Branding of CAS and Engineering?

[monydad]

<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>

[ihaveabunni]

<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>i agree. this is definitely a good "rebranding" strategy for a school like CAS. but perhaps Cornell is afraid of how some of the other colleges will fare? not sure.</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>

<p>i have heard the cost of living argument a lot, too. but it seems like if you want to increase the quality of the faculty, you could actually go the extra mile and offer them substantially more, as an incentive. at least until the academic rep increases and the money becomes less important. e.g. i don't think Berkeley profs make a lot, compared to their peers, especially considering their cost of living in the Bay area, but Berkeley is still a faculty magnet because of its academic rep. perhaps i just have no idea of the financial requirements such an initiative would require.</p>

<p>the grad students at Cornell are paid miserably though, by any standard/comparison.</p>

<p>the increase in financial aid for students is critical. this is one of the few areas where just throwing money at the problem helps immensely. it's very rare to find such a simple solution. there is, of course, the ethical dilemma of whether to give the aid based on merit or need. but once you get to a position like Harvard's, it doesn't matter. yet another argument to drive harder to help Cornell's endowment. I think Harvard funds about 30% of all its yearly activities just on endowment investment returns, without crimping the growth of the funds.</p>

[ihaveabunni]

<p>odyssey writes:
"
haveabunni, I don't know why you are reviving this thread now, but your negative attitude comes through clearly from your post. Why did you go to Cornell in the first place? And in what way did it let you down? HAve you suffered in getting a job or going to graduate school or meeting your career goals having graduated from Cornell?
"</p>

<p>dude, do you have any actual facts about Cornell you would like to discuss/present? or is your idea of discussion just to plumb other people's personal info and then based on this, decide for yourself if the information they present is true or not. a lot of data is out there. take a look for yourself. whether or not it is true has nothing to do with my experience at Cornell, what political party i belong to, whether or not i believe aliens founded the human race, or whether i was beaten as a child. my main contention here, is that the quality of a university is not just due to some popularity contest. i am interested in making Cornell better. how you see this as negative, is beyond me, really.</p>

<p>if there is something in particular in my posts you take issue with, please be more specific.</p>

[odyssey]

<p>I read your tone as angry, so I was curious about how you might have been aggrieved by attending Cornell. It is legitimate to want to protect your identify. I don't like to provide personal info either. But a better answer than yours would have been to state, simply, "I don't give out personal information" and not to pounce on me for asking.</p>

[Figgy]

<p>You do have a pretty aggrivated tone bunni...the kind of tone and argument that doesn't help "make Cornell better"...</p>

[monydad]

<p>"i agree. this is definitely a good "rebranding" strategy for a school like CAS. "</p>

<p>Well then, IMO you should also agree that your prior issue of per capita this and that is a non-sequitor, since they apply only to a synthetic aggregate of Cornell's individual separate colleges. This is not some gimmick or marketing device, it is in fact the appropriate thing to do; the appropriate comparison to make. Each school having separate admissions and (largely)separate curricula ought to be evaluated primarily on its own merits. Whether they are individually better or worse, they are different.</p>

<p>I don't see this as "rebranding" so much as "truth in advertising". It benefits all the colleges in that they are accurately portrayed and assessed on their individual actual merits.</p>

<p>Once again, the faculty compensation thing is a red herring I believe. It is unrealistic to expect an employer, in any industry, to overpay based on regional economics. Whatever the difference in comp. may be, those Berkeley profs. probably still can't afford to buy a comparable house . I just moved from the midwest to NYC area, and paid 3.5 times the amount for a 1,000 sq. ft. smaller house. Salaries, in our non-professorial profession , are more than double in the NYc area vs. our prior area, and we're still behind the eight ball financially. When the appropriate analysis is made it may be the case that it is these other schools that need to raise their salaries to compete economically with Cornell. If US News, or whoever, doesn't recognize this, then that's a flaw on them, not on all the schools residing in areas that have lower cost of living. Nobody is going to overpay.</p>

<p>I do agree that Cornell generally would be better if class sizes were reduced. But the importance of doing this probably differs among the colleges. I also agree that financial aid packages could be enhanced, with more grants and fewer loans. Although again, this is an issue for some of the colleges and a non-issue for others of them. The colleges really are not all the same in many regards. The endowment could be increased of course, but remember Cornell gets a boatload of cash every year from NYS that is on top of the endowment numbers.</p>

<p>The other thing I would say is, just because you play football with someone should not mean anyone should think you are the same. Each of Cornell's colleges is great and unique in its own way. There are many great instititutions of higher learing in this country: University of Chicago, Georgetown, Northwestern, Johns Hopkins, etc. I don't see the same level of comparisons to Harvard at these other places.</p>

<p>I think the individual college data should be externally distributed, as it used to be, and, as before, aggregate university-wide data should not even be released. But the goal for me would not be to make any individual college be HYPS. Rather it would be to have each individual college (re-)recognized for what it actually, in reality, is.</p>

<p>Once again, this is not some revolutionary idea, this is in fact how Cornell used to report information to the guide books. Maybe the change had something to do with this US News stuff, either difficulty in disaggregation or getting more inappoporiate applications to various colleges so they could reject more applicants. But whatever the cause, IMO it was a bad decision. Anything that reduces clarity to consumers is a bad thing.</p>