity knows about this and takes it with the levity it deserves.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.247.111)

I support the inclusion of this section without those examples. if nobody says otherwise, I will add it shortly.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.247.111)

I object to that section, with or without the “examples.” The fact that some people disrespect others in their community does not make it a “tradition,” and certainly does not warrant an encyclopedia entry. The author of this section claims that Barnard jokes (=jokes about women) is a “long standing tradition.” The proof? An opinion piece by one student in the school newspaper. Not an article about the so-called tradition, not a research paper on the origins of said tradition. One person’s opinion. (and the opinion isn’t even about the so-called tradition, but about the problems of creating a cohesive community out of 4 undergraduate colleges). So if I start a blog tomorrow about the “tradition” of “varsity sports jokes,” then the tradition must exist. Right? This isn’t tradition, its slur. Lets keep it out. Matan 03:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agreed with Matan. jimfbleak 06:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Matan, you and I have gone to Columbia so surely you must have noticed the Orgo Nights (and various other Marching Band performances), Varsity Shows, The Fed, Jester, and Blue & White, and notice that it is indeed tradition, at least for 40 years (read the archives of the CUMB scripts). Valley2city 07:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Why am I glad I didn't go to Columbia? Sounds like a kindergarden for adolescent boys. jimfbleak 10:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Valley2city, I disagree. None of these things make these jokes a university tradition. If it is “tradition” for the Marching Band jester to make these jokes, write about it in the marching band article. Additionally, the marching band, the Fed, the B&W and the Varsity Show make jokes (good and bad) about everything. I am sure I could find an anti-Semitic joke in each Fed issue… would that make it a University tradition to make fun of Jews? Matan 04:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I have again removed the section on Barnard jokes. Dear anonymous users, if you honestly wish to include this section, it would be best if you created an account (it makes it easier for other users to communicate with you), and reach a consensus on this page first. Matan 04:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The anon is using a Colombia University computer, so I'm reluctant to block, but that or semi-protection will have to be the next step if this continues. jimfbleak 07:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

this is ridiculous. plenty of sourcing has been given to the tradition. assuming this is in fact a tradition (and it is) what other than marching band skits, the fed, the BnW, the Spectator and the Varsity show can you cite to have it become valid to outside observers? ask any student in the university and they will understand exactly what you mean. Matan, asking for a reasearch paper about this is a complitely ridiculoud proposal. any research papers about the first year run? furthermore, please refrain to comparing this to antisemitism.

(this unsigned comment was from user:69.138.189.71)

Interesting view that anti-semitism is bad, but it's OK to denigrate women ( especially clever women). Interesting too that the anon (no surprise there!) persists despite the numerous comments about the offensiveness of this behaviour. I wonder if the University appreciates that its computers are being used to ridicule and mock its female students? If this is OK, why not throw in a few anti-jewish or anti-black jokes too, and make that an another endearing tradition. jimfbleak 13:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

jimfbleak, you are seriously overstepping the line. Being complitely ignorant of a tradition of this university, which has been sourced in as many publications as any university tradition would (as much as any of the other ones on this article) you insist on not allowing it to be a part of the article. If you knew anything about this university, like Valley2city seems to, you would understand that these are JOKES, and only that. you can keep comparing it to anti-semitism or anything you want, but these are your opinions and they are frankly quite irrelevant. This tradition is a fact, it is sourced and exist whether you would like to include it in wikipedia or not. I think it is a section that would grow and become significant tot he article. it even coudl be its own article, where pro's and cons of the tradition could be protrayed, but you will not allow it. If there is a way to put you up for review as an editor, I would recommend that be done. you should stick to making editorial decitions that are informed, sourced, or otherwise objective, not purely your opinion.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

Dear anonymous user. First, if you are genuinely interested in being part of this community, then create an account. It allows other members of the community to take you more seriously, and to communicate directly with you. Second, jimfbleak is not obusing his authority (he didn’t even do anything yet!). There are rules on what to do when editors disagree, and he is trying to enforce them. This specific talk section is meant to help us reach a consensus, and by adding the joke section back as an anonymus user, you are acting, or appering to act, in un-wikipedia-like behavior. Third, an opinion piece by one student, about the problems of creating a cohesive community out of 4 undergraduate colleges is not a “source” for establishing anything, let alone a “university tradition.” Fourth, the majority of the other traditions listed in the articles are in fact university tradition. These are traditions not because I or jimfbleak think they are, but because they are sourced, varifaible, and actually mean something to the university community. The university president, every year, lights-up the trees. A group of students, for over 100 years, write a musical and perform it during the spring. The marching band, before every organic chemistry exam, enters the library to distrupt the students (not really distrupting anymore, because this event is sanctioned by the university, as they provide security and seal-off a section for the band’s use). That is why these are traditions. And finnaly, I am sorry you don’t like the comparison to anti-semitism, but maybe the following will help you understand. On January 26, 2005, the Spec reported that “Racist Graffiti Found In Lerner.” Two years earlier, the Fed published a racist cartoon. Do these incidents mean that Columbia has a tradition of racism? I don’t think so. Do a few incidents of jokes at women mean that Columbia has a tradition of “Barnard jokes.” I believe the answer is no. I hope I was able to change your opinion. Sincerely, Matan 03:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear matan. I choose not to create an account, and as i see it there is nothing against that int he guidelines, when I want an account i'll make one, thank you for the suggestion. You obviously have attended columbia at some point. if you have, I am sure you know that Barnard Jokes exist and are something particular to columbia, something that to me fits very closely with the definition of a tradition. why not add the section and describe the tradition for what it is? it exists, however you may dislike it. On sourcing, I know the article is not about it, but it mentions it, giving it credibility, and also, thanks to the organic nature of contributions to wikipedia, now you know that the marching band references them in their orgo night skit. and also, enough with the racism comparisons, its at best a fallacy, and i believe that even you know that.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

Then we disagree. You think it’s a tradition, I do not. You believe my comparison of “Barnard jokes” to racist incidents is a fallacy, I do not. Since I have tried to change your opinion without success, and you have tried to change mine, I doubt we can reach a consensus. I therefore invite other contributors to this article to voice their opinion. Sincerely, Matan 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I happen to have a watch on Columbia's article, as a proud alumnus and avid Wikier, and thought I'd weigh in when I saw this dispute in the most recent edit. It certainly doesn't seem that the general article on "Columbia University" need or should include a selection of the jokes plied about our fellow academians across Broadway--it's not that the jokes aren't heard in the Columbia environment, but that such a level of detail is entirely inappropriate to a general encyclopaedic article on Columbia. That being said, it might be said reasonably that a general level of good-natured condescension (if that mild oxymoron makes sense to people who didn't go here) exists at Columbia vis a vis Barnard: that's the sort of broad comment on university views about a major element of their community that does belong in a Wiki top-level article such as "Columbia University". Whether or not such condescension is felicitous or politically correct is irrelevant; this is an encyclopaedia, not a forum for promoting moral growth. (If you'd like, I can dig up some sourcing for that general campus sentiment if such is desired.) As for the individual jokes in question, there seems to me nothing inappropriate with presenting an article on "List of Barnard Jokes," so long as they are sourced (Wiki is no one's personal jokebook). That's just reporting facts. I wouldn't make such an article, since it seems horribly trivial and a waste of time, but Wiki has articles on much more narrow subjects than that. If Mr. Anonymous wants to waste his time at it, moral objections should have no part in denying him an opportunity for the presentation of facts. Our editorship should be limited to the style in which it is presented, its veracity, and its placement in an appropriately narrow (rathe than general-interest) article. Citizen Sunshine 21:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is what I have been saying from the beginning, albeit less elloquently.160.39.168.58 00:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

dear Citizensh sunshine, given that you are an editor, and aparently the only one must be an editor to be taken seriously, please add the section, unless there are any other objective NPV objections.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

While I've voiced my opinion, I'd prefer to let somewhat more time lapse so more voices might be heard, or those already heard restate their ideas, if they wish, before inserting material which has hitherto been controversial. My recommendation for an appropriate sentence could read, "Although relations between Columbia and Barnard students are manifold and broadly cordial, many Barnard students feel a sense of benign condescension from their Columbia counterparts, who in turn express displeasure that Barnard students receive diplomas from Columbia." As a source, a through and well reported survey of the subject may be found at: Tess Brustein and Kira Goldenberg, "Barnard's Mixed Message," Columbia Daily Spectator, 20 April 2006, http://www.columbiaspectator.com/media/storage/paper865/news/2006/04/20/News/Barnards.Mixed.Message-2027474.shtml. Beyond that, as I noted above, I have no interest in compiled reported jokes about Barnard; I have better uses of my time on Wiki.

Please excuse me; I neglected to sign the immediately preceding statement. Citizen Sunshine 01:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have added the section, without examples and with the proper sourcing. I believe it accurately represents the tradition and has nothing derrogatory, or even controversial there at this point. I have no objection to editings of the section, I actually think they would be good, so it becomes better written and more accurate.160.39.168.58 05:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnard Jokes, while infinitely amusing, hardly fulfill the requirements for a tradition. It should be removed, just like the Bad Poetry Contest should be. Jiggz84 06:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to Jiggz84, I would tend to disagree. One of the many things I and my ancestral Columbia attendees have been able to join on is our recollection of sometimes off-color joking about Barnard. While not as clearly a "tradition" like the Varsity Show so much as "traditional", it seems as though the Traditions section is the best place to put the information. I think 160.39.168.58's edit is well-written, concise, factual, and sourced, and should be kept. Citizen Sunshine 19:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I disagree. First, Mr. Anonymous, it is not very nice to insert that section back, while the discussion is clearly continuing and a consensus has not been reached. Second, Citizen Sunshine, I must point out again that this section is NOT sourced. The link is to an opinion piece that has nothing to do with jokes. And even if the topic of the opinion piece were jokes, it would still not be enough to establish a tradition. If I wrote an opinion piece that Columbia students have a tradition of standing on their hands, would that be a valid source? And to make the comparison even greater, what if my opinion wasn’t even about standing on my hands, but on financial aid, and my headline was “Columbia students stand on their hands”… would THAT be a source? It would not. This is not a tradition, it is not sourced, and even as currently written, it promotes attacks on women. Matan 01:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Matan, this is ridiculous. you bring up one ridiculous analogy after another. You should recognize that the sourcing is appropriate. its a tradition of a university, you are not going to find volumes of scholarly essays about it, you will see it mentioned in the university press as a sidenote and a reality. in the same way, you will see it appear in the scripts of school performances that poke fun at the schools traditions and inside jokes. the Joyce Kilmer Memorial Annual Bad Poetry Contest, the Vagina Monologues and the Take Back The Night traditions are not sourced at all. Yet we hear no complaint from you about them. You may not like this tradition, but it exists. if you want to add commentary to the section, you can. that that has a place in an encyclopedia, I am not sure.

(this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

Hello anonymous. First, please don’t respond to what I say as ridicules. It makes it harder for me to treat you with respect. Second, I actually think that all un-sourced sections of any article should be removed, including the sections on “Bad Poetry Contest” (a club activity, and hardly a University tradition), the Monolugues (I find it tradition, but it should be sourced) and “Take Back the Night” (even more of a tradition, but should also be sourced). But this discussion is about your jokes, not about those sections. You can’t justify one bad thing with the existance of another. Finally, despite my request that the jokes section be left out until a consensus is reached, you have re-inserted the text back into the acticle. I am not going to engage in an edit war. Instead, I have initiataed a formal dispute resolution and invited further requests for comments (RfC). Have a nice day. Matan 22:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Matan, the Barnard Jokes section should be removed. These such jokes are inappropriate; put simply, making fun of students from one college within the university is not a university tradition. Peace, Nathan C. Walker 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

sounds good Matan. and I am sorry about calling you comment ridiculous, but its harder to take YOU seriously after you compare this to anti-semitism twice, to racism and then made the analogy with "columbia standing on their hands." I only pointed out the fact that other sections were not sourced to highlight the hypocrisy of this argument and how your personal POV is factoring into your editorial decision. finally, your condescending tone with bolded enumerations is very much not appreciated. (this unsigned comment was from user:160.39.168.58)

First of all, I would call the Kilmer Bad Poetry Contest a University tradition. Steeped in ritual, it is one of the longest-running events at Columbia and is mostly attended by non-Philos (though technically they all are members as they become lifetime members once they enter a meeting). Just as rituals involved in the Investiture of a Columbia President or the Yule Log lighting ceremony, or even the infamous swim test, this is one of the traditions people think of when they think "Columbia". As to the Barnard jokes, I understand if you have a personal ethical problem with it, but bashing Barnard is as traditional as, say, bashing Princeton. You can factuality dispute it all you want, but it still remains truth that Barnard gets a significant share of the abuse at the hands of the CUMB and the Varsity Show, as well as in frequent overheard conversation of laystudents in and around campus. Valley2city 18:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the "factual accuracy" banner should be removed. the facts are clear and sourced.160.39.168.58 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFC response

As a Wikipedia administrator and a female Columbia University graduate (College, not Barnard) I have to weigh in about this. How about the old Engineering division jokes about how they lacked social skills and couldn't write a sentence unless it included an equation? Or about how the General Studies students were children from wealthy families who had been expelled from the nation's finest institutions? Or how the law school building looks like a toaster and the business school (viewed south from 120th Street) looks a bit like a toilet? I'll admit I was a sophomore when I told them, but they're still sophomoric, and this debate is a poor reflection on my alma mater. Cornell University is a featured article and you're quarreling over jokes? Get over it: move the jokes to MySpace. Aren't there enough Nobel Prize winners on the faculty and enough to say about the Pulitzer Prizes to take up your time? Durova^Charge! 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have read over some of the disucssion, and it appears that there are citations that support that this is a sentiment at Columbia- and some small part of Columbia U culture. I would question putting it first, but other then that- it seems well sourced. Sethie 06:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Its first just for alphabetical order 160.39.168.58 20:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If this section is to be included another source that should be noted is the Stephen Sondheim Musical Merrily We Roll Along. One of the title character makes a joke about a Barnard girl at the end. I don't remember the exact line, but it would lend credence to the fact that there is a history of such jokes, regardless of whether this history could be considered a tradition.

Actually, the entire section of Columbia traditions should be removed from this article and put at Columbia University traditions. That's what we did over at the Cornell article, moving everything to Cornelliana; not long after, the article became a featured article. If you subscribe to post-hoc fallacy as I do (one year subscription — 53% off the cover price!), you'll see the wisdom in doing the same for Columbia. FWIW, I think "jokes about Barnard" really don't belong in this article or the traditions article I've proposed. There are light-hearted but ongoing jokes about a few programs at my alma mater, as there probably are at many or all colleges and universities, but it's certainly not in the article about the university, or the separate article about Cornell traditions, despite such playful mockery being a known and even documentable part of Cornell's undergraduate culture. It's just not that important or unique. The same is true here. If you can find a New York Times article talking about how ingrained the culture of mocking Barnard is, you might have a case. But having a couple sources that mock Barnard, one of which is just using a Barnard joke as a segue to discuss Barnard in general, and using that to stitch together the statement that it's part of Columbia tradition is not only not terribly convincing; it borders on original research. JDoorjam Talk 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

A couple things. I've been absent from this discussion for a bit, mainly due to real-world concerns, but I've now read through the discussion. As I wrote supra, I disagree that Barnard jokes are an inappopriate or ineligible subject of a tradition. The implication by Durova above that because such jokes are sophomoric (a matter a taste, in any case, rather than fact, though I wouldn't disagree) they cannot be traditional is simply wrong. No doubt many traditions are downright moronic. The quality of a tradition has little to do with the fact of it. Durova's comparison to other objects of ridicule at the school is intriguing, but after some time perusing archives of the local periodicals--the source in which information about Columbia traditions would be found--I find sparse at best mentions of any broad class of joking aside from Barnard; certainly not the repeated references to the tradition over time necessary to claim a tradition. Contrarily, and as well discussed supra, quite a few articles refer explicitly to long-standing traditions or practice of Barnard jokes, while none do for Durova's other analogies. Now, I wouldn't say it's the most flattering tradition for Columbia, but I would reiterate we're an Encylopaedia, not a Columbia cheerleading committee, or a front promoting egalitarianism for women. The facts are on the ground, and sourced in the well-respected Columbia Spectator. All that being said, I agree with JDoorjam that an exhaustive rundown of Columbia's myriad traditions is inappopriate for the general-interest Columbia University page; it's too much of a niche subject and distracting in its length. So I'd agree to move the entire traditions section to a "Columbiana" page. Citizen Sunshine 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)