Talk:Columbia University/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Barnard, Teachers College, & Columbia Relationship

These edit keeps getting reverted due needing stronger citations. Many of these citations are already linked to the faculty senate documents, university handbook, and official university and/or constituent college websites to Columbia. Please feel free to add in further supporting evidence so that this does not get rejected again. We believe that it is important to add these details to clarify any incoming students about complex relationship between Barnard, Teachers College, and Columbia. Having accurate and clear internet resources for these students is very important. As suggested by another wiki administrator, small bits of this edit will be added at a time to the end of the "Organization" section.

Although Barnard College and Teachers College serve as Columbia University's Faculty units, both colleges hold their own corporate statuses separate from Columbia University, including independent administrative structures, board of trustees and endowments. In practice, they share many institutional resources with Columbia University, including the libraries, health service systems and the University's recreational center. The Columbia University Senate includes faculty and student representatives from Teachers College and Barnard College who serve two-year terms; all senators are accorded full voting privileges regarding matters impacting the entire University.

Degrees conferred to students are conferred by the Board of Trustees from both Barnard and Columbia or both Teachers College and Columbia. The Columbia University degree is the only degree given to all Barnard and Teachers College students (Barnard and Teachers College do not grant their own degrees independently). Ultimately, the degree is conferred by the Columbia University president at the University commencement.

Both Teachers College and Barnard graduates are given the rights to attend the Columbia Alumni Association events and are eligible for nomination of the alumni medal. In short, Teachers College and Barnard graduates are considered alumni of Columbia University. Pebblefire (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Teacher's College serves as Columbia's Graduate School of Education (an equivalent to Harvard GSE, etc.). This being said, Barnard is a completely separate institution from Columbia - They have completely separate Common Applications, admissions offices, administrations, board of trustees and endowments - even mascots. Additionally, from what I understand, Barnard students are "frowned upon" by Columbia College and SEAS students in the same way Tufts cross registers and SUNY Ag students are looked down upon at Harvard and Cornell, respectively. Many years ago when Barnard served as Columbia College all-female equivalent, perhaps Barnard students were "Columbia students", however today, with the current independent corporate structure, that is definitely not the case. Lastly, Barnard is a significantly less selective school and attracts a completely separate pool of applicants (Given, Columbia is the third most selective in the country). In my own experience, Barnard students almost never refer to themselves as "Columbia" students. If they do it is seen as insecure, not to mention - fallacious.74.108.157.211 (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• I think you make excellent points for sure! However, all I am trying to do here is state simple facts that is important to distinguish. Many people would describe Barnard as semi-autonomous and very different from the SUNY example you provided. Barnard women ARE in a separate institution that has its own corporate structure, endowment, security, and admissions processes. Columbia and Barnard are integrated in academic and social functions: they share athletic facilities (Barnard competes in the Ivy League athletic conference on the SAME TEAM as their Columbia student athletes in the Barnard-Columbia consortium - this is to say that if Columbia wins an NCAA or Ivy League conference title for say, track and field, it will be from a Columbia University team that is comprised a mix of both Columbia and Barnard athletes), they often cross-register courses (and not just cross register, but if a Columbia student wants to major in dance or urban policy, it is primarily housed in Barnard and they simply need to register for Barnard classes. The exact same could be said for vice versa in Engineering and Computer Science), and student organizations (the Columbia Spectator - one of the oldest university news publications in the country, almost always has editorial staff members comprised of Barnard and Columbia members. Nearly all Columbia student organizations have a Barnard student serving in a leadership role). Additionally, academically, BOTH Barnard and Columbia evaluate potential Barnard faculties for tenure, thus, Columbia does have a say in which faculty members of Barnard become tenured. In terms of academic integration, Barnard does not hand out their own degrees (there is no degree that is issued by Barnard independently by ONLY Barnard's Board of Trustees. There is no existing piece of paper that has "Barnard College's Board of Trustees confers x degree" (even if the student DEMANDED a Barnard degree). The ONLY degree that EXISTS at Barnard is a Columbia University degree that states "The Board of Trustees from Columbia University and Barnard College confers the rights and privileges there onto etc." with seals of BOTH universities on the diploma and the signatures of BOTH presidents on the paper. Additionally, while the alumni databases are not fully integrated between both institutions (Barnard chose to stay separate), Barnard alumna may attend events and be recognized by the university administration for the alumni medal - a distinction given to Columbia alumni members for significant contribution to the global community. Pebblefire (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I think the information is excessive navel-gazing, it relies too much on poor-quality primary sources, and I would suggest that your inability to find reliable secondary sources is indicative of a problem with the material. Outside the university and the two colleges, nobody cares that much about their relationship. This is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and in my opinion, more than two or three sentences about the relationship between the university and the two colleges is probably too much. The fact that you have to rely on documents produced by the university indicates that nobody outside Morningside Heights cares. Please find a book or two about the university, written by outsiders, and read what they have to say on the subject. How much weight do they put on the relationship between the university and the two colleges? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:45, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

So this is what I"m thinking to be much more concise than the original...

This should be added at the end of the paragraph about the faculty senate (but not at the end of the "Organization" section as originally written), to show Barnard and TC's involvement in official administrative matters concerning the entire university. I think that's pretty important to show their relationship and semi-autonomous integration The Columbia University Senate includes faculty and student representatives from Teachers College and Barnard College who serve two-year terms; all senators are accorded full voting privileges regarding matters impacting the entire University.

This one sentences is enough to clarify the degree conferral for the affiliate institutions in the last paragraph of the "organization" section Degrees awarded to Barnard and Teachers College students are conferred by the Columbia University Board of Trustees.

• • • • • Note: I did add another book reference here as per your suggestion above. It's about Columbia's history and details how Teachers College diplomas have been conferred by Columbia University since 1970s. So I think it'll be a solid secondary source!*****

I find these two sentences still highly relevant and important to determining the "Who is a Columbia alumni" question Both Teachers College and Barnard graduates are given the rights to attend the Columbia Alumni Association events and are eligible for nomination of the alumni medal. In short, Teachers College and Barnard graduates are considered alumni of Columbia University.

Would love to hear more opinions on the edits from the wiki community. Will move to close discussion within a few weeks or so when there is sufficient discussion about these additions from various editors.Pebblefire (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

References

• "Stronger citations" (is that RegentsPark's phrase?) usually means "stronger secondary citations". Without secondary citations, it needs to be clear that somehow or other the information is necessary, since there are no outside sources to make it so. In other words, one needs to argue for inclusion. Now, this business about the alumni association, that means nothing, in my book (seriously: alumni associations? no one needs to know that from reading a Wikipedia article--after graduation they will know how to find you). Faculty representation may well be judged relevant (I'm not against mentioning that), but part of the problem with the section is just this verbosity--"all senators are accorded full voting privileges regarding matters impacting the entire University". Sorry, but that's just blah blah, and wholly unnecessary in these articles. And the stuff about who confers the degree strikes me as needlessly complicated and overlinked--with all the links going to primary documents. Oh, I see I'm repeating some of the things Malik already said--well, Malik knows what he's talking about. Maybe DGG has some thoughts on it? But Pebblefire, with your track record, hitting "revert" is really the last thing you should do, and the other last thing is to edit without being logged in--I don't know if you've done that recently, but don't. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not sure any of this text is necessary. We already say that Barnard is affiliated with Columbia and that all Barnard graduates are issued diplomas authorized by both Columbia University and Barnard College. We say the senate is drawn from all constituencies of the university. If that's not clear enough, it is easy enough to add "including the affiliated institutions" or some such phrase for clarification. Details on the alumni are unnecessary. Admissions, again we could add a line in the undergrad admissions section which clarifies that Barnard handles its own admissions. Much of the description of the separateness of barnard and tc are probably better situated in the pages for those colleges. --regentspark (comment) 16:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, again, thank you for your suggestions and well-thought out critiques. However, just for the sake of professionalism, I think we can proceed to move forward with editing the working and sources without condescension. No, I have not hit the "revert" button again, you have already warned me about that during the time when I was ignorant and was learning wiki terminologies such as "edit warring" and "sockpuppeting" etc. So let's try and move forward with making Wikipedia a productive space with information edits rather than hostile and insulting statements.

Drmies and RegentsPark, do you think that it would be a little random to edit 'all Barnard graduates are issued diplomas authorized by both Columbia University and Barnard College to include teachers college? The paragraph is mostly about barnard and putting in teachers college sounds like an irrelevant detail, but it is important to mention that both affiliated institutions receive degrees from Columbia University. Then we can delete a large chunk of this edit.

Additionally, I think the only reason that the senate and alumni information is being added is because if you see Barnard College's talk page, there is a very, very lengthy discussion from YEARS about how Barnard (and other affiliated institutions that are granted Columbia University degrees) are NOT graduates of Columbia. Being a part of the alumni association, being recognized for a medal bestowed by the alumni of Columbia, and being featured on their website as their prominent graduate members is pretty critical in showing that they are/were graduates of the University and is a member of the community (on the Barnard talk page, this discussion was one of the biggest - that Barnard graduates are not Columbia graduates/alumni and neither is Teachers College. This discussion got so heated that an administrator had to fully protect the article). My point here is not to say whether they are or aren't (because it really is such a grey area and a unique partnership in higher education for both Barnard and Teachers College, as Debora Spar, Barnard's President stated), but just to state facts as to why they are integrated in such a complicated manner. I agree that if each individual college's page detailed this relationship instead of putting it in the main Columbia page it might be better, but an addition that was once placed on Teacher's College's page with an entire section entitled "Relationship with Columbia University" was shortened and deleted. Many prospective students do reach out to wikipedia for general knowledge (hopefully not scholarly ones) and it is important that they don't believe Barnard and Teachers College are completely separate institutions (because in many ways they aren't), but likewise, also don't feel hoodwinked that they enrolled into Barnard or Teachers College without realizing that they are sorta, kinda, a part of Columbia in many ways. Those are just my thoughts.

Note well taken on the secondary citations. Will work to look them up.

As Drmies states, I think the senate information is fine as well to add. I think we can delete a huge part of this edit if we can just amend 'all Barnard graduates are issued diplomas authorized by both Columbia University and Barnard College to 'all Barnard and Teachers College graduates are issued diplomas conferred by the Board of Trustees of Columbia and Barnard or Columbia and Teachers College respectively (might be too wordy, but you get the point. feel free to edit.) I think the alumni part is still up for debate.Pebblefire (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• this strikes me as a perfectly routine fact that can be sourced from their website. It may not have been true in the past, and for this a formal history of the university would be needed. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

DGG, just to clarify, when you say that a formal history of the university would be needed, are you stating that a secondary, credible source is needed to verify the facts? Pebblefire (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

current routine facts about the university do not need a secondary source, if they are taken from the university's official web site unless reasonably challenged). Anything else needs a third party RS. That's the general rule applying to all articles in WP, including this one. For challenged details about the history of the university, including what units awarded which degree at various times, the best sources are formal published histories of the university, not miscellaneous news and magazine sources, which often give these things inexactly. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello All, I am going to bring up small piece of each of these edits since it was originally a very large paragraph. Please let me know if there is any dissent or edits you would like to make to the following:

This should be added at the end of the paragraph about the faculty senate (but not at the end of the "Organization" section as originally written), to show Barnard and TC's involvement in official administrative matters concerning the entire university. I think that's pretty important to show their relationship and semi-autonomous integration The Columbia University Senate includes faculty and student representatives from Teachers College and Barnard College who serve two-year terms; all senators are accorded full voting privileges regarding matters impacting the entire University.

I would like to close debate on this specific edit. As stated in the discussion above, the administrators above have stated that details about the faculty senate is about the governing body of the University so there are less conflicts with this addition. Please discuss if there are any issues. Pebblefire (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

References

Lead

Hi, discussing here after my edit has been reverted. I'm not disputing the claim to be a prestigious university, happy to leave that for others to argue. My position is about what belongs in the WP:LEAD and in particular in the first sentence of the article. The lead is meant to be a summary of the entire article, so for starters to have a claim that is in the lead and nowhere else in the article is problematic. I would argue this kind of claim belongs only elsewhere in the article. Secondly, the lead is meant to be a summary largely without references (as the content will be referenced later in the article) and so to have the opening paragraph of the lead have 6 references together looks terrible and is WP:CITEKILL. Finally, it does read like WP:PUFFERY - take a look at Oxford University for example, surely one of (if not the) most prestigious universities in the world. To have to say this and back it up with numerous references starts to look a little bit like "protesting too much". Cheers, Melcous (talk) 06:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I will also note that I am not seeing a clear consensus here as claimed for including it, and would concur with DGG who said above "Personally, I think such lines are absurd in an encyclopedia . The content of the article should make that clear. " Melcous (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

there is something even more absurd, which is arguing over it. Whichever way it reads at the moment, I'd say leave it. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

RegentsPark the one editor who was arguing for this (and was the editor to originally add this content as far as I can see) has been banned for sock puppetry and POV pushing. Where is the consensus for keeping it? Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

RegentsPark has not "been banned for sock puppetry and POV pushing". Softlavender (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Melcous. We should remove the sentence regarding "prestige" from the lead. Content-wise, I'd like to stress a few more points to support such removal.

1) First of all, if one looks at the sections above on Talk Page, there is already disagreement on "prestige" and evidence had been clearly given. At best Columbia University barely made it into the "top 10" in 2015 and 2016 according to Times Higher Education. The sockpuppet "Pdyusmep" and its relevant accounts (as of now, all blocked) was the only person who consistently reverted other editors' work back into the sentence stating "one of most prestigious universities". No valid reason or argument has ever been given.

2) It is also worth noticing that in 2011, 2012 and 2016, Times Higher Education had three times mentioned the so-called "Superbrands" in reputation survey (at least, this is a type of consensus in academia), which consists of six universities (Harvard, MIT, Stanford, Cambridge, Oxford, and Berkeley).[1][2][3] Thus, content-wise, when these universities claim to be "one of the most prestigious universities" in their respective Wikipedia pages, there is at least a reliable source that is both up-to-date and directly supports the claim. Hence, referring to the "prestige" content in the lead of these 6 universities does not legitimize the usage of "most prestigious" in Columbia's page.

3) Thirdly, in Columbia's page, there is no other source besides THE Reputation Ranking that is directly related to the claim of "prestige". However, in Harvard's and Stanford's pages, for example, there are several other sources (some from books) that directly support such claim.Minimumbias (talk) 04:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@Melcous:. I don't have a position on this (ceteris paribus, I'm not a fan of words like prestigious) but, if there is an ongoing talk page discussion, you should wait and see if you consensus before removing something. --regentspark (comment) 14:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so what I'm seeing here is a couple of editors strongly advocating for this change (which is actually not so much a change as a reversion to the way the article was before the editor now blocked for socking added this content), and a couple saying they don't really like it but aren't too fussed, and nobody advocating for it to stay. So I'm going to take that as consensus for now and remove it, and if someone other than the sock wants to argue for its reinstatement they can give their reasons here. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 02:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

No worries. On reflection, the prestigious claim is mere fluff anyway. --regentspark (comment) 02:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Here is the text in question:

Columbia University (Columbia; officially Columbia University in the City of New York), established in 1754, is a private Ivy League research university in Upper Manhattan, New York City. Today, it is often cited as one of the world's most prestigious universities.

References

The editor who added it pointed to the ledes of Stanford University and MIT, which do indeed have similar wording. Softlavender (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The difficult reality is that a few universities are very prestigious and we do readers a disservice by not explicitly pointing that out especially when that prestige has become a defining characteristic of the institution e.g., Harvard. I don't think that anyone has made a strong case that Columbia is one of those institutions but it's not a claim that can be immediately and irrevocably dismissed out of hand for all universities. ElKevbo (talk) 04:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

It goes without saying that Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, and Yale are prestigious universities, so much so that that does not even need mentioning. It is however germane to mention it on these other universities that are not household names worldwide but that are indeed prestigious worldwide to those in the know. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that "it goes without saying" is a horrible and completely unsupported excuse to omit what is clearly critical information! We must be very careful to not assume what readers may already know and keep in mind the incredible diversity of our readers. I also agree that it's important to mention, perhaps not in the lead, the prestige or notability (not in the Wikipedia sense) of institutions and their specific programs when they're best known to "those in the know." These are both difficult topics, however, because institutions and many Wikipedia editors are very biased in favor of positive public relations. Further, there are many "ranking systems" and other venues and publications that exist entirely to feed this desire of every institution to be favorably ranked and most editors are ill equipped to distinguish between the legitimate and the illegitimate rankings and accolades. ElKevbo (talk) 13:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not among the "Most Prestigious Universities"

The first paragraph of the lead states Columbia is "often cited as one of the world's most prestigious universities." The supporting sources (reference 12 - 17) are from:

1) Times Higher Education (THE) Reputation Ranking: 9th in 2016 (ref 12), 10th in 2015 (ref 13, ref 14, ref 15).

2) US News Best Global University: 8th 2017.

3) Academic Ranking of World Universities (ARWU): 8th 2017.

Of all the sources, only the THE reputation ranking is relevant to "prestige". Moreover, citing 2-year results does not support "often", and being ranked at 9th or 10th place does not support "most prestigious". Most importantly, the THE Reputation Ranking started in 2011, and the full set of results for Columbia is

- 2017: 12th

- 2016: 9th

- 2015: 10th

- 2014: 12h

- 2013: 13th

- 2012: 15th

- 2011: 23rd

This strongly denies the claim "often cited as one of the world's most prestigious universities." In addition, it is true that in 2017-18 editions, US News and ARWU place Columbia at 8th in the ranking, but QS places Columbia at 18th worldwide and Times Higher Education World University Ranking places it at 14th, both out of top 10. On one hand, these rankings do not directly reflect "prestige"; on the other hand, even if being used as supporting sources, they do not unanimously agree on the Columbia rankings worldwide. 205.208.120.129 (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Do note that IP user is responding to edits he angrily disagreed with on the UC Berkeley page. He has targeted this page because he claims I am a secret agent from Columbia bent on destroying UC Berkeley's reputation.Pdyusmep (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This is going on across several pages (see UC Berkeley, Columbia, etc.), by the same user (ip). I've reported the user here, please add your comments. UCaetano (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Mentioning graduate schools in the Lead

May I suggest that we keep undergraduate schools in the lead, but remove specific graduate schools and just say there are 14 graduate schools? I personally think that it is odd that someone keeps adding back TC, an affiliate school, to the lead again and again when GSAS nor SIPA is included in the header. We can go on and on and say that SEAS should be included or Mailman should be included or SOA should be included and that will continue forever. The editor was even using GSAS's website to justify that TC should be included. Why not cut the middleman and just include GSAS then? It just seems that the school with the most active editors on Wikipedia gets that spot in the lead, and there is some subjectivity involved when choosing which schools should be included.--Boldstandard (talk) 16:12, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with that. "and many graduate schools" should cover that more than adequately. Regardless of whether we include schools or not, TC is an affiliated school and should be mentioned separately. --regentspark (comment) 17:17, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds great. It looks like in the current edit TC is mentioned in the list of graduate schools as well as separately with the affiliated schools (with Barnard and List) since it is an affiliate, but also a graduate school of Columbia. This solves the problem and compromises by being listed as both. Doesn't seem like any further edits are necessary and the problem solved on its own? 173.209.212.155 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

1:27, 18 April 2018

I do not think that TC or any other affiliate should be included in the lead. If TC and Barnard are included on the lead then so must Columbia graduate schools such as business school, journalism school, law school etc. We cannot qualify TC and other affiliates just because they are affiliates. An affiliate section might be added but the lead should be free of any names. If schools such as TC are mentioned in the lead then we will include Columbia graduate schools as well. Since there is no criteria to filter here. I will be removing TC and other affiliates from the lead if there is no justification for them to be there. Either Columbia graduate schools appear along with the TC or none stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan Sharma82 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the lead is fine the way it is. Affiliates, as separate entities, should be explicitly included in the lead. Adding individual schools only adds to the clutter so let's keep them out. --regentspark (comment) 20:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

I suggest we create a separate section for affiliates. I do not think that any specific schools (affiliates or Columbia schools) should get any preferential treatment here and should therefore get space in the lead. What are your suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan Sharma82 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Teachers college

TC is an affiliate of Columbia, with different academic practices (for example, its own tenure process) as well as administrative practices (for example, TC faculty don't get the same benefits as CU faculty). It is correctly designated as an affiliate in the article and that should not be removed. --regentspark (comment) 17:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I definitely agree and I really appreciate your contributions to the article.--Boldstandard (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

An editor is still attempting to remove and hide the fact that TC is an affiliate. The editor claims that I am not looking at the official statues in the edit summary, but there is nothing in the official statue that contradicts with the directory listing on Columbia.edu which clearly designates TC as an affiliate school. Since the editor has admitted in the edit summary that TC is indeed an affiliate, I am not sure why he is still having issues with reflecting that fact in the article. --Boldstandard (talk) 13:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

RegentsPark is wrong and lists financial differences as academic ones...

A directory listing and anecdotal evidence aren’t good enough for what you claim... GET BETTER SOURCES

“Affiliated” as the Graduate School of Education... TC is not an “academic affiliate”, graduates can only receive Columbia University degrees... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.137.104 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

1. Have you edited Wikipedia using a different account or an IP address? 2. Please answer to my questions below. --Boldstandard (talk) 08:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Split list of alum

The list of alum is a silly sea of blue. Shall we SPLIT that into a list? Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Why? There are already too many lists. They should be deleted from this article and most of the lists pruned and merged. Why are there separate lists of alumni and alumni and attendees? There's a word for people who attended a university; they're called alumni. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Teachers College

Teachers College is clearly an affiliate school both confirmed on Columbia University and Teachers College websites. If you go to Columbia.edu and scroll to the bottom, you will see TC being designated as an affiliate school. "The relationship between anthropology and education, too, formally took root at Teachers College, dating back to the College’s affiliation with Columbia University in 1898". Furthermore, when we refer to GSAS or CC or SEAS or GS or Law or SIPA or Medicine or Mailman or Social Work, we DO NOT call these schools as affiliate schools. A table of Degree and Certificates Awarded prepared by the Office of Planning and Institutional Research DOES NOT list TC degrees . It is very sad that we have a desperate editor trying to hide this important fact and his only reasoning for deleting TC's correct designation as an affiliate school is because it is redundant. We are better than this and our readers deserve to know the truth. Therefore, I request a consensus to clarify this issue once and for all and resuscitate TC's correct designation as an affiliate school of Columbia. --Boldstandard (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

BoldStandard is definitely correct in Teachers College's affiliation status. However, they do have their degrees conferred by the Columbia University Board of Trustees and signed by the Columbia University president. The doctoral degrees are also designated by the graduate school of arts and sciences so TC does not get its own line in the www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/opir_degrees_awarded_1.htm link provided above, but their numbers compute as M.S. in education and Ph.D in education under the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences total. This is cited in the columbia university handbook under the office of the secretary from the institution's faculty senate and president. 205.154.255.155 (talk) 13:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you have the page number? There is also another table prepared by the Office of Planning and Institutional Research showing the headcount enrollment of each school but your argument is TC students are included as GSAS students? I am sorry to say this, but I am not sure if that makes any sense.--Boldstandard (talk) 14:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

If there is no opposition, I believe a consensus has been reached and will edit, in a several days, to make the article reflect TC's status as an affiliate school.--Boldstandard (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC) There has been no opposition for over a month so I will be editing the article. --Boldstandard (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Teachers College, Columbia University graduates only receive Columbia University graduate degrees... It is both redundant and misleading to add “affiliate school” to its listing in graduate schools...

Your only data for classifying TC as an affiliate are the wording on websites...

Please refer to better sources like the Official Charters and Statues of Columbia University (http://secretary.columbia.edu/files/secretary/university_charters_and_statutes/University%20Charters%20and%20Statutes_June2017.pdf) which clearly state TC cannot confer their own degrees and all degrees are granted by Columbia University... (page 98, 243 Degrees)

It makes sense to classify List College as an “academic affiliate” because it also offers non-Columbia degrees and doesn’t have Columbia University in its name... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.137.104 (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

JTS is an affiliate, and so as TC. Now, you are making two arguments, "redundant" and "misleading" which makes me confused. I think I have responded to your question before but nothing in the statue contradicts TC's status as an affiliate, which is confirmed not only on Columbia.edu website but also by the table prepared by the Office of Planning and Institutional Research. If an unambiguous fact stated on Columbia.edu website is unreliable for you, then what other source on earth is reliable? If TC graduates receive Columbia degrees, how are we supposed to make sense of the fact that TC is NOT included in the table?--Boldstandard (talk) 07:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

TC degrees ARE included in the table. Read the faculty senate handbook. Their degrees are conferred as a degree in education by the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences. 2600:1010:B040:68EE:30DB:CB2:3C4:4F4A (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

No, and I will tell you exactly why. If you look at the table, Columbia defines what is included in their count of awarded doctorate degrees, which reads: "-Doctor's degree research: DMA, DPH, JSD, PHD," and "Doctor's degree professional: DDS, DNP, DPT, JD, MD." TC offers Ed.D. and if I am not mistaken, also offers Ph.D. If you are correct in that TC degrees are included in the table, a peculiar problem arises because as per the table, a Ph.D. from TC is a Columbia degree whereas a Ed.D. from TC is not a Columbia degree. Apparently, you have had some issues in the Berkeley article as well, and interestingly, several recent editors of the Columbia page have been also editing the Berkeley article. Before arguing against the prestige of Berkeley, which is a great school in my opinion, I highly suggest that you acknowledge that TC is an affiliate of Columbia.--Boldstandard (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Word of mouth evidence and the inclusion in tables is not good enough for what you claim... the OFFFICIAL STATUTES OF COLUMBIA are pretty clear where ALL TC degrees come from, Columbia University...(http://secretary.columbia.edu/files/secretary/university_charters_and_statutes/University%20Charters%20and%20Statutes_June2017.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.137.104 (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been saying this for numerous times but suffice it to say that the Official Statues of Columbia are pretty outdated. For example, it lists a Bachelor of Science degree from the Faculty of Dental Medicine as one of the degrees that can be awarded. TC has different trustees and organization which makes it an affiliate school of Columbia. Unfortunately, I do not deal with a sock as I cannot argue with an IP user who can change arguments from one to another once their argument is shot down. In order to be constructive, I need to be dealing with a user who has a coherent argument. Please get an account. --Boldstandard (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

TC offers MA, MS, M.Phil, Ed.D AND Ph.Ds. The degrees in M.Phil and Ph.Ds are conferred by the Columbia University Graduate School of Arts and sciences (source: https://gsas.columbia.edu/degree-programs/phd-programs/education). The MA, MS, and Ed.Ds are conferred by the academic faculty unit that is jointly governed by TC and Columbia University. I think we are all pretty tired of stating the same thing over and over again. Go call the TC and Columbia academic offices and registrar's offices if you want the real data personally from primary sources. We can't cite those verbal conversations, but it is quite exasperating when multiple Columbia University (non-TC and TC) grads have to constantly tell you the same thing. We understand you have some sort of superiority complex in needing to in needing to state that a Columbia from a non-affiliate is somehow, in a nonsensical way, "better" than one from a semi-autonomous, affiliate institution, but at the end of the day, the ones who confer and make the TC and Barnard degrees officially a Columbia degree are the members of the board of trustees by the UNIVERSITY. Scout some TC and Barnard grads and look at their degrees in the most recent years - it is signed by Lee Bollinger, the President of the University. List College cannot say that. The Union Theological Seminary cannot say that (which are much more autonomous, separate, affiliate institutions) because their degrees are NOT conferred by the UNIVERSITY. While TC and Barnard are separate financially and administratively, their academic programs and faculty are given the nod of approval by Columbia. Columbia, as a extremely selective and highly regarded institution, would not be stupid enough to just give away any degrees to random people from whatever college. Your irritating presumptions based on false information that TC and Barnard are somehow completely separate institutions that are not Columbia and do not receive Columbia degrees and are not Columbia alumni are completely inaccurate. It's not the same as comparing a NYU graduate vs a Columbia graduate where their instructions of teaching, their faculty, their quality of the student body, etc. are vastly different because they are completely separate institutions with different degrees. An NYU student cannot claim to be a Columbia alum and they cannot join the alumni association as a graduate because they have whatsoever no identity or association with Columbia University. TC and Barnard graduates have these rights because they are part of the records, database, and system.

So please stop accusing people who are trying to correct your false assumptions liars. We are tired of it. Instead of hunting down the internet and more sites for "data" that you consider reliable (which MANY of us have presented reliable data that you constantly reject for x, y, z reasons) CALL the administrative offices, EMAIL the institutions presidents, ASK TO SEE Barnard and/or TC diplomas and transcripts, WATCH the alumni medal ceremony (you really think Columbia would award someone who graduated from another institutions a alumni medal for distinguished impact and proudly representing the Columbia brand as one of their graduates? That would be weird and unethical), etc. etc. etc. They are ALL Columbia.2603:3024:151A:9800:808D:1A79:83A2:5686 (talk) 02:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.130.102.0 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.170.153 (talk)

Boldstandard you love to “straw man” don’t you? You are aware “affiliate” means “member institution” right? You keep using it like it’s the term “non-affiliate”... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.137.104 (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2018 (UTC) Let me respond to 2603:3024:151A:9800:808D:1A79:83A2:5686 by saying that I have never compared BC and TC graduates to NYU graduates nor do I think that BC or TC is in anyway inferior to Columbia. I have tremendous respect for BC and TC students and I think both are great institutions. As I have stated numerous times, I think it is pretty clear that BC and TC are part of the larger Columbia community while NYU is not, but the fact remains that BC and TC have their own trustees making their decisions. For example, under a contract signed between Barnard and Columbia, Barnard pays to Columbia every year to use Columbia libraries and facilities. I think you are aware but since you brought up the transcript issue, I would just say that if BC and TC students go to the Columbia registrar, they will ask you to go to the respective registrar offices. BC and TC are accredited differently according to the Department of Education (https://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.aspx) and the degree verification agency used by Columbia which is the National Student Clearinghouse (http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/education_finance_providers/participating_schools.php). Let me also add that I have never edited the article to say that BC and TC students do not or cannot receive Columbia degrees, but rather all I am doing is reverting edits claiming BC and TC students receive Columbia degrees, because I believe the whole issue is inconclusive just like territorial disputes. To give an analogy, when you have a territorial dispute between 2 countries, they are going to bring out old maps and other evidence to present their own case favorably. However if the issue is inconclusive at the end of the day, you cannot edit a Wikipedia article to read, say, the Spratly Islands is the territory of China And the table prepared by Columbia, the Columbia website, the Department of Education and the National Student Clearinghouse give reasonable doubt whether your claim is accurate, although again BC and TC are part of the larger Columbia community. --Boldstandard (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Time to look for socks?

If an editor thinks there is socking going on, then take it to WP:SPI. Otherwise, no accusations.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I don't know about sock accounts, but 47.196.137.104 is within the immediate IP range of the banned editor Zhoban, who has crossed swords with you a number of times. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 15:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure doesn't look like similar behavior.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Bbb23: I think you're right. The most recent span of editing attributed to Zhoban is from 47.196.39.177. This just probably means that the IP in question and the banned editor, while being extremely close in physical proximity, are indeed separate editors. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 17:40, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Accomplished Alumni Numbers

I feel like the last lead paragraph should be rewritten towards the end in order to give a better sense of Columbia alumni accomplishments in fields other than government. The number of presidents, founding fathers, and other politicians is great, but it leaves out the impact that Columbia alumni have had on other fields, such as business and art. I would keep the number at four, just because we don't want to risk coming off as boisterous (see It's not a score board or horse race), but I vote that we mix it up a bit to give a broader view of University accomplishments. Here's my vote:

20 Billionaires (this is a high number, only behind Harvard and Stanford)
9 Supreme court justices (Only behind Yale and Harvard)
25 Academy Award Winners (this is the highest of ANY university I can find)
3 US Presidents (Only behind Yale and Harvard)

What is everyone's opinion? I think the Nobel Prize count speaks to Columbia's huge achievements in science and literature, but I would be reluctant to place the Pulitzer count up top, just because the school also administers it, which could come off as favoritism. I think the Founding Father/Head of State count should be moved to the top of the notable alumni section, because they're definitely big accomplishments.

I definitely agree. I feel like this part falls way short and could be improved like the other big name institutions. Readers definitely look for this information as they read or skim through. I'll be making some minor additions and try to improve the language. TF Munat (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 Admission Rates at Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Yale

Hello, everybody. I welcome input and advice on how to update admission rates for Columbia reflecting the latest (2018) application cycle.

The previous language for the 2017 application cycle referenced that Columbia had the third lowest admission rate in the country (after Stanford and Harvard -- although, to be nitpicky, this omits highly specialized colleges with even lower admission rates such as Alice Lloyd College and Curtis Institute of Music) and the second lowest in the Ivy League.

Updating for the 2018 application cycle is somewhat complicated by the fact that Princeton and Columbia have similar admission rates, Princeton with 5.49% and Columbia with 5.51%. If we say that Columbia's rate is 5.5%, that is of course true, but it would be incorrect to say that Columbia continues to have the third lowest admission rate in the country. That is, Columbia obviously is now fourth in the nation and third in the Ivy League.

Another editor reminded me not to calculate "my own statistics" or do original research. I am doing neither. There is no originality in deriving a college's admission rate. It is, and always has been, simply the number of admitted applicants as the numerator and the total number of applicants as the denominator. All of these figures are publicly reported by colleges and easily available with one click on each institution's website. I provided these very accessible sources in my suggested text.

Stanford: 2040 admits / 47,450 applicants = 4.30%

Harvard: 1962 admits / 42,749 applicants = 4.59%

Princeton: 1941 admits / 35,370 applicants = 5.49%

Columbia: 2214 admits / 40,203 applicants = 5.51%

Yale: 2229 admits / 35,306 applicants = 6.31%

So what's the best way to present this information? Clearly, it's not correct to say that Columbia has the third lowest rate nationally.

• If Columbia is currently the fourth most selective, this article should reflect that. What is the counter-argument to that? I suspect that any objections are from Columbia alumni who want to maintain the older, but now inaccurate, language for their own purposes.

Ideally, we would need a source that says it is the fourth most selective college. Your calculations are WP:OR because it is unclear whether "college" refers to CC or to CC+SEAS and your numbers include both. Regardless, this obsession with fourth/third is a bit excessive and I've tweaked the language to remove it. --regentspark (comment) 18:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Extreme Wikipuffery

This article needs a major overhaul to deal with the many instances of WP:Wikipuffery laced throughout nearly every part of the article:

• The mention of undergraduate admissions are deliberately misleading. The reason Columbia's admission rates are lower than more prestigious universities like Princeton, Yale, Caltech, Chicago, MIT etc. is that the university uses a binding "early decision" process to discourage applicants from applying early and more applicants to the "regular decision" pool to deflate the admissions rate and hence boost its position in rankings such as US News that use this metric.
• The rankings mentioned are deliberately misleading. The first ranking mentioned is the (obscure) THE/WSJ joint ranking from a previous year in which Columbia has since moved down several spots. On the other hand, there is no mention of the fact that Forbes consistently ranks Columbia last among all Ivy League schools.
• There is no mention of controversies Columbia's cash cow master's programs (Data Science, Computer Science, Construction Management etc.) and School of General Studies. The existence of these programs contributes heavily to Columbia's negative reputation in industry.
• The emphasis on alumni and affiliates with the university is strange and misleading. Most of the names mentioned are people who had little or only temporary affiliation with previous incarnations of the university or only affiliated schools rather than Columbia itself.
• The many references to Princeton and Harvard appear to be an attempt by authors to incorrectly frame Columbia as a peer institution of these schools.
• The most well-known and widely cited instance of student activism at Columbia University is Emma Sulkowicz's Mattress Performance associated with the Columbia University rape controversy. The omission of this from the student activism section was clearly done for vanity.

TheSpanishEdition (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is a prank/troll? Time to check for socks, perhaps? I think in most people's opinion Columbia is definitely a peer to Princeton, Yale, MIT and I think most people would put it above Caltech and Chicago. I'll address each of your points systematically just in case you're actually being serious.

• U.S. News & World Report doesn't use acceptance rate as part of their calculation anymore - it's been completely taken out of the formula. Columbia does use Early Decision as does Chicago.
• Columbia ranks as the 3rd best university in the country in U.S. News (the famous ranking) ahead of Stanford and tied with other great universities like Yale, MIT and Chicago. If you look at the other rankings though (e.g. U.S. News International, Shanghai Ranking) Columbia ranks ahead of Yale in both and Princeton in one of them.
• All schools have master's programs that are simply there to make money for the university. I looked up Data Science and it's ranked number 1, 2 or 3 in most.
• Columbia has a lot of great alumni and affiliates and all of the ones in the pictures have some sort of degree from the university. If you look at the Harvard page you'll see that Harvard includes a lot of drop outs as part of its alumni and affiliates King's College isn't a past incarnation it's the same school.
• Read above, Columbia is a peer to Princeton and Harvard.
• Student activism has its own section on the page.Bluemu314 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Enthusiastic Editing and Wikipuffery by Alumni versus Outright Disregard for Facts

Look, I get it. Every Wiki article about a university sees alumni of that school enthusiastically edit the article to shade the language used to be as positive as possible. I guess that's just a manifestation of school spirit. I've got no problem with that.

But this Columbia article goes beyond favorable editing to outright disdain for facts.

Read the two sections in this "Talk" page entitled, "Extreme Wikipuffery" and "2018 Admit Rates at Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Columbia, Yale." This Columbia article regularly crosses the line from mentioning positive things about the university, which is fine, to stating facts which are not true.

For example, one apparent alumnus of Columbia keeps asserting that Columbia has the second lowest admit in the Ivy League, which is not true. That is merely one sample misstatement.

Guys, we all understand supporting your alma mater. But please, especially with a great school like Columbia, it is possible to present a flattering portrait of your college and at the same time confine yourself to actual true facts.

Dial back the misleading and untrue text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.154.124 (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I can't think of any good reason why an encyclopedia article should need to be updated every year to say whether Columbia College is the second, third, or fourth most selective of the Ivy League colleges. It can state that Columbia College is one of the most selective of the Ivy League colleges, period, and that will be true every year (for the foreseeable future, at least). This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a news article or a sales brochure. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, please add me as an agreeing voice. As the originator of this section on "Enthusiastic Editing and WikiPuffery" has noted, this article on Columbia University pulls together a variety of ranking and other flattering data from recent years, with each data point using the best or most complimentary year from the recent past. As a result, the article reads like a marketing brochure, as editor Shabazz aptly calls it. The overall tone of the article reads like a plea from Columbia alumni to be seen in the same light as Princeton or Harvard. Frankly, that tone of salesmanship and borderline begging is beneath supporters of a great university. Let's put it this way: The editors of the Princeton and Harvard articles are not taking pains to be compared to Columbia. The editors of this article would position Columbia more favorably by adopting the same tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.169.166 (talk) 05:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

About adding Barnard's name in Columbia's undergraduate school list

Hi, Recently I had added Barnard's name as Columbia's affiliated undergrad school which has been reverted by Nochorus after my edit's revert I came to know that there was/is (I am not sure the discussion is still going on or not) a discussion regarding this topic. But now I think we need to restart a discussion about this with fresh ideas. So as I said that I did add (which has been reverted) Barnard's name in Columbia's undergrad college (mentioning that it is affiliated). I do beleive that should be there why I am giving the reasons below.

• Columbia University stated Barnard as its school in its official website [4]
• Barnard's website describe itself as as "both an independently incorporated educational institution and official college of Columbia University [5].
• Barnard College front gate states its name as Barnard College of Columbia University.
• Student of Barnard receive Columbia diploma.
• Writing Teachers College name as Columbia's graduate school and not naming Barnard as it undergrad college seems like hypocracy. Because Teachers College is also affiliated with Columbia as the same way as Barnard.

Bests ABCDE22 (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. First of all, Barnard is already mentioned as an affiliated undergraduate school. Please check the paragraphs in the related sections where all of your points are already mentioned. Now to the topic about the dropdown boxes for the interested:

As you might know already, the changes to this article are frequent. New students/alums are coming in every year to improve the article. Similarly, trolls and puffers from other colleges keep making malicious changes. As a result, some topics are almost always debated. The discussions on this and some similar topics date back to 2003 (as I can see from the archives). But since people don't generally read old discussions or consensus, they make immediate changes which later gets reverted by someone. This has happened before and will keep happening in almost all the university's pages.

I, like most other editors, generally follow the consensus reached by the community in the past which you can read here. Not just on this topic but also on admission statistics, culture and alumni. Some time ago there were some editors who were adamant of not putting the affiliate names at all, which I thought was ridiculous. Thankfully they are back now. My opinion (following the consensus) is to include all of them, as we are a part of the same community. Students know how intertwined these schools are. Some people think, and I agree, that creating divisions is not ideal. Some others stated that using the word 'affiliate' is bad because it sounds inferior and undermines the independent identity. Everybody has different opinions and you can never please everyone. So people have been arguing on the usage of this word way before our time. If you follow the conversations, the community decided that we should discuss all schools, including affiliates, nicely and appropriately in the sections for everyone to read, and include only Columbia's schools in the dropdown boxes which is taken directly from Columbia's sources. This solution was better than creating a separate dropdown affiliate box and reintroducing the contested separation debate. It also adhered to WP:Topic and was necessary to get WP:GA. I think they had a great solution as every school got to be discussed with their unique contributions, the separation debate was eliminated, and schools were not incorrectly identified in the boxes (as in the past you had to include the affiliate identification). I think the article does a good job with that, as when you read it, every single of your point is mentioned in the article and it's not like any affiliate is excluded at all. So at the end of the day everybody is happy. (Nochorus (talk) 19:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC))

Yes, exactly as Nochorus states, we have already settled this multiple times that affiliates including Barnard and TC will be included in the dropdown box. Some new, random editor just reverted and deleted those edits. Again. After it was settled. People, please read the talk page before making edits!!!! 2600:1000:B039:60DD:B912:6517:BECF:9EC2 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if you read my full response because that's not fully accurate. The boxes were always for Columbia's own schools - 3 UG, 13 GR and 1 Med. All affiliates and seminaries including BC and TC have a well written presence in this article and also have their own Wiki pages. Also, not sure how you can tag someone as new or random on Wiki of all places as most edits are from random IP's like yourself so almost everybody is random. (Nochorus (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC))

No, this is a horrible "compromise." The very idea is to maintain affiliates as members of the University (which they are). By creating a separate drop down box, you are isolating them as a separate identity that is "separate but equal" or in a sense "not one of us." Ask any administrator at Columbia, they will disagree with your opinions. (I seriously question if any of these editors are even Columbia graduates or know anything about the university at all...)Pebblefire (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You cannot just start a new section and declare your own consensus. Furthermore, this discussion is apparently specific to Barnard, not Teachers College. You need to continue this discussion in the section above where it states "On listing affiliates as if they were a part of the university"Pebblefire (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2019

The 2018 data for Columbia's acceptance rate should be updated given the recent news. The 2019 data shows an acceptance rate of 5.1%: https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2019/03/28/cc-seas-admissions-rate-drops-again-setting-new-record-low/ Roar2020 (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done QueerFilmNerd^talk 19:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Questions about the lede

I have a few questions about the lede:

1. Do we need to include the university's athletic conference in the very first sentence?

2. Do we need to include the specific neighborhood in which the university is located in the very first sentence?

3. Do we need to tell readers that seven of the colonial colleges are in the Ivy League?

Those all seem like unnecessary details to include in the lede of this article as they're not essential characteristics of this university. Very few, if any, other college and university articles include the institution's athletic conference or the specific neighborhood in the very first sentence and I think there are good reasons for us to not include that very detailed information in that sentence. ElKevbo (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

My thoughts are:

1. Not ordinarily, but the Ivy League is often thought of as a group of elite universities, not merely as an athletic conference. And for decades, Columbia had an inferiority complex. So maybe it needs to be said, but probably not.

2. "Upper Manhattan" isn't a specific neighborhood, but a vague descriptor of half the borough (county). Columbia inhabits at least three different neighborhoods in Upper Manhattan. But there's no need to specify "Upper Manhattan" (as opposed to "New York City") in the opening sentence.

3. Almost certainly not. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Answers to ElKevbo

1. It's universally accepted in higher education that the Ivy League plus Stanford, MIT, Duke and Chicago are the most selective colleges in the United States. So no ... it's not just an athletic conference. Further, look at every Ivy League school page. All of them are referred to as "Ivy League research universities". I find it strange that you happen to be contesting this issue specifically on the Columbia page.

2. Not sure how this a problem. The more specific the better.

3. See #1. The Ivy League schools are the oldest and (collectively) the most prestigious group of universities in the world with the exception of Oxbridge in terms of age.

Response to Malik Shabazz

I'm not totally sure I have any confidence in your editing (at least on this page). You seem to have a bit of a history of dissing Columbia. I assure you, Columbia has no inferiority complex.45.41.144.3 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care. And if you think Columbia hasn't had an inferiority complex for most of the past 50 years, you don't know Columbia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Ivy league is a well recognized term and, I think, we should identify any member in the lede. Upper Manhattan is a broad designation and, that too, seems reasonable. I think we can get rid of the colonial college part because the establishment date already conveys that it was founded before the revolutionary war (and, is therefore, colonial), and we've already mentioned ivy league in the first sentence. --regentspark (comment) 18:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

If a reader doesn't know that Columbia is in the Ivy League isn't it likely that he or she doesn't know what the Ivy League is? In other words, I don't know that it's really that helpful to just state that the institution is in the Ivy League in the first sentence as most readers will either know that already or not know anything about the Ivy League. Would it therefore be more helpful to include a brief sentence, perhaps the second sentence of the lede, stating that the institution is in the Ivy League and what the Ivy League is e.g., "Columbia is part of the Ivy League, a group of eight of the most wealthiest and most prestigious universities in the United States." (Yes, I am proposing this for the lede of all of the Ivy League institutions; maybe we can workshop the proposal here first and then post a note in all of the other articles.) ElKevbo (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Though I don't think the detail about what the ivy league is is strictly necessary (anyone can click on the link if they don't know what it is), I'm ok with this proposal. --regentspark (comment) 20:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo and Regentspark –– Not sure this totally relevant to this discussion, but as to the quality of the lede my main issue is actually the shield in the introduction. The shield in the lede is not the official Columbia shield or logo. The Columbia shield is Columbia blue (light blue) with a white chevron. The dark blue/light blue chevron shield was probably made by someone unaffiliated with the university. Would like to hear your thoughts. 45.41.144.28 (talk) 00:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Can't fix Wikipuffery to make the article more neutral

The article is written like a sales pitch for the university and a poor attempt at making it look as though Columbia is a peer institution to HYPSMCC/Oxbridge. The article seems to have received a semi-protected status because the user User:Roar2020 -- a name indicating current affiliation with the university -- wanted to ensure that no one would remove the remarks about Columbia's undergraduate acceptance rates.

The acceptance rate is a deliberately misleading statistic because Columbia artificially deflates this statistic to raise their rankings in US News. Note that in rankings like Forbes that ignore these statistics for this very reason, Columbia consistently ranks last among all Ivy League schools. Among the key reasons that this article is misleading is that Columbia uses an "early decision" application process that essentially ensures no qualified applicant to HYPMSCC would apply to Columbia except as a safety school following an "early action" rejection from a stronger university. Further, as mentioned in an article cited by the page itself, Princeton and Yale have been expanding their undergraduate enrollment because they do not need to deflate their acceptance to gain prestige through the US News Rankings since the name of those schools does not come solely from a single newspaper ranking. So long as this article does not include a huge asterisk about the rankings and their inflation and give equal weight to the rankings in which Columbia fairs poorly, this article will continue to have a massive nPOV issue.

There are several other abuses of statistics that appear to used without any caveats as part of affiliates sales pitch:

• While the endowment of the university is nominally large, the endowment per student is the second lowest in the Ivy League after Cornell.
• Columbia's large number of affiliates with prestigious awards is not a fair comparison to its alleged peer institutions because of the disproportionate number of them who were temporary visitors on account of the university's location in New York. In contrast, winners from HYPSM etc. actually had a substantial involvement with the university.
• Some of the claimed scientific contribution of the university are likewise misleading. For example, the contribution of Townes in the development of the laser was only indirect -- his work led to the creation of a prototype maser -- and the decision to award him the Nobel alongside the actual creators of the laser (Basov, Prokhorov) was a purely political move to abate growing US fears of falling behind the USSR scientific production.

Meow the Kitty (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Please review our policy regarding original research; in short, you need to find independent, reliable sources that support the claims that you're making if you want us to take action on them. Without those sources they're just the claims of an unknown Wikipedia editor and I hope that you agree that we should not be editing articles based solely on those kind of claims! ElKevbo (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

ElKevbo, Just to quickly respond to this post: U.S. News removed acceptance rate as a factor in calculating the 2019 Best Colleges Rankings in which Columbia ranks #3 ahead of Stanford, Caltech and others. In other words, if U.S. News included acceptance rate as a factor, Columbia would probably be ranked #2 in a tie with Harvard and not #3 in a tie with Yale and MIT. As for Columbia's affiliations with prestigious awards: Columbia has graduated the 2nd most Nobel Prize winners after Harvard University. Stanford, Yale, Princeton have graduated about 20-30 less Nobel Prize winners than Columbia. In other words, Columbia's affiliations with prestigious awards are all the more valid than its peers.XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2019

The picture of the University coat of arms was recently changed, yet according to Columbia’s website, the previous version of the coat of arms is the only official version. Therefore, the image should be changed back to its former, official version. Thank you. 20sbraun (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The previous file in use on the article (File:Columbia University shield.svg) has been deleted, so there is nothing to switch back to at present. NiciVampireHeart 05:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There is a file containing the correct image: File:Columbia University Shield.png. My attempt to change the coat of arms to this (Special:Permalink/924999350) was reverted by XXeducationexpertXX, citing a faulty link in my edit description. However, the link I provided (Columbia style guide) seems good to me, and as 20sbraun noted the university website shows the file I have linked to above to be the official coat of arms. I reached out to XXeducationexpertXX on his talk page several days ago, but have not received word back. I would like to go ahead and establish a consensus so that we can get the correct coat of arms up without sparking an edit war. Jaydavidmartin (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

NOTE: Per WP:CONFLICT, I would like to disclose that I am a student at Columbia University Jaydavidmartin (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There has been some debate as to which shield is the correct. One shield contains the "Seal of the trustees of Columbia University". This shield is not in line with Unviersity policy as it only to be used when representing the Trustees of Columbia University. The seal is displayed here here. The other shield discussed, which is the correct shield, can be found in Blue 290, the latest publicly available style guide to reference a shield. Information of the shield can be found on Pages 2 and 5 (Page 3 and 6 in the PDF). This should be sufficient evidence for the correct shield. Please do not edit further without discussing and getting an agreement.

Thank you for this: "Do not use the University seal or shield as a stand-in for the logo or to represent the University as a whole." i.e. according to the no longer used style guide, the shield should not be used as a stand-in logo for the university. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also declaring for WP:CONFLICT sake that I am a student at Columbia University. Jbaer50 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNIGUIDE explicitly states to use the official seal of the university. The shield you are sharing amounts to misbranding of the university. The "Blue290" style guide is no longer used nor published by the university. See: https://visualidentity.columbia.edu/ No university branding uses the fictitious shield you are imposing on this page. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

If you do not feel "blue290" is satisfactory as a source to identify that the Seal is only to be used to Identify acts of the Trustees fo Columbia University, rather than the body whole, please see the following:

"The University seal is for the official use by the Trustees of Columbia University. Do not use the University seal as a stand-in for the University trademark." (from [Visual Identity])

Or

"The governors of King's College adopted this seal in 1775. Today, it is reserved for acts of the Trustees." (From [diploma history])

As to the prescription by WP:UNIGUIDE that only the university's official seal may be used, the actual text of the passage in question reads

"All institution articles should utilize

Columbia University/Archive 4

to provide the basic details about the institution, preferably with a lead image of the institution's official seal or coat of arms and an image at the bottom of the institution's wordmark;"

The area where the emphasis is added notes that a coat of arms is suitable to represent the suitable. I recognize that technically the "University Shield" is not a coat of arms, but in the colloquial understanding, it is.

The original dispute at hand was over which shield was correct, not whether a shield could be used to represent the university over a seal. The original shield displayed for this page, and the one that is currently there, which I will refer to as the "dark blue shield" can be found [[6]]. The second shield in question, which I will call the "light blue and seal shield" can be found [[7]].

The "dark blue shield" can be found throughout the university branding, including "Blue 290" As to the question of whether "blue290" is a legitimate source, it is currently available on Columbia's website and no literature is available that states it has been superseded. XXeducationexpertXX states "No university branding uses the fictitious shield you are imposing on this page". This "dark blue shield" is not fictitious as it is present in the Blue 290 style guide which, again, is hosted for download on Columbia's website.

As for the authenticity of "light blue and seal shield", there is no university documentation that I have been able to find that uses this version of the shield. The main issue at hand is the defacement of the shield by the Seal of the Unversity. As stated earlier the use of the seal of the university on matters not affecting the trustees is against University policy.

The dark blue shield should be used for this page as it adheres to University states and is present in university literature.

Jbaer50 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The "blue290" guide was published in 2011 and is no longer published on the Columbia University website nor is it used to outline the identity guidelines of the university - see: https://visualidentity.columbia.edu/. Further, it is stated explicitly in blue290: "Do not use the University seal or shield as a stand-in for the logo or to represent the University as a whole." Therefore, it cannot be used. Period. The University uses a light blue shield for all of its branding - all of it. See official merchandise: https://columbia.bncollege.com/shop/columbia/product/peter-millar-trophy-stripe-stretch-jersey-polo?graphicId=COL&categoryId=40425&parentCatId=40360&topCatId=40000&imageId=1646988, https://columbia.bncollege.com/shop/columbia/product/distinction-mug-with-thumb-piece?graphicId=x7&categoryId=40494&parentCatId=40361&topCatId=40350&imageId=1521172, https://columbia.bncollege.com/shop/columbia/products/apparel/womens/hats?parentSubCatIdFlag=true, https://columbia.bncollege.com/shop/columbia/product/legacy-slub-canvas-hat?graphicId=VF02045901&categoryId=40402&parentCatId=40017&topCatId=40000&imageId=1729559 . The university very clearly does not use the dark blue shield as a symbol. Jbaer50 is very clearly POV pushing and I wouldn't be surprised if he is a sock of Jaydavidmartin. XXeducationexpertXX (talk) 02:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, Blue290 can be found on Columbia's website, here: http://www.columbia.edu/files/columbia/content/blue290.pdf. Please provide evidence that states that Blue290 is no longer valid.

secondly, the Columbia bookstore link provided (https://columbia.bncollege.com/shop/columbia/product/legacy-slub-canvas-hat?graphicId=VF02045901&categoryId=40402&parentCatId=40017&topCatId=40000&imageId=1729559) displays the "dark blue shield" in the header.

third, please refrain from making ad hominem attacks. They are inappropriate for this space. I am not Jaydavidmartin and selecting the correct symbology is not the sort of thing one can have a "point of view" to push. Please be respectful when discussing this matter.

Jbaer50 (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Relevant discussion on WT:HED

A discussion relevant to this article is currently taking place on WT:HED (section) on the wider picture of WP:BOOSTERISM across university articles. Please see the relevant section if you wish to contribute, as any consensus made there may end up impacting this article, and it would be sensible to get involved earlier rather than going through any discussion it again if it affects this page. Your views and input would be most welcome Shadowssettle_(talk) 10:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over rankings

@Drevolt and Fortunafavetfortibus101: you two have been edit-warring over including ranking information. You're both at or very close to violating WP:3RR, so I suggest both of you work it out on the talk pages before continuing to fight over this. You might find WP:30 useful. Alternatives might include protecting the article or issuing some blocks, but I'd really like to avoid doing either of those. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

@CUfiveo and HamiltonProject: you are both close to violating the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:3RR. Please both of you stand back and let other editors figure out what the article should say. If you continue to edit war like this, you'll both end up getting blocked and/or the article protected to prevent you from editing it further. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, RoySmith. Well actually CUfiveo violated 3rr already doing something like 6rr using his IP socks, has done copyvio, COI (user admits he has been accepted to Teachers College) blanked Template:Education in the United States twice and I have been attempting to discuss this issue on this page but getting no response from CUfiveo because he knows he is wrong himself. I support the article getting protected and letting others decide (we agree on the facts, the dispute is whether we should list that fact as CUfiveo does not want to). --HamiltonProject (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Doing away with the school lists

We have an editor with severe COI (CUfiveo who was accepted to Teachers College) who keeps on adding affiliate schools (including Teachers College) and "Columbia seminaries" to the lists (which is fine, in my opinion, as long as they are indicated as such on the list). CUfiveo agrees that Teachers College is an affiliate, but he wants to hide this fact and believes that it is unnecessary to put on the list (which I disagree, because if you are contradicting official sources, you must put some sort of explanation at the source). As CUfiveo has said repeatedly, there is no dispute whether Teachers College is an affiliate; the dispute is how to present it.

This issue has gotten out of hand recently because CUfiveo has been socking using IPs, and such disruptive editing is likely to continue unless we examine the root cause of such editing. Recognizing that affiliate schools have complicated relationships to Columbia, may I suggest that we get rid of the school lists completely to avoid disruptive edit-wars in the future? --HamiltonProject (talk) 06:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

HamiltonProject No, I don't agree. If we do something like this that would be an example of appeasement of CUfiveo's bullying and I really don't think the issue is about presentation. I just see he or she is trying to throw his/her own research on wikipedia and that's completely unacceptable! His/her own cited source say TC is an affiliate then why we can't? CUfiveo has literally gave me a threat of not to edit and says its my "last chance". Who the hell CUfiveo is to say this to me!! No I don't think that we should bent to such behaviours. Bests ABCDE22 (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, ABCDE22, for being consistent and for standing up against vandalism by CUfiveo. You are absolutely right; I am withdrawing this proposal as CUfiveo is blocked from editing the page (at least for now) and hope that this issue is resolved with Teachers College listed permanently as an affiliate.--HamiltonProject (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

You erased this entire page?! You guys are shady af... so many strawmen too! CUfiveo (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

They were moved to the "On Affiliates" section where it should belong by ABCDE22 (thank you) so that users will not post the same response over and over again in multiple sections. --HamiltonProject (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)