Lehman to step down

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:

Beeeej-
Firstly, I don't see where you are coming up with the $10 million number. Say you hire 30 new faculty members @ a salary of $100,000/year. Thats $3mil/year for these new faculty members. If you kept them for 30 years, thats $90 mil. Where should they find the money? Cancel the new Life Sciences Building being built on Alumni Field. Its budgeted at $140mil. The way I see it, 30 new faculty members will do much more towards improving undergraduate education than a giant building filled with researchers and grad students being built on undergraduate athletic team field.
[/q]
"Cancel" the new life sciences building? So I guess the fact that this beast has been in the planning stages for seven years and that a chunk of that $140 mil was already tied up in the architecture, design, and contracting of the place before the ground was broken doesn't really matter, and all those businesses will happily refund the money. Sounds like a plan.

You can't edit-undo a building, though I'm sure they would have loved to exercise that option on Uris Hall....

[Q]Jacob '06 Wrote:
The physical sciences complex is a new building going between baker and rockefeller in that little circle area. I think this idea is kind of ridiculous. I also don't know how you could build something close to life sciences, duffield, and the new physical sciences complex.[/q]

Anything that blocks the view of Clark Hall can't be all bad. The geographic center of Life Sciences, Duffield, and the new physical sciences complex would be in or near Ives. Since that was recently rebuilt perhaps Uris Hall will be "undone". My vote would be replace Malott.

My point is that Cornell has massive amounts on money, and in my humble opinion, they don't spend it wisely. Instead of building the next massive research building, they should hire some professors to teach undergrads and rebuild buildings that are falling apart, like Sibley, Warren, Rand or Stocking.

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:

Beeeej-
Firstly, I don't see where you are coming up with the $10 million number. Say you hire 30 new faculty members @ a salary of $100,000/year. Thats $3mil/year for these new faculty members. If you kept them for 30 years, thats $90 mil. Where should they find the money? Cancel the new Life Sciences Building being built on Alumni Field. Its budgeted at $140mil. The way I see it, 30 new faculty members will do much more towards improving undergraduate education than a giant building filled with researchers and grad students being built on undergraduate athletic team field.
[/q]

You don't account for benefits packages, cost of hiring, and the fact that there is a distinction between junior and senior faculty, each of which carries its own costs of hiring and takes up valuable faculty time (they are primarily responsible for searches and hiring decisions). Furthermore, if any appreciable percentage of the new hires are senior faculty, I am willing to guess that the average salary will be over $100k/year. I think $10mm/year as an average for a 3 dozen tenured or tenure track profs is about right. For 30 profs, maybe it's only $7 or 8mm. That's still a lot of money, and it doesn't guarantee an improvement in undergraduate education.

Here's another thing about your plan - if you believe that smaller courses are generally a better thing, and you want to improve the undergraduate experience by providing a more intimate approach, you MUST cap class sizes between 25 and 30. Maybe increasing the percentage of classes under 50 students would help the rankings, but it wouldn't do anything to improve the quality of undergraduate education at Cornell. Honestly, as a student, is there a measurable difference between a 50 person lecture and a 200 person lecture? I never noticed one, and I don't notice one when I look at it from the teacher's perspective either. Everyone is different, but for me and most of the people I know the break point for distinguishing between a smaller, more intimate classroom experience and a larger, lecture based feel is between 25 and 30. I'm on the high side, as I can run a discussion and establish a productive working relationship with most of my students even in a class of 35, but that takes an enormous effort.

Reducing class sizes to 49 per intro lecture would change nothing apart from taking faculty away from teaching upper level courses and conducting research. I think it would make the intro courses worse, actually. In order to save time on teaching and keep their research time intact, the faculty teaching these smaller intro courses would simply teach them by rote and grade them on automatic pilot (or with scantron sheets, which is even worse), producing an awful experience for the vast majority of undergraduates in these classes. But they would still lose valuable research time, which would hurt Cornell's research productivity.

The only way this would be affordable would be to hire a small army of adjunct professors. This might also prevent the teaching by rote phenonemon. However, Cornell is not in a great location for hiring 50 or 60 adjunct professors, so I'm not sure how this would play out.

[Q]Tom Lento Wrote:Honestly, as a student, is there a measurable difference between a 50 person lecture and a 200 person lecture?[/q]

Sure.

There's a difference in the lecture, because a professor can be at least somewhat engaging in front of 50 and solicit feedback. A professor in front of 200 is essentially a prerecording.

But even ignoring that, there is a difference in the overall educational experience, because, while you can get 2 (decently trained and motivated) TAs for a class of 50, you aren't usually going to get more than about 6 (woefully unprepared and disinterested) for a class of 200. The section size tends to increase as the lecture size increases. So does the amount of "dead weight" kids who are only serving their time to generate a grade and move one more space towards their diploma. If you really want to improve Cornell, give those bozos their degrees on their first day of Freshman year, cash their checks, and get rid of them.

Cornell can increase its selectivity, leading to a decrease in revenue but an increase in prestige hopefully leading to an increase in revenue. Or it can become "UMichigan-on-Cayuga." Hopefully there's still enough stodgy elitism to aim to the former, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Faculty urged not to speculate with outsiders / media article: [www.theithacajournal.com]

It seems that one side wanted to maintain the traditional, successful Cornell model of the strongest possible research university with expertise in the most possible fields--essentially what Ezra and A.D. wanted. This side probably supported the massive construction projects. The other side must have cared about something else such as rankings or prestige. The international expansion most likely played a part as well. And of course we cannot forget the possibility that there may have just been a conflict of personalities as the former president seemed to be a bit of a bookworm geek, not a tall and distinguished-looking athlete (Rawlings) or an impressive-sounding professor with an accent (Rhodes).

Also, I doubt there was ever any serious consideration of consolidating colleges as the Sun message board mentions. If it included statutory colleges, that would almost definitely be prohibited by NY State law and perhaps by the Morrill Act, a Federal statute. As for the Rosebuds protests, they are a waste of time and should be ignored.

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

There's a difference in the lecture, because a professor can be at least somewhat engaging in front of 50 and solicit feedback. A professor in front of 200 is essentially a prerecording.[/Q]

I've been on both sides of it, and I disagree. As a student, I've found that you can have an engaging professor in front of a room of 200, soliciting (and getting) feedback, and you can have a prerecording in front of 25. As an instructor, beyond about 30 students the preparation and course design must necessarily shift to more of a lecture-based approach. You can get most, if not all, of your students involved when there are 30 people in the class. It's nearly impossible with 50, and once you make the decision to go with a lecture approach your style and ability makes a bigger impact on the quality of your lecture than the number of people in front of you.

[Q]But even ignoring that, there is a difference in the overall educational experience, because, while you can get 2 (decently trained and motivated) TAs for a class of 50, you aren't usually going to get more than about 6 (woefully unprepared and disinterested) for a class of 200.[/Q]

This is a good point, although you'd only get 1 TA for the 50 student class and 4 for the 200 (standard policy is 50 students per TA). All else being equal, I agree with you - you're more likely to get the best TAs across the board if you don't need 8 TAs for a single course. With 8 TAs tied up in a single course, at least 1 or 2 of them would either not be fully qualified, or would be more qualified to teach something else, even if they are fully qualified for their current assignment. Be aware, though, that TA training, motivation, and effectiveness varies wildly by professor. When professors don't particularly want to teach a course, they don't bother to train their TAs or give them any guidance. Even among professors who do care about the course, many do not think to offer much in the way of TA training. You're MUCH better off with 8 TAs in a big class working with a prof who really trains and manages TAs effectively than 1 TA in a small class working for a prof who doesn't care about the course or doesn't manage TAs well.

Note also that you still run into this problem if you split one big course into several smaller courses. Whether you have 8 intro level courses with 50 students each or one 400 person course you need 8 TAs.

[Q]The section size tends to increase as the lecture size increases. So does the amount of "dead weight" kids who are only serving their time to generate a grade and move one more space towards their diploma. If you really want to improve Cornell, give those bozos their degrees on their first day of Freshman year, cash their checks, and get rid of them.[/Q]

The flip side of having more uninterested students is you're more likely to have a critical mass of active, engaged, eager students in a big class. This can improve the learning experience for those around them, just as a larger proportion of uninterested students shuffling through the process can potentially devalue a class. Again, it comes down to the instructor.

Increasing section sizes are theoretically a non-issue as sections are capped (often at 30). In practice, you get one or two huge sections and one or two small sections with all the rest falling around 30 students apiece. This is definitely a problem, especially with big courses, but it can be a problem with small courses, too. I once taught two sections in a 59 person course. One section had 18 students and the other had 41.

Ben,

There's many uses of the word "sustainability." To call a president who examined windmills on Mt. Pleasant, and solar cells on west campus roofs a hypocrite on the issue of sustainability is a bit harsh.

And on the issue of Redbud woods, how are we to attract the best minds -- student and faculty alike -- to Ithaca if there is no where to park on University provided housing? What professor would want to serve as a faculty in residence to a new west campus if they had to park their car in A lot? If we don't attract the top minds, then we certainly can't increase our US News Ranking (which are unimportant IMHO). In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. Until Ithaca develops a subway system that rivals Boston's or NYC's, then we'll need more parking on West Campus.

And we didn't deny students degrees because they "protested the hypocrisy" of Lehman's decision. Cornell denied students degrees because they committed a criminal act. Additionally, both students involved will have a chance to graduate next semester, after their hearing with the university's judical board.

It's always amazing that after four years at Cornell, some people never managed to touch down on planet Earth. I suggest you stop munching granola with Danny Perlstein and pick up some of Stu Hart's books (such as Capitalism at the Crossroads) before you lambast other University officals over "sustainability."

-Matt

[Q]Trotsky Wrote:

I'd love to know how the Cornell Board actually works. I have always been under the impression that a Noyes, a Uris, an Olin, and "the eldest lineal descendent of Ezra" get together in a smoke-filled room and figure out what they are going to have the university to do. They tell "their" 51+% of the Board and that's what gets done. The other 49-% of the Board is a sop to diversity or some other PR-statement-of-the-month and means zippo. Through it all, Mr. Potter plots how to take control of the Savings & Loan.[/q]

That seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the rules. [www.cornell.edu] See, especially, the bylaws.

As with classes, so with governing bodies. Once you get over a certain size, the style changes. With 64 members on the Cornell Board, they are well over the limit where everyone is equal and the whole body can participate fully in every discussion. So, they have committees, the Executive Committee being the most influential. Between the quarterly Board meetings they excercise almost the full power of the Board; they set salaries for people like the president; they select the officers of the corporation (who become the next Executive Committee) as well as deans, directors, provosts; and so on.

Of the 64 members, 13 are elected to the board by constituencies: 8 alumni, 2 students, 2 academic staff, 1 non-academic staff. Four are members by dint of their political office: governor, temporary president of the state senate, speaker of the state assembly, and president of the university. One is on the board by birth, the eldest lineal descendent of Ezra Cornell. The governor gets to pick three more. All the rest, 43 in all, are selected by the Board itself.

Since not all of you get these e-mails, here is the latest from HRR3. We will never know what really went down. That's a shame.

July 1, 2005


Fellow Cornellian:


As I assume the position of Interim President of Cornell today, I want to
write to you personally. The past few weeks have been an unsettling
period. President Lehman's resignation was an unfortunate event for many
reasons, and it has generated lingering questions in our community because
it came suddenly and without extensive explanation. As you know, President
Lehman and the Board of Trustees have agreed that his and the institution's
best interests will be served by foregoing more open discussion. Despite
the understandable frustration that creates, I am confident that they have
acted in the university's interests.


During my ten years at Cornell, eight as President and the last two as
Professor of Classics and History, I have developed strong loyalty and
commitment to this great university, as well as deep admiration for its
students, faculty, staff, alumni and Trustees. The sense of pride I felt
as President of Cornell was matched only by the fulfillment I gained from
teaching its students and pursuing scholarship with my faculty colleagues.


During the past three weeks I have spoken several times with Provost Biddy
Martin, Dean and Provost for Medical Affairs Antonio Gotto and Dean of the
Faculty Charles Walcott. I have also talked with a number of Trustees
about the coming year. In all these conversations we have agreed upon the
need to maintain and indeed to enhance Cornell's current academic
priorities during this interim period, and to build momentum for Cornell's
coming capital campaign. Cornell's faculty has created and honed the
research and educational goals the deans have brought forward to the
Provosts. By shaping the capital campaign to support these academic plans
we will insure their realization in the next few years.


It is also important to build upon Cornell's close and productive
relationships with its wider communities, including Ithaca, New York City
and beyond. Cornell's new initiatives in New York City, and its growing
international presence demonstrate the significance of our University's
role in research and education. And we continue to enhance and highlight
our historic mission as the Land Grant University of New York State, a
mission that gives Cornell much of its character and identity.


A search committee is now being formed to identify our next President, who
will lead Cornell in fulfilling its ambitious goals. No matter who is
chosen, we can be confident that Cornell will continue to be one of the top
research universities in the world, a creative generator of new knowledge,
a wise teacher of generations of students and an institution serving the
needs of the State of New York, the nation and the world.


Sincerely,


Hunter R. Rawlings III
Interim President, Cornell University

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

Beeeej Wrote:
in what previously empty offices and classrooms or hundreds of millions of dollars of new buildings?[/Q]
You put the grad students in trailers behind the engineering quad and behind Sibley!

Speaking of new buildings, I received Communique yesterday and they made mention of a future project for an information sciences building: 228,00 square feet, $140 million. It is to be "strategically located in close proximity to the College of Engineering, the new Life Sciences Technology Building, Duffield Hall, and the planned Physical Sciences complex." I don't what the last one is but isn't the only "open space" between Engineering and Life Sciences Hoy Field?
[/q]
Speaking of Communique and buildings, the same issue has a two page spread on the Lynah project. There's no news on architectural details, but rather an emphasis on the funding.