<p>The differences among the colleges, at least as far as entry stats are concerned, was a lot more evident "in my day". Simply because the stats for each of the colleges was broken out separately in the guide books. Every applicant in that era knew the differences before applying, just as they would be aware of the stats for any other, clearly unrelated school.
Now the stats seem to externally reported in aggregate only. I think this does a disservice to all consumers when in actuality admissions is to each college is separate and not an aggregate. </p>
<p>It's possible that if each college was evaluated separately on these various rankings, they would not all appear at the same place on them. Just as Columbia and Barnard do not appear in the same place on these rankings, despite having complete cross-registration. (Yes I know technically these two are just "affiliated" now (unlike previously), but you get the point).</p>
<p>Also, despite complete cross-registration, I recall Columbia and Barnard did not appear next to each other in that WSJ "feeder school" study. I'm guessing Cornell's individual colleges also would not appear all together in such a study. Consumers would benefit from being made aware of these differences, IMO.</p>
<p>As for faculty salaries, after adjusting for cost of living, esp housing, I'd guess you would find that Cornell profs are better off financially than many of these others. Wages of many professionals are lower away from the big cities.</p>