Opinion
The Image Problem
The Never-Ending Battle
September 25, 2006 - 12:00amIf you took your cues from the Trustee and Student Assembly Elections last spring, you’d think Cornell’s real problems include improving “campus diversity and understanding,” strengthening “Greek-University relations,” and creating “a forum representing different corners of the community.” The never-ending litany of meaningless slogans might lead one to believe that Cornell doesn’t face any serious problems. But we do. And nobody in a position of power seems to be doing much about our biggest one.
Cornell is currently ranked by U.S. News and World Report as the number 12 university in the country. Back in the 1990s Cornell regularly ranked in the top ten, but after U.S. News changed their system, we fell substantially. Cornell is heavily penalized for its large classes, relatively high admittance rates and the low test scores of our matriculants. The administration would have us believe that this ranking doesn’t really matter — what really matters are the quality of our professors, physical infrastructure and other University resources. And in the short term, they are mostly right. The U.S. News ranking really is stupid — we know we’re better than Washington University in St. Louis, so why get defensive.
The reason is that, while the justification for the ranking might be foolish, its effects are very real. When high school seniors decide which universities to apply to, and when accepted students make their final choice, they look to the widely published rankings. Cornell comes short of every Ivy save Brown, and does worse than other non-Ivies such as Duke and the University of Chicago. Because the best students prefer other universities, Cornell is forced to accept more students, lowering our selectivity rating, which further reduces our ranking. It also reduces the actual quality of our enrolled student body.
After four years, these inferior (on average) students graduate into the real world. When they get there, they’ll find that employers are less impressed with Cornell and are less likely to even have heard of us. The graduates themselves will be less impressive people, because they were (again, on average) inferior when they first went to Cornell. They’ll make less of a good impression on employers, make less money, provide less job connections for current students, and in the future contribute less when giving back to the University. Employers will be less inclined to recruit here, and it will be harder for Cornell students to get internships. All of these things will further push our ranking down, leading to a self-reinforcing spiral.
And in the end, it will be impossible to insulate our superior infrastructure, libraries and professors from the effects of our ranking. Professors and grad students, especially in the social sciences and humanities, will tend to prefer working in more prestigious universities. Reduced alumni contributions will begin to harm the ability of the University to maintain the top-notch research facilities necessary to get and keep the best professors and grads in the hard sciences. And these things will further contribute to lower University ranking.
Cornell ought to take the steps necessary to push us back into the top-10 rankings. One first step is reducing class sizes, and especially reducing the number of classes with more than 50 people. This could be accomplished fairly easily by simply capping more classes’ enrollment at 49. Hiring more professors would also help increase the course selection.
Another necessary action is to directly increase selectivity. This means accepting fewer students, and making these cuts almost entirely based on SAT scores and GPAs. It may not be politically correct to say that we need to have a smarter student body, and that “roundedness” isn’t the be-all and end-all, but it’s true. Rejecting some of the least-qualified students will improve our rankings, and needs to be done even if this means cutting some of the colleges more than others. This should also help to reduce class sizes.
Cornell also needs to offer no-loan financial aid. Most other Ivies offer far more generous financial aid packages, enabling their students to graduate without crushing debt. This helps them attract the best students regardless of family income, and makes it harder for Cornell to compete. And we ought to offer more generous financial aid not just because we need to compete, but because it’s right. Recent graduates shouldn’t feel unable to take lower paying jobs in non-profits or other relatively selfless professions because of their massive debts. A recent story by Cornell Alumni Magazine reported that it would cost only $17 million per year to match Harvard’s financial aid policies. There are also rumors that $750 million of Cornell’s newest capital campaign will be dedicated to improving financial aid, matching the other Ivies’ policies. We should all wish the University the greatest success with this plan.
Taking these steps would lead to a small increase in Cornell’s ranking, which would make it easier for the University to attract better students in the future. Instead of a spiral of decline, Cornell can choose a virtuous cycle of success. The University administration, after facing prodding by the Image Committee, has taken small steps in the right direction, such as improving our viewbook and changing our logo. But the limits of improvement due to better marketing and recruitment have likely been reached, and improving financial aid will only keep us from losing more ground. Unless administrators are willing to make some tougher choices soon, Cornell may never reach the top-10 again.
Perhaps the saddest thing is that nobody in power seems to recognize this as our most serious problem. While the administration spends billions of dollars building new science buildings that won’t do anything for our ranking, students contesting elections complain about CourseEnroll times and minor fees. But after you graduate and you’re looking for a job, rankings will matter to you. Unfortunately, by then it may be too late.
Mitch Fagen is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at maf63@cornell.edu. The Never-Ending Battle appears alternate Mondays.
mommy mommy, i didn't get into Harvard
You didn't get into Harvard? Is that why you are whining? You really think U.S News rankings mean anything? Do you think that ranking is going to prevent you from getting a job?
Give me a freaking break.
You Have Got To Be Kidding Me
What makes Cornell different is what makes Cornell great. It is an honor to be admitted to this great institution. I don't need a ranking to know that I got a great education. We are still talking about the top 1% of students in the country. For the record, Cornell might get your resume noticed but it is up to the individual to actually land the job at the interview! I have yet to sit down and hear "So you went to Cornell, you must be great, how about we give you a job, no I take that back we'll give you the job and double the usual salary for your position." I wouldn't trade my education at Cornell for the world. Besides wouldn't it be easier to just lobby U.S. News to change their input data rather than radically changing our University.
Your Inane Comments
Just because YOU think Cornell is in the top 1% of of all students in the country, does't make it true. Even if YOU are in the top 1% of Students at Cornell (which I bet you aren't) you must consider how many quality colleges that are out there that you may have never heard of that house quite a few of the top 1%.
Consider the "non-Ivys" such as Middlebury, Bowdoin, Trinity, Haverford, Reed, Oberlin, Pomona, Hamilton, an Franklin & Marshal as just a small example of the larger universe of small high quality schools. All of these schools have lots of highly intelligent students (many of who are just as good if not better than the top 1% of students at the Ivies).
Why are they not at the Ivies? Simply because intellectual skills and "Snob Appeal" are not often substantially correlated. Real intellectuals know they are good, SNOBs are...well just name dropping SNOBs...with "gentleman" C & B averages.
So while you may be a at a great school - others will opt for schools of equal or better quality, because they can associate with first class professors versus teaching assistants from the very first classes that they take at their respective schools.
And that's the difference that makes a difference!
food for thought
Yet another well-reasoned argument explaining why even a minor increase in the (admittedly retarded) USNWR rankings would help our university. Criticizing the rankings is pointless, even if everyone in Tompkins County ignores them, it won't do a thing to decease their importance. The real question is: How we can improve the value of our degrees with regard to the rankings without changing the character of Cornell, and Mitch is right on target with a smart solution.
"which I bet you aren't"
I bet he is.
Stating the Obvious
Fagen merely states the obvious. Providing better financial aid packages will help attract good students, and Cornell must take steps to improve its reputation. There's nothing very revolutionary here. The "smart solution" becomes obscured by the poor thinking and writing.
Fagen thinks the construction of new science buildings will do nothing for Cornell reputation, even though such facilities would enhance the engineering school’s prestige. He fails to understand that donors can specify how the money they give is spent. For example, Bill Gates donated $25 million to Cornell to construct a Computing and Information Science building. The university cannot use Gates' gift for another purpose.
Fagen implies the existence of "inferior students" at Cornell. I find it amusing that he unwittingly labels himself inferior, even though he attempts to skirt the issue by including the phrase "on average"... He should take Abraham Lincoln's advice to heart that it is "better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
A smoking gun develops lung cancer
Mr. Fagen seems to have an accurate understanding of the stranglehold US News & World Report's annual college rankings have on America's great learning institutions.
While his predictions of a "self-reinforcing[downward] spiral" have the facade of accuracy,the only way to graduate his writings from the rubber-roomed realm of theory to the concrete cells of tested conclusion is to provide quantifiable evidence for his assertions; this includes his correlation of inferior testing grades with achievement,public image and labor compensation in the "real world." In the real-world Mr. Fagen, we must must provide something more than the appearance of truth, we must provide hard evidence. Maybe in this case your evidence will be a smoking gun.
you are a dunce
First off, none of those liberal arts schools you mentioned are better than the vast majority of Ivies. The fact is that the smartest kids (despite what you want to think) tend to go to the more prestigious schools. After all, the best professors and resources are there. Instead of speaking mindlessly, how about you look up statistics on salaries post-college, Nobel Prizes, and general success in life (why are there so many Harvard grads who have been legislators and judges?)? That being said, ranking does matter a bit, but really not very much. An Ivy League school still carries a certain cachet to it, and the fact is that, yes, while Brown is the lowest rated Ivy League school, no one would dispute that it's harder to get into and houses smarter kids than Cornell does. Our main problem is that our school is too big to not have a high acceptance rate, and this dilutes the talent and prestige of the school. Nonetheless, there's nothing you can do about that. Relax. I make more money than do all my three best friends from HS combined (for real).
What about quality?
In the long run, it's irrelevant what our ranking is. Focusing on delivering the best and most practical education will serve Cornell best.
If Cornell can to teach people the skills and knowledge they need to succeed with larger class sizes and wider admission, why care? It's the success of our graduates, however you wish to measure it, that should be the true arbiter of greatness.
It sounds as though the US News system inherently disfavors Cornell, as we are a larger school that educates a lot of people. Selectivity ratings are not without meaning, but what good is a school that educates three people a year?
Any person, any study. (I suspect that Ezra would argue that we should be trying to offer our education to as many people as possible, assuming we could maintain its quality as well.)
Clarification
In referring to the top 1% I was not talking specifically about Cornell but about all the other colleges/universities including Cornell that educate the top students every year. Cornell is unique in that it is a LARGE school with great and diverse opportunities which make it slightly different, not necessarily better than other great higher learning institutions. You can get a great education anywhere, I firmly believe that. Cornell is not great because it is an Ivy, that's just a label. Any school has its fair share of intellectuals and dummies, Cornell included. The author does make several good suggestions such as no loan financial aid and reduced class sizes however, basing greatness off of SATs and GPA is bunk. Cornell is great because it is diverse in all its offerings and sometimes that means you can't base admission off of test scores.
Get over it
Get over the Wash U thing. The only thing Cornell has on Wash U is its ivy status and everything that comes with it, but unlike Cornell Wash U is actually constantly trying to get better. It's pretty obnoxious how dismissive you are of WashU, a school whose endowment, average test scores, and atmposphere are all better than Cornell. Your argument against wash u isn't steeped in anything factual. You rely upon nothing more than history and the current climate of higher education empiracally debunks many of your claims. I'm not saying we should be 10th, 11th, or 12th. What I am saying is that you have no idea if Cornell is actually a better school than WashU.