REPORTS of schools breaching National Collegiate Athletic Association rules have become quite commonplace. These infringements almost always occur in college football and basketball, the two most profitable college sports. Most commonly, the violations take place when schools are found to have either given improper benefits directly to their players or to have not disclosed the fact that boosters and other outside donors awarded improper benefits to their players.

The stunning number of recent rules violations in college sports has led many writers and analysts to declare that undergraduate athletes should just be paid. The NCAA currently outlaws this. Although having universities directly pay their players is not the right decision, there nevertheless should be rule changes that allow some players to receive well-deserved financial compensation from non-school sources.

Proponents of directly paying college athletes cite the fact that college football and basketball players help to generate large amounts of revenue for their schools. To be sure, these two college sports have evolved into huge businesses where the most financially successful programs rake in massive profits. Texas, for example, reported profits of nearly $69 million for its 2009-2010 football season. Louisville earned almost $17 million from its basketball program that same year.

The athletes themselves greatly contribute to the generating of these large profits. Historically, great football and basketball schools have owed much of their brand images to their athletes. Thus, it seems unfair that the players do not get a share of the profits they helped generate.

To have a school directly pay its players, however, is still excessive, especially when one considers all that college athletes currently receive from schools. Improper or future monetary benefits aside, the best college athletes essentially do get paid. Those who are on scholarship receive a free education. If the athlete normally would pay out-of-state tuition to attend college, that could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars of compensation. And it should not be forgotten that the ultimate goal of higher education is to provide an education. Any athlete on scholarship, therefore, is receiving something of great value to which many people never have access.

Moreover, college athletes do not have to pay for their uniforms, gear, flights or any other expense that is associated with their being on the team. They have access to the best training facilities and staff. Food, books, tutoring and housing all can be provided free of charge by their schools. Furthermore, athletes receive many random perks for participating in various games or tournaments. Basketball players at the University, for instance, receive complimentary gifts for their participation in the Maui Invitational tournament.

Current regulations also prohibit undergraduate athletes from receiving money in forms other than their scholarships. This includes any business or endorsement deals involving the athletes. This is where the NCAA needs to reevaluate its rules. Income to athletes provided by institutions or individuals outside of the athlete’s school should be allowed. Athletes should not be forced to abide by different rules than other college students who produce goods or services that may earn them financial compensation. Amateur musicians or artists are free to earn money from their crafts — why should athletes be treated differently?

The truth of the matter is that college athletes are still normal college students. True, their status as athletes may give them more celebrity status than the ordinary college student. Nevertheless, this does not give schools the right to bar their athletes from seeking external compensation for their work. The selling of autographs and personal items by athletes should be permitted. An athlete should be free to receive a share of the revenue generated by the sale of his jersey. If a college is to earn money selling items related to its athletes, it only makes sense that the athletes themselves should be allowed to earn a portion of the profits.

The band members of Radiohead and Coldplay started playing gigs together in college. Emma Watson is returning to Brown University amid the continued success of the Harry Potter films. Yet nobody would view any outside funding of these people to be wrong. Only college athletes are at risk of being punished unfairly for receiving monetary benefits from out-of-school admirers.

Alex Yahanda’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at a.yahanda@cavalierdaily.com.

I THINK it is fair to surmise that many of you are either subscribers to or have heard of Netflix, the DVD-by-mail and video streaming movie service. I am a big fan of the service. Yet one now has to pay $7.99 a month for either the DVD mail-order service or the video-streaming service, even though both services together used to cost less than ten bucks!

I had once thought of Netflix as a company that was not trying to squeeze every last dime out of me. The type of deal that Netflix previously offered spoke especially to me as a college student. I did not want to pay some exorbitant fee for a movie service when I could access other methods of movie watching for much less.

That brings me to my next thought: quality movie service. Many of you are probably also familiar with the well-known movie provider Blockbuster. Apparently Blockbuster received a lot of flack for its unreasonable late fees so it came up with the clever ad slogan “No More Late Fees” back in 2005. The only catch? Although most stores participated in the new system, franchises had the option to either implement it or opt out of it. I quit Blockbuster when I realized it did not really care about its customers, tried to gouge their pockets and made renting a movie too inconvenient.

Why do I bring up Blockbuster? Netflix is starting to look a little like its corporate counterpart. Initially, it was a small upstart company cofounded in 1998 by CEO Reed Hastings. It had fewer than 9 million subscribers in 2008 when it introduced its video streaming directly to customers’ televisions. In November 2010, it launched its streaming-only service and the company grew to an astounding 23 million users and was expected to reach 30 million by the end of this year. Media executives and investors alike expressed their astonishment, discontent and even anger about Netflix’s success. Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes, for example, accused Netflix of trying to “take over the world.”

It is remarkable that a company that redistributes the entertainment material of other companies through a low-fee subscription managed to wipe out the competition. Jonathon Knee, an investment banker and director of the media program at Columbia Business School, praised Netflix as a company that actually “takes pride in operating efficiency and its customer focus.” Netflix built up a devoted and loyal following that certainly showed no sign of letting up.

Netflix allegedly prides itself on its relationship with its customers and pays attention to customer feedback. Yet in July, the company announced a price hike without first alerting its millions of subscribers. On Sept. 18, Hastings issued an apology on The Netflix Blog for not consulting or even warning customers of a potential price hike. To make matters worse, he announced a split between the company’s Internet-streaming service and its DVD-by-mail service. Customers now are required to pay separately for each service instead of having the option of a combined service. Meanwhile, the DVD-by-mail service is not retaining the Netflix logo on its signature red envelops. It will feature the name “Quickster” instead.

One of Netflix’s crowning achievements was that it was simple to use. Yet Hastings is sticking to his guns by claiming that “another advantage of separate websites is simplicity for our members.” No, I am afraid many customers do not quite see it that way. Rather, Hastings’ explanation amounts to politically sidestepping the fact that his company is engaging in a price hike while making its service more difficult to use. The company is now losing disgruntled customers right and left — an estimated one million customers have abandoned it since its first announcement in July. This has cost the company about $8 billion of its worth.

Besides letting down its customers, Netflix is setting itself up for failure. If streaming really is the future, it may not be wise for the company’s leadership to separate its streaming service from its DVD service. Let’s face it — the movies one can stream on Netflix are rather lacking in terms of diversity. The DVD service, on the other hand, more than compensates for what is lacking in the streaming service. There are a lot of other companies out there such as Apple, Hulu and our old friend Blockbuster waiting with bated breath for the moment Netflix no longer commands the streaming market.

Time and time again we see a classic story played out: A corporation gets too big for its britches, expands too quickly and soon forgets the customers that helped bring the company its original success. Then the neglected and loyal subscribers fall by the wayside. So do us all a favor, Reed. If you do not want to end up like all the rest of your insensitive, detached corporate counterparts, start listening to your customers. I have a feeling you will find quite a lot of wisdom there.

Devon Darrow is a Viewpoint writer for The Cavalier Daily.

WITHOUT question, access to a higher education is of the utmost value in this country. This is true not only for those students who choose to participate in it, but for the nation as a whole. In a recent speech at the Miller Center of Public Affairs, University President Teresa A. Sullivan claimed that institutions like the University play a vital role in jump-starting the economy. They offer avenues in research and innovation at a time when “university-based inventions contributed $450 billion to U.S. gross industrial output and created 280,000 new high-tech jobs between 1999 and 2007,” according to a survey by the Association of American Universities.

Higher education prepares the next generation of thinkers, businesspeople, architects, educators and the like to take on the problems that do not even exist in our country just yet. It is unfortunate, however, that many children in this country cannot even dream of accessing such an education. There is an opportunity gap in this country, and it is defined not only by socioeconomic lines but also by legal lines.

Nearly a year has passed since Congress last voted on the U.S. Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors or DREAM Act. The DREAM Act, first brought to the Senate on August 1, 2001 and reintroduced in several forms since then, would have given undocumented students the opportunity to either attend a U.S. college or enlist in the U.S. military.

Ever since the 1982 Supreme Court case Plyer v. Doe, undocumented students have been given the opportunity to attend K-12 public schools throughout the country. A problem arises, though, when these students graduate high school and wish to attend college. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, as well as many individual state statutes, bar these students from scholarships, financial aid and even enrollment in public universities.

The DREAM Act would have opened up the doors for undocumented K-12 students to come to places like the University, particularly when so many of these children were brought to the United States without any choice in the matter. As a Cavalier Daily article, “Living the DREAM” (December 3, 2010) put it, “The United States is the only home they have ever known.”

Next month also marks the anniversary of the “Dare to DREAM Campaign,” a student movement at the University. In October 2010, after groups at both public and private universities — from the University of California, Los Angeles to Harvard University — came out in support of the DREAM Act, the Latino Student Alliance sought to build a movement of support at the University, and gain public endorsement of the Act by the University administration.

Throughout October and November 2010, the Latino Student Alliance, with the help of groups such as the Living Wage Campaign, held a silent march in support of the Act, and led a petition drive which gained the support of 2,600 University students.

On Nov. 16, I was glad to cosponsor a Student Council bill in support of the DREAM Act in my capacity as vice president for organizations. I am more than happy to continue being a part of this movement today with the Minority Rights Coalition. Though the DREAM Act failed to pass a Senate vote in December 2010, the issue of closing the opportunity gap for undocumented students in this country remains just as significant today.

On Monday, Oct. 3, at 7:00 PM in 101 Nau Hall, the Latino Student Alliance is hosting a forum, “Still DREAMing” in cosponsorship with the Minority Rights Coalition and 10 other student organizations. The event will include a panel of undocumented high school students from the local Southwood Community who would benefit from the DREAM Act, as well as Tim Freilich, an immigrant advocacy lawyer at the Legal Aid Justice Center in Charlottesville. Whether you agree or disagree with comprehensive immigration reform along the lines of the DREAM Act, I still encourage you to attend and bring your thoughts and opinions to the event.

Evan Shields is the chair of the Minority Rights Coalition.

Junior forward Caroline Miller earned ACC Women’s Soccer Player of the Week honors after her golden goal in double overtime gave Virginia a 1-0 victory at No. 5 North Carolina. Photo by Thomas Bynum

The No. 7 Virginia women’s soccer team looks to continue its winning ways tonight when it travels to Durham, N.C., to face No. 4 Duke. The Cavaliers (8-2-1, 2-1 ACC) are arguably coming off their most exciting win of the season after beating another ACC rival, No. 5 North Carolina, 1-0 in double overtime on a golden goal by junior forward Caroline Miller.

Riding a seven-game winning streak, the red-hot Blue Devils (11-1-0, 3-0 ACC) enter tonight’s matchup having beaten conference opponents Clemson, Miami and Florida State in their past three games. Despite its breathtaking victory against the Tar Heels Sunday, Virginia has traveled a comparatively bumpier road during the past few weeks of play. After starting the season with their own seven-game winning streak, the Cavaliers have since stumbled to a subpar 2-2-1 record and failed to win consecutive games.

“It’s different competition,” Miller said. “Everyone has those games that it’s just not your day, but you always have to be on your game, so that’s not really an excuse. We just really need to work at finishing those easy chances because against better teams — against UNC, Duke and Wake — we’re not going to get those as often.”

Miller took home this week’s ACC Women’s Soccer Player of the Week honors after her game-winner in Chapel Hill helped Virginia rebound from a tough 2-0 defeat at Boston College. With her 10th goal in 11 games so far this year, Miller became the second-fastest player in program history to reach double-digit goals in a season. Record-holder Angela Hucles, who has won two Olympic Gold medals and two World Cups with the United States national team, accomplished the feat during the first nine games of the 1997 season for the Cavaliers. Miller’s 10 goals also rank second in the conference.

Virginia hopes to compile a winning record from its four-game road trip and climb a few more rungs on the conference ladder. After their two remaining road tilts at Duke tonight and No. 6 Wake Forest Sunday, the Cavaliers play four of their last five games at home, and the coaching staff has stressed the importance of competing in a hostile environment prior to the home stretch.
“[Playing on the road] is good for us,” coach Steve Swanson said. “We have to get used to playing on the road, so it was a good time to get out there. We haven’t been on the road since we went to Michigan for seven days. All those things — getting on a plane, getting on a bus, playing in a different venue, dealing with the away fans — they’re all part of the process.”

Duke’s sole loss this season occurred Sept. 2 against Auburn, a 1-0 defeat during the first game of the Auburn Tournament. The Blue Devils remain unbeaten in conference play and have tallied 20 goals while only surrendering three during their winning streak. Freshman forward Kelly Cobb anchors the stellar Duke offense and leads the team with eight goals, including five game-winners, and six assists this season.

Virginia counters with an equally impressive balance of offense and defense. The Cavalier attack’s average of three goals per game leads the ACC and ranks seventh in the country. At the other end of the pitch, Virginia has allowed just nine goals on the year. Senior goalkeeper Chantel Jones will earn her sixth shutout this season if she and the backfield can contain Cobb and sophomore forward Mollie Pathman, whose five assists for Duke rank second on the squad.

Tonight’s game has great ACC implications as both teams reach the midpoint of their conference schedules. Virginia currently ranks fourth in the ACC standings while Duke sits atop the conference and is tied with Wake Forest and Boston College in conference wins. A Virginia win would bring the team level with Duke in the always-strong ACC, which boasts seven nationally-ranked teams.
Kickoff at Koskinen Stadium is slated for 8 p.m. The game will be broadcast by Comcast SportsNet in Virginia.

Virginia coach Lee Maes addressed his players’ recent struggles during an atypical post-game meeting last weekend. Photo courtesy Virginia Athletics

After dropping its first three ACC matchups, the Virginia volleyball team faces two more conference competitors this weekend. The Cavaliers are on a four-game losing streak and travel to Maryland Friday and Boston College Sunday in search of their first regular season win.

Last weekend, Virginia (6-7, 0-3 ACC) lost in straight sets to Florida State and Miami, teams that currently rank second and third, respectively, in the conference.

The Cavaliers held tight during several sets against each team, but ultimately lost their matches’ decisive points.

“After that, we told our team that we’re always going to be a work in progress,” coach Lee Maes said. “We just didn’t expect that we’ve gotten to a point here in the ACC where we are continually making the same mistakes that we had a week earlier.”

The Cavaliers are not only repeating their mistakes but are also backpedaling from their season’s earlier success. Virginia finished 6-3 in tournament play but dropped its next four matches.
Friday night, Virginia will look to regain its footing against Maryland. And while the Cavaliers may have floundered recently, the Terrapins (8-7, 2-1 ACC) come off a dominating win against N.C. State, in which they tallied 41 kills.

Last year, Virginia split two matches against Maryland, winning at College Park but then losing later during the season at home.

Sunday, the Cavaliers take on the only other team without a conference win, Boston College (4-10, 0-3 ACC). The Eagles have dropped in straight sets to North Carolina, N.C. State and Maryland this year. Last year, Virginia celebrated its senior day by sweeping the Eagles, handing Boston College its 15th straight conference loss of the season.

As a team that currently sits in its conference cellar, however, Virginia will not look past Boston College solely because of its record.

“I think all of us just want to win; we’re going to want to do anything we can to win this week,” freshman right side hitter Tori Janowski said. “I definitely expect both the teams to be just as good as the teams we played this weekend so we’re not going to treat them any differently.”

Virginia has adopted a ‘win at all costs’ mentality because the team realizes that an early conference hole is not insurmountable. Consequently, the Cavaliers refuse to feel down about their rough stretch, knowing victories can always jumpstart success.

“I’m not so much worried about the morale — I’m worried more about identifying what we can improve and the morale is going to take care of itself,” Maes said. “We know that they’re going to feel good about the improvements and knowing that it’s going to give us an opportunity to compete against Maryland and Boston College.”

If you’ve paid attention to college football’s conference realignment headlines during the last two weeks, you probably have heard the following rumors:

Texas A&M to the SEC; Texas A&M back to the Big-12; Texas A&M actually to the SEC; Texas and Texas Tech to the PAC-12; Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the PAC-12; Texas and Texas Tech to the ACC; West Virginia to the ACC; West Virginia to the SEC; West Virginia to absolutely nowhere; Syracuse and Pitt to the ACC; Notre Dame and Penn State to the ACC; UConn and Rutgers to the ACC; Missouri to the SEC; A hybrid super-conference of the Big-12 and Big East remnants; a 22-team hybrid super-conference of the Mountain West and Conference USA; and BYU, Louisville, West Virginia and Cincinnati to the Big-12.

Some of the rumors turned out to be true. The rest? Not so much. But the realignment rumors all have one thing in common — nearly all of them are utterly ridiculous.

I’m not opposed to conference realignment. I’m not even opposed to colleges trying to make as much money as they possibly can. But what I am opposed to is stupidity. Texas to the ACC doesn’t even begin to make a modicum of sense. It’s laughable. Missouri to the SEC doesn’t really make sense either — other than Blaine Gabbert, when’s the last time you’ve heard of a single college football player who went to Missouri? Moving conferences because you can or because you think everybody else is doing it is a really bad idea.

There are legitimate reasons for realignment. Some schools don’t really fit in the conferences they currently call home. Before the ACC added Syracuse and Pittsburgh, I’d argue that Boston College doesn’t really fit with the rest of the conference. West Virginia in the Big East stopped making sense the minute Virginia Tech left. TCU doesn’t really belong in the Big East, and the Horned Frogs should immediately start shopping for a new conference.

Similarly, some schools would be better fits in other conferences. The additions of Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State to the SEC would create the most powerful college football conference in the country. The conference could boast 10 of the last 13 national championship winners, and every single conference game would constitute a “must-watch” matchup. West Virginia probably does belong in the ACC geographically and football-wise, even if its academic reputation is less than stellar — and certainly is not helped by the school’s “Mountain Man” mascot.

Conference realignment also brings us one step closer to the fleeting dream of every college football fan in America — a playoff that crowns the national champion. In two to three years, what’s to stop the four, 16-team conferences that will matter in football — the ACC, SEC, Pac-12 and Big-10 — from simply saying no to the BCS, creating their own post-season tournament and splitting participation and revenues between the conferences? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Conference realignment could create such a college football utopia, but right now we’re not seeing any of these positive benefits. All we’re seeing is a bunch of grown men trying not to be the one left standing in a game of musical chairs involving hundreds of millions of dollars.

In this high-stress, high-stakes environment, the lemming-like mentality almost makes sense. At the end of the day, however, the academic and financial executives making the decisions on conference realignment are, paradoxically, self-interested pragmatists and professional speculators — both traits are practically in the job description. In their hands, conference realignment can be a positive force in college football — if they don’t screw it up first.

Danny Schmidt says he will not stop walking home late at night, despite what he calls a “lack of security.” Photo by Thomas Bynum

Fourth-year College student Danny Schmidt reported being robbed at gunpoint early Wednesday while walking home from the library around 2 a.m.

Schmidt was walking north on Rugby Road near Grady Avenue behind three black males, according to the Charlottesville Police press release. As he approached the intersection of Grady Avenue, two of the suspects turned and began doubling back toward Schmidt. One withdrew a personal firearm, directed it at Schmidt, and told him to “give me all your [expletive].”

Schmidt described the suspect wielding the handgun as a black male between the ages of 20 and 25 years old, 6-foot-2 to 6-foot-3 and 180 to 190 pounds with a light complexion. He described the second suspect as 20 to 25 years old, about 6-feet tall and 170 to 180 pounds, with a darker complexion. Both suspects were wearing dark-colored clothing at the time of the armed robbery.

An undisclosed amount of cash and personal items were stolen from the victim.

Schmidt did not speak with University Police, but did contact the Charlottesville Police Department shortly after the robbery. He expressed his concerns that Charlottesville Police did not seem to be overly surprised by the occurrence of an armed robbery in a relatively public setting with close proximity to Grounds.

“I think it’s preposterous that we should feel unsafe walking along a highly populated, well-lit area on a Tuesday night,” Schmidt said. “I’ve never really thought of Charlottesville as a dangerous area, particularly the area immediately surrounding the University … but the lack of security wasn’t as apparent until last night.”

Schmidt said he will not stop walking home at night alone, despite his experience yesterday.

“I’ve gone over three years now walking alone late at night with no incident, and statistically I’m doubtful to ever be a victim again, but that doesn’t mean the threat isn’t still there,” he said.

In an email sent to all University faculty and students, University Police Chief Michael Gibson said the Charlottesville-Albermarle-University area is a safe community, but crime does occur. He reminded all members of the community to confine themselves to well-lighted streets while walking at night. He also encouraged people to travel in small groups for maximum safety and to avoid taking shortcuts through deserted areas.

In the case of a robbery, Gibson advised the community to cooperate fully with the perpetrator while avoiding any sudden movements. Individuals should take careful notes of any distinct physical features or clothing to file a detailed witness report, Gibson said. Police should be notified immediately after a crime occurs.

University Police are encouraging any individuals who may have knowledge or information related to this incident to call Crime Stoppers at 434-977-4000.

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello addressed University Democrats yesterday. Photo by Thomas Bynum

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Perriello addressed University Democrats yesterday, discussing his career and political involvement since losing to Rep. Robert Hurt, R-Charlottesville, in last November’s House race.

Shortly after his defeat, Perriello flew to Qatar. He worked on Darfur peace talks and, during the Tahrir Square demonstrations in Egypt, spent 12 hours detained in Cairo before getting released.
“If they were willing to do that to an American, imagine what they were doing with Egyptian citizens,” he said. “And they are doing that today in Syria.”

Relating the political struggles of today to those of the past, Perriello discussed his experience of preparing for college when the Berlin Wall fell and communism was coming to an end.

“Everyone wanted to be like us,” he said of the American capitalist system. “We had it all figured out.”

But Perriello also acknowledged that the globe no longer looks to emulate America today as it did in the past.

“You live in a moment in history where these questions are open,” Perriello said.

Looking to the future, Perriello challenged the audience to affect change at a grassroots level.

“Sometimes at universities, you’re asked to think too globally,” Perriello said. More often than not, the “things that really matter on the kitchen table” he said, are most directly controlled on the state and local levels.

He provided such examples as education, crime and workforce regulations.

“Because so few people vote [at local levels], the effect you’re going to have is 20 to 30 times more,” he said.

Bringing his point closer to home, he reminded students, “You guys have this amazing power: who is going to control the Senate seat.” Whether one is a Democrat or truly believes in the power of bipartisanship, he said, voting in the November Senate election is significant.

University Democrats President Rex Young applauded Perriello for bringing a knowledgeable discussion to the University.

“He actually knows his policy, knows the issues and knows how to make change in people,” Young said.

Perriello closed by reminding students they are “far more empowered” to make a difference in the political process now as students attending “one of the best, or should I say ‘the best’” universities in the nation.

“Never forget how incredibly powerful you are no matter what background you come from,” he concluded.

Schools which follow a threat assessment model developed by Education School professors at the University experience significantly less bullying and fewer suspensions, a recent study found. The effort was spearheaded by Prof. Dewey Cornell and former University faculty Xipao Fan and Anne Gregory.

The study found that schools using the threat assessment showed a 79 percent reduction in bullying infractions and a 52 percent reduction in long-term suspensions.

It will be published in the next issue of The National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin.

Cornell, associate director of Youth-Nex, the University Center to Promote Effective Youth Development, conducted the study to measure the effectiveness of the threat assessment model he developed 10 years ago after examining how schools dealt with student threats.

The model also took into account recommendations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Secret Service, said Ellen Daniels, the web and outreach communication specialist for the University’s Education School.

Cornell said the threat assessment model allows schools to “develop consequences that fit the seriousness of [the student’s] behavior,” rather than toying with a zero tolerance model, which imposes automatic suspension on students for certain types of infractions and tends to lead to increased suspensions in the long term.

Rather than criminalizing student behavior, “threat assessment gives schools an alternative to automatic suspension by giving schools a way to look at student behavior to evaluate how serious it is, then take other kinds of action,” Cornell said.

The study looked at 23 Fairfax County high schools from 2006 to 2009 and compared the number of suspension and bullying rates before and after the implementation of the threat assessment model to assess its effectiveness.

Mary Ann Panarelli, director of the office of intervention and prevention services for Fairfax County Public Schools, said she adheres to both the threat assessment and discipline guidelines in her school system.

“We have implemented both at a policy level and we train our administrators, psychologists and social workers on how to follow the threat assessment protocol,” Paranelli said, “But our policy explicitly states that the threat assessment protocol is different from the discipline aspect [which is implemented by the principal].”

Despite the threat assessment model’s observable effectiveness, its flaws include a dependability on the resources of the school. Cornell added that the guidelines “don’t cover every circumstance that may occur in a school.”

U.S. News & World Report said Friday it will not adopt the National Association for College Admissions Counseling recommendations to reconstruct the way U.S. News ranks schools when developing the Top 25 Universities list.

NACAC proposed three fundamental changes to the methodology U.S. News uses to rank top colleges and universities, including removing SAT and ACT score and class rank in the rankings, de-emphasizing the reputation of schools and allowing students to weigh the statistics individually through college counseling.

David Hawkins, director of publicity, policy and research at NACAC, attributed U.S. News’ intransigence to the “brand” U.S. News has created for itself in its way of ranking. By changing the rubric, the consistency of the rankings and methodology would change drastically.

Hawkins said the report was a culmination of two years of research seeking a way to better the system that U.S. News employs to rank the top 25 colleges and universities. He believes the company should stop considering test scores.

“SAT and ACT scores are not measures of institutional quality but of student ability,” he said.

U.S. News, which ranks the University as the 25th best school in the nation, also rejected NACAC’s suggestion that it place less emphasis on the ‘reputation’ survey, which makes up about one quarter of the ranking.

The survey asks members of different universities and colleges for their opinions of other institutions. By ranking this way, he said, it creates a sort of “beauty pageant.”

The third major recommendation, Hawkins said, was for U.S. News to allow students and families to weigh the importance of different issues independently based on the statistics that U.S. News provides. This would enable students to have their own personalized rankings.

University Dean of Admissions Greg Roberts said the choice of a school should be a personal one.

“Choosing a school should be based on many factors,” he said. “I don’t think college rankings like U.S. News can tell a student what it’s really like to be a student at any school.”

Hawkins added that the changes would help prospective students gain a better understanding of different colleges and universities.

“[U.S. News] ranking creates a static picture of something that is absolutely in flux,” Hawkins said.