From the beginning, those of us on the Image Committee have been motivated by a great love for and pride in the school that we chose to attend, and also by a sense that Cornell has missed opportunities to market itself effectively. We seek not simply to add sequins and lace to a shabby valance, but to wash and polish the windowpanes, so that Cornell's true essence may shine through. A university's "brand" includes everything from its logo and its website to the satisfaction of its students and the research it produces - and to any other publicly visible quality. Education is a commodity, and our sales pitch must reflect our greatest strengths.

The Image Committee originally focused on the more immediately distinguishable aspects of the Cornell brand, because those areas were the most accessible, and because such efforts have a high investment/return ratio. Partly as a result of our revamped logo, website and viewbook, Cornell has enjoyed increases by double-digit percentages in its application totals two years in a row - significantly more than any of its peers. We are now turning to advocate for more substantial improvements to the Cornell experience and are optimistic that incremental adjustments will propel our University to even greater distinction.

The day the feature entitled, "Cornell's Image Patrol Wraps Itself in Ivy," appeared in the New York Times, it reached number two on the website's list of most-emailed articles. While we felt that the Times piece could have been framed more accurately, it's clear that the issues raised have resonated with a large number of people. What's more, response to the article by both current and former students has been overwhelmingly positive. We have received many letters of thanks and support.

Far too much emphasis has been placed on one statement by an Image Committee member regarding his "value as a human being." Even if we were to overlook that this sentiment was misunderstood and misquoted, we suspect that individual identity is tied to school identity more closely than some would like to admit. If choice of post-secondary institution is a reflection of goals and values, then the public view of that institution will affect their perceived merit.

Additionally, while we will enthusiastically agree that many rankings formulas, including and especially the one used at the U.S. News and World Report, are far from perfect measures of institutional quality, the unfortunate fact, as the Image Committee has previously contended, is that rankings do matter. A higher rank means more and better applicants, improved yield and more of the resources required for development and expansion.

We can whine about how life isn't fair or play the hand we've been dealt. Statements like the one made by Rob Hellman '76 in his letter to the editor yesterday, arguing that Cornell's greatness, "defies conventional description" and "transcends simple quantitative measurements," however well-intentioned, fail to recognize the realities of the market for higher education. Would anyone prefer the Big Red Box to our new logo that features the Cornell crest?

In order to remain competitive and to maintain the highest possible quality, Cornell must reduce the size of its classes. It must improve financial aid offerings, and it must build a stronger, more functional alumni network. As we pointed out in our original report in 2002, unnecessarily large classes drag us down in the rankings but more importantly, negatively affect the quality of the education we receive - having a disproportionate impact on students from low-income backgrounds, students without a lot of AP credits and underrepresented minorities. Moreover, now that the majority of our peer schools offer no-loan financial aid to low-income students, Cornell will begin to lose qualified applicants to schools like Harvard, Yale and Penn. Improved financial aid is necessary to foster a diverse student body and to maintain our rigorous admissions standards.

Further, Cornell consistently finishes among the top 5 with respect to rates of alumni giving, but with an estimated quarter of a million living alumni, we should be number 1. For starters, the Cornell Alumni Magazine should be subsidized such that all Cornell graduates may receive it free of charge, as is the case at every other Ivy League university. The payoff in terms of alumni involvement and satisfaction will translate directly to more and larger gifts to the university. The image committee realizes that these are big, expensive proposals, but we feel strongly that it's a question of priorities - of a willingness to invest in our future.

Mr. Hellman and others have been correct to point out that Cornell is unique among its peers and that this trait contributes to its eminence. Cornell is the only Ivy to have admitted female students from its founding in 1865. It is arguably the finest land-grant institution in the country - and the only land-grant institution to also belong to the Ivy League. Many of our most highly regarded programs are exclusive to Cornell, and we have an unmatched history of progressivism, of innovation and of excellence. We are represented across the globe - and even on Mars.

In the end, this isn't about the primacy of the rankings, and it most certainly isn't about "Ivy envy." It's about communication - the idea that the public perception of our school should match the reality of the world-class education it offers. It's about an immense pride in the wonderful breadth of opportunities available at Cornell. That, fellow Cornellians, has always been our message.

Daniel Cohen is a co-chair of the Image Committee. Chris Stone is a co-chair-elect. They can be contacted at dlc44@cornell.edu and css33@cornell.edu. Other Committee members also contributed to this piece.

Archived article by Daniel Cohen and Chris Stone