"When we are ranked No. 1 we say how wise [the U.S. News] editors are, but when we are ranked something else we say they must be mistaken," quipped Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III.

Waiting in line to register, first-years who had recently navigated their way successfully past the nation's most selective admissions office--with a 12 percent acceptance rate and 75 percent yield--also joked about having second thoughts about attending Harvard after discovering they would not be attending the nation's top-ranked college.

The U.S. News rankings were fodder for funnies even in sports. At half time in the Harvard-Yale football game, the Eli band spelled out "#3" on the football field. Harvard supporters promptly responded by triumphing over the Elis for the second consecutive year.

Yet these jests were humorous only because many treated the low ranking as an important issue. All-time rushing leader Eion Hu '97 brought up this serious side before The Game.

"Harvard will find a way to get back on top," Hu said. "I guarantee it. We'll get more teachers, we'll get more professors. We're number one in everything except class size because [U.S. News] doesn't consider sections for class size anymore. We rank number one everywhere else."

Sinking the Titanic

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. And so fell Harvard when its ranking sank dramatically due to large class size. Twenty-one percent of its classes had more than 50 students in the 1995-96 school year, compared with 9 percent of Yale's classes and 13 percent of Princeton's, according to U.S. News.

The large classes most responsible for yanking down the ranking were Core classes, of which about 80 percent enrolled more than 50 students, according to a senior administrator. Some Cores were gargantuan--Social Analysis 10: "Principles of Economics" initially enrolled 964 students the second semester and "Literature and Arts C-37: The Bible and Its Interpreters" enrolled 953 students.

Coincidentally, the year Harvard dropped in its rankings due to class size was the same year the Core was up for review, providing a perfect opportunity for Harvard to address the root of the low ranking.

However, Director of the Core Program Susan W. Lewis said she did not believe the rankings were a significant factor in the Core review process. "I did not hear the issue of the rankings mentioned in any discussion of course size," she said.

Patricia L. Larash '97, a member of the Core Review Committee (CRC), said her committee was trying to make Harvard the best possible in the "absolute sense and not the comparative sense. If [the committee's work] happens to bump up our ratings, then that's great," Larash said.

The impetus to expand the number of classes in order to lower class size in the Core was clear; only 86 Core classes were offered in comparison to 105 the year before, causing students to pack into ever larger courses.

When the CRC presented its recommendations to the Faculty on May 20, the Faculty voted to increase Core options by allowing more departmental courses to count for Core credit and by requiring that each Core category have a minimum of six courses each semester, up from the current average of 4.3.

However, more offerings do not necessarily mean a higher ranking will follow. More choice may mean smaller courses, but as long as they are larger than 50 students, they will further depress Harvard's rating.

It Don't Mean a Thing