Talk:Columbia University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

| Archive 2 →

Admissions

Does anyone know if Columbia accepts anything less than a first class honours degree for entry to their graduate programmes? Any advice from graduate students would be helpful!

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.

School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, est. 1896
School of the Arts, est. 1948
Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, est. 1880
Graduate School of Business, est. 1916
Columbia College, est. 1754
School of Continuing Education, est. 2002
School of Dental and Oral Surgery, est 1917
The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, est. 1864
School of General Studies, est. 1904
School of International and Public Affairs, est. 1946
School of Journalism, est. 1912
School of Law, est. 1858
College of Physicians and Surgeons, est. 1767
School of Nursing, est. 1892
Mailman School of Public Health, est.1921
School of Social Work, est. 1898.

Affiliated Institutions:

Barnard College
Teachers College, Columbia University
Jewish Theological Seminary
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)

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)

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)

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)

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

The above list contains 81. The difference in number of 5 comes from the fact that the list entitled "Columbia Nobels"http://www.columbia.edu/cu/physics/about/main/one/columbianobels.html in pysics posted on the Pysics Department Home Page contains 5 more people not listed on the list entitled "COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY NOBEL LAUREATES,1906-2004" prepared at the time of 250th celebration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.203.82.202 (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Images

View of part of the Columbia University campus, 1915

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

"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)

The Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings are absurd. One reason is that they only recognize awards in the sciences, but not in the humanities or other fields. Having a great department in some other field doesn't help a university in these rankings; in fact, it hurts because the professors are factored into the student:faculty ratio. If Harvard's top-notch law school somehow became part of MIT, Harvard's score in these rankings would go *up* (because of a reduction in the overall student:faculty ratio) and MIT's would go *down* (because the same number of major awards would have to be divided among more faculty). It's hard to give much credence to a ranking system that works this way.

The claim that Columbia is "only an also-ran" but that Wisconsin is "among the best in the world" is, shall we say, unconventional. I agree that Wisconsin is a first-rate university, but the idea that Columbia isn't even on the same level is just silly. If you want to make such a claim you need a better basis than the Shanghai Jiao Tong rankings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.232.225.68 (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

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.

"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)

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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)

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) .

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)

Actually, it's not "all undergraduates": SEAS students don't have to. People say that it's because if any SEAS student had to get across a body of water, they'd just build a boat/bridge.

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)

Categories: Talk archives