<p>yea thanks for clarifying that. cuz i knew ilr admissions rate was not 50%. for 2006, it was 32.5%. and remember for the class of 2007, all the colleges at cornell (except for human ecology) received an increase in applicants (so, expect that number to drop even lower for this year)</p>
<p>how does that clear anything up? This document:</p>
<p>shows that there were 200 transfer applicants total for the Fall 2006 semester and 105 were offered admission. That is where I am getting 50%. Note the part at the bottom: "special students not included." When I was considering applying to Cornell as a transfer I asked numerous people in admissions what that meant and they unanimously stated that it means "guaranteed transfer" students are not included in this data.</p>
<p>no, I think the real story goes beyond that document. Trust me, I've seen it dozens of times. I have 2 solid theories (1 of which was verified by admissions), but none of which I'd like to share on a public message board, only to people who I sort of trust if they ask.</p>
<p>well of course if you're in the admissions office and believe it to be differently, you have more authority than I with my document. However, as it was provided on Cornell's website, I assumed the 50% was correct. Either way, it's an achievement to get into Cornell.</p>
<p>I believe it's different - but, I dont know how different. I think only a few people are suppost to know. but, I dont have much tangible proof to share, so it's still just my theory. I have a few more pressing issues to deal with right now, like all of these damn TPS reports at work...</p>
<p>wait a minute. i see your point, but i dont think its fair to lump transfer admits with the admits from the regular decision and early decision process. and thank god, as seen by the ilr information packets, nor does the ilr school. so again, 50% is way off the mark.</p>
<p>and if we're going to count transfers, lets not stop there. lets count all transfers at the rest of the ivy leagues! thats sure to bring up their admit rate too.</p>
<p>gomestar, if you applied this shoddy logic to papers you write at cornell, you would probably get a terrible grade.......</p>
<p>"gomestar, if you applied this shoddy logic to papers you write at cornell, you would probably get a terrible grade......."</p>
<p>I dont, that's why my grades are great. I'll tell some people here the evidence I have, but not out in the open. I'll bite the bullet here with the risk of sounding 'shoddy', no problem. Also, I like how you re-use old phrases of mine to your own, I havn't seen people do that since the 4th grade!</p>
<p>Um, I did that intentionally to throw back a ridiculous statement to you. You can say all you want about your theories, which probably include how Cornell puts GTs into the applicant pool and then counts them as accepted transfers. I am sorry, but I do not buy the story.</p>
<p>"Um, I did that intentionally to throw back a ridiculous statement to you."
except that it worked well for me and not so well for you. I pretty much told people I'm not going to prove it out in the open and take take what I say with their own opinion. </p>
<p>I hope you don't buy the story, you'd have to be a total nimrod if you did. I didn't give any info to prove anything, and no, "include how Cornell puts GTs into the applicant pool and then counts them as accepted transfers" is not one of my theories (actually, the one 'theory' has been confirmed). Nice try though! </p>
<p>I dont think you'll believe anything I say. Nor do I care. You're just mad because I called you out for saying really stupid things on another thread.</p>
<p>
[quote]
so again, 50% is way off the mark.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You do realize you're in the transfer forum right? Freshman admission rates mean nothing to this discussion. My initial comparison remains correct: Cornell ILR (according to their published materials) admits just over 50% of transfer applicants, whereas Columbia admits just at 5% of transfer applicants. Your logic of "lumping all of the percentages together" makes absolutely no sense since we aren't discussing freshman/ED/anything else.</p>
<p>I got into ILR as a transfer this year and I felt kinda bad when I heard that the admission rate was so high, after I got into WashU and some other schools I thought my selction was validated though, and if it's 32% that makes me feel even better. ILR is defintely better I think for getting into sports, they have classes tailored specifically for this area, although you can't go wrong with either school. Cornell has a really high acceptance into grad schools too. And that's not true about the transfer housing, transfers are guaranteed housing for 2 years on campus, not sure where you heard the apartment stuff but that's wrong.</p>
<p>I don't see why anyone would feel bad if the admission rate was high. Wesleyan's admission rate for 2005 was 40%, and if anything I would've been happier if it'd stayed at that instead of dipping to near 20% because it would have practically guaranteed me a spot at my dream school. So much focus shouldn't be placed on admission rate; I'm just saying that the OP is EXTREMELY lucky to have gotten into Columbia because it's insanely difficult to do. Besides the reasons I've stated, I wouldn't pass that opportunity up.</p>
<p>P.S. - Though we had a lot of acceptances on CC, I'm thinking WashU's transfer rate is between 20 and 25% this year so that's definitely impressive.</p>
<p>I don't see what the big deal is. Who cares about acceptance percentages? Pick the school that is the best fit for you. I'd gladly go to a school has a 50% acceptance rate if that's where I feel most comfortable. I don't see the relevance of transfer percentages in the discussion. Cornell could easily just not take transfers next year and have an acceptance rate of 0%. Does that make it better than Columbia College all of the sudden?</p>
<p>Of course, but the OP didn't state any preference one way or another either.</p>
<p>There is absolutely no reason I can think of why the OP would be better served by Cornell. I just got rejected from Columbia from the wlist. I am not sure what I would have done if I got in (I already got into Penn which was very high on my list). Put it this way, I go to a school right now (top 15 on us news) and I had the chance to go to Cornell 2 yrs ago, and there is no doubt in my mind that I would have chosen Columbia in a heartbeat if I had the choice.</p>
<p>"There is absolutely no reason I can think of why the OP would be better served by Cornell."</p>
<p>that's because you're uninformed. This is now 2 Cornell threads where you've proven this. </p>
<p>"I don't see what the big deal is. Who cares about acceptance percentages?"</p>
<p>This is college confidential here. Leave it to people on this board to make it a big deal.</p>
<p>have you ever heard of a guaranteed transfer? when factoring in guaranteed transfers, that considerably raises the overall transfer admit rate. you can try and bash cornell all you want by blindly spewing out the 50% statistic, but i'd like to see you or anyone else apply there with that elitist attitude and we'll see if you get in.</p>
<p>Here are some of the stats of ILR transfer: <a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=353333&highlight=Accepted+ILR%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showthread.php?t=353333&highlight=Accepted+ILR</a>. Also, from what I've read around these boards those accepted into ILR have also been accepted into many elite universities; an admit rate does not speak volumes about the quality of the school or student body (look at UMich and U Chic /w 47%/38% admit rates respectively, and yet they are still some of the best universities in country). Moreover, ILR is a unique program, attracting people with a unique interests. Many of the people applying are doing so because there arnt many viable options in place of ILR, to quench their interests (just look the yield of students who get accepted as transfers and actually attend). This would lead to a self selective applicant pool, which will distort the admit rate.</p>