17 Comments
“Imagine that you’re eating a hamburger.”
Columnist mathematically proves that 90% of fans of The Wire are faking
Heath Ledger our generation’s James Dean, but in more than three movies
Finally, Barnard’s relationship with Columbia is explained in just ten paragraphs
AM New York BONUS: Ken Jackson notes that “in New York, space is precious” and “Nobody wants to live next to falling down drunk 20-year-olds.”
Loading …
17 Comments
@expansionary Did anyone else feel an odd sense of pride at amNY freaking out that “colleges would take over NY”?
@wtf are those stupid crowns?
@Alum The Barnard-Columbia relationship is much more complex than the article describes. The article focuses almost entirely on how it relates to students, but the agreement also deals with the relationships between BC faculty and the university in ways the article doesn’t even hint at (for example, they can direct university programs and institutes and some get to live in university housing).
Also, the Intercorporate Agreement long predates 1982. It was revised in that year due to the impending coeducation of the College, but it had already been in place for many years.
@1900 to be precise, if I’m not mistaken…
@omar marlo got to go.
@The King of Spain Weinberg, one of the following two statements is true: I built the Escorial, or, I lived on Stan Snelson’s floor sophomore year.
@3535 Ken Jackson always says the dardnest things.
@!!! Oh, Stanley Snelson, you’ll never know it but I am in love with you.
@Just for fun HL to JD in exactly three movies:
Heath Ledger was in “Candy” with Tom Budge…
who was in “The Night We Called It a Day” with Dennis Hopper…
who was in “Giant” with James Dean .
@Ahhh! Cue whiny Barnard girls to comment in 5…
4…
3…
2…
1…
(I know this post doesn’t say anything negative about Barnard, but that’s not going to stop them from complaining that Bwog is biased)
@... Aren’t you the biased one here for making dumb assumptions?
@True The college doesn’t advertise in TIME magazine
@Editorial Sometimes I wonder if the people who write spec editorials bother to do any actual research before spouting off?
“Moreover, the administration has still not explicitly promised to spend funds from the capital campaign on. . . General Studies students.”
That’s interesting, because the page devoted to the undergraduate Financial Aid aspect of the capital campaign has “over $15 million in new financial aid endowment for General Studies” as one of the campaign goals. I guess that isn’t explicit enough?
“Such donations [Like Kluge’s $200 million pledge for undergraduate financial aid) are the cornerstone of financial-aid expansion, and other alumni can be convinced that financial aid is a cause worthy of their support. To inspire alumni to more actively support their alma mater, however, the University must demonstrate a serious and lasting commitment to reforming financial aid.”
If the Speccies had bothered to look at the giving website, they would’ve noticed that the University is leveraging, with his permission, Kluge’s pledge to generate greater financial aid giving by using $50 million of his gift as a challenge/matching fund. http://giving.columbia.edu/cuCampaign/Kluge_challenge_010908.pdf
Pay attention guys. It’s like you have much credibility left to lose…
@alexw The first article was by “Stan Snelson,” which I refuse to believe is a real name.
@Homer It’s funny because you snell!
@wow Nice job by Francesca. I was ready to write off this column as the annual barnard freshwoman column whining “but we’re just like you too!”
Nicely played by clearing the confusion while avoiding the actual petty arguements.
Consider the following dilemna: What does the fact that Columbia University confers degrees on Barnard graduates but doesn’t count them in any of its official statistical tallies mean? (Go see for yourself: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/ ) It neatly encapsulates the paradoxical relationship.
@Well the author clearly said that admissions and recruitment are completely independent, so there’s no inconsistency there. Dig deeper.