Connect with us

All Articles

The Twin Quota Is Real!

Don't we all...

Don’t we all…

So it’s true that we’ve recently been on a conspiracy theory kick (as one commenter kindly pointed out).  Maybe we like the thrill, or maybe we just want to believe in something.  Either way, twin Eric Cohn is here with another totally serious, non-satirical conspiracy theory: this time about Columbia’s “twin quota.”

In 1954, the Columbia Spectator ran an article about six pairs of twins enrolling in Columbia.  They were never heard from again*.  All that remains is a glossy, faded image of smiling, dapper young men and women, forever preserved in the archives of Columbia—like one of PrezBo’s toupees.

But twins at Columbia have always had an enigmatic aura.  In February of 2014, a Bwog commenter, known only as “Anonymous,” informed the Columbia community that “there are like 3+ pairs of twins in CC16″ and explained the implications of this observation.  You can read the full comment below:

“is it true CC has a twin quota??? someone told me this yesterday! would explain why there are like 3+ pairs of twins in CC16!”

We can only speculate as to the identity of the commenter, but we do have this artist’s rendering of him or her below.

This is real.

This is a real rendering by a real artist.

Indeed, we’ve all heard rumors of a twin quota existing at Columbia, alleging that each year, Columbia is required to accept a certain number of twins from its applicant pool.  Bwog certainly had—and we were shaken to our Core.  Inquiring about the existence of a twin quota, we were met with a suspiciously brief response from CC Director of Communications Sydney Schwartz Gross:

“We do not have and never have had a quota for twins at Columbia College and The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science. The number of twins admitted into each incoming class can and does vary. We use a holistic review process when evaluating all applicants for admission. Just as admission to Columbia is not based on a simple formula of grades and test scores, nor is it based on quotas of any kind.”

Disturbing.  The Columbia administration simply cannot deny the facts any longer.  The number of pairs of twins at this school is staggering.  And who could forget the legendary founding of Columbia by the twins Romulus and Remus?  It all adds up: the twin quota exists and has existed for millennia.

Speaking of adding, let’s take a break and do some math:

  • According to the CDC, in 1994 there were around 97,000 twins born in the United States.
  • Also according to the CDC (you go, CDC!), there were around 4 million babies born in 1994.
  • This means that 97,000/4 million or around 2.5% of all babies born in 1994 were twins.
  • According to Wikipedia, Columbia enrolls 8,365 undergrads and Barnard enrolls 2,360.  This makes a combined undergrad population of 10,725.
  • Based on our calculation of 2.5% incidence of twins, there should be about 268 twin undergraduates at Columbia, or 134 pairs of twins.
  • That makes an expected 134/4=33 pairs of twins per class

So how does Columbia actually measure up to this?  Well, we don’t actually know.  But still the questions remain.  Does Columbia have a secret twin quota?  Did the administration surreptitiously murder six pairs of twins in 1954 to cover it up?  Did aliens build the pyramids?  Who directed Hollywood’s faking of the moon landing?  Where is “Obama’s” birth certificate?  Tell us what you think in the comments.

*by us because we stopped looking in the archives.

Our commenter via Shutterstock

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.



  • lol says:

    @lol never change, bwog

  • CC14 says:

    @CC14 Yawn.

    1. other 14 says:

      @other 14 seconded

    2. srsly says:

      @srsly do you even go here

  • #math says:

    @#math You have to take into account the probability of both twins being accepted which would be highly unlikely.

  • JT says:

    @JT You’re calculating for the number of individuals who are twins, not the number of twins. Nice try

    1. Heisenberg says:

      @Heisenberg Right it wouldn’t be 2.5% times the population, it would be 2.5%^2 assuming it was random.

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous Bwog…you are really going down hill this semester lol

  • damnnnnn says:

    @damnnnnn Bwog needs to take a statistics class before writing posts like these

  • Anon says:

    @Anon This was literally cringeworthy from top to bottom…probably the exact opposite of funny

  • Bwog didn't says:

    @Bwog didn't pass FroSci


    1. Anonymous says:


  • Hercules says:

    @Hercules Bwog, you wrote a huge post on twins and couldn’t sneak in a single reference to Fred and George Weasley????

  • Anonymous says:

    @Anonymous My twin and I were Class of 2012. I’m just gonna assume we got in because there weren’t enough twins yet.

  • Have Your Say

    What should Bwog's new tagline be?

    View Results

    Loading ... Loading ...

    Popular This Week

    Sorry. No data so far.

    Recent Comments

    Thanks for writing this! Definitely enjoyed the easy reading part and loved the art! (read more)
    Bwog Book Club: W.I.T.C.H. (The Graphic Novel Series)
    May 23, 2020
    TRULY GREAT TIPS BWOG 🦁❤️🦁❤️🎈 (read more)
    Open Letter To Our Professors: Zoom Do’s And Don’ts
    May 22, 2020
    I thought she was a great CC prof. (read more)
    Happy Grad Students: Part One in a One Part Series
    May 20, 2020
    I disagree, she was my TA and she was awesome! Really helpful with reading rough drafts of papers, and a (read more)
    Happy Grad Students: Part One in a One Part Series
    May 20, 2020

    Comment Policy

    The purpose of Bwog’s comment section is to facilitate honest and open discussion between members of the Columbia community. We encourage commenters to take advantage of—without abusing—the opportunity to engage in anonymous critical dialogue with other community members. A comment may be moderated if it contains:
    • A slur—defined as a pejorative derogatory phrase—based on ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, ability, or spiritual belief
    • Hate speech
    • Unauthorized use of a person’s identity
    • Personal information about an individual
    • Baseless personal attacks on specific individuals
    • Spam or self-promotion
    • Copyright infringement
    • Libel