<p>LK says: Yet, relying on stats is way more objective and reliable than relying on ‘softs’. Think about it. </p>
<p>More objective, by definition. More reliable, questionable.</p>
<p>Never said stats shouldn’t be used…your stats will get you in the conversation but your essays, letters of rec, & excellence and leadership shown through your EC’s will then go a long way to determine your admit. Thus it seems a 2100 stands nearly as good a chance as a 2300 (for most programs), but a 1900 doesn’t stand nearly as good a chance as a 2100.</p>
<p>“Thus it seems a 2100 stands nearly as good a chance as a 2300 (for most programs), but a 1900 doesn’t stand nearly as good a chance as a 2100.”</p>
<p>I personally think it’s funny that the day I enrolled at Cornell, these 4-digit numbers became a mere discussion bit instead of meaning anything. Comforting, really, but hard to make a rising senior feel that way.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, but the 1900 scorer can go to their local CC, destroy the CC, and transfer the next year. Transfer admissions should NOT be easier than freshman admissions. </p>
<p>To go back to the original post, I think Cornell should be working to improve its branding. I get the feeling, at least on College Confidential, that Cornell is the school that values vague concepts like “passion,” a haven for all those who suck on objective measures. I wish this were not Cornell’s image.</p>
<p>csdad, totally agree. </p>
<p>Lazy: you stated that law school is where one learns critical and analytical skills. I simply stated one should have evidence of these to get into a top college, as a freshman. Uh, I have also said these are factors assessed by adcoms. Getting an A in a class or having a 4.0 is NOT hard evidence of critical thinking- other elements of the app can show that, whether or not you call them “soft.”</p>
<p>Also, Lazy: if I say, “One kid’s 4.0 at an easier hs is often less significant than another kid’s 3.5 at a rigorous one, with a rigorous curriculum,” how do you turn that into “relying on stats is way more objective?” My point was that it is not easy to compare that 4.0 against a 3.5 without qualitative info about each hs. Think about it. </p>
<p>Transfer admissions meets a school’s own instutional needs. Starts with filling empty seats. You can look at some info from the Jack Kent Cooke fdn, which supports targeted transfer students at Cornell or this small blurb, from the Chronicle of Higher Ed: <a href=“http://www.nerche.org/images/stories/Chronicle_of_Higher_Education_Low_Income_Community_College_Students_Find_Success_at_Selective_Four-Year_Colleges.pdf[/url]”>http://www.nerche.org/images/stories/Chronicle_of_Higher_Education_Low_Income_Community_College_Students_Find_Success_at_Selective_Four-Year_Colleges.pdf</a></p>
<p>If you dig into Cornell’s discussions of this, they have intersting reasons they support the NY State GT program, including their own founding as a land-grant institution, way back when.</p>
<p>Wong- LOL about D1 doing math competitions. I am an Asian mom, but there was no way she would have done anything like that. When she was doing her finance interviews, I asked her if she was ready. She said, “No worries, I have my outfit picked out already.” the first few years of college, whenever she walked into her math class, most people would assume she was in a wrong class.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@norcalguy
And here I thought that you hated me for bashing the transfer process; it seems we do share some views.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in my “Cornell’s backdoor way in” thread, the transfer process is WAY too lenient. Cornell basically accepts 2.5, 1700 scorers who literally BOMBED high school just because they got a 3.8+ in a community college (which honestly isn’t that hard to do). Looking at all the transfer chances threads here, I’m ashamed that so many guys think they have a shot at Cornell just because they got their act together after realizing they had a dim future due to all the partying in high school. And yet, Cornell is so forgiving. Half of these guys are accepted. </p>
<p>Looking at the transfer acceptance rates by college, only COE and CAS are reasonable. Some of the state schools have rates of up to 45% (don’t give me that GT argument cause even without them it’d be much higher than the freshman rate). Not to mention freshman applicants are competing with other ivy league quality students while transfer applicants are competing mainly with other cc and state school applicants.</p>
<p>Bottom line is, like norcalguy stated, the best of the best in Cornell can go head-to-head with the best of the best in any other ivy league school. The problem is that Cornell just has a disproportionate amount of underqualifiers whos best accomplishment will probably end up being getting into Cornell.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You WOULD say that being a transfer. I’m not saying you’re one of those underqualified transfers (I’m not going to dig through your chances threads, if any). What I AM saying is that all those people who aren’t smart enough end up hurting the overall reputation of the school, which ****es off all the people who worked hard during high school. </p>
<p>For example, one girl I know basically partied all 4 years of high school, bombed her SATs, graduated bottom half of her class, but somehow got in. A lot of people who knew her now considers Cornell a mediocre school that anyone can get into, which ****es me off cause I worked hard for my scores, and yet people associate me with her. </p>
<p>Multiply that case by 1000, and you can see that it slowly but surely does impact Cornell’s branding once these unqualified applicants barely manage to graduate and end up unemployed for years.</p>
<p>Honestly, I know SAT scores and GPA shouldn’t be the only indicators admissions look at, but I feel as if Cornell’s going overboard with the whole “fit” thing and doesn’t look at it enough. I’m honestly shocked at the number of people who just don’t care in my classes and the number of transfers I meet (most of them from CC’s and State U’s). </p>
<p>Cornell needs to seriously buff up its selectivity if it wants to better its image and quality. But considering they probably couldn’t care less about what I’m saying and the fact that they’re actually trying to INCREASE acceptances/enrollment, I don’t see it happening anytime in the near future.</p>
<p>What does it matter how transfer students got into Cornell? One could be just as bitter about during regular admission there are legacies, athletes, URM, major donors… who got in with lower stats. Schools like HYPS and other highly ranked schools have very high level admits of those applicants with hooks, but those schools are still highly regarded. Once those students graduated, no one ever wonder, “oh, you were admitted to Harvard because you were a (dumb) jock.” </p>
<p>My daughter got a very good education at Cornell despite all the applicants who were admitted with special hooks or with high number of transfers. Just FYI - admittance rate for CAS and CoE transfers is lower than regular admission.</p>
<p>Admission to a college is not a trophy to award someone for hard work in high school. I get a sense that many feel bitter toward other students who didn’t have to work as hard in getting into Cornell. Part of growing up is not to always worry about what other people have.</p>
<p>Let’s not ruin this topic by mentioning law school admissions. Those are pretty bad in their own right; and besides, law school isn’t undergraduate college.</p>
<p>“Part of growing up is not to always worry about what other people have.”</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s that, but rather that the reputation and worth of your degree is determined largely by the success of your fellow graduates. It’s like saying they don’t want someone physically slow on their relay team. It makes logical sense, but they are probably overreacting since they are mostly members of CoE and CAS.</p>
<p>I’m not jealous about some backdoor at Cornell. I worked hard at Cornell, I worked hard in med school, I receive my MD in less than a year. I’m happy with my life and I’m happy with working hard.</p>
<p>This is about protecting the integrity of Cornell. I don’t think anyone would disagree that Cornell has a reputation, at least on this message board, of taking less academically successful kids than peer institutions (Cornell apologists euphemistically say that Cornell values interest/passion but whatever). I simply don’t think people with SAT scores below 2000 really belong at an Ivy League institution. I don’t think they will be as successful as if they were at a different institution. A Cornell adcom saying that SAT scores are only used for “screening” and that 650 in each section is what they’re looking for really sends the wrong message that someone with a 1960 has as good a chance as someone with a 2290. That should NOT be the case. </p>
<p>And this does affect Cornell’s perception. I’ve heard, for example, many times that Cornell isn’t a great premed school because its med school acceptance rate is “only” 68%. I have no proof but I think a lot of this is due to transfers who couldn’t cut it in premed. I have personally seen transfers who attended a CC, got 3.8 for two years, come to Cornell and absolutely TANK. But, because med schools average your GPA together, these people still have a marginal overall GPA (and probably marginal MCAT) and apply to med school anyway. In contrast, Cornell freshmen who entered Cornell and got a 2.8 immediately realized that they weren’t cut out for medicine and switch to another career and never get factored into the med school acceptance rate. These sorts of things really paint Cornell as inferior when I think it’s a really really great school.</p>
<p>Maybe it’s just me, but I can’t believe some continue to argue based on, “I know someone who…” IMO, that’s not enough to convince people Cornell should change it’s policy. </p>
<p>Out of 3771 matriculating in Fall 2010, 542 were external transfers. In places, Cornell states 1/3 of it’s transfers are from the GT (guar transfer, from select cc’s.) I suppose it could vary, year to year. But, it could mean less than 200, among the 3771 who started in Fall 2010 are “back-door” bombers. But, let’s not assume all were bombers- many kids are forced to cc for a variety of socio-economic reasons.</p>
<p>I would love to see Cornell release data on transfer GPA vs. regular admit GPA. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s going to happen. When you don’t have top quality evidence, you have to go to the next level of evidence. </p>
<p>I’m using transfers as an example because transfers in general had lower SAT scorers than regular admits (Cornell receives very few transfers from peer institutions). What I’m speaking to is the lack of value placed on objective metrics in general by Cornell admissions. It’s costly when you look at the post-grad results of Cornell graduates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To me, getting A’s in AP Physics, AP Calc, AP English, with 2300 SAT to boot is a FAR better indicator of a person’s thinking skills than becoming the president of a random club, or being the captain of a varsity volleyball team at high school. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Admitting a 4.0 from an easier high school is still more objective than admitting a guy who happened to be the president of a bunch of random clubs. Going into ec’s, how do you know which extra curricular activity is more deserving of attention? And, how do you know if a person sought such activities to truly accomplish great things, as opposed to some who may engage in activities in order to sugar-coat his applications to colleges?</p>
<p>For example, to me, a guy who has done a serious math/science research at a local university and helped publish the professors the research output is a FAR more impressive extra curricular activity, than say, a guy who was the president of the Mexican American Spanish Language Club with 4 members in it. There is a larger margin of variance, subjectivity, error, and uncertainty when evaluating an applicant’s extra curricular, compared to others’ activities. Is using the SAT and GPA the perfect measure of admission criteria? Maybe not. Yet, all I am saying is that it is way more objective and reliable, and has higher correlation to a student’s academic aptitude which should be the most important factor of a person’s ability to succeed at a top college.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What I am proposing is not that extra curriculars not be considered, yet, be considered much less compared to academic credentials. Extra curriculars should serve as complementing an applicant’s application, not substitute academic deficiencies. A difference of even 100 points on SAT is very big, and it really shouldn’t be the case that anyone should be getting in with 2100 SAT over 2300 SAT, no matter what the softs are.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Anecdotes coming from a primary source help further the evidence of an issue. Norcalguy is a Cornell alum, who took a bunch of courses in premed (that are curved) and encountered many types of students. From his observation, transfer students are sub-par. Btw, are you a Cornell student? If you are, I would be interested to see you offer a different argument, based on your experience, on this matter.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t believe these dummies are getting into Cornell via backdoor, when the valedictorian from my high school was rejected for some b.s. reason. I really think Cornell is doing itself a serious disservice by implementing admissions policies that are in place now. Modify the freshmen admissions, and (maybe) get rid of the transfer admissions entirely.</p>
<p>I don’t think there’s need to eliminate the transfer system entirely. But, I do think there’s no reason to be taking hundreds and hundreds of transfers. Eliminate guaranteed transfers. If they really want to go to Cornell, they’ll reapply after a year. Tighten up transfer admissions. Require more proof of academic ability than just a community college GPA. Take only the creme of the crop when it comes to transfers. This is the way Stanford does it.</p>
<p>I don’t have sour feelings towards transfers. Yet, I see it extremely puzzling that some of very highly qualified kids were turned down in freshmen admissions, and these sub-par community college types with 1800 SATs are getting in via transfer. This is really doing a serious disserive both to the university and the students. I am actually wondering why Cornell needs to take hundreds of transfers… do they need to fill more seats, or need some tuition money? What’s the deal.</p>
<p>An interesting point: We could take this thread, change the name of the school, and drop it into at least half a dozen school boards without changing a single word. There are vagaries in the admissions process of virtually all of the top schools.</p>
<p>Part of the problem – let’s say you write a really great essay. Four people love it – call them acceptances. One doesn’t – call that one a rejection. </p>
<p>Another part – Say you’re the all-county tuba player and the school needs a tuba player – you’re in!!! But the all-county trombone player with the same stats is rejected, because they already have 76 trombones.</p>
<p>ECs in general, we don’t know how Cornell looks at these. My guess (only a guess) is that being President of some random club is kind of neutral. Most applicants have some leadership roles somewhere. On the other hand, if an applicant has activity that they’ve participated in for many years and shown progress and an aptitude, it does say something about that student, that they when they find their passion, they will stay with something. </p>
<p>The Valedictorian who doesn’t get in – unless I know why they didn’t get in, I really have no informed comment on the process.</p>
<p>As I said in an earlier post, I think overall, the process works pretty well – your valedictorian may not get into Cornell, but s/he generally gets into somewhere good (and if not, maybe there’s a reason).</p>