Talk:Columbia-Barnard relationship

There is far too much text before the table of contents. To whoever wrote it... please break it down! Reaganaut 11:44, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

• I've edited this about a half dozen times, and I think it finally makes some sense, though it's still a bit partisan (I plan on working on that more later). I can't think of a good way to break it down. Isn't there a wiki-command for moving the ToC to the top of the article? Absentminded 12:36, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Moved "Equal billing vs. separate identity" section to new article Complaints about Barnard. --Nonsensical 12:01, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

NPOV Dispute

This is a page that's really important to keep as factual as possible and not promote any sort of agenda of what Barnard should do. Most of it does a pretty good job of this, but the petty nitpicking is mostly first person from a writer who is just advocating his own views on what should change at Barnard. Nonsensical 13:07, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

These "shoulds" ought to be corralled in a section on "proposals to amend the Barnard-Columbia relationship" or somesuch Pacman 13:11, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I want to know why I never got a Barnard email address. How was a professor that didn't use courseworks supposed to know that I wasn't a Barnard student... I mean besides the fact that I didn't have boobs.wang 15:14, 9 June 2007 (EDT)

NPOV complaint withdrawn after cleanup --Nonsensical 12:01, 19 June 2007 (EDT)

Selectivity Section

"there is no evidence of any discrepancy in performance of Barnard students when enrolled in Columbia University classes."

This is obviously an argument against the prior hypotheses, but takes the form of an argument from ignorance. Ironically, it cites no evidence for the positive claim "there is no evidence." Contentious issues should cite evidence or remain neutral.