Recruiting and Financial Aid

The Sun is running an excellent article on the impact that the recent sea change in financial aid policies at certain institutions will have on Ivy recruiting.

[cornellsun.com]

Many coaches note that these changes in aid packages have been occurring slowly over the years, but became far more drastic in the past year as the financial aid offerings improved.

“How they’re packaging all their students — not just their athletes — has drastically changed in the last two to three years,” said men’s hockey coach Mike Schafer ’86. “In the last two or three years, we’ve lost kids who obviously received better financial aid packages to other Ivy League institutions. It’s a new phenomenon for everybody involved, and it’s something we’re trying to adjust to and get more information on.”

“We have numerous cases [of recruits now being lost due to far superior financial aid at other Ivies] and they spread the gamut of all sports,” said Penn Director of Athletics Steve Bilsky. “There’s no trend that I see that indicates it’s being done as a strategy [for specific sports].”

Of course, Schafer has always had to compete with hockey scholarships at Clarkson, RPI, etc.

It's become pretty evident that antitrust laws are certainly posing a big problem for those who want to see parity in the league.

I see competition here as a good thing. IMO, it would ultimately be better for future Cornell alumni if Harvard took an extra .025% (edit: that should be 0.25%) of its endowment every year and simply stopped charging tuition entirely. Can you imagine any hotter fire to light under the Cornell administration's ass than forcing them to compete with a more prestigious school that is now free to attend?

Kyle

Kudos to the Daily Sun for investigating this. Since Harvard, Yale, and Princeton announced their tremendous improvements in financial aid packages for the middle- and upper-middle-class students, I have wondered how these changes would impact Cornell's ability to recruit student-athletes, as well as whether Cornell could maintain its yield of admitted applicants who matriculate at Cornell.

krose
I see competition here as a good thing. IMO, it would ultimately be better for future Cornell alumni if Harvard took an extra .025% of its endowment every year and simply stopped charging tuition entirely. Can you imagine any hotter fire to light under the Cornell administration's ass than forcing them to compete with a more prestigious school that is now free to attend?

If Cornell just took a couple points uptick on the pork the Engineering school gets from grants to turn dolphins into stealth missile delivery systems, we could eliminate tuition completely.


I'm with you all the way. I hope Harvard, Yale and Princeton comp their entire student body. The Noyes family's personal play pen needs to learn to compete. Dartmouth... well, they remain one of New Hampshire's finest prep schools.

cbuckser
Kudos to the Daily Sun for investigating this. Since Harvard, Yale, and Princeton announced their tremendous improvements in financial aid packages for the middle- and upper-middle-class students, I have wondered how these changes would impact Cornell's ability to recruit student-athletes, as well as whether Cornell could maintain its yield of admitted applicants who matriculate at Cornell.

Agreed. This is a really good "wake up, people" story and can be applied to top academic applicants as well. I'm glad the Sun got some pretty candid quotes from the coaches interviewed.

metaezra
It's become pretty evident that antitrust laws are certainly posing a big problem for those who want to see parity in the league.

?

krose
I see competition here as a good thing. IMO, it would ultimately be better for future Cornell alumni if Harvard took an extra .025% of its endowment every year and simply stopped charging tuition entirely. Can you imagine any hotter fire to light under the Cornell administration's ass than forcing them to compete with a more prestigious school that is now free to attend?

Kyle

Unfortunately the reason that Harvard can afford to do this and Cornell can't is not directly due to any administration, theirs or ours. It's due to their huge endowment which comes from donations from alumni and others. You can argue that if the administration were different then more alumni would be donating. For some reason Cornell alumni don't donate anywhere near as much as some other Ivy institutions, but I don't believe the current administration is the main problem. It has been true forever. So you'd have to say that all our administrations were at fault. We have a major campaign going on now, but when you look at the percentage of alumni who donate it's quite small.

How many of you donate unrestricted gifts or gifts for scholarships. If you can't afford to donate much or any, do you work with your local alumni association or club when they are asking for solicitations? We can all help in our own way.

Trotsky

metaezra
It's become pretty evident that antitrust laws are certainly posing a big problem for those who want to see parity in the league.

?

The problem came about when the group of (whatever number of schools) was taken to court and told they could not continue to agree to offer the same package to all accepted applicants.

The group used to get together, once all applicants were accepted, and decide on aid packages for them. They made sure each institution gave compareable packages. The goal was to have students accept schools by where they wanted to go and not just by money. This was ruled illegal, so here we are.

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

metaezra
It's become pretty evident that antitrust laws are certainly posing a big problem for those who want to see parity in the league.

?

The problem came about when the group of (whatever number of schools) was taken to court and told they could not continue to agree to offer the same package to all accepted applicants.

The group used to get together, once all applicants were accepted, and decide on aid packages for them. They made sure each institution gave compareable packages. The goal was to have students accept schools by where they wanted to go and not just by money. This was ruled illegal, so here we are.

What Jim said. I suspect that this part will be covered in the future articles that the Sun will run, but the Daily Pennsylvanian did a pretty good job summarizing the issue last week:

[media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com]

Two decades ago, league-wide competition over financial aid would have been impossible. Before 1991, if a student had been admitted to more than one Ivy, the financial-aid package from each school would have been identical.

Admissions officials from every university met regularly to ensure that differences in the aid packages were reconciled before sending out letters of admission. In theory, financial considerations within the Ivy League were removed from the students' decision-making process. Each Ivy offered the same package to an individual.

The U.S. Justice Department took aim at that practice in 1989. It sued the eight Ivy colleges and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, alleging that equating financial-aid rewards violated the Sherman Antitrust Act as an illegal restraint on interstate trade.

The court fight dragged on until May 1991, when the Ivy institutions signed a consent decree agreeing to stop the collusion. They said the cost of fighting the case any more was prohibitive; then-Penn president Sheldon Hackney said at the time that the University had spent more than $400,000 in legal fees.

Under the ruling, the League preserved the right to some collective actions - such as the collective decision to prohibit athletic scholarships.

Since 1991, each Ivy has been free to define financial need by itself. The schools went by essentially the same standards until recently, Bilsky said.

"Now, over the last couple of years, starting with Princeton and now with Harvard, particularly, changing the focus," he added, "You're getting into this potential conflict."

Jim Hyla
Unfortunately the reason that Harvard can afford to do this and Cornell can't is not directly due to any administration, theirs or ours. It's due to their huge endowment which comes from donations from alumni and others.

Agreed. I'm simply pointing out that reality doesn't care how much they whine. Simply put, they will be faced with this in the not-so-distant future, and they're going to have to do something about it or be priced out of the market for the best students.

Kyle

Jim Hyla

Trotsky

metaezra
It's become pretty evident that antitrust laws are certainly posing a big problem for those who want to see parity in the league.

?

The problem came about when the group of (whatever number of schools) was taken to court and told they could not continue to agree to offer the same package to all accepted applicants.

The group used to get together, once all applicants were accepted, and decide on aid packages for them. They made sure each institution gave compareable packages. The goal was to have students accept schools by where they wanted to go and not just by money. This was ruled illegal, so here we are.

That sounds pretty reasonable to me, not to mention very logical. I'm surprised that violates antitrust laws as long as the schools were being fair toward the students after accepting them.

daredevilcu
That sounds pretty reasonable to me, not to mention very logical. I'm surprised that violates antitrust laws as long as the schools were being fair toward the students after accepting them.

Really? I'm surprised it took so long to be struck down, and it seems quite unreasonable to me. The idea of not having tuition costs playing a large role in school choice is noble enough. But the reality is that these schools went about doing this in a way that only benefited the schools. Many students had to spend thousands of dollars more for the same education they would have received anyway, all so that stingier Ivies could have a good crack at selection.

It actually seems to be a culmination of the worst aspects of the Ancient Eight, between the clubiness, elitism, and sense of entitlement.

Anyway, the idea that Cornell would have to dip into its moderate (compared only to a few other super-elites) endowment to stay competitive is a bit of a stretch, too. Cornell spends a ridiculous amount of money on a lot of things the other Ivies don't. I sure would like to keep most of that stuff, but Cornell's definitely had the opportunity to trim expenses in order to make tuition more affordable. It simply has chosen not to do so.

Jacob 03

daredevilcu
That sounds pretty reasonable to me, not to mention very logical. I'm surprised that violates antitrust laws as long as the schools were being fair toward the students after accepting them.

Really? I'm surprised it took so long to be struck down, and it seems quite unreasonable to me. The idea of not having tuition costs playing a large role in school choice is noble enough. But the reality is that these schools went about doing this in a way that only benefited the schools. Many students had to spend thousands of dollars more for the same education they would have received anyway, all so that stingier Ivies could have a good crack at selection.

It actually seems to be a culmination of the worst aspects of the Ancient Eight, between the clubiness, elitism, and sense of entitlement.

Anyway, the idea that Cornell would have to dip into its moderate (compared only to a few other super-elites) endowment to stay competitive is a bit of a stretch, too. Cornell spends a ridiculous amount of money on a lot of things the other Ivies don't. I sure would like to keep most of that stuff, but Cornell's definitely had the opportunity to trim expenses in order to make tuition more affordable. It simply has chosen not to do so.

I don't have anywhere near the problem with the old Ivy practice that Jacob does. But it's clearly a violation of anti-trust law. The schools were conspiring to fix prices. Whether or not they were being "fair" is beside the point. And what is fair anyway? What if GM, Ford, Toyota and Honda (etc.) got together and fixed car prices at what they decided was a "fair" price? Would this be a violation? The idea of the law is to let the market decide what is fair - this usually benefits the consumer in the end.

Of course, Congress has every right to change the law to exempt colleges in this regard. I haven't heard of any pressure to do this, which leads me to believe that students are better off now. Except when a kid subjects himself to four years somewhere other than Ithaca because some school gave him more money. (Especially if the kid has a great slap shot.)

I sure would like to keep most of that stuff, but Cornell's definitely had the opportunity to trim expenses in order to make tuition more affordable. It simply has chosen not to do so.

I agree. It's kind of sad that cutting costs is the sort of "thinking out of the box" that academia doesn't really understand. But I guess that's what happens when most of your operating costs aren't funded by selling your product.

Kyle

Well, in the limited knowledge I have of the situation (which extends no farther than this thread) I don't really qualify to pass judgement on the issue. Sounds like you guys know what you're talking about, and that it was probably the right way to go. I'm not a fan of business law, it's immensely boring, despite being extremely important.

Jacob 03
Cornell spends a ridiculous amount of money on a lot of things the other Ivies don't.

For example?

(I don't doubt that you're correct if you say that's the case, I'm just curious what sorts of things you're referring to.)

krose
It's kind of sad that cutting costs is the sort of "thinking out of the box" that academia doesn't really understand. But I guess that's what happens when most of your operating costs aren't funded by selling your product.

You mean like the oil company that recently gave its retiring CEO a $400 million retirement package?

Al DeFlorio
You mean like the oil company that recently gave its retiring CEO a $400 million retirement package?

You'll get no argument from me. Crude oil would likely be a lot more expensive without American soldiers deployed throughout the middle east at taxpayer expense.

But it's good to know your knee is still jerking.

Kyle

krose

Al DeFlorio
But it's good to know your knee is still jerking.

Stick it, Kyle.

 

___________________________
Al DeFlorio '65

Josh '99

Jacob 03
Cornell spends a ridiculous amount of money on a lot of things the other Ivies don't.

For example?

(I don't doubt that you're correct if you say that's the case, I'm just curious what sorts of things you're referring to.)

Apples, birds and flowers?

Slope day fences?

?

Al DeFlorio
Stick it, Kyle.

You brought it out, so I believe you can stick it back where you found it.

Kyle

marty

Josh '99

Jacob 03
Cornell spends a ridiculous amount of money on a lot of things the other Ivies don't.

For example?

(I don't doubt that you're correct if you say that's the case, I'm just curious what sorts of things you're referring to.)

Apples, birds and flowers?

Slope day fences?

?

Well, I already replied to Josh privately about this, but most of the things I bothered to mention could be summed up as aesthetic costs. There's something to be said for having a beautiful campus, but it's expensive. The apples and flowers part wasn't far off. I also mentioned a few "stupid decisions" costs (presidential searches and new architecture building bids), so your slope day fence would fit that category.

Jacob 03
so your slope day fence would fit that category.

Besides, it makes slope day so damn corporate now that it's lost all the charm of frats and dorms dragging couches and kegs onto the slope the night before. I mean, what's the point anymore? I last went to slope day two years ago (visiting a current staff member), and the time we spent at the Nines afterwards was way more fun.

Kyle

Jacob 03

marty

Josh '99

Jacob 03
Cornell spends a ridiculous amount of money on a lot of things the other Ivies don't.

For example?

(I don't doubt that you're correct if you say that's the case, I'm just curious what sorts of things you're referring to.)

Apples, birds and flowers?

Slope day fences?

?

Well, I already replied to Josh privately about this, but most of the things I bothered to mention could be summed up as aesthetic costs. There's something to be said for having a beautiful campus, but it's expensive. The apples and flowers part wasn't far off. I also mentioned a few "stupid decisions" costs (presidential searches and new architecture building bids), so your slope day fence would fit that category.

You mean we have to PM you to get a response?

Jim Hyla
You mean we have to PM you to get a response?

I honestly can't tell if we're just extending the interminable "PM me for details" joke or you're actually serious, but yes, Jim. If you want the top-of-my-head list of Cornell spending choices that bugged me (and I was sure nobody else was interested in), you have to PM me for details. I thought I'd do the big disservice of sparing eLynah a big dose of Jacob rants.

Jacob 03

marty

Josh '99

Jacob 03
Cornell spends a ridiculous amount of money on a lot of things the other Ivies don't.

For example?

(I don't doubt that you're correct if you say that's the case, I'm just curious what sorts of things you're referring to.)

Apples, birds and flowers?

Slope day fences?

?

Well, I already replied to Josh privately about this, but most of the things I bothered to mention could be summed up as aesthetic costs. There's something to be said for having a beautiful campus, but it's expensive. The apples and flowers part wasn't far off. I also mentioned a few "stupid decisions" costs (presidential searches and new architecture building bids), so your slope day fence would fit that category.

And you're suggesting that the other Ivies don't spend similar amounts of money on similar things? Really?

Beeeej
And you're suggesting that the other Ivies don't spend similar amounts of money on similar things? Really?

We could try to be smarter than the other Ivies.


Cornell will never have the donor rate of Harvard -- public schools always have a significant non-giving segment, nor does Cornell really inspire the same level of "I'll see you at the club"ishness.


I wouldn't bet against their achieving a similar endowment someday, though. Most importantly, they have one of the two best Eng programs in the Ivies, and (to the lasting detriment of mankind) Engineering students grow up to make billions more than historians and literature professors. Frankly, we are good at things where the money is. The trouble is our best development staffers keep leaving to go to law school.

Beeeej

Jacob 03

marty

Josh '99

Jacob 03
Cornell spends a ridiculous amount of money on a lot of things the other Ivies don't.

For example?

(I don't doubt that you're correct if you say that's the case, I'm just curious what sorts of things you're referring to.)

Apples, birds and flowers?

Slope day fences?

?

Well, I already replied to Josh privately about this, but most of the things I bothered to mention could be summed up as aesthetic costs. There's something to be said for having a beautiful campus, but it's expensive. The apples and flowers part wasn't far off. I also mentioned a few "stupid decisions" costs (presidential searches and new architecture building bids), so your slope day fence would fit that category.

And you're suggesting that the other Ivies don't spend similar amounts of money on similar things? Really?

Even assuming that's the case, most of the other Ivies have more money to spend on those things, which makes it less of an issue that they do so.

Beeeej
And you're suggesting that the other Ivies don't spend similar amounts of money on similar things? Really?

Sigh. I guess it depends on how broad your "similar" is, Beeeej. All schools seem to be in the same boat in that they have boondoggles. But most of these exist independent of each other and are tailored to the specific school. If Cornell's efficient at everything but X (say, Cornell wastes money on campus beautification), and Columbia's efficient at everything but Y (say, Columbia wastes money on a failed expansion schemes), then Cornell working on eliminating X would give it an edge. Theoretical Columbia would have to dip into its endowment if it wants to keep its expansion schemes going and lower tuition at the same time. Theoretical Cornell could merely lower tuitions with the money not spent on campus beautification.

Trotsky
...(to the lasting detriment of mankind) Engineering students grow up to make billions more than historians and literature professors.

You really think literature professors so more for the benefit of mankind than engineers? Not to say that the liberal arts aren't important but the comparison isn't even close.

Jacob 03

Beeeej
And you're suggesting that the other Ivies don't spend similar amounts of money on similar things? Really?

Sigh. I guess it depends on how broad your "similar" is, Beeeej. All schools seem to be in the same boat in that they have boondoggles. But most of these exist independent of each other and are tailored to the specific school. If Cornell's efficient at everything but X (say, Cornell wastes money on campus beautification), and Columbia's efficient at everything but Y (say, Columbia wastes money on a failed expansion schemes), then Cornell working on eliminating X would give it an edge. Theoretical Columbia would have to dip into its endowment if it wants to keep its expansion schemes going and lower tuition at the same time. Theoretical Cornell could merely lower tuitions with the money not spent on campus beautification.

Okay, you're switching premises, but let's go with this one as long as we're at it.

Do you understand how endowments work?

Beeeej
Okay, you're switching premises, but let's go with this one as long as we're at it.

Do you understand how endowments work?

I don't know how that's really switching premises. I started off by saying Cornell spends a lot of ridiculous money on things the others schools don't. I guess if we were trying to figure out help Harvard find some money, I would've phrased it by saying that Harvard spends a lot of money on things the other schools don't.

As for endowments, yes Beeeeej, I understand how they work. I wouldn't claim to be financially savvy enough to manage the investment of one, or know enough about whether a school can afford to recycle some of its yield in a given year. I don't know if that really meets your qualifications. The only reason we're talking about endowments in this thread is because someone pointed out that one school could afford to dip into its endowment a bit more and fund tuition that way, but Cornell couldn't because its endowment is smaller. I don't know what's so odd about proposing that Cornell could fund tuition by cutting other expenditures.

Jacob 03

Beeeej
Okay, you're switching premises, but let's go with this one as long as we're at it.

Do you understand how endowments work?

I don't know how that's really switching premises. I started off by saying Cornell spends a lot of ridiculous money on things the others schools don't. I guess if we were trying to figure out help Harvard find some money, I would've phrased it by saying that Harvard spends a lot of money on things the other schools don't.

As for endowments, yes Beeeeej, I understand how they work. I wouldn't claim to be financially savvy enough to manage the investment of one, or know enough about whether a school can afford to recycle some of its yield in a given year. I don't know if that really meets your qualifications. The only reason we're talking about endowments in this thread is because someone pointed out that one school could afford to dip into its endowment a bit more and fund tuition that way, but Cornell couldn't because its endowment is smaller. I don't know what's so odd about proposing that Cornell could fund tuition by cutting other expenditures.

It's odd because that's not generally how endowments work. Cornell's current endowment of $5 billion doesn't cough up $250 million in spendable cash every year that Cornell may spend however it sees fit. The overwhelming majority of the money is in restricted endowments.

If I give $100,000 to endow a scholarship, $5,000 (I'll consistently use 5% as the spendable interest just for argument's sake in this post) will be given as a grant to a deserving student every year. Cornell cannot decide to spend $4,000 of it on a scholarship grant and $1,000 on campus beautification. The same is true in reverse; if I give $100,000 to endow the care of a certain section of Plantations, or to endow the maintenance of a particular academic building, the $5,000 interest must be used for those purposes; Cornell cannot decide on their own that it's more important this year to use that money to lower tuition.

(In fact, an aside - Cornell is now more careful than it used to be to make endowments as flexible as possible while still serving something close to their original intended purpose; they learned that lesson the hard way when they realized they could no longer legally spend income from endowments for the now-closed nursing school on anything. I'm not sure how that particular battle ended, but I do know they were trying very hard to free up that particular section of the endowment for other uses.)

Now, of course there is some unrestricted money in the endowment - or at least less restricted. There are things like dean's discretionary funds, where the deans of the individual colleges decide how to spend the annual interest where they see the most need. And you could certainly make the argument that the president or the provost or the deans should be spending that money in a way that lowers tuition. But here's the counterargument:

Almost every endowed fund lowers tuition already. If maintenance for an academic building isn't endowed, the money for it has to come from somewhere, and since Cornell's main source of income is tuition, tuition will have to be higher to cover that expense. If there are fewer endowed scholarships, it's the students paying full price who subsidize those on financial aid - so in order to help the lower income students pay tuition, Cornell has to raise tuition on the higher income students.

Could Cornell decline endowment gifts for things that some people consider lower priority? Sure, they could say, "We don't think a beautiful campus is as important as lower tuition." Or, "Hockey is wonderful, but that enormous amount of money you're about to give us to endow Coach Schafer's position could be used differently." But rather than convince the alum to give to a different area, they might not get the gift at all. Of course there are limits; when I was a development officer I used to joke that Cornell would in all likelihood decline an offer to endow a Department of Bubble Gum, whether it meant losing the money or not.

But the fact remains that most endowment gifts already lower the burden on tuition - and even most current-use gifts help lower the burden on tuition, restricted or not, because they factor into future budgeting.

I don't believe that other schools have necessarily decided to tap into their endowments more, i.e., spend 6% a year instead of 5%, though I could be wrong (and even if they have, they would still be limited by the purposes of each endowment - so they could give $6,000 grants instead of $5,000 grants, but would that be enough?). I believe they've simply managed to reach the point where their student aid endowments and unrestricted endowments are large enough that they can afford to stop acting as lenders and instead simply give the money away. That's wonderful, but it's a point Cornell hasn't reached yet and may not reach for a good, long time unless the rate of giving by Cornell alumni picks up significantly. On the other hand, it's wonderful that Cornell has reached the point they have reached, to be able to announce their new policies. And I think it's wonderful that rather than renewing their commitment to needs-blind admissions every X years as they used to, Rawlings and the Board of Trustees renewed it permanently several years back and then raised $200 million in student aid endowment to help back that decision.

So leaving aside whether "Cornell spends money on things other Ivies don't" is a reason that Cornell's tuition is uniquely burdened or just happens to be a technically, factually correct statement, I don't think it has as much of an impact as you think it does. And I know that Cornell's choice in the matter isn't quite as broad as you think it is.

Beeeej
That's wonderful, but it's a point Cornell hasn't reached yet and may not reach for a good, long time unless the rate of giving by Cornell alumni picks up significantly(my emphasis, not Beeeej's). On the other hand, it's wonderful that Cornell has reached the point they have reached, to be able to announce their new policies. And I think it's wonderful that rather than renewing their commitment to needs-blind admissions every X years as they used to, Rawlings and the Board of Trustees renewed it permanently several years back and then raised $200 million in student aid endowment to help back that decision.

Which brings me back to the point I made in the earlier post.

How many of you donate unrestricted gifts or gifts for scholarships. If you can't afford to donate much or any, do you work with your local alumni association or club when they are asking for solicitations? We can all help in our own way.

In my view, along with working on your local CAAAN committee, (it's the local committee that interviews prospective applicants from your local high school), it's the most important thing you can do for Cornell.

Jacob 03
There's something to be said for having a beautiful campus, but it's expensive. The apples and flowers part wasn't far off.

Hockey teams are expensive too. But I suspect a lot of us wouldn't have such an allegiance to Cornell if there wasn't a hockey team. It's easy to quantify a return on investment for Notre Dame or Michigan football, but when it comes to Ivy athletics, there are a lot more intangibles involved.

As for the apples and flowers comment, need I remind you that agricultural research is an explicit part of Cornell's educational mission as the land grant institution for the State of New York? Anybody familiar with Cornell's role in the green revolution in India can tell you that the apples and flowers are worth it -- maybe not for Cornell, per se, but for the human condition.

Even then, I think it's fair to say that Cornell spends a lot less money on cutting the grass and manicuring the flower beds than some of our peer schools. The grass is cut on the Slope, what, every two weeks?

I think we could all take Jim's recommendations to heart.

Beeeej
It's odd because that's not generally how endowments work. Cornell's current endowment of $5 billion doesn't cough up $250 million in spendable cash every year that Cornell may spend however it sees fit. The overwhelming majority of the money is in restricted endowments.

If I give $100,000 to endow a scholarship, $5,000 (I'll consistently use 5% as the spendable interest just for argument's sake in this post) will be given as a grant to a deserving student every year. Cornell cannot decide to spend $4,000 of it on a scholarship grant and $1,000 on campus beautification. The same is true in reverse; if I give $100,000 to endow the care of a certain section of Plantations, or to endow the maintenance of a particular academic building, the $5,000 interest must be used for those purposes; Cornell cannot decide on their own that it's more important this year to use that money to lower tuition.

(In fact, an aside - Cornell is now more careful than it used to be to make endowments as flexible as possible while still serving something close to their original intended purpose; they learned that lesson the hard way when they realized they could no longer legally spend income from endowments for the now-closed nursing school on anything. I'm not sure how that particular battle ended, but I do know they were trying very hard to free up that particular section of the endowment for other uses.)

Now, of course there is some unrestricted money in the endowment - or at least less restricted. There are things like dean's discretionary funds, where the deans of the individual colleges decide how to spend the annual interest where they see the most need. And you could certainly make the argument that the president or the provost or the deans should be spending that money in a way that lowers tuition. But here's the counterargument:

Almost every endowed fund lowers tuition already. If maintenance for an academic building isn't endowed, the money for it has to come from somewhere, and since Cornell's main source of income is tuition, tuition will have to be higher to cover that expense. If there are fewer endowed scholarships, it's the students paying full price who subsidize those on financial aid - so in order to help the lower income students pay tuition, Cornell has to raise tuition on the higher income students.

Could Cornell decline endowment gifts for things that some people consider lower priority? Sure, they could say, "We don't think a beautiful campus is as important as lower tuition." Or, "Hockey is wonderful, but that enormous amount of money you're about to give us to endow Coach Schafer's position could be used differently." But rather than convince the alum to give to a different area, they might not get the gift at all. Of course there are limits; when I was a development officer I used to joke that Cornell would in all likelihood decline an offer to endow a Department of Bubble Gum, whether it meant losing the money or not.

But the fact remains that most endowment gifts already lower the burden on tuition - and even most current-use gifts help lower the burden on tuition, restricted or not, because they factor into future budgeting.

I don't believe that other schools have necessarily decided to tap into their endowments more, i.e., spend 6% a year instead of 5%, though I could be wrong (and even if they have, they would still be limited by the purposes of each endowment - so they could give $6,000 grants instead of $5,000 grants, but would that be enough?). I believe they've simply managed to reach the point where their student aid endowments and unrestricted endowments are large enough that they can afford to stop acting as lenders and instead simply give the money away. That's wonderful, but it's a point Cornell hasn't reached yet and may not reach for a good, long time unless the rate of giving by Cornell alumni picks up significantly. On the other hand, it's wonderful that Cornell has reached the point they have reached, to be able to announce their new policies. And I think it's wonderful that rather than renewing their commitment to needs-blind admissions every X years as they used to, Rawlings and the Board of Trustees renewed it permanently several years back and then raised $200 million in student aid endowment to help back that decision.

So leaving aside whether "Cornell spends money on things other Ivies don't" is a reason that Cornell's tuition is uniquely burdened or just happens to be a technically, factually correct statement, I don't think it has as much of an impact as you think it does. And I know that Cornell's choice in the matter isn't quite as broad as you think it is.

Except I was specifically arguing the possibilities of Cornell making changes without touching its endowment. Yes, I know that aspects are earmarked. It's the same way for a large portion of Harvard's I'm sure. The discussion came about because of the prospect that Harvard could free up a portion of its endowment, but that Cornell could not. Maybe Harvard can't actually do this, and maybe Cornell's reasons have more to do with where the money's committed and not with the size. I can certainly believe these. But the only reason the endowment came up was because somebody proposed Harvard could do something with it that Cornell couldn't. I replied that if that were true, Cornell could compete by doing something else that had nothing to do with Cornell's endowment. All the specifics of Cornell's endowment weren't germane. The idea was that at least some of Cornell's tuition money goes toward expenses that Cornell could decide to cut, and that if it cut them it could lower tuition. It wasn't the beginning of a campaign to necessarily cut all those expenses that I don't happen to like (metaezra), it was simply stating a technically, factually correct statement.

If what you're saying is that specific earmarks of Cornell's endowment cover every aspect of campus so that Cornell is unable to make a choice about scrimping and saving in any particular area, then you're right, Beeeej. I thought Cornell had more room to maneuver than that.

Jacob 03
Except I was specifically arguing the possibilities of Cornell making changes without touching its endowment...
If what you're saying is that specific earmarks of Cornell's endowment cover every aspect of campus so that Cornell is unable to make a choice about scrimping and saving in any particular area, then you're right, Beeeej. I thought Cornell had more room to maneuver than that.

I think this was the possibility Beeeej was raising, although I don't know if any of us have the stats to know for sure. But if Cornell spends $X on campus beautification, and that's because $X of interest from the endowment are specifically earmarked for that, then they don't have much option. Or, if even .9*$X of that are earmarked, then there's not nearly as much room to maneuver as a casual look at a list of expenditures may imply.

I wouldn't be surprised if a decent number of the larger donors remember Ithaca's/Cornell's beauty and want to contribute to that specifically. Not that I'd be incredibly surprised if it wasn't the case either.

I dunno if this information is publicly available, but even if it is, I don't know if any of us have the interest in picking through it line by line either

Jacob 03
Except I was specifically arguing the possibilities of Cornell making changes without touching its endowment. Yes, I know that aspects are earmarked. It's the same way for a large portion of Harvard's I'm sure. The discussion came about because of the prospect that Harvard could free up a portion of its endowment, but that Cornell could not. Maybe Harvard can't actually do this, and maybe Cornell's reasons have more to do with where the money's committed and not with the size. I can certainly believe these. But the only reason the endowment came up was because somebody proposed Harvard could do something with it that Cornell couldn't. I replied that if that were true, Cornell could compete by doing something else that had nothing to do with Cornell's endowment. All the specifics of Cornell's endowment weren't germane. The idea was that at least some of Cornell's tuition money goes toward expenses that Cornell could decide to cut, and that if it cut them it could lower tuition. It wasn't the beginning of a campaign to necessarily cut all those expenses that I don't happen to like (metaezra), it was simply stating a technically, factually correct statement.

If what you're saying is that specific earmarks of Cornell's endowment cover every aspect of campus so that Cornell is unable to make a choice about scrimping and saving in any particular area, then you're right, Beeeej. I thought Cornell had more room to maneuver than that.

I'm really not sure I follow the first half of the above post; but rather than try to read the whole thread again to see if I can figure it out, I'll address what I think you're saying later.

Is it possible Cornell could choose different priorities with its current use funding and thus lower tuition, keep tuition hikes lower, and/or provide more grants than loans? Yes, probably. But even if they did, I don't know how much of an impact it would have. How much do you cut from where? Just as a math-off-the-top-of-my-head figure, including grad students, I'm guessing that tuition at this point is a $600 million budget item.

So now the question is, how much is groundskeeping's annual budget likely to be - and how much of that can you cut before the campus attracts fewer people (including parents, prospective students, top faculty, and alumni and their money)? $500,000? $1 million? Is it worth it to cut $1 million in groundskeeping in order to make tuition $50 cheaper for 20,000 students? Would it affect Cornell's ability to recruit in all sectors?

Obviously groundskeeping isn't the only option, but it's the one I'm picking on because it's the one I think you emphasized. But what other budgets would you cut?

I'm not saying the idea is pointless, but there are an awful lot of realities and difficult decisions that go into these budgets. I certainly don't think the people making those decisions are infallible, but I would hesitate before suggesting that they don't try to do everything reasonably possible to keep tuition costs as low as they can given the university's other responsibilities and priorities.

I've hesitated to do it in the past because it used to be my job (though it's been almost eight years since I left), but I'll echo Jim Hyla's sentiments. You and I have the power to make Cornell's priority-setting easier right now, every single day.

Beeeej
Is it possible Cornell could choose different priorities with its current use funding and thus lower tuition, keep tuition hikes lower, and/or provide more grants than loans? Yes, probably. But even if they did, I don't know how much of an impact it would have. How much do you cut from where? Just as a math-off-the-top-of-my-head figure, including grad students, I'm guessing that tuition at this point is a $600 million budget item.

So now the question is, how much is groundskeeping's annual budget likely to be - and how much of that can you cut before the campus attracts fewer people (including parents, prospective students, top faculty, and alumni and their money)? $500,000? $1 million? Is it worth it to cut $1 million in groundskeeping in order to make tuition $50 cheaper for 20,000 students? Would it affect Cornell's ability to recruit in all sectors?

Excellent and obvious questions, and all factors that go into Cornell's decision-making process, I'm sure. Someone faced with the prospect of suddenly-cheaper competition from other schools would answer the questions a bit differently than current administrators, though, right? That was basically my point.

Obviously groundskeeping isn't the only option, but it's the one I'm picking on because it's the one I think you emphasized. But what other budgets would you cut?

Perfectly fair, even though "groundskeeping" certainly makes it sound cheap. I can think of lots, but they all involves the same type of "what do you prioritize?" decisions. Someone smarter than me could think of even more, too. I don't think there's a real limit. I just think we're really committed to the ones we have through a combination of actual reasons and inertia. And I certainly didn't mean to imply there'd be no far-reaching implications to any changes.

I'm not saying the idea is pointless, but there are an awful lot of realities and difficult decisions that go into these budgets. I certainly don't think the people making those decisions are infallible, but I would hesitate before suggesting that they don't try to do everything reasonably possible to keep tuition costs as low as they can given the university's other responsibilities and priorities.

Well, I wasn't complaining about a bunch of accountants not doing their job, nor was I saying the decisions are no-brainers (well...maybe a couple). I was stating that those making the decisions about priorities and dictating them could change some of their priorities. In fact, I'd bet money they would, if faced with something as sweeping as the other Ivies all going tuition-free.

I've hesitated to do it in the past because it used to be my job (though it's been almost eight years since I left), but I'll echo Jim Hyla's sentiments. You and I have the power to make Cornell's priority-setting easier right now, every single day.

Of course. I would never imply otherwise.

Beeeej
You and I have the power to make Cornell's priority-setting easier right now, every single day.

Oh great. So I can pay for a bunch of welfare queens to park their Cadillacs outside the Statler while they take Intro to Wines.

Beeeej
You and I have the power to make Cornell's priority-setting easier right now, every single day.

I know my bank account isn't large enough to give me any measurable power. Maybe I should go to law school?

KeithK

Beeeej
You and I have the power to make Cornell's priority-setting easier right now, every single day.

I know my bank account isn't large enough to give me any measurable power. Maybe I should go to law school?

Maybe you weren't reading. You engineers have all of the blood money.

ugarte

KeithK

Beeeej
You and I have the power to make Cornell's priority-setting easier right now, every single day.

I know my bank account isn't large enough to give me any measurable power. Maybe I should go to law school?

Maybe you weren't reading. You engineers have all of the blood money.

And to return to being practical, the U is always looking for human power. You'd be surprised at the opportunities for volunteer work.

ugarte

KeithK

Beeeej
You and I have the power to make Cornell's priority-setting easier right now, every single day.

I know my bank account isn't large enough to give me any measurable power. Maybe I should go to law school?

Maybe you weren't reading. You engineers have all of the blood money.

In all seriousness, I think a large part of the problem is that people think they can't give enough to have an impact. I don't know what you think of as "not large enough," and it's not my business, but for argument's sake let's say you're thinking $25 isn't a large enough gift to bother with.

There are (I think) about 160,000 Cornell alumni. If 120,000 of them aren't giving anything, and (let's be conservative here) 20,000 of those aren't giving because they think $25/year wouldn't make a difference, that's half a million dollars Cornell's missing out on. I don't think anybody would suggest half a million dollars a year wouldn't make a difference.

$500,000 of student aid endowment given in 2008 would produce $25,000 in grants in 2009, and the endowment would grow to $525,000 as well (conservatively estimating a 10% return with 5% payout and 5% hedge), producing $26,250 in grants in 2010. But if everybody gave $25 again in 2009, you'd have a $1,025,000 endowment producing $51,250 in grants in 2010. Play that out for a while, the numbers get pretty big. That's a lot of help for students who otherwise might be burdened with loans and/or not be able to afford to attend Cornell.

Now imagine if 20,000 people aren't donating because they think $50 isn't enough to make a difference.

Beeeej
In all seriousness, I think a large part of the problem is that people think they can't give enough to have an impact. I don't know what you think of as "not large enough," and it's not my business, but for argument's sake let's say you're thinking $25 isn't a large enough gift to bother with.

The marginal impact of a $25 donation is insignificant. But the aggregate impact of a large number of them is very significant.

It's very analogous to voting. On the margin, the impact of an individual voter is insignificant. It is vanishingly unlikely that the presidential race will be decided by my vote (rats!). So it seems rational to not vote.

As with voting, the way to increase your power is to convince others to do what you are doing (donating to Cornell, hopefully).

KeithK

Beeeej
In all seriousness, I think a large part of the problem is that people think they can't give enough to have an impact. I don't know what you think of as "not large enough," and it's not my business, but for argument's sake let's say you're thinking $25 isn't a large enough gift to bother with.

The marginal impact of a $25 donation is insignificant. But the aggregate impact of a large number of them is very significant.

It's very analogous to voting. On the margin, the impact of an individual voter is insignificant. It is vanishingly unlikely that the presidential race will be decided by my vote (rats!). So it seems rational to not vote.

As with voting, the way to increase your power is to convince others to do what you are doing (donating to Cornell, hopefully).

Bingo!

So, um... please donate to Cornell.

KeithK

Beeeej
In all seriousness, I think a large part of the problem is that people think they can't give enough to have an impact. I don't know what you think of as "not large enough," and it's not my business, but for argument's sake let's say you're thinking $25 isn't a large enough gift to bother with.

The marginal impact of a $25 donation is insignificant. But the aggregate impact of a large number of them is very significant.

It's very analogous to voting. On the margin, the impact of an individual voter is insignificant. It is vanishingly unlikely that the presidential race will be decided by my vote (rats!). So it seems rational to not vote.

As with voting, the way to increase your power is to convince others to do what you are doing (donating to Cornell, hopefully).

Cool. So we can vote for Cornell this November, right?

RichH
Cool. So we can vote for Cornell this November, right?

Well, you can if you want to. But before you do, I think you should know that Cornell was educated in a strict, anti-American madrassa, betrayed his fellow soldiers while a prisoner of war, had his lawyer murdered, is a member of an ultra-nationalist church but also a secret plant by Islamofascists, adopted a black child, called Martin Luther King irrelevant, and spooged on your sister's dress.

How does that compare with past practices of say, IBM?

RichH
Cool. So we can vote for Cornell this November, right?

Looks like it will either be Columbia or the Naval Academy.

Turning the conversation back to athletics, but not necessarily hockey, it's interesting to note that the director of the Ivy League is going to retire next year. This, combined with all of the recent financial-aid changes and its impact on athletics, suggests that it may be time to start revisit the underlying structure of the League, its purpose, and its policies.

[ivyleaguesports.com]

Nice piece by the Daily Sun. Some feedback posts on the Sun site took the Sun to task for not doing the story about Cornell overall, rather than just the jocks. Fair point, but at least the sports board of the Sun had the drive to do this story and maybe it will drive the news board to do the same for the whole of Cornell.

If this the price of the Ivies not working in concert to provide the same aid package everywhere - which is a polite way of saying price fixing - then, fair enough, this is the price of competition. Don't go back to setting one aid package for all Ivy schools. Let Cornell be more competitive on athletics aid and student aid in general.

Cornell has a smaller endowment than Harvard, sure, but it's still bigger than the vast majority of universities. When our local high school did the college night last fall, the financial aid discussion used an example of how Cornell is cheaper than Virginia to attend because while Virginia starts out cheaper, Cornell offers more grant money to the typical student (this is student, not athlete). Maybe that data is a year or two out of date now.

Also you should measure the endowment not just in dollars but in dollars per student. That may be a fairer reflection of how much the school could (*could*) consider granting to students. One endowment per capita report shows endowment per capita. I was looking it up because I recall 20 years ago the University of Rochester supposedly had the best per capita endowment thanks to all that Kodak stock (not anymore). This shows Stanford and Princeton with $1.5-$2.0 million in per capita endowment and Cornell around No. 32 overall, but also last in the Ivies, with about $400,000 per student. (Columbia-Brown-Penn-Cornell are pretty close.) Princeton apparently generates more endowment income per student each year than Cornell generates in endowment income plus tuition. The Ivy order, if this report is accurate, is:
Princeton
Yale
Harvard (#4 overall)
Dartmouth
Columbia
Brown
Penn
Cornell

There was discussion here about trees and flowers. Seems like a waste if you want lower cost tuition. Except we just came back from a tour of a half-dozen Pennsylvania and NYS colleges and the places with poor plantings, broken concrete walkways, missing curbs, and muddy grass really made a lousy impression on would-be students and parents.

I used the most accurate 2007 data I could find to create the attached pdf file. It ranks the Ivy schools by endowment, number of students (undergrad and total), endowment dollars per student, student costs, and percentage of the endowment required annually to cover all student costs (that is, to provide a free ride for all students). Based on these data, it appears that the "poorer" schools will have a hard time competing with the richer schools.

and the west coast ivy gets into the fray:

[money.cnn.com]

very interesting.

BillCharlton
Based on these data, it appears that the "poorer" schools will have a hard time competing with the richer schools.

After you factor in Cornell's support from the State of New York as 'quasi-endowment', the disparities remain. Princeton, Harvard, and Yale are really an order of magnitude richer than Brown, Penn, Cornell, and Columbia. Dartmouth is sui generis, somewhere in the middle. Princeton becomes even richer when you consider that it has none of the professional schools that the other Ivies have.

Page 25:
[dpb.cornell.edu]

mttgrmm
and the west coast ivy gets into the fray:

[money.cnn.com]

very interesting.

If these are hard cutoffs as the article implies then I'd expect to see parents of many current and future Stanford undergraduates playing a lot of financial games to get below the caps. Dad makes $110k per year? Maybe he should take a two month unpaid sabbatical and get it down to $93k. Hopefully the schools use somewhat graduated systems when they implement these financial aid schemes.

KeithK
If these are hard cutoffs as the article implies then I'd expect to see parents of many current and future Stanford undergraduates playing a lot of financial games to get below the caps. Dad makes $110k per year? Maybe he should take a two month unpaid sabbatical and get it down to $93k. Hopefully the schools use somewhat graduated systems when they implement these financial aid schemes.

I wouldn't say the article even implies that. It says under $60K the school pays all (even room and board), and under $100K, they cover all tuition. It doesn't say that at $100,000.01 you're totally on their own. Everything else I have heard of is a graduated scale, and for good reason, as you point out.

OK, hopefully it's just my lack of reading comprehension ,

Part II in the series:

[cornellsun.com]

By providing its own broader and more generous standard of “financial need,” Cornell coaches, Noel and Bilsky agree the “Big Three” are establishing an athletic superiority in violation the Ivy Statement of Principles that mandate competitive balance.

Principle No. 4 states that each school “ought not merely to tolerate, but to value a balance of competitive success within the Group.” Principle No. 3 states that the members should compare themselves with one another for “for standards of competitive excellence” and should use this as the sole measure for success and failure.

And some Cornell coaches believe the competitive imbalance has already begun.

This past fall, Harvard, Princeton and Yale accounted for six of the eight Fall sports Ivy league titles. In one of the two sports where the “Big Three” did not top the league — women’s soccer — the Harvard and Princeton accounted for the rookie and Ivy League players of the year.

In winter sports, Harvard, Princeton and Yale also top the league in men’s and women’s hockey, men’s and women’s swimming and men’s squash. Princeton is the favorite to win indoor Heps, repeating as the men’s champion, and dethroning the Cornell women, who have won six straight titles.

“Before, we weren’t even in the same league as scholarship schools in terms of being able to offer competitive packages, but now we’re making a move and getting on the radar screen,” said Fritz Rodriguez, director of admissions and financial aid for the Yale Athletics Department, to the Yale Daily News.

As a number of Cornell coaches pointed out, that’s not a good thing, because even though schools like Yale, Harvard and Princeton can do it, the rest of the league cannot. So, not only are the “Big Three” now able to attract athletes from other Ivies, they may be able to attract top scholarship athletes from schools like Stanford and Duke.

Beeeej
Okay, you're switching premises, but let's go with this one as long as we're at it.

Do you understand how endowments work?

I'll take nursing scholarships that Cornell can't touch for $100, Alex.






EDIT: oops. now I see that you already raised the nursing school issue in a later post. Nevermind.

RichH

Cool. So we can vote for Cornell this November, right?

No, but you can vote for the Cantab. No more @#$%ing Yalies. Twenty straight years is enough.

metaezra
As for the apples and flowers comment, need I remind you that agricultural research is an explicit part of Cornell's educational mission as the land grant institution for the State of New York? Anybody familiar with Cornell's role in the green revolution in India can tell you that the apples and flowers are worth it -- maybe not for Cornell, per se, but for the human condition.

Right. I was going to make the same point. Ever look at an *international* ranking of elite colleges? Cornell frequently blows other Ivies out of the water. And at least some of that prestige comes from the Ag school and Vet school and the role they played in the green revolution.

Interestingly, when I was working at Yale, I got roped into being on camera for a BBC film crew. While setting up and shooing B-roll, the host was asking about what the Ivy league was, who was in it, etc. From our conversation, it was very clear that lowly Cornell was much more renowned internationally than pretty much every other Ivy but Harvard.

jeh25

Beeeej
Okay, you're switching premises, but let's go with this one as long as we're at it.

Do you understand how endowments work?

I'll take nursing scholarships that Cornell can't touch for $100, Alex.






EDIT: oops. now I see that you already raised the nursing school issue in a later post. Nevermind.

That's what you get for making bimonthly strafing runs.

Waaahhh... the mating call of the loser.

Cornell (and the other 4 non-HYP Ivies) need to quit trying to cripple HYP and put up. No excuses: just figure out a way to do it. If they really want to, they can figure it out.

More brutally: using sports league competitiveness as a reason not to fulfill your mission of providing education to the brightest students irrespective of need is laughable when it fails, and despicable when it succeeds.

Kyle

jeh25
[Right. I was going to make the same point. Ever look at an *international* ranking of elite colleges? Cornell frequently blows other Ivies out of the water. And at least some of that prestige comes from the Ag school and Vet school and the role they played in the green revolution.

Excellent point, John.

I can't recall if it was a full-blown presentation or just a one-on-one discussion with him in his office,but I once heard Dave Call, Ag dean back in the '80s talk at length about the contributions of the Ag school and its impact on the rest of the world, in particular in terms of the ability to feed it. Very impressive. He was, too, by the way.

krose
More brutally: using sports league competitiveness as a reason not to fulfill your mission of providing education to the brightest students irrespective of need is laughable when it fails, and despicable when it succeeds.

Second. I'll reconsider if H, Y and P recruiting starts to undermine the academic index or whatever the standard the Ivies are supposed to be using for athlete admissions is called.

ugarte
Second. I'll reconsider if H, Y and P recruiting starts to undermine the academic index or whatever the standard the Ivies are supposed to be using for athlete admissions is called.

Holy shit, did we agree on something? Everyone start praying now: the rapture is nigh upon us!

Kyle

krose

ugarte
Second. I'll reconsider if H, Y and P recruiting starts to undermine the academic index or whatever the standard the Ivies are supposed to be using for athlete admissions is called.

Holy shit, did we agree on something? Everyone start praying now: the rapture is nigh upon us!

Don't think I didn't notice. I think it is because I chased Benadryl with turpentine.

Al DeFlorio

jeh25
[Right. I was going to make the same point. Ever look at an *international* ranking of elite colleges? Cornell frequently blows other Ivies out of the water. And at least some of that prestige comes from the Ag school and Vet school and the role they played in the green revolution.

Excellent point, John.

I can't recall if it was a full-blown presentation or just a one-on-one discussion with him in his office,but I once heard Dave Call, Ag dean back in the '80s talk at length about the contributions of the Ag school and its impact on the rest of the world, in particular in terms of the ability to feed it. Very impressive. He was, too, by the way.

Which is all well and good but it doesn't help us recruit hockey players.

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

jeh25
[Right. I was going to make the same point. Ever look at an *international* ranking of elite colleges? Cornell frequently blows other Ivies out of the water. And at least some of that prestige comes from the Ag school and Vet school and the role they played in the green revolution.

Excellent point, John.

I can't recall if it was a full-blown presentation or just a one-on-one discussion with him in his office,but I once heard Dave Call, Ag dean back in the '80s talk at length about the contributions of the Ag school and its impact on the rest of the world, in particular in terms of the ability to feed it. Very impressive. He was, too, by the way.

Which is all well and good but it doesn't help us recruit hockey players.

Is it possible to have a narrower view of the world than yours, Josh. Did you have a point to make other than to demonstrate that?

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

jeh25
[Right. I was going to make the same point. Ever look at an *international* ranking of elite colleges? Cornell frequently blows other Ivies out of the water. And at least some of that prestige comes from the Ag school and Vet school and the role they played in the green revolution.

Excellent point, John.

I can't recall if it was a full-blown presentation or just a one-on-one discussion with him in his office,but I once heard Dave Call, Ag dean back in the '80s talk at length about the contributions of the Ag school and its impact on the rest of the world, in particular in terms of the ability to feed it. Very impressive. He was, too, by the way.

Which is all well and good but it doesn't help us recruit hockey players.

Is it possible to have a narrower view of the world than yours, Josh. Did you have a point to make other than to demonstrate that?

Somebody please recalibrate Al's joke detector. Thanks in advance.

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

jeh25
[Right. I was going to make the same point. Ever look at an *international* ranking of elite colleges? Cornell frequently blows other Ivies out of the water. And at least some of that prestige comes from the Ag school and Vet school and the role they played in the green revolution.

Excellent point, John.

I can't recall if it was a full-blown presentation or just a one-on-one discussion with him in his office,but I once heard Dave Call, Ag dean back in the '80s talk at length about the contributions of the Ag school and its impact on the rest of the world, in particular in terms of the ability to feed it. Very impressive. He was, too, by the way.

Which is all well and good but it doesn't help us recruit hockey players.

Is it possible to have a narrower view of the world than yours, Josh. Did you have a point to make other than to demonstrate that?

What the fuck, Al? This is a message board for the discussion of Cornell hockey; the first sentence in the first post in this thread reads "The Sun is running an excellent article on the impact that the recent sea change in financial aid policies at certain institutions will have on Ivy recruiting." It's wonderful that Cornell has great name recognition around the world, and everyone is happy for you that you had a nice talk with the Dean of the Ag School back in the '80s, but the idea that you've decided I have a narrow world view for making a post that's related to the topic of this thread is ridiculous.

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

jeh25
Right. I was going to make the same point. Ever look at an *international* ranking of elite colleges? Cornell frequently blows other Ivies out of the water. And at least some of that prestige comes from the Ag school and Vet school and the role they played in the green revolution.

Excellent point, John.

I can't recall if it was a full-blown presentation or just a one-on-one discussion with him in his office,but I once heard Dave Call, Ag dean back in the '80s talk at length about the contributions of the Ag school and its impact on the rest of the world, in particular in terms of the ability to feed it. Very impressive. He was, too, by the way.

Which is all well and good but it doesn't help us recruit hockey players.

{You forgot poland!}
I believe Jason Elliot was from Chapman, Australia...
{/You forgot Poland}

Josh '99
[What the fuck, Al?

You want to know "what the fuck," Josh? I'll tell you "what the fuck." metaezra wrote a paragraph on the impact of Cornell's ag school on the rest of the world. John gave a personal anecdote confirming metaezra's statement. I followed--quoting both--with a personal anecdote of my own, the point point of which was that even someone quite close to Cornell (me) could easily not have a real sense of what our university has done for and therefore how it is viewed by the rest of the world, without having been given the chance to hear of it directly. You then come along and lay an uncalled-for cheap shot on me. That's "what the fuck."

If you think I'm the cause of drift on this thread, I'd suggest you read it more carefully. And I'd also suggest that many--I'd say most--of the participants here are able, after 72 posts, to handle side-topics developed from "the first sentence in the first post on this thread."

ugarte

Al DeFlorio

Josh '99

Al DeFlorio

jeh25
[Right. I was going to make the same point. Ever look at an *international* ranking of elite colleges? Cornell frequently blows other Ivies out of the water. And at least some of that prestige comes from the Ag school and Vet school and the role they played in the green revolution.

Excellent point, John.

I can't recall if it was a full-blown presentation or just a one-on-one discussion with him in his office,but I once heard Dave Call, Ag dean back in the '80s talk at length about the contributions of the Ag school and its impact on the rest of the world, in particular in terms of the ability to feed it. Very impressive. He was, too, by the way.

Which is all well and good but it doesn't help us recruit hockey players.

Is it possible to have a narrower view of the world than yours, Josh. Did you have a point to make other than to demonstrate that?

Somebody please recalibrate Al's joke detector. Thanks in advance.

Well here we go again. I think I agree with ugarte that Josh was probably trying to be funny, but we shouldn't have to try and decipher whether something is meant in jest. That is why we have emoticons. Age has provided us with more than we need for these usual cases. Please use them.

As has been said before, the problem with written internet communication is that we cannot see the body or facial signals that we do in person. Thus we are not always able to understand intent. Non-verbal clues are important; on the internet those are emoticons.

Now if Josh can just post that he was trying to be funny and not critical, this can end; unless, of course, he was really in attack mode. If so, I know a good wrestling facility.

Al DeFlorio
You then come along and lay an uncalled-for cheap shot on me. That's "what the fuck."

I did what? You were the one who accused me of having a "narrow[] view of the world".

Jim Hyla
Now if Josh can just post that he was trying to be funny and not critical, this can end; unless, of course, he was really in attack mode.

I wasn't before. I don't take kindly to being insulted for no apparent reason.

By the way, I'm done with this. I have no desire to have a flame war on this board. If you'd like to respond, Al, you're welcome to do so, but be aware that I won't be doing so anymore.

Jim Hyla
Well here we go again. I think I agree with ugarte that Josh was probably trying to be funny, but we shouldn't have to try and decipher whether something is meant in jest. That is why we have emoticons. Age has provided us with more than we need for these usual cases. Please use them.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. Not to claim similar quality in my truly insignificant work. but let's just say that "A Modest Proposal" would not be either good nor famous if it ended with

ugarte
but let's just say that "A Modest Proposal" would not be either good nor famous if it ended with

... your standup however...
< rim shot >

In the final installment in the series, Perlin suggests that some of the other Ivies may be moving to a more "merit-based" system of financial aid.

[cornellsun.com]

Noel agreed, and offered another reason why other schools can offer better packages.

“I fear that the more attractive the candidate, the more creative and generous the schools may be in packaging aid for the student,” he said.

Noel believes that schools have found ways to “creatively finance” athletes by designating some students as “high priority,” such as certain minorities or genders. By applying this standard to all students, it allows schools to better package financial aid.

Penn Director of Athletics Steve Bilsky declined to comment on his school’s specific practices.

“There are variables that allow some ability to be subjective in [matching financial aid packages],” Bilsky said. “[Penn does] not have the resources to match Harvard’s policy. … So, our coaches can’t go out and say, whatever Harvard does, we will match your package. That would be a short-term solution to say that. But that would cost so much, that my guess would be most of the schools in the league won’t do that and can’t do that.”

metaezra
In the final installment in the series, Perlin suggests that some of the other Ivies may be moving to a more "merit-based" system of financial aid.

[cornellsun.com]

Noel agreed, and offered another reason why other schools can offer better packages.

“I fear that the more attractive the candidate, the more creative and generous the schools may be in packaging aid for the student,” he said.

Noel believes that schools have found ways to “creatively finance” athletes by designating some students as “high priority,” such as certain minorities or genders. By applying this standard to all students, it allows schools to better package financial aid.

Sounds like an open admission of the already-existing unspoken reality.

Josh '99
Sounds like an open admission of the already-existing unspoken reality.

Has there ever been anything documenting the sort of practices you allude to? I find it hard to believe that the word wouldn't get out if there was some sort of gross evasion of policies going on.

There's an excellent discussion of the various ramifications of these policy changes taking place here:

[www.voy.com]

metaezra

Josh '99
Sounds like an open admission of the already-existing unspoken reality.

Has there ever been anything documenting the sort of practices you allude to? I find it hard to believe that the word wouldn't get out if there was some sort of gross evasion of policies going on.

There's an excellent discussion of the various ramifications of these policy changes taking place here:

[www.voy.com]

I don't really know whether there's documentation, but I kind of thought there was an understanding that there's some wiggle-room within the scope of "need-based financial aid only" to tweak things in order to have a student body of diverse talents, backgrounds, etc., and that that wiggle room was occasionally used to benefit recruiting. (I'm sure there's a wisecrack I've heard before about how "need-based financial aid" was allocated to reflect the fact that we need a left winger with a good shot, or something like that. Yes, I know I'm not getting the line right.)

Josh '99

metaezra

Josh '99
Sounds like an open admission of the already-existing unspoken reality.

Has there ever been anything documenting the sort of practices you allude to? I find it hard to believe that the word wouldn't get out if there was some sort of gross evasion of policies going on.

There's an excellent discussion of the various ramifications of these policy changes taking place here:

[www.voy.com]

I don't really know whether there's documentation, but I kind of thought there was an understanding that there's some wiggle-room within the scope of "need-based financial aid only" to tweak things in order to have a student body of diverse talents, backgrounds, etc., and that that wiggle room was occasionally used to benefit recruiting. (I'm sure there's a wisecrack I've heard before about how "need-based financial aid" was allocated to reflect the fact that we need a left winger with a good shot, or something like that. Yes, I know I'm not getting the line right.)

This doesn't match my understanding in so far as the FAFSA need formula was pretty much the end of the story in terms of determining need. That said, if FAFSA says you need $17k a year of aid, 17k of grant is a wholly different story than 5k work study + 2k grant + 10k of loans.

Now the fact that Cornell Tradition gives you $4k in grant money in lieu of loans, and varsity sports involvement counts towards the community service requirement may represent some of your historical wiggle. That said, I dunno how many hockey players have actually been Cornell Tradition fellows.

jeh25
That said, if FAFSA says you need $17k a year of aid, 17k of grant is a wholly different story than 5k work study + 2k grant + 10k of loans.

That's certainly true. Beyond that I'm really not sure of the particulars and it's been a while since I've thought about this stuff.

[www.nytimes.com]

brown's now doing the same thing, no tuition under 60k, no loans under 100k. there's likely some sort of phasing-out after 100k, i doubt that 101k gets you a more traditional loan-heavy aid package. the article doesn't go into detail on it, so it very well might be a cliff at 100k, but i doubt it.