Interesting article in today's NYT

[Towerroad]

And Harvard still sucks.

There are some things we can all agree on.

[Towerroad]

Well said, Greg.  It boggles that a Cornell alum can be unable to ascertain the difference between being "trained" and being "educated."

And my point is that you, like many Ivy League graduates, don't seem to understand that education and college are largely orthogonal experiences.  You can become educated at a place like Cornell, but you can also become educated without going to college.  I know plenty of people who emerge from elite colleges knowing lots of useless facts but who are largely ignorant of how the world works or how they are to fit into it, and who end up frustrated and depressed when things don't go as planned.

To me, being educated has little to do with learning any particular skill (this is "training", as you say) or being able to impress others with lots of credentials and acronyms.  The people I consider educated are those who understand the context of their place in the world and apply that knowledge to bettering themselves, rather than just passing through life blindly or succeeding by virtue of luck or accident of birth.  It's roughly equivalent to having low time preference: a prerequisite to planning for one's future is understanding that context, and understanding that context leads one to know that some level of planning is necessary.

Sorry, Kyle, but I do understand, and you have no basis for your assertion that I don't.  I suspect my view of being "educated" is much broader than the one you've stated above.

It is very depressing to me that many here seem to associate education with "conferring economic benefits."

Higher education must be about conferring economic benefits, or at least the perception thereof, or an institution like Cornell will fail. If you believe the mantra that tuition and fees only cover a fraction of the cost of an education (this is a separate but debatable contention) then, in the simple model, the  balance of the funding must come from the endowment. The endowment in turn is principally funded by the alumni who make donations. The more economically prosperous the alumni, and the more that the alumni attribute their prosperity to their higher education the bigger the contribution. This lifetime revenue model is an absolute necessity for the very survival of an institution like Cornell. It is really a very simple, elegant, successful business model. First and foremost Cornell and any other higher education institution is a business.

As for the differentiation between training and education I think this is a false distinction. I think they are mutually dependent. If education is the ability to acquire and synthesize information and training the systematic disciplined acquisition of a field of knowledge then they are 2 sides of the same coin. The inference that eduction is superior to training is sometimes offered by those who believe they live on the ethereal plain, to condescend to those rude mechanicals who labor only for filthy lucher. Of course your Alumni rep will be calling on those rude mechanicals with multiple opportunities to invest in the future.

I am not for a second arguing that a higher education should not have a robust distribution requirement and that exposure and training in a variety of subjects is not the hallmark of a quality education. But, I ignoring the necessity of conferring economic benefits as a central component of a higher education is naive at best and we do the next generation of Cornellians no favors by not having a frank discussion about their need to go out and do well in the world.

[Jim Hyla]

Well said, Greg.  It boggles that a Cornell alum can be unable to ascertain the difference between being "trained" and being "educated."

And my point is that you, like many Ivy League graduates, don't seem to understand that education and college are largely orthogonal experiences.  You can become educated at a place like Cornell, but you can also become educated without going to college.  I know plenty of people who emerge from elite colleges knowing lots of useless facts but who are largely ignorant of how the world works or how they are to fit into it, and who end up frustrated and depressed when things don't go as planned.

To me, being educated has little to do with learning any particular skill (this is "training", as you say) or being able to impress others with lots of credentials and acronyms.  The people I consider educated are those who understand the context of their place in the world and apply that knowledge to bettering themselves, rather than just passing through life blindly or succeeding by virtue of luck or accident of birth.  It's roughly equivalent to having low time preference: a prerequisite to planning for one's future is understanding that context, and understanding that context leads one to know that some level of planning is necessary.

Sorry, Kyle, but I do understand, and you have no basis for your assertion that I don't.  I suspect my view of being "educated" is much broader than the one you've stated above.

It is very depressing to me that many here seem to associate education with "conferring economic benefits."

Higher education must be about conferring economic benefits, or at least the perception thereof, or an institution like Cornell will fail. If you believe the mantra that tuition and fees only cover a fraction of the cost of an education (this is a separate but debatable contention) then, in the simple model, the  balance of the funding must come from the endowment. The endowment in turn is principally funded by the alumni who make donations. The more economically prosperous the alumni, and the more that the alumni attribute their prosperity to their higher education the bigger the contribution. This lifetime revenue model is an absolute necessity for the very survival of an institution like Cornell. It is really a very simple, elegant, successful business model. First and foremost Cornell and any other higher education institution is a business.

As for the differentiation between training and education I think this is a false distinction. I think they are mutually dependent. If education is the ability to acquire and synthesize information and training the systematic disciplined acquisition of a field of knowledge then they are 2 sides of the same coin. The inference that eduction is superior to training is sometimes offered by those who believe they live on the ethereal plain, to condescend to those rude mechanicals who labor only for filthy lucher. Of course your Alumni rep will be calling on those rude mechanicals with multiple opportunities to invest in the future.

I am not for a second arguing that a higher education should not have a robust distribution requirement and that exposure and training in a variety of subjects is not the hallmark of a quality education. But, I ignoring the necessity of conferring economic benefits as a central component of a higher education is naive at best and we do the next generation of Cornellians no favors by not having a frank discussion about their need to go out and do well in the world.

I won't speak for Al, anyone who knows him knows he can speak for himself.:-)

However, I would like to agree with him that the focus seems to be more on money than what I would consider education. I didn't go to Cornell so I could make more money. My father, a first generation college grad, worked and formed his own successful business. I could easily have gone into the family business and made as much or more than I do now. However my parents felt "an education" was important to my development. They didn't dictate it to me, but it has become clear to me as I got older that they wanted me to experience more of the world and life and decide what I wanted from life.

Cornell, and a year of graduate school did that, and I couldn't imagine being happier in what I do. That development was much more important than any economic benefit I could get, hell, I probably lost money, as my parents did, by going to school. But how do you put a value on happiness.

So, I think the idea of "conferring economic benefits" exists, but it's not the prime goal. I regularly donate time and money to Cornell, and the four other institutions that I attended, not because they showed me how to earn more, no, they showed me how to be happier. For that I will be eternally grateful.

[dbilmes]

Here's what Cornell lacrosse coach Ben DeLuca, a biochemistry major, says about his Cornell education in this interview in the Syracuse newspaper which is featured in the lacrosse thread on eLynah:

PS: I see you majored in biochemistry at Cornell. Do I need to ask what went wrong on your way to becoming a lacrosse coach instead of a doctor?

BD: (More laughs) That's pretty funny. That's the same question my parents had. It was pretty interesting for them to hear when I graduated that I was I as joining Coach (Dave) Pietramala and Coach Tambroni (on the Cornell staff). They kind of looked at me sideways like, why had they paid for this education and I was trying to go off-track. Things worked out in a strange way. More than anything, while I'm not specifically applying my degree to what I'm doing, I think my education here and just the ability to learn, ho to think critically and solve problems and handle a high volume of work – and a pretty stressful work load – help prepare me for the stresses of coaching.

PS: Any chance you'd go back to that field?

BD: I haven't thought about it. I'm excited that I have a Cornell diploma. It's something that'll serve me the rest of my life. It's a phenomenal opportunity to be in class here and receive this type of education and can open a lot of doors. I haven't thought that in some point in time, I'd pursue medicine or something in that field. I wouldn't close any doors at this point.

[brealy_myers]

Interesting conversation.  To open up a different can of worms:

1. As long as the market is reasonably free (no monopoly, collusion or forced transactions) I don't feel that a seller using price discrimination to maximize their economic outcome is a bad thing, even if it is "simply" to maximize profits.  As long as the buyer is free to choose to purchase or not to purchase, why should the seller be limited in adjusting price?  If the buyer doesn't like it, they can walk away.  
2. In this case, I believe that the administration would make the case that even "sticker price" tuition does not cover the cost of a Cornell education.  A lot of this depends on how much of the research mission of the university should be paid for by students, but it is clear that there's an enormous gap between the university's expenses and tuition revenue - even if you look at gross tuition revenue before discounts are applied.  Kyle appears to be implying that the price discriminiation in effect here is a gouge on those who pay full price - instead, I would argue that there are probably a lot of very wealthy parents who could and perhaps should pick up an even larger proportion of the costs of running a world-class research university.

I think there are a lot of interesting important philosophical questions raised here, such as what is the value of a traditional "liberal" education, particularly in fields like Classics or English; what is the correct response of the University in balancing its research focus with its responsibility to provide an excellent education to its students (ie cramming 100-level classes full of students to be taught by an indifferent professor whose mind is much more focused on their next research paper); and what is the long-run economic value of a Cornell experience.

The good news is that there is tremendous transparency and access to information, so any purchaser of these education services (aka "student") who makes an ill informed decision really has only themselves to blame.

[Roy 82]

I am not seeing a lot of acknowledgment that, at a major research university (public or private) a lot of funding comes form outside sources, most significantly the Gov't (NSF, NIH, DoD etc.). Cornell is not free to act like a private business and still receive such funding.

[RatushnyFan]

1) I met my wife at Cornell.
2) I didn't learn how to be an investment banker at Cornell, but I cared enough at school to learn how to think about problems and solutions. If you put some effort into college, I think you can learn a lot. I think you can learn a lot, or not very much, at state schools and Ivy League schools.
3) Most of my best friends are from Cornell - I'm 41, these are lifelong friendships.
4) I had incredible drinking tolerance when I graduated - but with age and less dedication, my tolerance is merely substantially above average.

I think the decision to invest $200k at Cornell for your own kids is uniquely personal - based on your net worth/income, your views on education, your kids' goals and ambitions (or lack thereof), other options (is there a good state school alternative), etc.  For me, it was worth it and I'll gladly pay to give my kids the same privilege so long as they have some ambition.  So far, so good.

My kids are all exceptional hockey players, so they'll no doubt qualify for the Cornell athletic scholarship............ha ha. I don't fork over all that money for the Cornell hockey camp for nothing.

[Towerroad]

1) I met my wife at Cornell.
2) I didn't learn how to be an investment banker at Cornell, but I cared enough at school to learn how to think about problems and solutions. If you put some effort into college, I think you can learn a lot. I think you can learn a lot, or not very much, at state schools and Ivy League schools.
3) Most of my best friends are from Cornell - I'm 41, these are lifelong friendships.
4) I had incredible drinking tolerance when I graduated - but with age and less dedication, my tolerance is merely substantially above average.

I think the decision to invest $200k at Cornell for your own kids is uniquely personal - based on your net worth/income, your views on education, your kids' goals and ambitions (or lack thereof), other options (is there a good state school alternative), etc.  For me, it was worth it and I'll gladly pay to give my kids the same privilege so long as they have some ambition.  So far, so good.

My kids are all exceptional hockey players, so they'll no doubt qualify for the Cornell athletic scholarship............ha ha. I don't fork over all that money for the Cornell hockey camp for nothing.

I think you have made my point rather well. You appear to attribute a significant part of your economic success to Cornell (I do too). A quality education whether delivered at a Tier 1 or Tier 4 school has as at least one of its attributes preparation to go out in the world and do well. That is my definition of economic success whether that is being a great teacher or a captain of industry.

I met my wife or 34 years (so far) at Cornell and paid list price for my oldest daughter go to Cornell. I believe that all 3 of us have benefited economically from our educations.

[brealy_myers]

Roy82,

The agencies that buy research from Cornell put a lot of stipulations on those funds, but (generally) education is not one of them.  Many of these contracts are won by competitors of Cornell that have no educational programs at all, or ones that only educate graduate students.  NSF, for example, requires a small portion of their awards to be used for outreach - and that's why Ithaca has a Sciencenter.  Those funds are not used for undergraduate education.  So, I think your statement is a bit of a non sequitur.

[Roy 82]

Roy82,

The agencies that buy research from Cornell put a lot of stipulations on those funds, but (generally) education is not one of them.  Many of these contracts are won by competitors of Cornell that have no educational programs at all, or ones that only educate graduate students.  NSF, for example, requires a small portion of their awards to be used for outreach - and that's why Ithaca has a Sciencenter.  Those funds are not used for undergraduate education.  So, I think your statement is a bit of a non sequitur.

I still think that there is an effect. I work at one of those entities that competes and collaborates with universities. The government has to approve the billing rates of a university which ultimately goes back to the university's sources of income (which presumably would include undergraduate tuition). But I wasn't necessarily restricting my comment to undergraduate education.

[Rita]

Roy82,

The agencies that buy research from Cornell put a lot of stipulations on those funds, but (generally) education is not one of them.  Many of these contracts are won by competitors of Cornell that have no educational programs at all, or ones that only educate graduate students.  NSF, for example, requires a small portion of their awards to be used for outreach - and that's why Ithaca has a Sciencenter.  Those funds are not used for undergraduate education.  So, I think your statement is a bit of a non sequitur.

I still think that there is an effect. I work at one of those entities that competes and collaborates with universities. The government has to approve the billing rates of a university which ultimately goes back to the university's sources of income (which presumably would include undergraduate tuition). But I wasn't necessarily restricting my comment to undergraduate education.

I don't think very much, if any, of the  "indirect" costs (also called F&A) that universities receive on grants and contracts goes back into undergraduate education. As someone who has been supported on and managed research grants, how the university spends the indirect funds is not very transparent.

Universities and government agencies (USDA, NIH, NSF) negotiate an "indirect cost" percentage. The amount varies, but at one university I worked at, the university took 52% of an NSF grant award for "indirect costs", quite a chunk of change from a million dollar grant. I think 52% is on the high end, but rates in the 40's are common. Some private foundations will stipulate the indirect rate on research grants, and it is usually much lower (15-20% range).

Unlike the researchers who have to itemize exactly how they will spend the "direct funds" (the other 48% of the money in this example), universities are extremely vague about how the indirect funds are allocated.

The admins say that it goes for things like janatorial services (but yet trash in the lab is only collected 3X/week), building upkeep, and  support staff (like departmental secretaries). I have also recently learned that at some institutions, some of the indirects also go towards the university's "sponsored program/grant management" division; the people who help the research submit the grants and manage them. Despite asking many times, no one has provided me with a detailed accounting how the indirects from our grant were spent.

As Brealy mentioned above, NSF grants do have a community outreach component and how that defined is very broad. I know Cornell has an excellent summer high school and undergrad student research program in plant sciences which is in part funded by NSF grant "outreach money". This (competitive) program attracts undergraduates from universities throughout the country.

In addition, some of that outreach money is used to have a training program for elementary and secondary school science teachers so that they can come to campus, learn new thing and then take that knowledge back to their classrooms and the equipment needed to do that is part of a "lending library" for the teachers that participate in the program. So in this case, NSF grant monies do go to supporting undergrads, but it is a select few, and most of them are not from Cornell.

So if a class is held in a building with research labs, then the electricity and heat in the lecture hall (and other infrastructure costs) may be paid for by the indirect monies. But I seriously doubt any of that money is going into more tangible things for undergrads (like scholarship funds).

[Robb]

OTOH, a strong research program that attracts lots of NSF (and other) grants will also be attractive to potential undergraduates who are interested in studying at a top-flight research university, so there is plenty of intangible benefit for undergrads when professors are winning grants.  If professors think that they have a better chance of winning a research grant by being at Cornell instead of State U, then that also increases the quality of the pool of applicants who want to become Cornell professors, which is an extremely important intangible benefit for undergrads.

[Rita]

OTOH, a strong research program that attracts lots of NSF (and other) grants will also be attractive to potential undergraduates who are interested in studying at a top-flight research university, so there is plenty of intangible benefit for undergrads when professors are winning grants.  If professors think that they have a better chance of winning a research grant by being at Cornell instead of State U, then that also increases the quality of the pool of applicants who want to become Cornell professors, which is an extremely important intangible benefit for undergrads.

And this gets us back to the argument that what you get out of Cornell (or any other school) is what you put into it. If you are an ambitious undergrad interested in science and willing to devote many hours a week in the lab, then yes, you can benefit from being at a school with well-funded researchers. In my grad lab at Cornell we had several talented undergrads who did so much work that they were co-authors on a few papers.

I went to college at a small liberal arts school (Trinity College in Hartford, CT) and even though the science there was not at the level of a research university, I was motivated enough to get involved in a professor's research project and also served as a teaching assistant for several lab and lecture classes. This set me up to earn several summer research fellowships and eventually, grad school at Cornell.

[Josh '99]

4) I had incredible drinking tolerance when I graduated - but with age and less dedication, my tolerance is merely substantially above average.

[Trotsky]

I believe you mean: