Contents

1 Columbia University has been moved to Columbia University in the City of New York 2 The Johnson ambiguity 3 Location 4 Alumni 5 school traditions 6 Info table 7 Movies 8 Nobel prize winners 9 Images 10 Timeline links 11 Information box 12 Combining Columbia-related content 13 Columbia or UPenn: which came first 14 An exercise in masturbation? 15 "prestige" comment

Columbia University has been moved to Columbia University in the City of New York

I disagree with this recent move which appears to have been done without prior consultation. "Columbia University" is almost never referred to as "Columbia University in the City of New York". I vote to move it back to "Columbia University". mat334 | talk 16:36, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

The name of the university is Columbia University, NOT Columbia University in the City of New York. The name of the associated corporation which holds the university, its holdings, and is enacted via its charter (which says kings college in the first place) is formally "The Trustees of Columbia University in the City Of New York. Columbia university is only legally called Columbia University in the City of New York for the sake of being a specificity. The legal and corporate body of the university were the trustees, (The trustees of columbia unviersity in the city of new york were actually sued for some sort of trademark infringement for calling themseleves the trustees of columbia university. Thusly, the name was changed). Columbia university is not a legal entity or corporate entity, it is only the educational entity encompasses.

1. School of Architecture, Planning and Preservation, est. 1896
2. School of the Arts, est. 1948
3. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, est. 1880
4. Graduate School of Business, est. 1916
5. Columbia College, est. 1754
6. School of Continuing Education, est. 2002
7. School of Dental and Oral Surgery, est 1917
8. The Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, est. 1864
9. School of General Studies, est. 1904
10. School of International and Public Affairs, est. 1946
11. School of Journalism, est. 1912
12. School of Law, est. 1858
13. College of Physicians and Surgeons, est. 1767
14. School of Nursing, est. 1892
15. Mailman School of Public Health, est.1921
16. School of Social Work, est. 1898.

Affiliated Institutions:

1. Barnard College
2. Teachers College
3. Jewish Theological Seminary
4. Union Theological Seminary.

History:

• In 1787: "NY Legislature approves new charter for "Columbia College in the City of New York," by which the College reverted to its earlier status as a privately governed college primarily serving New York City; state-appointed Regents replaced by self-perpetuating 24 Trustees with no ex officio public members; charter provided basic governance framework that has since prevailed." [1]
• In 1896: "May 2 -- President Low leads dedication of the Morningside campus; speaks of University's responsibilities to the City of New York; Trustees adopt institutional designation of "Columbia University in the City of New York"; undergraduate school hereinafter "Columbia College"" [2]
• In 1912: "Corporate name changed by order of the New York Supreme Court to "The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York" [3]

--Ctrl build^talk 19:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I moved it back to Columbia University since no consensus had been reached (nor was the topic even discussed) before the original move took place. Additionally, no articles link to Columbia University in the City of New York. Darkcore 20:06, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Johnson ambiguity

In July 1754, Samuel Johnson held the first classes.

The reader wonders whether this was Dr Johnson (1709-1784), or another Samuel Johnson.

Sebastjan

It is a different person; I have clarified the text.

Somebody should contribute an article on this Samuel Johnson.

Sebastjan

Location

Columbia isn't exactly on the Upper West Side, which some would say ends at 110th Street -- the campus starts at 114th in Morningside Heights. However, I admit this may not be interesting, useful, or even coherent to anyone who doesn't actually live here. --Calieber 20:00, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• We could use a stub on Upper West Side.
• If it's technically not in Upper West, which region is it in?

--Menchi 20:05, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I was just about to write one when I realized the pejoritive and utterly non-NPOV nature of the entry I was drafting in my head :). In my defense, the bias is against the side I'm on. Anyway, the neighborhood is called "Morningside Heights" -- the Cathedral of Saint John the Divine in the south part is on the highest point in Manhattan, hence the name. --Calieber 20:22, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• I've added an Upper West Side but needs more. Please add. Columbia is generally lumped into Upper West Side even if it formally may not be. Fuzheado 23:24, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

• Heh, at Columbia, we said "Upper West Side", but now that I live downtown I realize that everyone else says "Harlem". The neighborhood really is "Morningside Heights", regardless of what it's called colloquially DropDeadGorgias 19:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• definitely use "Morningside Heights". Columbia's own about page calls it "the historic, neoclassical campus in the Morningside Heights neighborhood". TheEngineer 00:58, Oct 14,2004 (EDT)

Alumni

Just to clarify something- I'm fairly certain that some of the people on the 'alumni' list have not graduated yet (Like Utada Hikaru). Should we create a separate section for "Famous Students Currently In Attendance"? - DropDeadGorgias 19:37, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• Just another note- Huck Hodge is listed as a "notable student", but I can't find any information on him. I have listed his page on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Please comment there if you have any information. - DropDeadGorgias 22:29, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

• I've also removed Lauryn Hill as she never graduated, and so is therefore not an alumna. Also, why is the alumni list alphabetized by first name? If no one can provide a good reason, I'm going to reformat it. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:58, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Alexander Hamilton never graduated either, but I'm not prepared to strike him. How about changing the name of the section to "Notable students and alumni"? I'm gonna go for it. Wikisux 06:36, May 10, 2004 (UTC)

• I am in favor of the phrase "Notable Columbians"... that way we can include any famous people associated in any way with columbia? TheEngineer 08:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

school traditions

How about creating a section of unique columbia traditions/events? I have a few so far:

Orgo Night

Track Team Naked Run

Scream Night (when everyone screams into the shafts/streets the night before finals)

Swim Team's semi-nide trip to Times Sq.

Take Back the Night (when people march down B'way and Amersterdam against domestic violence)

Exploring the tunnels underneath the school

Sitting on the steps

CU Alum 02

Don't forget

The Varsity Show

Senior Wednesdays at the Heights (well... this one might not be encyclopedic)

As for the ones you mentioned above, definitely Orgo night and Track Team. I never made it down to the tunnels (because of the spookiness of the CUTV movie "Tunnel vision"). I also think that Take back the night is part of a larger intercollegiate organization, and that scream nights are found just about everywhere. As an fellow 2002 alum, the most common question I get from pre-frosh is about Urban New York, actually... Maybe they talk about it in Days on Campus now...

- DropDeadGorgias (talk) 16:54, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)

Info table

Would anyone mind if I updated the info table and overhauled its design? It's out of date and it looks REALLY ugly right now. I think I'm gonna do it within a couple hours, unless anyone objects... Wikisux 09:13, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Movies

The events of the film Graduate happen entirely in California. The main character drives up Interstate 5 to UC-Berkeley. So I doubt that Columbia plays much of a part of that film. Also, what ever happened to the traditions section? Dyl 23:51, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

To the point about the graduate (the movie) and mona lisa smiles: Classrooms and buildings were used. We are talking about columbia here as a filming location, not necessarily central to the plot of the movie. Many movies use alternate sites to "represent" the places in which they are set.

In Mona Lis Smile, for example, The Classroom used for Julia Robert's class is the grand Columbia U Chemistry classroom in Havermyer Hall (in which I have spent countless hours over the years). They also use two other sites at the university in the movie - although the movie was set at wellesly.

If you need proof, check out the internet movie database, or, as i did, the credits of the movie.

Sean 04:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Havemeyer's main lecture hall is a popular movie set. Though I would say that we should keep this list to only those which depict Columbia in the movies, not just using Columbia facilities as a set. Fuzheado | Talk 15:48, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think being the set of a movie versus being a location within a movie is pretty obscure. If that's a cause for fame, then UCLA would be the most famous university in the world, due to the number of films using that location as a set (representing other schools). Dyl 08:10, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

I seem to remember Woody Allen filming on campus (perhaps a few times) in the late 80's or early '90s. Does anybody remember for which film(s)? Dyl 14:29, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

Hannah and Her Sisters, Crimes and Misdemeanors, and Everyone Says I Love You have scenes that were filmed on Morningside campus; Husbands and Wives was shot at Barnard. Darkcore 22:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My vote would be to add these films to the movies section and remove The Graduate and Mona Lisa Smiles. It's much more glamorous being part of the storyline as opposed to being the set. Dyl 00:08, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

Added. Darkcore 02:51, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobel prize winners

There were more this year, but its hard to count becuase of where each one is working. I believe the total is 71 now, but it would work well as a table. Ctrlbuild 14:23, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Images

Image scanned from original PD source for this article no longer being used moved here to talk in case anyone ever has some use for it. -- Infrogmation 23:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Timeline links

Do we really need all of them, or even any? Is someone planning to work on them? Mat334 04:53, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I added them, so I guess I will remove them, but I will keep the section heading, as a suggestion. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ] 05:09, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Sounds good. Mat334 05:25, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Information box

Nooooo!!! What happened? The table looked good before. Now someone has got rid of the lines. It isn't as good anymore. The lines make it nice and neat. Somebody change it back. Please. Mat334 21:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• And take note of the University of California table. Mat334 21:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I did that, I made the templates for all the ivy leauges conform-- execpt for U of P. Anyway, so all the ivies conform to the standard template infobox universities2 instead of having all their own tables which are impossible to edit. One side effect is it is no longer in table form. What you can do is go to the infobox template, the link is, Template:Infobox University2 and edit it so it conforms to your stylistic tastes and see how people react to the new style. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ] 07:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Combining Columbia-related content

As I am not affiliated with Columbia in any way, I wanted to post a proposal and see what the general consensus would be.

At present, every division of Columbia has an article with a brief description, including Columbia Business School, Columbia College of Columbia University, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, Columbia University School of Social Work, Fu Foundation School of Engineering and Applied Science, Teachers College, Union Theological Seminary. However, many of these school divisions within Columbia really don't deserve their own article, and on their merits should be at best a subsection of the Columbia University article. Perhaps Union Theological and Barnard should be independent, but they are the exceptions. I would like to see an exceptional edit where these divisions, and possibly the other Columbia-related pages including Clubs and organizations of Columbia University, Columbia University Tunnels, Core Curriculum, Go Ask Alice!, List of Columbia University people, be merged into the Columbia University article.

As it current stands, the abundance of minutiae on Columbia is bordering on fancruft, and many of these articles should abolished (turned into redirects) with their content made more pithy and concise to be summarized on the Columbia University page.

Further, the [[Category:Columbia University]] should be rescoped to connect the articles listed in List of Columbia University people, and the content of the list itself should be placed within the article under section headings of "Notable Faculty" or "Notable Alumni."

I look forward to your comments. —ExplorerCDT 20:28, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I understand your viewpoint, but understand that given the length of the columbia university article, much of this recombining is not possible. Many of the schools you have listed were redirected, but please understand that certain articles, like the business school, the coolege, the engineering school, teachers college, the uts, and the school of socila work have recently been expanded or have within the last month finished a major expansion. Understand that many major universites have satalittle pages like this, and given the nature of columbia univeristy, being a complex agglomeration of schools that are more affiliated than connected to some extent. Please understand that they are works in progress, and several articles right now are having close calls, like the core curriculum article. I am updating that later, but I am arguing against its deletion now. As for the manner of the list of people, I think a lot of universitiy pages have problems with their lists, and its due the limitations of wikipedia. Once the new category system comes in, I think the way it works will work much better. Overall these articles you mentioned will be less nelogistic in the coming weeks, but I think the discussions I have been having with a few people have exhibited that certainly, some of these pages will get absorbed or even deleted. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ] 21:59, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• They should be absorbed, period. The problem with the Columbia University article is that it has not been copyedited like it should be. If it is copyedited, all of that will fit in one article—albeit one that comes close to the 32Kb threshold. The problem with "major expansions," as you have said occurred recently on several Columbia-related pages, is that the level of detail and poor writing style tends to render the article as lacking conciseness. From looking at those major expansions, they can easily be rewritten with half as many words. I intend to copyedit the Columbia article's content, no matter what the consensus, but I'm looking for what the response would be before I decide how drastic and insensitive a job I do. —ExplorerCDT 22:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ok I am starting to understand. This is a big job, so when I get a chance, I may create project, but I want to point out stats:

Category Columbia University:
 articles: 20
 subcategories: 2
Category Brown University:
 articles: 14
 subcategories: 1
Category Cornell University:
 articles: 13
 subcategories: 0
Category Princeton University:
 articles: 4
 subcategories: 0
Category Yale University:
 articles: 10
 subcategories: 2
Category Harvard University:
 articles: 23
 subcategories: 1
Category Dartmouth College (smallest of the ivies):
 articles: 7
 subcategories: 0
Category University of Pennsylvania (I suggest putting UofP in its own category)
 articles: 2
 subcategories: 0
Category MIT:
 articles: 15
 subcategories: 0

So Yes there is bloat, but you are suggesting unilaterially cutting out all of columbia's subpages. Unlike other schools columbia is a conglomeration, not an association, therefore, in example unlike harvard encompassing radcliffe and harvard college, columbia university has barnard nearly seperate, and seas, cc, gs, etc, nearly separate, so I agree some deadheading has to be done before columbicruft becomes a word in the OED, but what I encourage you is to be very careful about things being done unilatially. The seas article was a stub for months. The social work article just suddenly got a major (and very good) major editor. So I agree with you in ideas, but not in method. This is my last major comment on this for a while. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ] 00:19, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Princeton should be down to 3...I moved Residential colleges (Princeton University) to the Princeton University page. Thanks for laying out a lot of projects to work on. —ExplorerCDT 02:09, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Columbia or UPenn: which came first

This is in reference to an edit war over whether Columbia was fifth-oldest or sixth-oldest in the United States. Both Slw2014 and 160.39.208.194 (they may be one and the same) edited the opening paragraph stating it was fifth-oldest. I reverted the article—summarizing the edit with an admonish that (both) users didn't know how to count—to reflect that it was indeed the sixth-oldest institution of higher learning established in the colonies. I'm also formatting this discussion with its own section, since it does not belong in the above section. —ExplorerCDT 16:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is no need to be rude, ExplorerCDT. I can count very well thank you very much. The point of the matter is, UPENN was not an institution of higher learning until 1755, before then it was an Academy for boys, so therefore it is not "the fifth oldest institution of higher learning." Columbia was an institution of higher learning before PENN, in 1754. I will not change it again, but please note the historical evidence on Columbia's own webpage http://www.columbia.edu/about_columbia/history.html

(NOTE: posted without signature by Slw2014 on 21 December 2004 at 19:35)

• Webpage noted. However, UPenn seems to disagree and refute your claim. In retort, see: http://www.archives.upenn.edu/histy/genlhistory/brief.html. Columbia is sixth oldest, at 1754. UPenn, fifth-oldest, proposed in 1749 (starting with a pamphlet where Benjamin Franklin expounded the idea and curriculum of the proposed institution of higher education) and opened its doors 1751. While it may have not been chartered until 1755, it was operating as an institution of higher learning (as intended by Franklin) four years earlier...and three years before Columbia was founded and chartered as Kings. You still can't count. —ExplorerCDT 16:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I do not want to get into a fight, but how abotu we just qualify it. t if either is stated, it should be qualified with either "the fifth instution of higher learning estabilished" or "the 6th oldest institution of higher learning" perhaps "......nevermind, I just qualified it, tell me if you guys agree with how I did it, I even put a comment into the text to make sure no one goes crazy and says 5 =5, not 5 and 6. Especially since we all know 2+2 = 5. --[[User:Ctrl build|Ctrl_build^talk ] 18:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I don't agree. 1749 (foundation) and 1751 (opening) still came well before 1754. The 1755 chartering, according to UPenn's history and the 1911 Britannica, was "confirmatory" to an institution of higher learning already existing. You're attempting split hairs where there are no hairs to split. It's simple, unconfusing, and should be obvious to any reasonable person (something you don't seem to be showing yourself as). 1749 makes Penn 5th, and 1754 makes Columbia (Kings) 6th. What is so hard about it that you can't wrap your noggin around that?

Neither you nor I can change the mathematics of sequential order or the passing of history. Dubious (and unnecessarily confusing) "superqualification" thus reverted. —ExplorerCDT 18:46, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but in the interests of completeness in wikipedia, we should mention somewhere, if someone used this as a source, that the dates of chartering are a different order, but I do agree with your asessment, 6th in order------BUT 5th to be chartered. I do agree though chartering is not like patenting, where the guy who does it first is the guy who made it. It is not like UPenn is the Elisha Gray of colleges, it came 5th, but we should make sure its clear the dates of chartering in each article does not = date of estabilishment. I can't believe I finally got a chance to use that useless fact. --[[User:Ctrl build|User:Ctrl_build^talk ] 23:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whether someone was late in signing a piece of paper does not change the fact that three years after Penn started instruction, Columbia was founded. To say Columbia is sixth-oldest (which it is) but it was fifth if you count it this way and tenth if you count it another is a.) not concise and b.) confusing. The date of chartering is insignificant, it's a footnote. The only way to count it, as it has been counted for ages, is through the date the institution was created. Penn was in existence before Columbia. Enough said. To risk being the Thrasymachus here, there's nothing more to debate. When reduced to the simple fact of 1749, vs. 1754, Columbia is younger than Penn, no matter how you want to slice it. —ExplorerCDT 00:09, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Understood, thats that.

On other notes, I have finally found a reason why there are so many columbia articles. I did some talking among friends. Just among my small group, 5 of them contibute to wikipedia. I got them all to agree to help me do editing after december 25th. I you would like to help expanding the articles thats fine, but please understand if there is enough information on a subject, it deserves its own article. I hope you agree on that last statement I made. I do not believe articles should be killed if there is enough information on them. I am fairly sure columbia's article count will go down to about 17, but please remember, columbia has 20 schools in the first place, most of them major institutions of more than 700 people, each with their own separate histories, so I would like an agreement from you.

1. Your disagreement is NOT on the number of articles, but the number of informationless articles.

2. If we actually end up with for example 25 fully detailed articles, that since these articles are fully detailed, they cannot be intergrated into the central document, and thusly should not be deleted.

I believe given the unique nature of wikipedia, full coverage on the range of topical encyclopedias can be achieved. Given that, 3 articles on a school like princeton university is woefully inadequate. Columbia has an active editing base, and I think we have a duty to drum up an editing base at other universities. If you have encoutered items like the facebook, then you understand how once around 50 college students from the big name schools are doing something in unison, a snow ball effect follows. Now I am not saying we can gain 10,000 wikipedia editors that way, but starting from 20 and going to 100 would not be bad. --[[User:Ctrl build|User:Ctrl_build^talk ] 06:14, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• (moving back over to the left) I hate expansion for the sake of expansion. Consolidate, don't expand. Don't give me the nonsense that Wikipedia isn't paper either, because the abundancy of articles has no other purpose than delving into insignificant minutiae and produces nothing more than wasteful writing. Most other Universities (even large ones with a similar number of subdivisions and schools) boil it down to a page, maybe two if they add a list of notable alumni or faculty separate. Why is Columbia so special? It isn't. It's just another school. I could care less if you have an active editing base, or that you can write volumes on Columbia's subdivisions. Consolidation is what is called for, not expansion. The ad absurdam is that you'll expand to write articles on every school, then some schmuck will come along somewhere down the road and think every building, every walk, every bar near campus students go to get wasted, every insignificant student organization, etc. deserves an article. Take a look at what I did with the Rutgers University (my alma mater) article if you want a good idea of what I would like to see with Columbia. I've heard several writers say that the mark of a good writer is one who can take a text he's written, reduce it by half, and by half again without losing a single thought. Conciseness. Columbia isn't served here by having a myriad of articles all over the place, but by one (maybe a handful) of concise article. —ExplorerCDT 13:17, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • Charity school (1740) is earlier than Franklin's Academy (1749), which is earlier than kings college (1754), which is ealier than the college of philidephia (1755), which is earlier than university of pennsylvania (1791) which is earlier than columbia university (1896)--take what you will from that. --Ctrl build^talk 19:14, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I ended up changing the article so that it says sixth-oldest, because ExplorerCDT's arguments make sense. However, I do want to make clear that there is precedence for it being named fifth oldest. Ths institution itself considers it fifth-oldest. Many encyclopedias and sites also consider it fifth oldest:

http://yahooligans.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=11112 http://www.uscampus.com/research_options/build_understand/build_article6.htm http://www.bartleby.com/65/co/ColumbU.html http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0812980.html http://nyjobsource.com/columbia.html http://www.siemensenterprise.com/attachments/solutions/higher_ed/columbia_university-x723.pdf

Sean 16:55, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An exercise in masturbation?

Folks, this page is pathetically self-aggrandizing. Speaking as a College alum, I'm embarrassed to be associated with such pap. Please remedy. 69.203.80.227 02:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some of the speak is over the top. Have edited some appropriately. Fuzheado | Talk 07:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with the anonymous user above. The style is completely papped. In addition...too many pictures too unaesthetically placed, still too much of a spread of articles on Columbia minutiae (really in need of consolidation into one comprehensive article...even if it is long). This could be such a great article, but the last time I tried to get involved, I ran into a bunch of kids with a hard-on for Columbia that it ended up causing this masturbatory result. —ExplorerCDT 05:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article not a profile for traveler magazine. This irritates me in particular

  "mmersed in the cosmopolitan culture of the nation's most    
  international city—or perhaps just tempted by Wall Street's 
  commercial riches—Columbia is unique among the Ivies for its 
  outward-directed gaze and engagement with local talent, perhaps 
  most notably in business, literature and the arts, and 
  journalism (as the administrator of the Pulitzer Prize)."

Tempted by Wall Street's commercial riches? Sure that may be reason for some, but having been a student there for a number of years, in my opinion it certainly isn't a dominant enough reason to deserve mention. "outward directed gaze and engagement with local talent" this is possible too, but it is no more unique in this respect than Harvard or Stanford or Georgetown. Lets focus more on the facts. COULD WE PLEASE return this to a more encylopediesque style. More like the introductory paragraph of Dec 2004. 160.39.232.221 01:23, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Seeing no objections to the above, I have made a modification to make the introduction at least a bit more encyclopedic. The previous statement sounds like something out of an advertisement or viewbook. Being a student of the university, I think the changes fairly represent it and removes the embarassment that the previous statements illicited. Sean 06:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The following paragraph also has the "travel magazine" style problem outlined above (especially the "these revered repositories of cultural significance" part):

  "In addition to its academic ties, the school also maintains relationships with The Metropolitan
   Museum, The Museum of Modern Art, The Whitney Museum, The Museum of Natural History and other   
   major museums throughout New York City, allowing students free or discounted access to these 
   revered repositories of cultural significance."

Also, why is the "Student Life" section first? It seems the least encyclopedic part of the article. Perhaps a "Geography of Columbia" could replace some of it, with other parts moving into the mooted "Traditions" section?

• Nice try trying to perpetuate the "fifth oldest" b.s. (not you Sean, the anon who edited before you) I have altered the awkwardness of the "(see Colonial Colleges)" parenthetic quod vide to conform with how the other 8 Colonial colleges treat the link. To the anon...Don't try to revert the sixth oldest edit. 1749 comes before 1754, and UPenn wins this one despite some of the pro-Columbia boosterism. —ExplorerCDT 07:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"prestige" comment

Watchers of this page should see this poll about whether this page should contain a phrase like "widely considered one of the most prestigious universities in the world". Nohat 15:46, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please leave the comment "one of the most prestigious universities in the world" in the news body. There is sufficient evidence that many of Columbia's faculties are among the best in the world. The "world rankings" link is a good indication of this.