Apr

15

QuickSpec: The Amazing Race Edition

Written by

The chickens have come home to roost.  Krebs and Alidaddy slug it out for the final time.

Student group endorsements, here have one.  They’re handed out like candy.

Even with this, no one still knows what any of those funny acronyms actually mean.

Take a brochure, get more confused about Barnard.

Phillip Roth is glad its his birthday, not his funeral.

New York City has rats, really? 


 

Tags: , , ,

11 Comments

  1. Issues  

    Barnard can and should advertise who they are. But more real steps should be taken. The issue becomes that SGA is taking too much activism and is trying to become a dominant force on the Columbia campus, almost like CCSC or ESC. But since Barnard is entirely separate as an institution the issue isn't the councils "taking the initiative to see the project through." This effort to become an integral part of campus is theoretically a step in the right direction but for now it is putting the cart before the horse. SGA can't control Columbia politics until Barnard becomes more integrated with Columbia systems and society.

    This honestly isn't a Columbia issue to the point that Laura, while her intentions are good, has been reluctant to accept any advice or input from CC or SEAS students.

    At one point there was a great idea to have a pamphlet describing CCSC, ESC, GSSC, and SGA and how they interact. Something global like that may have been acceptable. However, no input from other councils was taken and from my understanding Laura was the primary driving force behind this initiative. Thus it naturally has a Barnard slant to it.

    Barnard students don't want to be forced on Columbia students. That's what this pamphlet does. It aggressively and in an "in-your-face" manner says that Barnard is here and you're going to have to deal with it but while you deal you should probably enjoy it and realize the benefits.

    The following is a line from the pamphlet as it currently stands:
    "Benefits
    The Barnard and Columbia Partnership benefits both schools:
    Some Benefits for Barnard:
    Access to Classes at Columbia
    Access to Columbia's facilities
    Opportunity to participate in the University's NCAA Division I athletic programs.
    Graduate teaching opportunitites for Barnard faculty

    Some Benefits for Columbia:
    Access to classes at Barnard
    Access to Barnard's facilities
    Participation of talented Barnard Athletes in the NCAA Division I Athletic Programs
    Ability to draw from Barnard Faculty for its graduate programs"

    The first two points on both lists is legit. Cross registration is a huge plus. However, Columbia students seldom use Barnard facilities with the exception of the awesome food at Hewitt Dining Hall and what will be the Nexus.

    The entire NCAA thing is ridiculous because most athletes are recruited and are at Columbia anyway so the participation is minimal, not to mention the fact that this line suggests that Columbia students should feel PRIVILEGED to be in the presence of "talented Barnard athletes"

    The last bit also just shows a 1 way benefit. Barnard faculty teaching at Columbia helps Barnard faculty and takes spots away from potential Columbia faculty. Again, the SGA pamphlet implies we should feel PRIVILEGED to have Barnard faculty in our ranks.

    This is not to say, however, that Columbia faculty is better. But neither should have to feel privileged to have the other in their school.

    If SGA wants real integration into Columbia society it has to change some of its policies that are isolationist including a separate OMA, Public Safety, Activities Board and more. It should also integrate with NSOP more clearly and work to embed Barnard students in ratio with the rest of the NSOP groups.

    The issue isn't publicity. There is a core problem with the relationship between Columbia and Barnard which no one can really put their finger on. Until that is addressed this issue will constantly come up.

    • you

      make some good points. However, I take issue with your stance on faculty. First of all, I don't see how Barnard faculty teaching at Columbia takes away spots from potential Columbia faculty. Since all classes are open registration with the exception of some Columbia Core classes and Barnard First Year English classes, the actual physical location of a class doesn't really matter, if that's what you mean by a class being "taught at Columbia" by Barnard faculty. I'm assuming Columbia approves the professors for these classes. There are specific Barnard classes that are open to cross registration and taught by Barnard faculty, and their course numbers are listed with a BC.

      Second, I don't think you understand the relationship between Columbia and Barnard faculty. The importance of the realtionship between Barnard and Columbia faculty has been established since very early in Barnard's founding. Columbia president Seth Low paid for Barnard faculty salaries out of his pocket, and "rented" Barnard faculty out to Columbia to teach graduate classes (someone correct me if I'm wrong). And just as Barnard has been privaleged with access to great Columbia professors, there are professors in Barnard's history that Columbia students have been privaleged to have access to as well; Franz Boas comes to mind as a big one, and today there professors on the Barnard faculty that I think are unique in the Barnard/Columbia that at the very least you could say it is a benefit to have access to, even if you don't think they're so great it's a privalege. I realize that technically, this benefits Barnard students more than Columbia students, but by nature Barnard (a small liberal arts college) and Columbia (a large research university) are different and comparing the two in terms of the ability (and purpose) in hiring faculty is comparing apples to oranges - but NOT in terms of quality.

      And lastly, the tenure process for Barnard faculty includes approval by Columbia. So they are Barnard faculty in that they get thier paycheck from Barnard and thier department is based at Barnard, but they are also subject to the same standards of quality that you seem to imply is higher at Columbia. I'm assuming that Columbia wouldn't give tenure to a Barnard professor that they wouldn't give tenure to if that professor was Columbia faculty.

      Ultimately, I guess this just shows that whatever it is, there needs to be something done to clarify the realtionship between Barnard and Columbia.

      • you are  

        kind of missing the point here. a huge part of the brochure was to give barnard women the power to describe their college's relationship to the university clearly and effectively. maybe you've noticed that barnard students often have to defend themselves to columbia students?

        • number 4  

          I'm not the most articulate person, so maybe my point wasn't clear enough. But as a Barnard student, I was sticking up for Barnard, because poster 3 seems to have a misunderstanding of Barnard's role withing Columbia. I fully agree that the relationship between Barnard and Columbia should be clearly explained. It would stop a lot of confusion and hopefully at least some lame-ass jokes.

  2. More Info  

    If you'd like to see the document in its entirety go to this link

    http://eclipse.barnard.columbia.edu/~sga/files/BC-CU.pdf

  3. Last thing  

    If you have constructive criticisms you should send it to [email protected]

    If you have issues you'd like your own representatives to address regarding this or any other policy thing, including information regarding [email protected] (say it fast), email [email protected] or [email protected]

  4. SPEC ENDORSEMENT  

    THE COLUMBIA SPECTATOR ENDORSES CONNECT COLUMBIA!

    THE COLUMBIA SPECTATOR ENDORSES CONNECT COLUMBIA!

    THE COLUMBIA SPECTATOR ENDORSES CONNECT COLUMBIA!

    THE COLUMBIA SPECTATOR ENDORSES CONNECT COLUMBIA!



    check out the paper version...

  5. what the hell  

    is the amazing race reference for? missed that

  6. Elections  

    Hmm...I think that Commentariat post is really interesting and raises some good points that the Spectator article didn't mention. Michelle shouldn't have said those things probably according to the rules, and I think what she's doing is sort of sneaky.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.