CU Vets in the Gray Lady

Written by

An article from today’s New York Times outlines the large (and growing) presence of veterans enrolled at Columbia. The article claims that good old Alma has, “more than any other Ivy League institution…thrown out a welcome mat for returning servicemen and women.” There are currently 210 veterans at CU (88 are in General Studies); GS was originally created in 1947 to host WWII veterans on the G.I Bill, the post-9/11 variation of which has led today’s veterans to Morningside. The article acknowledges some GS stigma and name-drops Haakon’s Hall, where the vets gather and have Thanksgiving lunch.

Plus, all the news that’s fit to print: we’re stuck up! The article declares: “the campus still tilts heavily to the left, with many students displaying the arty, jaded aura befitting their Manhattan surroundings.”


  1. in the Times' defense

    well, we are stuck up.

  2. Anonymous  

    tutus and uzis...wow

  3. college sophomore

    sad this is that the undergrad have no real reason to be stuck up. most of us haven't done much with our lives. gs students come back from the real world having had careers and hands on experience and having realized that they want to get an education, and a cool one at that. but we're just kind of following a path that's been cut out for us. we should revere gs students rather than shun them. they're cool people, and they've got a lot more practical knowledge and wisdom than we do, because they haven't just read it out of books.

  4. I

    Nah.. GS, just like any of our other three undergrad schools, has both incredibly brilliant people and idiots and everything in between. It shouldn't be shunned or revered.
    I like being in GS but there are definitely a lot of problems with it that should be addressed. I would suggest making it an admissions process (like Yale does with its nontraditional program) rather than a separate college.
    Nevertheless, I'm glad we admit more veterans than our peers. I think that's something to be proud of.
    I'm proud to be a Columbian.

  5. Correction

    The 210 veterans are not all in GS. 88 of them are.

    "The school now counts 88 veterans with G.I. benefits among the 1,330 students. The rest of the veterans at Columbia are spread across more than a dozen graduate and professional schools" (2).

  6. hmm

    when i first read the title of this post, i thought, "columbia has a veterinary school?"

  7. GS ain't so bad.

    But Barnard is still the Hudson River valley unibrow capital.

  8. unrelated

    but whats up with ssol? very weird page to have up for maintenance

  9. from another barnard kid

    "many students displaying the arty, jaded aura"

    ahahahahaha yup. dead straight, my friend. long live the midwest!

  10. If Low Library honchos were wise, wishful thinking admittedly, they should merge GS with CC. That would greatly enrich both, actually more CC than GS. The born-again CC would be a far more interesting place to be in. CC67

    • ...

      sortof. they should fold the current structure of gs and instead develop an interschool non-traditional student support organization. that's how it's set up at most other schools. the guy they talk about in the article wanted to do an engineering degree in texas, there should be no reason why he can't do one here.

  11. Anonymous

    I realize that GS students have real life experience that adds to their education, but most CC students have higher levels of academic experience than GS students (at least the guy in the article). It seems like people in the comments section give too much credit to the real world experience. Especially considering that Columbia only offers education of the academic variety.

  12. especially

    when you find out the love of your life doesn't love you.

  13. why

    Why is no one talking about the remarkable Mr. Cameron Baker (and how absurdly attractive he is in the photo shoot NYT did for him)?

  14. Yay Vets! Boo ROTC!  

    We're nice to vets to be politically correct but we still ban ROTC? Where is that logic? It's pure hypocrisy. It's true that Don't Ask Don't Tell is a horrible policy that is extremely discriminatory and unjust. But that's exactly why we need more open-minded, intelligent, and progressive people like Columbia alumn in the military: to help institute reform from the inside out.

    • totally agree

      I'm proud to go to a school that is being proactive about enrolling Vets. It's time to end the stupid ROTC bullshit, like it or not, the US military is incredibly influential and it would do Columbia and the military good to interact with each other.

      • nonono

        the whole point of a university is not to be a platform for actions of any particular nation and its military programs. the point of a university is to be a place where interactions between various groups of people can join to discuss and engage different ideas--research--actions. this includes people who have military backgrounds and those who don't.

        the absence of ROTC would imply that the university does not support nor condone joining the military: this is not the only conclusion you could reach. you may also think that the university encourages participation in the military given that your convictions and ideas on politics and our society are not tarnished by a monetary trade and servitude to the government.

        your statement said it best "the US military is incredibly influential" and perhaps that's why it's not on campus. inviting ROTC would necessarily cause some students to consider the program without having thought of the consequences of military, war, and societal antics, perjury, or other ills.

        the fact is that the absence of ROTC does not prevent you from joining the service, while having ROTC does present some students the opportunity to trade some of their thoughts for an albeit sizable chunk of money and time. having ROTC on campus also challenges the place of the university as a forum rather than platform because hosting particular ideas is not the point (even though we're a "liberal institution" we're not dogmatic about it).

  15. Yay Vets! Boo ROTC!  

    First of all, that statement was incredibly vague. I agree with your first point: that the University is a place for different groups of people to exchange thoughts and ideas. By banning ROTC, the University is keeping students that have chosen a different path and who often (but not always) subscribe to different beliefs from joining the forum, from entering and enriching the dialogue. They are, to a degree, censoring these beliefs.

    The ban on ROTC does strongly imply that Columbia does not support joining the military: we are part of a group of LESS THAN 10 universities in the United States that ban ROTC.

    NOT having ROTC "challenges the place of the University as a forum rather than platform", as they are proud to "host" some ideas (including anti-war groups) but ban others (ROTC). Columbia is a "liberal institution", but that doesn't mean it would be harmful to examine and discuss other views and beliefs. On the contrary, it would be a beneficial interaction for both cadets and non-participating students: one that the University is currently robbing them of.

    As for the "sizable chunk of money and time", very few students (pulled from a small pool of students who study select majors in the fields of science and some languages) receive express scholarships. The rest get a few thousand off tuition every year, which would not be a very big factor in anyone's decision considering Columbia's extremely generous financial aid policy. Training is no more than 8-10 hours a week, less time than other students spend working casual jobs.

    And I think you underestimate the intelligence and sense of mind of students at any Ivy League institution, let alone Columbia, if you think they can be wooed into this "servitude" (as you call it) by recruiters running around shouting, shooting M16's in the air, and waving $50 bills in people's faces. These students are some of the most intelligent people in country: I would give us enough credit to assume that we can contemplate the "consequences of military, war, and societal antics, perjury, or other ills."

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.