Talk:Barnard College/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Barnard College. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barnard College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140308231631/http://www.nacubo.org:80/Documents/Endowment%20Files/2013NCSEEndowmentMarketValuesRevisedJan232014.pdf to http://www.nacubo.org/Documents/Endowment%20Files/2013NCSEEndowmentMarketValuesRevisedJan232014.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.barnard.edu/admiss/applying/profile.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Universities central at Women in Red on IWD during March 2017
Info and invitation. Women in Red has a drive during March to create and improve articles on women alumni of universities. International Women's Day is on March 8th and we invite others to mirror the event in the UK in Cambridge. Please sign up or ask for help at Women in Red. Hope you can make it. We have tools that will allow you to find missing women alumni from any other university. We are interested in editors who want to work in any language. Victuallers (talk) 08:24, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Invitation to Women in Red's Role Models editathon on Women's Colleges
Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts
 Facilitated by Women in Red | ||
Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English
|
Neutrality Issues and the Columbia vs. Barnard Rivalry
I do not believe that the standards for neutrality are being met when this page states that, "Nevertheless, some Columbia students and alumnae are unhappy with Barnard's association with Columbia University. As a result, Barnard students are a regular jest for Columbia students. Popular points of insult include the relative intelligence of a Barnard girl vs. a Columbia girl, the "easiness" of Barnard girls, and the typical Barnard girl's eagerness to associate herself with the Columbia name."
It would be understandable if this rivalry were addressed in a subsection detailing the intricate relationship between Columbia University and Barnard College. However, this is certainly not "general information," nor a prominent view held on either campus.
- I wouldn't call it a rivalry if you're going to include this.NGCR6199 (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Barnard College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110221145851/http://www.barnard.edu/catalogue/college to http://www.barnard.edu/catalogue/college
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705143127/http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/archives/Rosenberg/woman_question.htm to http://beatl.barnard.columbia.edu/cuhistory/archives/Rosenberg/woman_question.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Is this really the only women's college in NYC?
I added a citation needed tag for this claim, as the existence of the Stern College for Women would seem to contradict the claim. .אבי נ (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's a good point. When I noticed the phrase in the article, I couldn't think of another women's college in New York City, but that's not a good reason not to ask for a source. Since Barnard is clearly not the only women's college in New York City, I will remove it from the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Barnard and Columbia degrees
Other than the table from Columbia University website which does not include Barnard College (See: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/opir/abstract/opir_degrees_awarded_1.htm), National Student Clearinghouse which both Columbia and Barnard registrars use to verify degrees has drawn a clear distinction between Barnard College, Columbia University (school code: 002708) and Columbia University in the City of New York (school code: 002707) (See: http://registrar.columbia.edu/content/certifications and http://www.studentclearinghouse.org/colleges/degreeverify/dv_participating_schools2.php). Columbia University in the City of New York has participated in DegreeVerify since 2003 while Barnard College, Columbia University did not participate in DegreeVerify until 2006. Accordingly, while I believe that it is accurate for us to conclude that Barnard students receive a diploma signed by both Barnard and Columbia Presidents, I am not sure whether the citation clearly supports the claim whether Barnard students receive Columbia degrees. (See: WP:LEADCITE) I would like to show my gratitude for Malik who has been editing this article from 2007 and has a close family member who was a Barnard attendee, but I do appreciate if we can have a conversation before you revert this (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Malik_Shabazz/Archive_62#A_barnstar_for_you!).
As a side note, note that Columbia University and Barnard College, Columbia University apply for accreditation by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (See: http://academicprograms.columbia.edu/columbia-university-decennial-reaccreditation-middle-states-commission-higher-education-2015-2016). The schools I have mentioned above are accredited differently by the commission.--Boldstandard (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Please read WP:LEAD: "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents." (emphasis added)
- I also recommend that you read WP:Readers first. We're not here to write for one another but for our readers.
- What advantage does your version have over mine? It's wordier, but is it clearer? No, I don't think so. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:47, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments but please read WP:LEADCITE. "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation" and the citation you have provided which is Citation 61 of the article only mentions that Barnard diploma is signed by Barnard and Columbia Presidents. This is different from just saying it is a Columbia degree, which completely ignores the Barnard aspect of the degree. As I have stated in the edit summary, if Chase and WaMu Presidents sign a check, it would be erroneous or misleading to say that it is a Chase check, since it ignores the fact that WaMu president also signed the check. The correct way to describe such document would be that, it is a check signed by both Chase and WaMu Presidents, rather than just saying it is a Chase check. The talk page is filled with users who have challenged your version of the page while the users also seem to be in a general agreement that Barnard-Columbia relationship cannot be defined in a clear-cut way; it is more like gray rather than black or white. If there is a clearer version to describe the relationship, I would go for it, but we are talking about apples and oranges here. Maybe there are some people who disagree and completely reject the notion that a Barnard degree is a Columbia degree, but as far as I know, there is no clear-cut answer to support or reject that view other than to state the fact that the diploma is signed by presidents of Barnard and Columbia. --Boldstandard (talk) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- I completely disagree. Neither the difference between a degree and a diploma, nor the matter of whose signatures are on it, is of any real significance. The only point of any importance, in my opinion, is that the top says "Columbia University", not "Barnard College".
- If you disagree sufficiently strongly, I encourage you to start a Request for comment. The instructions can be found here.
- By the way, there's no need to leave a message on the talk page of an editor to notify them that you replied to them in a discussion elsewhere. If the discussion page is on their watchlist, they'll see it in due time. If you're afraid that they'll miss it on their watchlist, you can use {{ping}} or simply include their username in square brackets (e.g., User:Boldstandard) and they will receive an automated message that they have been mentioned (as you just did). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
User:Malik Shabazz: If the matter of whose signatures are on the diploma is of any real significance, I have no idea why you brought up Citation 61 on the edit summary, because that is exactly what the Barnard Website and my version of the page says. The Barnard website says that the Barnard degree is signed by both Barnard and Columbia presidents. It does not state that Barnard women receive Columbia degrees and note that there is a slight difference between the two versions. In other words, your version of the article is not supported by any source. Maybe you are reading between the lines, but I think the matter boils down to this. Your argument cannot explain why the Columbia website and the clearinghouse for degree verification seem to draw a distinction between Barnard and Columbia degrees. (Why Barnard degrees are not listed on the table prepared by Columbia?) And people who completely reject the notion that Barnard degree is a Columbia degree cannot explain why the word Columbia is on the diploma as you have argued. After all, there is an affiliation agreement between the schools which renders the relationship so complicated. In short, some people may find a documentation to argue that Barnard degree is not a Columbia degree and others may find a documentation to argue the opposite but as neither of them is conclusive, I think it is better to stick what the citation you provided really says. All I am arguing is that we should not have an "expansive interpretation" of the source when the source says something slightly or very different depending on the person you ask. --Boldstandard (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
- You must live in an alternate universe, then. In my world, source 61 says "Barnard students receive the diploma of the University signed by the presidents of both institutions" — not a Barnard degree signed by both presidents, but a Columbia diploma signed by both presidents. If we can't agree on what the source says, we'll never agree about anything else. Time for you to try an RfC or some other type of dispute resolution. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Again, it is different from just saying it is a Columbia degree, and that is what you have written in the article. Why ignore the Barnard part of the degree? Please take a look at my Chase and WaMu analogy. It is misleading to ignore the fact that Barnard President also signs the degree to argue that Barnard students receive Columbia degrees. You will have different people pointing to different sources to prove their point. My argument is that the relationship is complicated and there is no clear-cut answer. Your argument fails to explain why the degree verification agency draws a distinction between Columbia and Barnard degrees and also why Columbia does not list Barnard in the list of degrees awarded. I think it oversimplifies the relationship. --Boldstandard (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I hate to get into the semantics but also note the difference between a diploma and a degree. --Boldstandard (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
I meant to say The Barnard website says that the degree received by students is signed by both Barnard and Columbia presidents. instead of The Barnard website says that the Barnard degree is signed by both Barnard and Columbia presidents.
I apologize for assuming that Barnard students receive Barnard degrees, which Malik seems to vehemently disagree. When you have a close family member who was a Barnard attendee, I totally understand where Malik is coming from. After all, I think it is a very awkward arrangement to have Barnard College collect all the tuition and have an affiliated institution issue the degree. I think Malik is trying to overemphasize certain points to make an argument that Barnard students receive a Columbia degree, but I have yet to hear back from Malik why the degree verification agency and the Columbia website draws a clear distinction between Columbia and Barnard. Note too, that the issue as to whether Barnard students receive a Columbia degree has been debated numerous times on this talk page which clearly indicates that the issue is controversial for many users. I think this is similar to territorial disputes, when you have a country pointing to one document to prove the possession of the land and have another country point to another document to prove their possession. In other words, the issue is inconclusive and when it is inconclusive, you do not have a Wikipedia page proclaiming say, Spratly Islands, as the territory of China. Why would the degree verification agency and the Columbia website draw a distinction between Barnard and Columbia if the students receive the same degree? Why could employers use DegreeVerify to verify Columbia degrees in 2003, when Barnard did not participate until 2006? When you have some people arguing that Barnard degree is not a Columbia degree, I think my version gives a unbiased view which is fair to the readers. I would have to revert if you continue to ignore the distinctions made by the degree verification agency and the Columbia website. --Boldstandard (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I think my version is a generous concession which is fair to the readers. If you want me to write how the degree verification agency draws a distinction between Barnard and Columbia degrees, I would be happy to. But I think we can be reasonable to each other. --Boldstandard (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
- If you care to cite reliable sources instead of speculating about my motivation, it might help your argument. Arguing from absence instead of sources is a losing argument. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I think I already provided the sources above, which, you have yet to disprove. Regardless of my personal opinion, I am not disproving the disputed assertion whether Barnard students receive Columbia degrees. I am rather saying that the issue is inconclusive, like territorial disputes, and that is what the numerous sources indicate. --Boldstandard (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
I have provided links from not only the Columbia website, but also the degree verification agency used by both Barnard and Columbia. If Barnard students receive a Columbia degree, we have to consider 1. why the agency draws a distinction between Barnard and Columbia 2. If the degrees received by Barnard and Columbia students are the same, why did Barnard not participate in DegreeVerify until 2006? I am citing two additional sources from the Barnard website which seems to directly contradict with your assertion.
"With the exception of Advanced Placement courses overseen by the College Board, and of International Baccalaureate work, courses taught in high school, either by specially trained high school teachers or college instructors, will not be credited towards the Barnard degree." http://catalog.barnard.edu/barnard-college/admissions/
"Choose your program carefully. Typically, only liberal arts courses offered by an accredited liberal arts institution are credited toward the Barnard degree" https://barnard.edu/node/9429
According to WP:ASSERT: "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." If numerous comments on the talk page made by multiple users which clearly indicates that Barnard students receiving a Columbia degree is contested and disputed, along with the Columbia website, along with the distinction made by the degree verification agency, along with the Barnard website is not enough for you to voluntarily change the page to a fairer version for the readers, I think another person should review our arguments. To reiterate my point: "I think this is similar to territorial disputes, when you have a country pointing to one document to prove the possession of the land and have another country point to another document to prove their possession. In other words, the issue is inconclusive and when it is inconclusive, you do not have a Wikipedia page proclaiming say, Spratly Islands, as the territory of China." Thank you. --Boldstandard (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Selectivity and rankings in lead
A new editor is insisting that this article include information about rankings and selectivity in the opening paragraphs of this article. Specifically, he or she is adding information that claims:
1. This college "is ranked the #1 women’s college in America." That is vague and not supported by anything in this article.
2. This college "has been historically renowned for its education that empowers young women and produces female leaders." That is also unsupported by anything in this article and it's also POV.
3. "The acceptance rate of the Class of 2022 was 13.7%, the most selective in the college’s history." The acceptance rate is included in the body of the article where it both the acceptance rate and the historical claim are supported by a reference.
As proposed, none of these claims belong in the lead. If the first two claims were supported by very strong sources that explicitly supported the claims, they might be worth including. The third claim is not essential for readers to know about so it doesn't belong in the lead, sourced or unsourced. ElKevbo (talk) 06:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. I think the first point above is fluff. The second point is very important, perhaps the most important fact about Barnard, but I don't think it's something that can be cited to a reliable source and consequently, it probably doesn't belong in an objective encyclopedia article. I think the third point may belong in the infobox (if there's a parameter for it) but probably not in the prose of the lead section. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Content copied
I removed content pasted from https://barnard.edu/dos/opportunity-programs/heop/admissions-financial-aid; requested revdel. Schazjmd (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Among the oldest?
The current lead reads:
- It is one of the oldest women's colleges in the world.
But in fact, it is the last of the Seven Sisters to be founded, and most of them were granting four-year degrees from the start. According to that article, several other women's four-year colleges were also founded decades before Barnard. It is thus at best "dubious" to say that Barnard is one of the oldest women's colleges in the U.S., and in any case, there is no reliable source for the U.S. claim, let alone the world-wide claim. I recently edited the article to reflect all that, with edit summary "The last of the Seven Sisters", but an anon reverted with the ES "This edit doesn't offer any value to the lede". Given that that ES did not refute what I said, I reverted to my version with the fuller ES "According to the linked-to page Timeline of women's colleges in the United States, Barnard was the 152nd woman's college in the US, and the last of the Seven Sisters; so it isn't "one of the oldest women's colleges in the world")" (the 152 number isn't quite right). Anon reverted again, with the uninformative ES "If you have an issue take it to the talk page." --Macrakis (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Removing "Legally"
What are the thoughts about removing "legally" from the sentence "The college is affiliated with but legally and financially separate from Columbia". There is no citation available and according to Barnard's website they are "a self-sustaining entity under the Columbia umbrella". To me this means that they are not legally independent, but rather operationally independent. Thoughts are welcome! --Jbaer50 (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)