Questions, comments or a tip? Let us know.
University May Merge GS with CC
PUBLISHED NOVEMBER 12, 2007
The School of General Studies is moving toward a possible merger with Columbia College, according to a report issued in May by the Task Force on Undergraduate Education.
The report was driven by a desire to integrate GS into the greater undergraduate community. It makes specific proposals to expand GS’s financial aid and housing and to integrate the School’s student services and admissions with those of CC and SEAS. The document suggests a merger with the College as one way of achieving this.
“Out of our discussion has emerged, if not yet a consensus, at least an interest in considering a new relationship between GS and the other undergraduate schools, one that could even lead to an actual merger of GS and the College,” the Task Force, which is comprised of administrators, students, and faculty members from CC, SEAS, and GS, stated in a report presented at a May meeting.
Many view the proposal—versions of which have been discussed several times since the 1980s—to be closer to realization than ever. The measure has substantial momentum from several administrators, who acknowledge that a closer relationship between the two schools would help GS recruit more and better applicants by providing larger financial aid packages, housing, and administrative resources.
General Studies Student Council President Niko Cunningham, who sits on the Task Force, expressed confidence that students will see tangible effects of such talks. “There are students here today that when they graduate from GS, their diploma will say something different than mine does.”
“The curricular differences are minor at this point, and we’re going to be looking into whether we should collapse that distinction altogether,” Vice President of Arts and Sciences Nicholas Dirks said of the potential integration.
A Look Back
The discussions mirror those from 13 years ago when administrators made a concerted effort to integrate SEAS and CC through the creation of a joint Office of Student Affairs under Dean Chris Colombo. The integration allowed SEAS to access a much larger pool of financial and administrative resources, a crucial step for allowing the school to grow, according to SEAS Interim Dean Gerald Navratil and SEAS Vice Dean Morton Friedman.
In the past 10 years, the school has seen its applicant pool triple and has gone from admitting about half of all applicants to a record-breaking 18 percent, while still increasing the size of its student body.
While the 1994 move has been credited for improving relations and fostering a sense of community between SEAS and CC, administrators say that SEAS has maintained its own identity. Although undergraduates in SEAS and CC live in the same residence halls, have access to the same advising resources, and are allowed to register for many of the same classes, Navratil stressed that SEAS retains its own faculty and departments. “The fact that we partner with the College where it’s a mutual advantage doesn’t mean we’re ‘merged,’” he said.
No final conclusions have been made as to what degree CC and GS would be integrated, but it is possible that the “merger” would mirror that of SEAS and CC from the 1990s, where the integration would be limited to a bureaucratic reshuffling and light curricular changes.
This shift might alleviate many of the concerns voiced by GS students.
Cunningham said GS is excluded in many ways from the structural and social environment reserved for CC and SEAS. He cited housing, financial aid, and even the Office of Multicultural Affairs as concerns.
“While SEAS shares in centralized services with the College, the school [GS] has preserved a separate identity ... GS doesn’t share any centralized services,” Cunningham said.
Making the Case
Although the idea of greater integration has been raised repeatedly in the past, the recent discussions come in light of the fact that differences in curricula and faculty between GS and CC have increasingly diminished.
According to Peter Awn, Dean of the School of General Studies, in 1995 the University decided to separate GS from the rest of its continuing education programs. “If you look at any other university, colleges for non-traditional students are always embedded within a continuing education ... environment.... Now you have a freestanding college for non-traditional students,” Awn said.
Originally, the differences in academic requirements between GS and CC were a product of separate faculties in the two schools, according to Awn, who added that during the 1970s, Columbia was “one of the most decentralized universities in the Ivy League.” It was not until the 1990s that the faculties for the College, GS, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences were united under the Faculty for Arts and Sciences, currently headed by Dirks.
The report targets three areas of concern for the Task Force to address: uneven academic stature of GS students, isolation from the undergraduate education, and the inability of GS students to participate in the undergraduate curriculum in equal degree to those in CC.
An alignment of the curricula followed the unification of the faculty. GS students, like their counterparts in the College, have Core requirements including Art Humanities, Music Humanities, and University Writing, and although it is not mandatory, they may sign up for Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilizations.
“There used to be two separate curricula between the College and General Studies, and that’s all been eroded,” English and comparative literature Professor Michael Rosenthal said. He added that an evening curriculum for GS students who have jobs during the day has been eliminated.
Thus far, the Task Force has advocated an even closer binding of the two curricula by recommending the addition of enough sections of Literature Humanities and Contemporary Civilization to the current two sections available to GS students, estimating the cost to accommodate all who are interested at $1 million annually. “I wouldn’t be surprised if we find that within the next five years even the Core Curriculum is going to be identical,” Awn said.
Separate Identities?
Beyond academics, integration between GS and CC will potentially affect admissions, financial aid, housing, and student life.
The Task Force report suggests integrating GS admissions with the Undergraduate Office of Admissions for CC and SEAS with the understanding that GS students are evaluated under different criteria that are still as rigorous as CC and SEAS admissions standards.
Navratil said moving under the same Undergraduate Admissions Office had been largely beneficial for SEAS, and an admissions merger would probably benefit GS as well. “They [GS] will have access to a large amount of resources, and can grow into a larger organization.... They might just use that as we’ve [SEAS] used it, to increase the quality of the students,” he said. “There’s a lot of things you can do with a deeper applicant pool.”
On the other hand, Awn said, “I tend to think that’s a bit of a red herring because Columbia College does its own kind of admissions very well. They wouldn’t know what to do in dealing with non-traditional students.”
To further attract applicants and support GS students, administrators have discussed increasing financial aid, which lags behind that of its two peer undergraduate schools, and expanding University housing for GS students.
“Most of us are financially independent [from our parents], so we get a lot less [aid] than CC students. That’s something most GS students are very bitter about,” Natalie Johnston, GS, said. “Any GS student would give up any other benefit just for that [financial aid being combined]. I mean, I would. That’s been my biggest problem and I feel like I’ve been somewhat deceived.”
The Task Force recommended a hybrid financial aid package for GS in which students with parental contributions receive aid comparable to CC students with alternate packages for those without access to parental contributions. The report also suggested providing expanded University housing for GS.
The Task Force concluded their report with the suggestion that, as happened with the creation of the Office of Student Affairs, GS student services could be integrated with those of CC and SEAS.
Among CC and SEAS students, the idea of GS becoming more socially integrated generates some unease. Daniela Cassorla, CC ’10, said she thinks inherent differences in age and life experiences between the student populations of GS and the other two schools necessitate a separation of the services and functions the schools provide.
Administrators and students on the Task Force say they want to preserve what keeps GS unique while not impinging on the unique identities of CC and SEAS.
“GS has a unique feature of having a non-resident, part-time college experience,” said Navratil, who added that a merger would not necessarily change the school’s function or character.
“We don’t want to amalgamate it [GS] in a way that causes it to lose its very special distinct functions and identity,” Dirks said.
Further, Seth Flaxman, CC ’07 and former CCSC president, said “I’m more concerned about how well an institution serves people than the ideological purity of the institution itself,” adding that the proposal “does not mean that every CC student’s apocalyptic fear of old people stalking their dorm hallways will come to life.”
“If you really believe that non-traditional students who want a very traditional Ivy League education and who are as intellectually capable as any other undergrad,” said Awn, “ if you think they add an important dimension to the intellectual discourse and the community life of this University, then we should embrace them as equals.”
Crunching the Numbers
A potentially significant factor for administrative integration is decreased costs, Rosenthal pointed out. “It may be that if you combine the two [GS and CC], you cut out a layer of administrative expense,” he said.
Flaxman agreed, saying, “This could be a really cheap way to expand the College without putting more students into classrooms, thus allowing us to be more competitive against Princeton, Yale, and Harvard.”
Dirks responded to such comments, saying that “It’s not about downsizing.... It’s about customizing the way in which we do these things so that we do it better.”
Additionally, Cunningham said he believes that, at least in the short run, there will be increasing costs associated with the integration. “There’s an infrastructural cost that is undeniable. We have to hire more professors, get more seats in class for core classes.... There will be a lot of growing pains,” he said.
Devika Bhushan, Tom Faure, and Josh Hirschland contributed to this article.
Article Tools:
View Comments ( 53)
Post a Comment
This is all about MONEY. GS graduates are debilitated by debts of 100,000 plus. It is unimaginable that there is no severe backlash from GS students who have graduated with this burden.
I spent eight years in the Marines. When I was in boot camp, of course, many of us were teenagers. But there were less than a handful who were the age limit, that being 31. The Marines being very fraternal, just like a college -- even more so I believe, we accepted everyone as part of the platoon or the unit no matter what their age. I find it sad that some of you feel so rotten toward GS students -- especially at a school that boasts its diversification.
Maybe the School of General Studies should follow the Harvard Extension School business model by creating a open enrollment policy that would allow potential candidates to enroll in a few classes, including University Writing with a 3.0 GPA before they apply for the BA Program.
In addition, Columbia GS should create a distance learning program that would record a serveal Columbia College classes and offer them to the general public as part of the continuing education experience.
If if could work for Harvard Extension School. Then it should work for Columbia GS. See who is capable of handling the classwork at GS before they apply to the undergraduate program instead of slaming the doors in their faces for having less than a 3.7 GPA.
I'm in GS, and I'd rather be merged with barnard. Especially when it comes to dorm selection.
god that would awesome.
god that be awesome.
case in point
damn it! just thinking about it keeps making me type typographical errors.
last try:
god, that would be awesome.
Hmm...I wouldn't donate a penny to Columbia if CC and GS were merged.
I've provided millions in grants to Columbia through my foundation work. It's ok by me if you don't give. We'll make it up.
A merger of CC and GS would probably make me lose my loyal feelings towards Columbia. Both CC and GS are excellent schools with some phenomenal students. The schools, though, are very dissimilar, with CC overflowing with young raw talented individuals that grow together and remember their college years with deep feelings. I did not go to GS, but I think these students often have a much greater seriousness, a more mature sense of purpose, and often had a specific goal in mind when they decided to return to college. The differences in student populations are so great that any merger would leave me questioning whether the school I attended (CC) still even existed. I would probably lose my strong feeling of loyalty to Columbia -- once again, not because I think less of GS, but because a merger would change the nature of CC.
This is an extremely vapid response to a problem that is more serious than any CC student could realize. We (GS) are being chocked to death by debt. It is disturbing to comments like this get any sort of serious consideration.
This is a very thoughtful and respectful post. I think a merger could be conducted in such a way to maintain social distinctions, if not educational.
First, when matching students for housing such as roommates, there is a questionaire - are you a morning person or a night person for example - what makes an 18 year old undergrad think a 25 year old undergrad wants to live with them? No way. No 25 year old is willing to give up their evening beer or wine to have the (dis)pleasure of living with a minor child.
Secondly, there is so much talk of the hatred and intolerance on campus and cries of "how could this be?" Well, it "be" because CC is a breeding ground for it. This thread alone is full of hostility and false superiority. CC - grow up. GS - relax. The professors know (ask them) that GS students are a valuable asset to CU. Further, they enjoy their GS students much more than their needy, younger counterparts.
I don't mind the arrogance from the CC kids because they are justified to be proud to be Columbians - I am. However, their school pride does need to be tempered when it's turned on their classmates. It's understandable that CC kids feel the way they do - most of us GSers arrive at Columbia fearing we'll not be able to keep up with our younger hot-shot CC classmates. However, that insecurity is usually dispelled by the mid-term exam of our 1st class when we discover that we are at least as academically capable as our classmates, and in many cases, superior to them.
Funny thing happens after high school: your intellectual growth doesn't stop even if you're not in college, and in between HS and Columbia, GSers, by and large, were engaged in mentally rigorous activity in the "real" world.
If anything, CC kids should feel disadvantaged when stacked up against GS applicants, not the other way around. We're just as smart, but we've had a few more years to mature and develop our minds, and prove ourselves in challenging environments post-HS. It's more unfair to the new HS grads to be compared to us.
I responded to an earlier comment that challenged GS admission standards using SAT scores as the metric. What I didn't say is that my HS SATs were 700-V, 730-M. I retook the SATs as a soldier after being out of school for years with minimal formal academic work; any intellectual development came from training and work in the Army. I expected my SAT scores to drop, at best I hoped to score in the same range; instead, my SATs improved by 100 points. That's not exactly scientific proof, but the pleasant surprise did show me that intellectual improvement happens outside of academics . . . and that's an additional advantage GS students bring to Columbia when we're placed on an even academic proving ground with CC kids.
I believe combining GS and CC applicants in the same pool to compete for the same seats would result in fewer traditional CC students, but also a higher quality, if older on average, Columbia student population.
If GS is so great and I should feel humbled to be in the presence of these truly gifted people, then why do you want to be part of CC? You just said that you're better that us in every way, so have some pride, you would only loose out having to be associated with CC.
Oh, I'm satisfied being a GSer.
This isn't about GS becoming part of CC any more (or perhaps less) than SEAS is part of CC. I hope GS retains its special mission and identity. But the issues of administration, resources, and funding are real. The issue of the different degrees is real, too, given that besides the Core, the substantive academic differences between GS and CC academics are negligible compared to CC and SEAS or CC and Barnard.
The article describes at least two scenarios for GS's future place in the university: (1) an integration of selected administrative functions like the collaboration between CC and SEAS in which GS, like SEAS, keeps its own dean, academic programs, and degree, and (2) a complete merger of GS into CC that would include the awarding of the same Columbia College BA degree to older and in many cases part-time students. In the latter case in particular one assumes the GS student body will shrink in order to be more selective, to offer more financial aid, and to minimize admitting students while denying housing.
Either would likely be an improvement over the current situation. GS and its students are too much a step-child at the moment, and out of simple equity Columbia should take steps to elevate the status and treatment of GS's students, regardless of whether that means partial integration or merger. I have always suspected that GS existed primarily to generate tuition dollars for Columbia at low incremental cost to the University. The University is enjoying greater financial health these days and should invest more in its older students if it is going to continue to make a place for them.
While GS has an important and valuable mission, it's not being elitist to observe that Columbia University is not well-suited on a number of fronts (space, housing, cost, financial aid, faculty profile, other undergrauate programs) to be the home of a sizable older non-traditional student body. A smaller and more selective GS student body that is properly funded and supported would make sense for Columbia.
Perhaps it's a two-step process: partial integration to start, followed by full merger later if appropriate. In any case I think the University should keep working on a better solution than the status quo.
Columbia College did a very reasonable job of handling the challenges of going coed in the 80's and integrating with SEAS in the 90's, so either scenario is manageable.
Alum
Unlike SEAS compared to CC, GS already does not have a markedly different academic program than CC, other than the Core Curriculum, where GS has equivalent requirements. Whether the classes we take in place of the Core actually are just as good is up for debate; outside the Core, we take the same classes with the same professors. Right now, even if nothing else changed, though, I would support eliminating amy intra-major requirements between the schools.
I don't envision admission standards changing since GS admission standards are already comparable to CC, if different from CC. I'm confident the special and laudatory nature of GS would be preserved. Those are minor issues compared to allocation of physical campus resources, housing, funding, financial aid, and the administration. I would need to look at more details than this well-written column can offer to decide whether the contention is as zero-sum as some have made it out to be.
Excuse me: "intra-major requirements" should be intra-major differences.
How come no one's brought up Barnard?
Think about it this way. Roughly 1 out of every 8 students that sit with you in lectures are GS students. Now do you find that 1 out of every 8 of those look like the grimy, creepy, old man? How many times have you been friends with soemone in class for months and months, and then quite unexpectedly you find out she is in GS? Its happened quite often. It's the guy that sticks out in class or the 70 year old grandmother who maybe auditing the class (and not in GS) that give you your impression of what GS is or isn't. Our average age is 26. And its true, we do have anumber of university employees finishing their degrees and self-made entrepreneus finishing school into their forties and fifties. But is that truly is the case, and the average age is 26, does not alo lead you to believe that many, many of your GS classmates are "traditional" aged-students, who for one reason or another took off for a year or two. Many of your friends that go on to work at I-Banks, go on to law school, or go on to medical school, are in fact GS students. They never lived in Carman, or Wien, or Hartley, or EC - so you never met them in dorms - but you saw them at the same club events, at the same parties, and at the same study sessions. You never knew they were in GS until you had to sign them into a dorm one day or realized that they're scholarship (or lack thereof) nearly bankrupted them, or realized that they had an apartment out in Brooklyn. We talk so much about "What's wrong with our campus? Why the hate crimes?" It's the never-ending battle between superiority and inferiority. Do you really feel that a 20 year old freshman GS student who travelled the world for two years after high school and had a 1350 SAT (old school SAT) is that much inferior? Do you really feel that a 28 year old former New York ballerina who went to prep school with your older aunts is that much inferior to you? We feel that we are blessed to be at Columbia - at the most prestigious urban campus in the World; we feel priveleged to be around some of the smartes recent high-school graduates in the world - and we feel priveleged to call ourselves Columbians.
The average age is 29.
Today, Admissions criteria at GS are no different in any way then CC/SEAS. (Not sure though back in 1950's maybe it was different then) But today it is the SAME as with CC and SEAS. In my opinion, I think moving forward with integration is the only way to dissipate this stereotype thinking that GS is a back door way to Columbia especially among alumnis. The Faculty College for Arts and Science was specifically created to address the gap. Academically, today everyone is on the same level of academic excellence whether you are a CC, SEAS or GS student. Integration is just another step toward a unified progression.
I think that Columbia is moving forward because this segregation between CC/SEAS and GS is hurting Columbia and something has to be done to address this divide. Speak with a GS and CC or SEAS student not in terms of academics but in terms of the overall college experience and you will scratch your head at the end of the day.
Admissions critera are not different you say??
What did you get on the SATs?
Adult GS grad - had to RETAKE the SAT as an adult because my scores were more than 8 years old and I got a 1530.
"Admissions critera are not different you say??
What did you get on the SATs?"
While I'm not the person who posted the message you're responding to, I am a GS grad who entered Columbia after serving as a US Army soldier. (By the way, the origin of GS was to create a better way to admit military veterans to Columbia after WW2.)
My SAT scores are 790-V, 740-M . . . which I guess would place me, what, on the remedial end of Columbia College students?
Out of curiousity, what are your SAT scores?
Eric Chen
GS Class of 2007
P.S. I'll put up my military service against anything any CC student (with the exception of the outstanding military veterans in CC) offered to Admissions as an extracurricular activity.
On that score, I think I can speak for the other veterans, professional dancers, company founders, Olympic medalists and the like that populate GS.
Eric
You can also add to that list an identity thief wanted in various states and by the secret service, as per CBS 48 hour mystery and American Most Wanted. Also, let not forget the conservative male adult actor/model.
After 9/11, went active duty for two years. But since I was out of high school for "at least one year" CC differed admissions to GS, that was the policy (Informational Only->SAT:1490)
I posted the original message and again arrogance proves the point on why we need integration.
If CC and GS were to merge, GS would cease to exist. The ability to go to GS and study at one of the best universities in the world, without having to meet anything near the qualifications to attend CC is a great privilege! I think that if GS were integrated the people who now make up GS would not be able to gain admittance. Further, how can we suggest that 30, 40 and 70 year olds (they do go to GS) would live in dorms with 18 year olds?!?! I would have felt awkward if my freshman roommate were a 73 year old grandmother of 6, and that could be a best case senario. GS, this is cliché, but don't look a gift horse in the mouth, you get to enjoy an education that otherwise would be inaccessable to you. Be grateful!
Quoting: "Further, how can we suggest that 30, 40 and 70 year olds (they do go to GS) would live in dorms with 18 year olds?!?! I would have felt awkward if my freshman roommate were a 73 year old grandmother of 6, and that could be a best case senario."
------------------------
You are assuming that 30, 40 and 70 year olds would need/want to live in the dorms. As a 30-something who finished college 10 years ago, I do not long to go back to that type of living environment - fire drills, loud music, shared bathrooms. Why are CC students so worried about this issue?
Freshmen, I believe, are required to live in undergraduate housing. Are you suggesting that non-traditional students would want to opt out of this undergraduate community? I'm not surprised. That's why we have GS in the first place - because certain students want classroom education without the college experience.
Then clearly you don't identify as an undergraduate student. That is the college experience, loud music, dumb decisions, learning and growing with peers. Don't take that away from us.
Oh please! Don't be so dramatic. I don't think anyone would propose taking that away from you.
If any one in the administration has half a brain (and I'm confident they do), they would never place 24 or 25 year olds with 18 and 19 year olds. Believe me... I'm pretty sure the older students would be less happy with that arrangement than the younger students.
The suggestion to merge Columbia College with GS is frankly sickening. The idea to force a two hundred and fifty year old institution to completely restructure (and compromise its prowess as an institutional beacon) because another college feels left out is preposterous. Fortunately, Columbia has the ability to fill its available spots with highly qualified individuals. In that process (shockingly) some people are left out who wanted to go to Columbia College. What about their right to go to college at Columbia, is that not the argument of GS: "because we're unhappy that we don't go to Columbia College, therefore we should be admitted"? GS doesn't have the resources of Columbia College, simply for the reason that it is not Columbia College, that's life. I guess my biggest question is why stop at a Columbia College diploma? Why not demand to be accepted to Princeton, they have resources too after all. This is a moronic argument and the fact that Columbia College is even entertaining this hogwash devalues every student, professor, and contributer to the school over its history.
Excellent Idea, About time!! Columbia has a 6 Billion Endowment and receives government funding for research and academics. I really don't see finances as an issue in regards to offering a need based 100% financial aid package to GS, CC and SEAS students. It is a selfish and arrogant ideology to think that if you integrate GS, then the aid to CC and SEAS would somehow be hurt. Money- you have a alumni outreach office for a reason. Columbia is not a poor school, it is one of the wealthiest schools on the planet. GS students only get approximately 40%50% financial aid when their fafsa efc (estimated financial contribution) figures are a 0 (these are students that are living almost at the poverty line and needs aid the MOST) compared to 100% aid at CC and SEAS. It is disgraceful for a Ivy League school to not be able to offer 100% financing for any student that needs it. An overall integration of the three schools would strengthen the overall academic community of Columbia University. Right now, GS and CC/SEAS is too segregated. How can you say GS is part of Columbia but combine resources with CC and SEAS, NO WAY. This idea is long overdue!! This idea can only strengthen Columbia, not hurt it.
Columbia has a lot of money but it also has a lot of mouths to feed. Most universities with similar-sized endowments are smaller. Looking only at the endowment without looking at what it has to pay for doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also, much of Columbia's endowment (now $7.2 billion) is restricted to specific purposes and is not available for undergraduate financial aid. About $1.4 billion belongs to P&S, for example. The law and business schools probably account for almost a billion between them. Even in the Arts & Sciences, much of the endowment is devoted to faculty chairs and grad student fellowships.
The result is that relatively little of the endowment is available for discretionary use. Further, undergrad financial aid is not the only discretionary use worthy of a share of those funds. And what funds are available cannot be spent; instead, only a portion of their annual return (about 4.5%) can be used in any given year.
Financial aid is expensive. Let's say that upgrading GS aid to the levels of CC aid will cost $10 million per year. That's the yearly spendable sum generated by about $225 million of endowment. For perspective, that is more than CC's share of the recent Kluge gift. The idea that Columbia can find that much lying around just because it wants to is unrealistic. The university doesn't have such a huge amount of money sitting unused in its coffers.
Wow, a comment that actually adds useful information to this discussion. Thank you.
If this happens I will go on a hunger strike
here here! I'm with you on the hunger strike
is anyone who is part of the current hunger strike in gs? yeah... that's what i thought. stick that in your traditionalist pipe and smoke it.
any seas students out on the lawn? nope. i guess it's just the traditionalist college and barnard that give us these ridiculous and embarrassing antics. seas is too busy actually studying and gs too busy working and trying to figure out how to pay their tuition to engage in these cheesy rituals.
that's kinda funny, i guess that means cc and barnard are more alike than they care to admit and both serve as an embarrassment to seas and gs. :P
Go on a hunger strike anyway.
As a GS grad, one of my major disappointments was not being able to take Lit Hum and CC. They are considered electives and I came in with only 2 available elective credits. As a Lit-Writing major, my profs constantly referred back to "when you read ____ in Lit Hum" or "as you remember from CC." I'd tested out of several years of literature in high school and undergrad and what I had studied was nearly 2 decades earlier, this was a huge disadvantage to me. I had to do double reading to keep up. I think these courses are an important part of a Columbia education, so all GS students should have access to them. Due to most sections being during the day, perhaps the requirement could be an either/or with the 2 lit courses and 2 humanities credits. Also, GS students should not be forced to retake Quantitative (esp. if the non-Quantitative "Evaluation of Evidence" fulfills the req.), literature, music and other requirements when they have taken an equivalent course. This would've saved me at least 12 credits of redundant coursework (and freed up seats for people who wanted/needed the courses).
It seems they're suggesting that eliminating the GS infrastructure would save enough money to close the financial aid gap. I have trouble believing that, especially as most of my friends in CC envied the level of access I had to my advisor and other administrators.
Also, by defining "non-traditional" as 1 year out of school, the mission of GS is foggy. At every other school I'm aware of "non-traditional" is over 25 or 5+ years out of school. The 1 year rule contributes to the idea that GS is a "back door" into Columbia and actually makes GS largely full of traditional-aged students.
As for housing, one problem I see is that couples are given priority for many of the studio units appropriate to older, single GS students. Couples have the opportunity for dual income, while a single student's resources are more limited and they need the subsidized rent. It was tough enough living with immature grad students 10 years younger than me and losing my privacy -- the dread of ended up on an undergrad dorm is mutual. However, I understand there are studio singles at a very low rent that are available to CC/SEAS students, which would be more appropriate for GS.
Finally, GS needs to have a more thorough financial aid evaluation system. I knew of a girl who had a rich father and lived with her rich boyfriend, but she was getting scholarship money, because her income was low. Another student received a full scholarship, although she owned property in another state. She comes into scholarship meetings with bags of designer clothes and make up, fresh from her third visit to Aveda that week and brags about getting collagen and botox. She hasn't worked a day since coming to Columbia, not even summers, when she travels and keeps her CU apartment -- but no one has noticed these red flags of this supposedly needy student, who may well have married to get that Hispanic last name.
Meanwhile, many smart, capable GS students have to drop out or struggle to maintain their GPA because they are working full time. There are people who work full time, are parents and maintain a nearly perfect GPA, but who get less aid because they make over $24k. Personally, I didn't qualify for a larger scholarship than the standard $4-5k, although I earned less than tuition! I'd like to see students like that, no matter the configuration of the undergraduate schools, get more aid.
I would appreciate further clarification of the proposed merging of GS with CC/SEAS.
When I was a CC undergraduate in the 50s there was a very large gap between CC students and those in GS as far as the level of high school academic achievement was concerned. Getting into GS then was a great deal easier than getting into CC, and to put it crudely and perhaps unfairly, GS was considered a way to get a Columbia undergraduate degree through the back door.
I remember some concern in those days that no one in the outside world recognized the difference between a BA from CC and a BS from GS and that this put prospective CC job applicants on the same level as those from GS even though their academic credentials and achievements were quite far apart.
My question is this. Have these same GS students who are in attendance at Columbia today achieved the same level of academic excellence in their pre college years as those in CC? Have they been judged for admission to Columbia by exactly the same standards, and would they have been accepted if they had applied to the College along side those who are currently SEAS and CC students?
If not, I wonder why the administration would consider such a merger and would appreciate an answer as to how the College and SEAS would benefit from such an arrangement.
If anything, I think that CC should separate itself more from the other undergraduate programs offered at Columbia. Renaming itself King's College, Columbia might be a first step in the right direction. That, I think, has an awfully nice ring to it, and no one would ever confuse its graduates with those from GS ever again
It will happen, in all likelihood, since the differences between the schools are relatively few at this point. If you had bothered to read the article, you would understand that, old man.
I agree completely with the King's idea, it's heartening that someone who graduated so long ago is still in touch with what's going on at Columbia, clearly graduating from Columbia (King's) College means something special and it is important to protect it at all costs!
God Save the King!
two points of worry:
1) detracting resources from CC, housing, fin aid,
2) housing GS students with CC and seas students, many of the GS students are significantly older and might not get along with college students and their usual antics, it'd also suck to have a roomate who's much older.
i'm for more integration but not a merger altogether,msot GS students (depending on age) are markedly different from seas and CC students, not in terms of intellect but in social terms.
Great idea. I hope they keep the admission criteria equally tough, so that incompetent people are not admitted to Columbia.
It certainly hasn't worked for CC.
It's about time. Columbia never should have allowed 3 separate undergraduate institutions to co-exist: SEAS, GS and CC.
The university should systematically consolidate all three into one. Eventually Columbia should get out of adult undergraduate college. It does not has enough resources to do so properly and never did.
For too many years GS was made to feel unloved, neglected and of course almost totally isolated from the undergraduate life of the university. Hell of a way to create a sense of community among undergraduates.
I believe gradually GS should be phased out and let other schools (NYU, CUNY, SUNY) to take up the job of providing a quality eduation to adults. sin-ming shaw CC67
This would be a horrible idea. The several administrative departments that are supposed to cover CC and SEAS are mediocre at best and to add GS onto their workload would just bring down the "quality" of administrative action that the various CC and SEAS departments provide.
Additionally, where is the money for greater GS financial aid coming from? With a merger of GS and CC admissions, would CC students who would normally get aid from the school be denied aid so that a GS student can get it? While I am all for giving GS students aid, if you merge the two schools administratively it should not hurt CC in any way, it should only benefit GS (or both schools). I just do not see where this money would be coming from.
Combining the housing departments? The Housing Department for CC/SEAS is notoriously incompetent. The last thing that should happen is to give them more students to deal with. Additionally, where are these extra rooms going to come from? I was unaware that the school had rooms just lying around that they could give out to GS students.
If the university goes ahead with this merger, then they better do their homework and make sure that this plan is airtight. Otherwise, it could be a huge disaster (and knowing this school, chances are they will not plan it out correctly).
Post new comment