February 24, 2003
Polo Splits Weekend
| February 24, 2003
The men’s and women’s polo teams competed this weekend with mixed results. The men earned a tough come-from-behind 21-17 victory over Gardnertown while the women suffered their first lost of the season in a 14-12 non-league decision against Toronto.
The women have traditionally traded blows with the Toronto club team, losing to them in 2001 and winning in 2002. The stiff competition was part of head coach David Eldredge’s ’81 motivation to schedule the last minute match.
“They are a very tough group,” said Eldredge, “and they always give us a good game.”
Among the lady riders’ weak spots were positioning and foul shooting. Eldredge noted that Toronto forced his players to bunch up on several occasions.
The men also found themselves facing a tough squad climaxing with a three goal deficit at the half.
Juniors Senter Johnson and Jeff Markle, started along with senior Darren James. While the trio combined for five goals in the first chukker, Johnson and Markle encountered some issues. Cornell ended the half with just two additional goals.
“Senter and Jeff didn’t mesh well,” Eldredge said.
However, the addition of senior Jacob LeClair seemed to ignite things at the half. The Red kept pace with Gardnertown, pulling to a 13-14 score by the end of the third chukker.
The deficit didn’t matter, though, as Johnson scored a two-point shot just 20 seconds into the fourth. Cornell would not relinquish the lead for the rest of the game, ending with a score of 21-17.
Eldredge was pleased with the Gardnertown challenge, especially with UVA canceling last weekend’s match.
“It was a tough scrappy team,” he said. “It made the boys work.
However, Eldredge was also proud that his players rose to the occasion.
“They kept their heads,” he said. “They did what they needed to do.”
Archived article by Matt Janiga
We are an independent, student newspaper. Help keep us reporting with a tax-deductible donation to the Cornell Sun Alumni Association, a non-profit dedicated to aiding The Sun.
February 25, 2003
Every year a number of future Cornellians opt to take a year off before coming to Cornell. Almost any school, including Cornell, will allow accepted students to defer their acceptance for one year. There are many reasons why some choose to take a year off. Some volunteer with service organizations like the AmeriCorps or work on year-long internships. Others work full-time to save money for future college expenses. Some use the time to travel before committing to four years of rigorous studies. Elizabeth Wheaton ’04 took a year off before coming to Cornell. She worked at a fitness club, as a field hockey coach for a middle school and also at a public relations firm. Later that year, using the money she earned, she traveled to Botswana, France, and Moscow. “Africa and France were simply two places that I really wanted to visit. Since I was in Europe and I knew someone in Russia, I worked that into the trip as well,” Wheaton said. Community Service Helen Struck ’03 spent her year off as a volunteer for AmeriCorps in San Jose, C.A. Between working in an elementary school and in a gang intervention center, she didn’t have time to travel to many other places. But, “I’m from Rhode Island, so traveling to California was enough of a trip for me,” Struck said. Liz Shuford ’05 went to Hong Kong during her year off, to teach English in elementary schools. “I wasn’t excited about college. I just had the traveling bug and wanted to go and do that,” Shuford said. Is it a good idea to take a year off before entering college? Students often take advantage of the time to contemplate future decisions. “It was totally amazing, but it kind of ruins some of the novelty of freshman year here,” Shuford said. “All of my overachiever motivation from high school totally went away after a year of doing nothing,” she added. “I was unsure of some of the decisions I was making about schools. I applied to Cornell during my year off because I had deferred another school that I wasn’t psyched about. For me it was definitely the right decision,” Wheaton said. “The experience definitely changed my life. Stepping outside of the bubble that I had lived in before and learning that other people didn’t have the same ideas as me, and then ultimately a better perspective for college,” Struck said. Many administrators like to see students take that year off, since these experiences foster maturity and confidence of students before starting their academics. “Taking a year off before college allows for more time to mature, more time to think about priorities, more time to develop academic and/or career motivation, and more time to develop socially before tackling the social scene at college,” said Dr. Philip W. Meilman, director of counseling and psychological services (CAPS). However, taking a year off is not an ideal plan for all prospective college students. “It can be a good idea or not depending on the person. Each person has to assess his or her own situation individually to determine if this is the right course of action,” Meilman said. “I wish more people would take a year off. A lot of people here, despite being privileged, haven’t been exposed to a lot of the world,” Shuford said. Different students transition to Cornell in different ways. “My transition into Cornell was a breeze … I went through about a week long period where I thought that I didn’t want to go to school but that vanished quickly,” Wheaton said. In retrospect, most are glad they took the year off and experienced the world outside the Ithaca community, especially when it has helped shape the post-Cornell future. According to Struck, “It definitely defined what I wanted to do in life,” She plans to move back to California and start work on a master’s degree to complete her plans of becoming a public defender. Shuford has plans to study abroad in Singapore next semester. “It pretty much directed my academic interests now, especially in terms of the Eastern world, which you don’t really hear about in high school.” She summed up most of the deferrees’ feelings when she said, “Now I couldn’t see myself doing anything else.”Archived article by Jonathan Square
February 25, 2003
Cornell researchers are beginning to look to a computer simulation technique known as agent-based modeling, which is fueling new theories on social phenomena about everything from segregation to stock market exuberance. Sociology chair Michael W. Macy, one of three sociology professors working in the area, asks “Why do people stampede? Why did the NASDAQ run up so high? Nobody was telling people to buy stocks.” According to Macy, agent-based modeling is “a way to understand self-organizing group dynamics.” Each agent within the computer program simulates a single decision-maker, usually a person. Agents follow extremely simple rules, but their interaction with each other can result in intricate collective behavior. “People don’t need to be individually irrational to behave collectively in an irrational way,” said Prof. David Strang, sociology. This approach is unusual because the behavior emerges “bottom-up,” from interactions among individual agents, rather than “top-down” from higher authorities. Traditional top-down views of social behavior focus on the impact of institutional restrictions imposed on the entire group. For example, residential segregation has been attributed to the actions of real estate developers, banks, and other large organizations. But the game theorist Thomas Schelling, taking a bottom-up approach reminiscent of agent-based modeling, showed that little more than an individual’s fear of isolation will eventually lead to the very same segregation. Macy also drew a distinction between agent-based models and the common perception of computer simulations. Programs such as flight simulators tend to be complex, striving to recreate every detail of reality. But in agent-based models, “the rules are remarkably simple,” he said. They are intended as “tools for thought experiments,” rather than as fully accurate models of the real world. Strang has collaborated with Macy to apply these agent-based models to management. Business practices often appear to be fads — adopted one moment only to be abandoned just as quickly. The two professors co-authored an award-winning paper on this topic. “It was a surprising case where we were able to contradict conventional wisdom,” Strang said. In this case, conventional wisdom is that fads are due to managers acting in irrational or unintelligent ways. Yet “managers are very smart people and they are under tremendous pressure to get it right, to perform,” Macy said. “How do you reconcile the collective behavior, which is fad-like, with the individual behavior, which is anything but conformist?” Earlier models based on this premise of lemming-like conformity were able to explain the explosive popularity of business trends, but not the equally sudden movement away from those trends. Strang and Macy proposed a different explanation: widespread business fads can arise from the interaction of individual, intelligent managers at different companies. The professors created an agent-based model that used two key assumptions to produce fads from what seemed like rational individual behavior. First, no business practices in the model were decisively beneficial; every idea was either “worthless or only slightly worthwhile,” Strang said. Second, managers attempted to imitate the most successful businesses around them without examining the least successful. “You’re only responsive to the cases of extraordinary success around you,” Strang said. “You’re not being observant of failure.” Strang said he has performed additional research to test the applicability of the model to the real world. He found that the behavior of management teams at a major bank closely matched the model’s key assumptions. In addition to his work with Strang, Macy uses agent-based models to understand the destructive behavior of adolescents. The research, which won a grant from the National Science Foundation, examines how behaviors like underage drinking are reinforced even when most people involved hold misgivings about them. “It’s understandable [that teens drink] given all the pressure they are feeling,” Macy said, “but where is that pressure coming from?” “People’s public behavior is to pressure people to conform to the norm,” he said. “They not only drink but they participate in activities that clearly signal to others that they should participate.” Macy said such seemingly irrational behavior can again be explained from the bottom up, using agent-based models. In Macy’s model, individuals are only aware of the behavior in their own circle of friends. Given this social structure, widespread pressure can spread from a small number of “true believers,” those who genuinely wish to partake in the activity. If these “true believers” are distributed just right–not too dispersed or too clustered–a mere ten true believers in a population of 1,000 can lead to widespread adoption of behavior which most participants dislike. “The enforcers [of the behavior] are more likely to be the people trying to prove their genuineness,” Macy said. “They greatly overestimate the extent to which others enthusiastically participate,” he said, and “they don’t want to be called a poseur.” Steve Benard grad, studies political polarization with Macy. Their work shows how simple individual behavior, based entirely on perceptions of similarity to others, can lead to political polarization. “Just because society is complex doesn’t mean the rules society is built on are also complex,” Benard said. “Agent-based modeling can be a great example of the benefits of doing interdisciplinary work. It can foster communication between different disciplines that wouldn’t otherwise be taking to each other,” Bernard added. Although Macy has produced several major successes in his work, he says agent-based modeling is still a relatively unproven field. “It’s new enough that people are justifiably skeptical,” he said. The models also have some important limitations. According to Macy, computational models are limited to predictions based on given rules and starting conditions. Other, more mathematical approaches can be generalized, but models such as Macy’s and Strang’s are specific to a particular set of parameters. Nonetheless, both Strang and Macy expressed enthusiasm for the future of agent-based models. “They allow social scientists to be much more creative,” Strang said. Strang also pointed out that exponential improvements in computing power will continue to expand the capabilities of agent-based models. “It will be able to be done on a larger scale and in greater sophistication over time,” Strang said. Macy agreed. “It opens up some real exiting possibilities for the future of the social sciences,” he said. “Maybe agent models will turn out to be a fad just like the ones we study, but I doubt it.”Archived article by Peter Flynn