Talk:School of General Studies - Revision history

Absentminded at 05:31, 28 May 2009

2009-05-28T05:31:57Z

74.68.108.40: /* Admissions Criteria */

2009-03-10T06:04:42Z

‎Admissions Criteria

74.68.108.40: /* University Studies */

2009-03-10T05:59:51Z

‎University Studies

Reaganaut at 21:11, 3 July 2007

2007-07-03T21:11:07Z

Hacker: /* CC-GS Backdoor */

2007-07-03T14:53:03Z

‎CC-GS Backdoor

Hacker: /* CC-GS Backdoor */

2007-04-06T17:09:03Z

‎CC-GS Backdoor

Hacker: /* CC-GS Backdoor */

2007-04-06T17:01:34Z

‎CC-GS Backdoor

Hacker: /* CC-GS Backdoor */

2007-04-06T16:05:09Z

‎CC-GS Backdoor

Hacker: /* CC-GS Backdoor */

2007-04-06T15:43:55Z

‎CC-GS Backdoor

Admin at 21:44, 28 March 2007

2007-03-28T21:44:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:31, 28 May 2009
Line 67:		Line 67:

	"...even though GS and CC students are academically indistinguishable..." Really? :) {{User:Reaganaut/sig}} 17:11, 3 July 2007 (EDT)		"...even though GS and CC students are academically indistinguishable..." Really? :) {{User:Reaganaut/sig}} 17:11, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	==Myth sections==
		+	An IP Address poster has been making a lot of changes to the myth and non-myth sections of this article. I (or someone else who originally wrote those sections) needs to go through the revisions and decide which are reasonable and which are just white-washing. See my old, (and in need of updating) commentary on the "backdoor" accusations above. Speaking of which, I need to go back and edit the Barnard-Columbia articles to clarify some stuff again. [[User:Absentminded\|Absentminded]] 01:31, 28 May 2009 (EDT)

@@ Line 46: / Line 46: @@
 ::::* There clearly must exist some correlation between the GSAE and SAT/ACT that they use it to compare students who submit the different tests
 ::::[[User:Feinstein|Feinstein]] 15:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
 == CC-GS Backdoor ==

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 ::: "stuadents"... that's an interesting term! [[User:Admin|Admin]] 15:01, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 :::: The term is slowly replacing students worldwide! [[User:Adolph Lewisohn|Adolph Lewisohn]] 16:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
 == Admissions Criteria ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:11, 3 July 2007
Line 61:		Line 61:
	:Did you defer or apply a year after graduating high school? [[User:Adolph Lewisohn\|Adolph Lewisohn]] 14:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)		:Did you defer or apply a year after graduating high school? [[User:Adolph Lewisohn\|Adolph Lewisohn]] 14:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
	::The latter. [[User:Admin\|Admin]] 17:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)		::The latter. [[User:Admin\|Admin]] 17:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
		+
		+	== Elitist remark ==
		+
		+	"...even though GS and CC students are academically indistinguishable..." Really? :) {{User:Reaganaut/sig}} 17:11, 3 July 2007 (EDT)

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 ::::Consolidated paragraphs 2-4, Relationship to Columbia College: These paragraphs are very misleading, both with regard to facts and to misinformed suppositions that use phrases such as “There was likely” and “most likely.” Degrees are granted by the Trustees of the University, not by the faculties. It is difficult to believe that the University was hostile to CC’s existence, which seems to be what this sentence suggests. There is no evidence in Robert McCaughey’s <i>Stand, Columbia</i>, to which this and succeeding paragraphs owe a clear (and unacknowledged) debt, to corroborate this, or the supposition that the Trustees viewed GS as another revenue stream. It is unclear how this would actually increase revenue, since GS students were already able to major in liberal arts—they just received a B.S. instead of a B.A. Presumably what is meant is that the University paid scant attention to GS, rather than CC (which is customarily referred to as the College). And it is the CC dean who wept when he learned of the Trustees’ decision. But I am unsure how exactly this 1967 decision contributes to any tension between CC and GS in 2007, since a) virtually everyone concerned is no longer at Columbia; b) it’s not clear to what extent most people at Columbia are even aware of it; c) the primary issue (as reported by McCaughey), the competition between the faculties, was resolved by the unification of the faculties in 1990. If a clear, well-reasoned argument can be presented, I would agree that this information is relevant; however, in their present state, these paragraphs seem to be comprised primarily of misinformation and speculation.[[User:Hacker|Hacker]] 12:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 :::::3rd paragraph, Relationship to Columbia College: This is a belabored point, but apparently it must be made again: in the most fundamental, most significant way, GS is not segregated within the University: its students take the same classes, with the same professors, as the other undergraduate students. The existence of a separate college that provides distinctive administrative and support services for a distinctive, if diverse, student body should not be seen as problematic. As noted in the Admissions section of the article, GS admissions statistics are reported on the Office of Planning and Institutional Research website, and a profile of the fall 2006 entering class is available in the News section of the GS website (http://www.gs.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/newspages.dll/pages?sitename=COLAD&record=449&htmlfile=gsnews2.htm). Further, GS admissions statistics don’t have meaning in the <i>US News and World Report</i> way that statistics for CC, SEAS, and Barnard do. <i>US News and World Report</i> is marketed to high school students and their families; in most cases, GS is not an option for them, and as a result it is rather pointless to include GS or its admissions statistics. With regard to statistics specifically: obviously, there are vastly different applicant pools; 20,000 prospective nontraditional students are not going to apply to GS. Finally, the idea that any school’s admissions process is transparent, rather than opaque, is somewhat hard to believe. If anyone thinks that the Office of Undergraduate Admissions read each of its 20,000 applications this year, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Admissions decisions are inevitably at least somewhat arbitrary, but admission and rejection letters are both standard forms. Ultimately, the problem again seems to be one of interpretation: should GS be viewed simply through the lens of CC or with a more nuanced understanding? [[User:Hacker|Hacker]] 13:09, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 == Columbia College is not just for people directly out of high school ==

@@ Line 51: / Line 51: @@
 :: As long as the university awards the BA to GS students, it's difficult to argue that the school exists as some sort of back door. The residential college serves a purpose and a student body quite distinct from the nontraditional school, while each gives qualified applicants the opportunity to learn within the same university. While arguably transparent in its admissions criteria, many GS admits do come from other top tier universities, while others took time off for whatever the reason and decided that the time was appropriate for a resumption of studies at an elite university. Those that can't cut it tend not to return, especially with merit (and not need) being the sole determinant of continuing financial aid. Those that do generally contribute a great deal to the academic setting and move on to graduate programs on par with their residential college peers. The only students I've found dissatisfied with the existence of GS tend to be stuck in their own pretentious insecurities, seemingly bitter that the same degree is granted to so-called undeserving undesirables that failed to gain entrance to the degree through the unreasonably competitive traditional college process -- and since they somehow won that game, neither GS nor (in many cases) Barnard should receive papers conferring comparable studies completed at Columbia University. If the university bothered to publish the average GPAs of the three schools, I think this discussion would be moot. Sadly, like GS admissions statistics, they do not. [[User:Adolph Lewisohn|Adolph Lewisohn]] 15:12, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
 :::Changes to 1st paragraph, Relationship to Columbia College: GS’s definition of nontraditional students is not loosely defined; see citation given. Columbia College is for “traditional students” by definition, not by inference. From the Office of Undergraduate Admissions website: “Potential applicants to Columbia College who have taken a break of more than a year in their education (with the exception of those who must complete national military service), should consider instead the School of General Studies at Columbia.” (http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/transfer.php) Columbia separating traditional and nontraditional students is not age discrimination. A person entering college after high school or after taking one year off requires different kinds of support services than one returning to college after 5 years off or one who is only able to attend part-time while working full-time. Acknowledging that fact and attempting to provide the appropriate administrative and support services is neither de facto nor de jure age discrimination; instead, it seems to be an acknowledgment that a nontraditional student body should not be viewed simply through the lens of a more traditional student body. [[User:Hacker|Hacker]] 11:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
-:::Changes to paragraphs 2-4, Relationship to Columbia College: These paragraphs are very misleading, both with regard to facts and to misinformed suppositions that use phrases such as “There was likely” and “most likely.” Degrees are granted by the Trustees of the University, not by the faculties. It is difficult to believe that the University was hostile to CC’s existence, which seems to be what this sentence suggests. There is no evidence in Robert McCaughey’s <i>Stand, Columbia</i>, to which this and succeeding paragraphs owe a clear (and unacknowledged) debt, to corroborate this, or the supposition that the Trustees viewed GS as another revenue stream. It is unclear how this would actually increase revenue, since GS students were already able to major in liberal arts—they just received a B.S. instead of a B.A. Presumably what is meant is that the University paid scant attention to GS, rather than CC (which is customarily referred to as the College). And it is the CC dean who wept when he learned of the Trustees’ decision. But I am unsure how exactly this 1967 decision contributes to any tension between CC and GS in 2007, since a) virtually everyone concerned is no longer at Columbia; b) it’s not clear to what extent most people at Columbia are even aware of it; c) the primary issue (as reported by McCaughey), the competition between the faculties, was resolved by the unification of the faculties in 1990. If a clear, well-reasoned argument can be presented, I would agree that this information is relevant; however, in their present state, these paragraphs seem to be comprised primarily of misinformation and speculation.[[User:Hacker|Hacker]] 12:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
+::::Consolidated paragraphs 2-4, Relationship to Columbia College: These paragraphs are very misleading, both with regard to facts and to misinformed suppositions that use phrases such as “There was likely” and “most likely.” Degrees are granted by the Trustees of the University, not by the faculties. It is difficult to believe that the University was hostile to CC’s existence, which seems to be what this sentence suggests. There is no evidence in Robert McCaughey’s <i>Stand, Columbia</i>, to which this and succeeding paragraphs owe a clear (and unacknowledged) debt, to corroborate this, or the supposition that the Trustees viewed GS as another revenue stream. It is unclear how this would actually increase revenue, since GS students were already able to major in liberal arts—they just received a B.S. instead of a B.A. Presumably what is meant is that the University paid scant attention to GS, rather than CC (which is customarily referred to as the College). And it is the CC dean who wept when he learned of the Trustees’ decision. But I am unsure how exactly this 1967 decision contributes to any tension between CC and GS in 2007, since a) virtually everyone concerned is no longer at Columbia; b) it’s not clear to what extent most people at Columbia are even aware of it; c) the primary issue (as reported by McCaughey), the competition between the faculties, was resolved by the unification of the faculties in 1990. If a clear, well-reasoned argument can be presented, I would agree that this information is relevant; however, in their present state, these paragraphs seem to be comprised primarily of misinformation and speculation.[[User:Hacker|Hacker]] 12:05, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
 == Columbia College is not just for people directly out of high school ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 28 March 2007
Line 55:		Line 55:
	I took a year out before starting at CC. [[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)		I took a year out before starting at CC. [[User:Admin\|Admin]] 01:47, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
	:Did you defer or apply a year after graduating high school? [[User:Adolph Lewisohn\|Adolph Lewisohn]] 14:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)		:Did you defer or apply a year after graduating high school? [[User:Adolph Lewisohn\|Adolph Lewisohn]] 14:54, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
		+	::The latter. [[User:Admin\|Admin]] 17:44, 28 March 2007 (EDT)