<p>...</p>
<p>Do you honestly not see any problem with your logic?</p>
<p>Yea, collegehelp, realize that Cornell has the weakest student body out of all the ivy leagues. While personally I'd be very very happy to go there, most people see it (rightfully) as being subpar to all the others because it simply has lower stats, ec averages, and basically everything compared to everything else. Its a college for those who still want an "ivy league name" but cant get into any other ivy usually.</p>
<p>arbiter213 is completely correct.</p>
<p>At this point, all it seems like you are doing, collegehelp, is propagating ivy league snobbery.</p>
<p>Some students are misled into thinking that Cornell is easier to get into but the Arts and Sciences college is nearly as selective as Dartmouth and the Engineering college is nearly as selective as MIT. Architecture is the most selective in the world. Hotel is the most selective in the world. The Ag school is the best in the world. Industrial and Labor Relations has no peer.</p>
<p>Think of it this way: If Cornell can attract 6000 students of a certain caliber, why can't Duke, Northwestern, Notre Dame, and Vanderbilt?</p>
<p>Handyandy-
What you perceive as snobbery is simple fact.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Handyandy-
What you perceive as snobbery is simple fact.
[/quote]
Such arrogance just proves my point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.
- Mark Twain
[/quote]
</p>
<p>. .</p>
<p>
[quote]
If you take the best 6000 (or 5000 or 1000, and so on) at each school, Cornell has a much better community of student scholars than almost any school in the country, including the other Ivies.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Are you saying that the top 1,000 students at Cornell are better than any top 1,000 students at any school including HYPSM and Br / Col / Dart / Penn? I might be willing to accept that they are just as good, but BETTER? I'm not sure how you justify / quantify that.</p>
<p>He can't</p>
<p>(10 characters)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some students are misled into thinking that Cornell is easier to get into but the Arts and Sciences college is nearly as selective as Dartmouth and the Engineering college is nearly as selective as MIT.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>True on Count One:</p>
<p>Dartmouth versus Cornell
Dartmouth 2,166 14,176 15.28
C Arts & Sciences 2,634 14,662 17.96</p>
<p>However, regarding engineering, unless selectivity means different things to different folks, the misled students might simply believe that the data distributed by the schools are correct. </p>
<p>Cornell Engineering
Admitted 1853<br>
Applied 5999
Admit rate 30.89</p>
<p>MIT
MIT Admitted 1,553<br>
Applied 12,445
Admit rate 12.48</p>
<p>Fwiw, shouldn't we also quote the ED rate at Cornell versus MIT's EA (which was just above 11% for 2007)? Cornells' overall ED rate was 1,101/3,015 for a very generous 36.52%. However, that is probably not as bad as it sounds since that is about the same ED admit rate at Duke (37.85%.) As we know, Duke has still to recover from its massive loss of 20% of ED applicants between 2005 and 2006.</p>
<p>Since when does selectivity measure quality?</p>
<p>Someone decided to use those metrics to define quality -- only to see it undermine his/hers case.</p>
<p>Ah, that makes sense. Faculty productivity and PhD productivity seem like better quantitative values to me. If anything, may as well stick with those – they eschew silly things like hooked applicants.</p>
<p>Blah comment got deleted...buy yeah agreed NewEngSociMan</p>
<p>Let's take Cal Berk as an example. I don't know Cal's exact enrollment figures. Let's say it has 5,000 undergrads per class. I believe Cal's SAT average is around a 1340. Let's assume that Cal has about 750 students per class who score above a 1500 on their SAT. According to the logic above, Cal has a better student body b/c it has more 1500 SAT scorers than does Dartmouth.</p>
<p>the_prestige-
Yes, the top 1000 at Cornell surpass in SAT scores the top 1000 at the schools you named with the possible exception of Penn, because Penn also has a large student body. The justification is based on statistical principles and the assumption that SAT scores roughly approximate a distribution where most students fall near the middle and the number of students decreases as you approach either extreme. Based on this assumption, and based on the 25th and 75th precentile SAT data, you can do a reasonable calculation.</p>
<p>xiggi-
My statement about the selectivity of the engineering program at Cornell compared with MIT was based on SAT scores.</p>
<p>The overall SAT scores 25th-75th at MIT are 1380-1560 and the SAT range at Cornell engineering is 1360-1530.</p>
<p>So, collegehelp, by your same arguments, the worst 6000 students at Cornell are worse than the worst 6000 at any of those schools.</p>
<p>collegebound-
Yes, the 6000th Berkeley student would probably surpass Cornell's in SAT. There are probably a few large state schools and maybe USC that would also have a 6000th student with higher SATs than Cornell. But there are other measures of quality in which Cornell would excel but the huge schools would not (culture, beauty, quality of life, faculty attention, and so on). </p>
<p>There is an inverse relationship between size and selectivity for some reason. There must be some natural law that applies. The bigger you get, the harder it becomes to enroll quality students. Cornell seems to be at an optimum balance between the "density" of top students and the "raw number" of top students. It has a very large community of genius-types. </p>
<p>What I am saying is that, in head-to-head SAT comparisons, Cornell is probably the top private school and probably among the top 5 in the country. In other words, if taking SATs were a team sport, and each school fielded its best 6000 (or 1000) scorers, Cornell would surpass almost everybody.</p>
<p>Arbiter-
What I am saying is that the worst 6000 at Cornell would be far better than the worst 6000 at any of those other schools if those other schools tried to grow to Cornell's size.</p>