Lehman to step down

[Ben Rocky '04]

Having witnessed the Day Hall/Redbud takeover, I would just like to say that it was completely non-violent, non-threatening and non-destructive.

I was not around in 1969, but as I heard from alumni involved and the book about the subject, the WSH takeover was in response to a cross being burned on an african american co-op's lawn and a lack of administration response to calls for an african-american studies program.  It also was originally unarmed, and weapons were only introduced after one fraternity decided to act like vigilantes and force the occupying students out of the Straight and the buildup of upstate county sheriffs downtown to possibly retake the building.  If anyone was acting like thugs it would be the DU boys who tried to act like the campus police.

[Beeeej]

[Q]ninian '72 Wrote:
The US News ratings also rely too heavily on the evaluation of peers and not enough on objective measures, such as number of Nobel prize winners or AAAS fellows on the faculty, which are probably better indicators of faculty quality.[/q]

Plus, even the "objective" measures are deeply flawed.  For instance, there's no way for their formula to take into account the quality of the education offered by Cornell's statutory colleges for much less money.  Despite Cornell's hybrid structure, the "value per cost" for Cornell is calculated using only the endowed tuition.

[q]It's unfortunate that schools do game the ratings system.  Examples: One esteemed university in Virginia makes a point in soliciting donations from alumni that if they give even a little bit, it helps in the ratings.[/q]

That's an occasional refrain in Cornell's mailings too, or at least it was when I was in Development.  But you'd probably be surprised how near-impossible it is to convert a non-donor to a donor.  For one thing, they have to read the letters or take the phone calls first.  And even when you do convert them, you have to convert 1,600 of them in a single year to make a 1% dent in the overall participation rate, while still retaining every single donor from the previous year.

(There were also rumors, by the way, that some of the higher-ranked schools were regularly reporting participation rates for solicited alumni rather than the requested figure, that for all alumni.  US News does very little independent verification of what schools submit.)

Beeeej

[cth95]

Definitely, thanks for the link so we could get a better idea of what is going on.  It sounds like "David" on the adjoining Sun forum has a good head on his shoulders and is a very rational thinker.  I am as much for open space and forest preservation as anyone (I live in Vermont so I can spend a lot of time in the mountains and have green space all around me), but if I remember correctly, the area being discussed is just a grove of trees in the middle of a bunch of streets and buildings and not anything special.

[cth95]

This article confirms my memory that the Redbud area is no special forest.  With large need for parking near campus more needs to go somewhere, and this area seems as good as any.  The overlay in the link actually looks less intrusive than I had envisioned.

[cth95]

     Class size may affect the rankings, but I don't think it is really that big of a deal.  One of the best classes I have ever taken was Psych 101 with about 2,000 fellow Cornellians.    In high school I took a Calc class with all of 2 other people and I couldn't figure out much at all because the teacher sucked.  A year later I got an A in college with a far better instructor.  My point is,  there are many factors that affect the rankings,  but how many really affect the quality of a school's education and the experience gained in being there.
     Ben, I really don't know the situation, but I am curious about all of your criticisms of this information and would like to play devil's advocate.  What evidence do you have to back up your claims that any of the people you mention have not done anything towards some of your stated objectives or should have acted on things they have not.  Based on your '04 listing I am quite sure you have not ever tried to make changes in a large, bureaucratic institution (or a small one for that matter).  Two years goes by very quickly, and many times progress in an area is a goal to be achieved.  Often, 5 years is more realistic for real change.
     

[cth95]

You've got that right that rankings don't move much.  Cornell has been ranked between 10 and 14 almost every year since I applied in '89.  I am pretty sure that the schools in front of it have not changed much, either.  I certainly don't expect a jump to #5 in a year or two.

[Ben Rocky '04]

Cth95-
I too took Psych 101, and I feel that changing that class would hurt the character of the school.  One class has very little effect on the percentage of classes under 50 students though.  I am calling for the university to reduce the number of students in the big 100 and 200 level intro classes.  Hire a few dozen new professors, cap Govt 161, AEM 180, ILR 100 & similar classes at 49 students & teach multiple lectures, and you'll see a rankings increase under the current formula.
If you read my other posts, you will realize I don't actually believe that rankings give a first clue about how good the education is at a given school is, but many people perceive them to be a great indicator of the quality of education offered.  This is tragic, picking the college you go to should be about professors and the student body and location, not about rankings. To many in modern college admissions, it is.  As this is the game, I think we must play along.
Despite the fact that I am a wet-behind- the- ears '04, I actually have tried to change 'a large, bureaucratic institution' [in this case, Cornell] many times through student activism while involved in  a number of student groups & the Save AAP movement.  I know its hard, and results come few and far between.
I guess I should apologize for holding the administration to a high standard for running the school I care about, but I'm not gonna. :-P

[Jeff Hopkins '82]

One other way to look at it: by not being in the top 10 or top 5, you get more students applying who really want to go to Cornell for the right reasons rather than those who want to go there because it's in the top 10.

Or is that simply rationalization?  ::rolleyes::

[Beeeej]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:
Hire a few dozen new professors, cap Govt 161, AEM 180, ILR 100 & similar classes at 49 students & teach multiple lectures, and you'll see a rankings increase under the current formula.[/q]

Again, Ben, with whose ten million dollars a year, and in what previously empty offices and classrooms or hundreds of millions of dollars of new buildings?

It's fine to propose things that sound good, but someone has to figure out how to do them.

Beeeej

[nyc94]

[Q]Beeeej Wrote:
in what previously empty offices and classrooms or hundreds of millions of dollars of new buildings?[/q]

You put the grad students in trailers behind the engineering quad and behind Sibley!

Speaking of new buildings, I received Communique yesterday and they made mention of a future project for an information sciences building: 228,00 square feet, $140 million.  It is to be "strategically located in close proximity to the College of Engineering, the new Life Sciences Technology Building, Duffield Hall, and the planned Physical Sciences complex."  I don't what the last one is but isn't the only "open space" between Engineering and Life Sciences Hoy Field?

[Ben Rocky '04]

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

[Trotsky]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:
Say you hire 30 new faculty members @ a salary of $100,000/year.  Thats $3mil/year for these new faculty members.   If you kept them for 30 years, thats $90 mil.[/q]
If you gave them no raise for 30 years.

;-)

[Jacob '06]

[Q]nyc94 Wrote:

 [Q2]Beeeej Wrote:
in what previously empty offices and classrooms or hundreds of millions of dollars of new buildings?[/Q]
You put the grad students in trailers behind the engineering quad and behind Sibley!

Speaking of new buildings, I received Communique yesterday and they made mention of a future project for an information sciences building: 228,00 square feet, $140 million.  It is to be "strategically located in close proximity to the College of Engineering, the new Life Sciences Technology Building, Duffield Hall, and the planned Physical Sciences complex."  I don't what the last one is but isn't the only "open space" between Engineering and Life Sciences Hoy Field?

[/q]


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

[Lauren '06]

[Q]Ben Rocky 04 Wrote:

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

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

[nyc94]

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

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