<p>
[quote]
have you ever heard of a guaranteed transfer?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You should read the rest of the thread first. I (and Cornell's admissions office) have already addressed guaranteed transfers, and they aren't included in that figure. Perhaps you consider stating factual data "bashing" Cornell, but I see nothing wrong with having a high transfer admission rate. However, acceptance rates ARE relevant if one has no leaning one way or another. That is, if you are to choose between two great jobs that you like equally as much and one was much harder to get and more prestigious, which would you choose? The same concept applies here. If there is nothing steering the OP towards Cornell and the advantages of each, as we've discussed, basically cancel each other out, why not go with the option that is more prestigious and a rarer opportunity? How is that so hard for you people to see? </p>
<p>Obviously if he likes Cornell more, by all means, go to Cornell! Fit always comes first! But if he doesn't have a preference, then these seemingly meaningless things actually have meaning.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Moreover, ILR is a unique program, attracting people with a unique interests.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry, but all I see now are a bunch of people that are unhappy that their school has a high admission rate. It's not like it's a bad thing, so there's no need to justify it, but it is the truth. At the very least, Columbia College is MUCH harder to get into than Cornell ILR. That is my point.</p>
<p>"all I see now are a bunch of people that are unhappy that their school has a high admission rate."</p>
<p>there were 2 people, neither were students yet.</p>
<p>Well, not you, but those people that started complaining about me bringing up acceptance rate. Your arguments were very good and valid, IMO.</p>
<p>I try to make solid arguments with pretty good proof (one caught me here, but i didn't want to share the proof on a public forum, only private). </p>
<p>A better argument for acceptance rate would have been like the following:</p>
<p>If acceptance rate is really that important, what happens when the student wanting to study creative literature gets into two schools: Jiulliard (sp?) and Chicago. Which one should the student pick? One has a waaaay lower acceptance rate and is ultra prestigous while the other has a much higher acceptance rate though is a great match for the student's interests. IMO, there is only one choice here. The choice for the OP is somewhat similar as he is choosing between somewhat more prestige w/ a lower acceptance rate and a program that tends to excell in the area he's interested in.</p>
<p>NOTE: I'm just presenting an argument for debate's sake, I dont really care much about the acceptance rates or anything, ILR has gotten me where I want to go thus far and that's all I need.</p>
<p>
[quote]
much higher acceptance rate though is a great match for the student's interests
[/quote]
</p>
<p>FWIW, you just answered your own question and proved my point. As I've stated, fit always comes first. But, if like in this case, there is no clear winner as CC and ILR both have advantages, why not take the school that is considerably harder to get into and somewhat more prestigious? That is my argument, and for the life of me I can't see how it's so wrong to think that way.</p>
<p>"why not take the school that is considerably harder to get into "</p>
<p>But nobody looks up transfer acceptance rates when assessing a potential applicant for a job. They care more about the program/courses/and grades. The difference between transfer acceptance rates and freshmen acceptance rates between the two schools is substantially different as well (columbia easier for freshmen, Cornell harder for freshmen). </p>
<p>"That is my argument, and for the life of me I can't see how it's so wrong to think that way."
It's not necessarily wrong, I just dont think that a college decision should come down to something like this - there are dozens of other (and IMO more important) factors at stake, especially between two very different colleges in columbia and cornell.</p>
<p>gomestar, you are right! No one cares about transfer admit rates. The fact is that Columbia is not only harder to get into as a freshman but as a transfer. Columbia College I think is quite a bit harder to get into than Cornell CAS and substantially harder than Cornell ILR.....</p>
<p>
[quote]
But nobody looks up transfer acceptance rates when assessing a potential applicant for a job
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But I've never said it would be beneficial for getting a job either, simply that it's much harder to transfer into Columbia, i.e. a very unique opportunity and something that shouldn't be passed up unless one has a good reason. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I just dont think that a college decision should come down to something like this- there are dozens of other (and IMO more important) factors at stake, especially between two very different colleges in columbia and cornell.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True, but the OP applied to both so he must find something attractive about each of them. As of now, it still looks like he does not have a preference one way or another, and so long as nothing significant is swaying him, I would certainly consider the difficulty of entry and prestige of a program. Anyone that says they would discard these things in a situation such as this is probably lying to themselves as they've never been in that type of situation. In the same sense, what if one were accepted to both Dartmouth and WashU as a transfer without any specific preference? I'm pretty sure the difficulty of getting in (much harder at Dartmouth) and prestige advantage (again, Dartmouth) would be taken into consideration by all people, even though the quality of education is similar.</p>
<p>haha! One thing after another with you. </p>
<p>sooo, transfer rates of 5% vs. 8% - you're perhaps the only one that thinks this is "quite a bit harder" to get into (CC vs. CAS). It's ok, I'll just assume that once again you have no idea what you're talking about. You're 3 for 3 so far, keep it up and we'll be at 10 by tonight. </p>
<p>Substantially harder than ILR? Harder, yes, I'll agree with that. But is columbia substantially better? No. Is Columbia substantially better for the OP's interests? No, in fact I've argued that it's worse. </p>
<p>the only correct thing is this: "No one cares about transfer admit rates." Here on CC they have a tendency to matter, but not so much in the job world. Trust me, it's the end college that's most important. An Ivy degree is an ivy degree.</p>
<p>I am sorry but I like most consider Columbia to be right there with HYPMS. C</p>
<p>I've never seen HYPC before. I'll leave it to you to think that. Any school that rejects you must be the toughest and best school in the US, right?</p>
<p>Even as flawed as many posts on these boards are, I've been alot here for quite a while and I can assure you most would put it HYP then the rest of the Ivys. Quality of education rankings would vary from one to another, but most here look at it as HYP as the best of the best in the Ivy League.</p>
<p>gomestar, you can think what you want</p>
<p>It is almost indisputable that Columbia is A LOT more selective than Cornell. It is another league. ILR gets applicants mostly from New York State residents and accepts around 25-30 percent. Columbia gets some of the best applicants in the world and accepts under 9 percent. You be the judge.</p>
<p>"Columbia gets some of the best applicants in the world "</p>
<p>"ILR gets applicants mostly from Cornell"</p>
<p>You're 4 for 4, idiot.</p>
<p>you know what i meant.</p>
<p>I wasn't referring the type-o. I mean the international pop. at Cornell.</p>
<p>im having a very tough time making the decision - to me its really about how I can enter the sports business with a top education - the specialization at cornell is amazing and because i believe i can do well there i think the job opportunities could be good, it'll be cheaper too - then with columbia, although maybe theres nothing specific with sports, the education is so hard to turn down, and the opportunities are maybe better, but if all things were equal in terms of grades and stuff i dont know if thats true at all - I'd prob major in political science at columbia, would that be as beneficial as an ILR degree to go into sports? </p>
<p>Also, i was looking at the ilr website and the 2 years masters program is basically a condensed version of the whole undergraduate curriculum...is this a partially accurate statement? so i'm also leaning toward columbia in that theoretically i could go to columbia and then do the 2 year MILR at cornell, whereas i couldnt do the reverse from cornell to columbia...</p>
<p>please let me know what you guys think of this</p>
<p>"I'd prob major in political science at columbia, would that be as beneficial as an ILR degree to go into sports?"
I don't think so. You likely can go into sports with the polysci degree at Columbia, but again, ILR just happens to be an area that has a proven history of excelling in that certain area. If you wanted to do something like banking or consulting, I'd say either or with a close edge to Columbia, but I really do believe that Cornell would be better for you. </p>
<p>"the opportunities are maybe better"
maybe. Maybe you can go into sports management. </p>
<p>"Also, i was looking at the ilr website and the 2 years masters program is basically a condensed version of the whole undergraduate curriculum...is this a partially accurate statement? so i'm also leaning toward columbia in that theoretically i could go to columbia and then do the 2 year MILR at cornell, whereas i couldnt do the reverse from cornell to columbia..."</p>
<p>the MILR is just a condensed verseion of the undergrad ... most people I've asked have said that they're generally held in the same regard as they teach the same classes. But, why would you do columbia --> Cornell for the same degree that you could get by just going to cornell from the start? You'd be wasting alot of money, IMO - plus, the MILR program usually requires work experience before you apply. I did consider staying at Cornell for a MILR, but I didn't see how any of it was worth it - it's just the same dang degree. </p>
<p>I urge you to make some of the contacts I gave to you, they'll really let you know what the ILR degree can do for you in the sports world. I'd try to contact columbia as well, they can probably give you some info, perhaps try the poly sci dept, since it's what you'll major in.</p>
<p>ILR is definitely better for sports, Gary Bettman (NHL comish) and a few other great sports GMs went to ILR I think, plus they do really well at placing students in law schools. Not to mention classes on colective bargaining in sports, and sports management clubs, you'll have a much better head start at ILR.</p>
<p>if columbia wasnt in nyc it would likely have a higher admissions rate. and if cornell was in the nyc admissions rate would probably drop.</p>
<p>i think it comes down to whether you are set on going into sports managment/contracts. IRL is much better suited for a career in sports managment.
( btw i knew someone who gave up yale(which offered more money) for cmu comp sci and is currently very happy) </p>
<p>law school entry doesn't depend too much on the school u go to. its gpa + lsat. if you dont believe me check the law forum. although i do think its easier to get a higher gpa at columbia(more fluff classes)
cornell is known for being rigorous. whoever said cc was more rigorous, i doubt it. and rigor depends on the classes u chose anyways. </p>
<p>columbia obviously a great school it seems very "hot" right now and does have a better reputation. but i agree with gomestar it's not that much >>>>>. its not as good in your area of interest . but if your unsure about your interests then i would say go to columbia. i actually really liked columbia especially the campus</p>
<p>if you still cant decide you can also consider whether you like the cc core curriculum, city vs town, the people, cornell social life kind of revolves around frats btw. </p>
<p>hope that helped.</p>