So the New York Times is running an article on the recent increase in guaranteed-transfer programs, and perhaps unsurprisingly given Cornell's habit of using such policies, it features Ezra's university front and center. First, there's this rather cavalier quote from Hamilton College: Monica Inzer, the dean of admission at Hamilton College in upstate New York, called the practice “borderline unethical,” saying it had the effect of recruiting students from other colleges. “We would allow a student to defer for a year, but never to matriculate full time at another college,” Ms. Inzer said. But while the practice, known as deferred admission or a guaranteed transfer option, offers applicants another shot at their dream school, it can also place them in limbo, as they start college life on a campus they plan to abandon. And it can create problems for that institution, which is not usually told about the deal the student has struck with a competitor.
I can see how a college that sees a lot of students leave to Cornell on account of guaranteed-transfer option might find the practice a bit disconcerting, but I don't know if there's anything unethical in the practice. Nowhere in a matriculation agreement does either a college or a student commit to a set period of study. And most schools plan for a set amount of transfer-outs, drop-outs, and transfer-ins every year.
It is unfortunate, however, that the schools that educate a lot of Cornell's guaranteed transfers -- perhaps SUNY Binghamton, Geneso, and maybe even Hamilton -- are hurt in terms of the rankings on account of the policy. Guaranteed transfers necessarily reduce their graduation rates, and these colleges have done nothing wrong except to admit and educate students who want to go to Cornell.
Cornell's interest in the program is really four-fold, in descending levels of earnestness:
