ºÙºÙÊÓƵ

Dear Editor:

The recent U.S. News & World Report rankings show ºÙºÙÊÓƵ has slipped to 44th among national universities. UC Berkeley ranks 21st, and UCLA, 25th. Selectivity in admission and graduation rates are important factors. UC Berkeley, UCLA and ºÙºÙÊÓƵ show 23.3 percent, 35.2 percent and 58.6 percent, respectively, as their admission rates. For graduation at six years, the numbers are 88.9 percent and 89.2 percent for UC Berkeley and UCLA while ºÙºÙÊÓƵ lags at 80.9 percent. Tighter selectivity in admission might determine higher graduation rates.

Under the first hypothesis, ºÙºÙÊÓƵ administrators who are anxious to improve ºÙºÙÊÓƵ ranking should heed the causal relation. Under the second hypothesis, I offer an alternative based upon monetary incentives. People say that students take longer than four years to graduate for improving their GPA. Hence, instead of penalizing them with higher tuitions (a rational but unpopular avenue), I propose a monetary reward for graduating in four years with a high GPA. Figures presented next are simply examples. Students who graduate in four years with a GPA between 3.801-4.0 will receive $10,000; four years and GPA between 3.601-3.8, get $7,000; four years and GPA between 3.4-3.6, get $5,000.

Where will the money come from? It ought to be rational for ºÙºÙÊÓƵ administrators to embrace a marketing policy that asks alumni and donors to establish an "excellence" fund for this highly commendable goal.

It seems a win-win solution, and I bet a reasonable amount of money that ºÙºÙÊÓƵ' ranking would improve dramatically.

Quirino Paris

Professor

Agricultural and Resource Economics