<p>believe me, i know brown is the place to be. unfortunately, they seem to think it's not the place for me (i applied ED last year for freshman admissions and was deferred then rejected). apparently nearly 2000 ppl applied this year and there are only 30 spots (so i've read on other posts) so i'm not holding my breath.</p>
<p>U. Chicago has good academics, employers hire their graduates, it has some wonderful research labs. alrite, i agree. But none of these will keep u happy while at college. And I heard U.Chicago has a very introvert student community. Not the same case for Brown. Their students reportedly are one of the happiest among all, I guess Reed came first. Anyways, now its not only my argument, many agencies report Brown to be better than its peers in overall assessment.
And yeah, Brownians also revel on Sex-goddess.</p>
<p>and that i m saying to martinibluex. Final note, I dont mean that U. Chicago is inferior. I mean it is just not better than Brown, which u dont think.</p>
<p>Oh... :) I wasn't even responding to anything you wrote. I just think that U of Chicago is a really good school and was babling to myself about it. Many people disagree but I think it is better than brown too. At least for what I want to study, which, it turns out is a lot of things :)</p>
<p>militarythreat:</p>
<p>what makes you think you are 95% rejected coming from Rice engineering to Cornell engineering? That seems a far fetched assumption to me. If anything, Cornell engineering would recognize that you did well at a peer institution and be comforted by the fact that you should do well in Ithaca. Perhaps you would still need a concrete and substantial reason to transfer, but I do not see how coming from a top 20 school immediately handicapts you in that area to the point where Cornell would prefer another student at a worse school.</p>
<p>However at the same time, I cannot fathom how a 4.0 at Rice got rejected from Cornell. I don't know if you have found the reason, but I hope that is not why.</p>
<p>I believe the 4.0 from Rice applied to CAS, not engineering</p>
<p>I knew that, but I think this factor may permeate through all the private schools at Cornell.</p>
<p>But that is besides the point. I would agree that one would need more of a reason than simply "your school is better" to have an effective transfer essay, however, this academic reason is generally present on every essay, in addition to all the other (hopefully) compelling reasons. But, do you guys think that "I want to go to a better school" sounds so much better coming from someone at a lesser ranked school that Cornell would admit this person over someone from a peer institution with the same reason?</p>
<p>Consider 2 students of equal caliber, very bright. One came from a cc and the other from a well-known engineering school like Rice itself. Who do you think will get accepted? Definitely the cc guy will get in. The adcoms will definitely favor a cc guy who wants to come to an engineering school over a guy who is already in an engineering school. Plus the fact that he is already in a well-respected school like Rice will only contribute the adcoms to consider that more negatively. The kids who get in frm top engineering schools to other school of same caliber will have presented real- real strong reasons for a transfer. Then it comes to all about how u write ur essay. A candidate who says I will learn more in Cornell than in my (top) school and benefit from Cornell resources is an outright no from Cornell. However if u are at Amherst and want to do some kool research in particle physics, or for that matter, want to do engineering, then u can say u wanna come to [T O P] school. Then they might offer u admission. Here, I am assuming Amherst doesnt have sophisticated labs like Berkeley. </p>
<p>I hope this makes sense.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I hope this makes sense.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Oh, it makes sense! It's music to my ears, and exactly the reason I applied to Cornell.</p>
<p>lolz..good luck john. I am hopeful you will be looked upon favorably by Cornell. And I saw ur stats some time earlier in this forum, very impressive indeed.</p>
<p>consider this:</p>
<p>I got in to a top engineering school as an undergraduate, but i got rejected from schools like Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford. so would it have been better if i attended a worse college and excelled there to increase my chances of getting into my dream schools rather than attend the good school i am in now? that doesn't sound right. in my position, i chose to go to the best place i got into to learn the most and use all their resources, and from that moment, i still had the goal of transferring to my dream schools. was this a wrong decision? should i have chosen to attend the worse school, and get a relatively worse education just so that i can get improve my chances significantly to get into my dream schools by having a valid reason? i think i'm repeating myself. but do you see my point?</p>
<p>I hate to break to some of you, but the reputation of a school factors significantly in decisions, especially at the Ivy Leagues. Sure, a student from a CC might have a better reason to go to Harvard than a student at Yale, but odds are that Harvard will accept the latter rather than the former.</p>
<p>miltarythreat, thanks</p>
<p>the1,</p>
<p>You highlight a very interesting dilemma. I don't think I have an answer to that!</p>
<p>But isn't it true that if you were rejected from a top school as a senior, it's quite unlikely to be accepted as a transfer? And wouldn't your chances be even lower if you went to a subpar school?</p>
<p>I don't think the lesser school choice would work for someone like you anyway. It's not that the person is at a lesser school, it's that perhaps they never thought to apply to MIT/Stanford/etc in high school but had things turn around in college. I think top schools do good to add those students because they add some diversity.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Sure, a student from a CC might have a better reason to go to Harvard than a student at Yale, but odds are that Harvard will accept the latter rather than the former.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course, we're talking about Cornell here, not Harvard. How many people from within the Ivies try to transfer to Cornell, anyway?</p>
<p>Cornell seems to be more open to the CC argument than the other ivies.</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>That's why I didn't bother applying to the other Ivies.</p>
<p>"But isn't it true that if you were rejected from a top school as a senior, it's quite unlikely to be accepted as a transfer?"</p>
<p>mmm, i don't think that follows. My problem with not getting into my dream schools in high school was that my standardized scores weren't incredible. Now, I'm doing extremely well in my university, and I feel that i now have a much better chance seeing as SAT's etc. won't have too great a factor.</p>
<p>"And wouldn't your chances would even be lower if you went to a subpar school?"</p>
<p>Are you saying if for example I went to a small, unknown community college my chances would be lower to get in to my dream schools? According to some people posting, isn't that supposed to add to my "reason for transferring", thus increasing my chances? That is, assuming I do very well at that hypothetical school.</p>
<p>"It's not that the person is at a lesser school, it's that perhaps they never thought to apply to MIT/Stanford/etc in high school but had things turn around in college."</p>
<p>I completely agree with that statement, but the point i'm trying to get across is that it is not fair to simply say people who are at "subpar" colleges should be preferred in admissions to those already in pretty decent colleges.</p>
<p>the1,
as john pointed out, the first thing is we are talking abt cornell. I am not sure how MIT works, but Berekely yeah..it gives preference to CC students.</p>
<p>and obviously, u should choose a better school in ur freshman yr if u dont get into some dream school. but if ur dream school happens to be cornell and u wanna transfer there, u are then competing against some other students (cc)who have a lot better reason than u...and cornell wants to give them (capable students) chances...however this doent mean that u go to a cc directly without going to another top school...</p>
<p>thats why it is said, "transfering is a lot more difficult"...</p>
<p>plus, i said a cc student will stand a better chance against others of same caliber frm good school.....i didnt say he is a 100% admit...so u can take ur chances by going to a cc.....u will increase ur chances but will not assure a position.</p>
<p>It seems that I am getting mixed answers. Does Cornell prefer candidates from lower ranked schools because they have more of a reason to transfer, or does Cornell prefer candidates from other top schools because of their reputation? Perhaps there are numerous factors (such as the REAL reasons for transferring) that make this almost impossible to answer. </p>
<p>However, I do not think it is fair if it is, in fact, true that Cornell would favor a student from a lower ranked school who has the same GPA as a student from a top school. I do not know how hard it is at other schools such as CC's, but I think it would be safe to assume that the top schools have tougher and more rigorous classes. This alone should push Cornell to value the top applicant more, simply because the workloads at two schools is comparable.</p>
<p>"I completely agree with that statement, but the point i'm trying to get across is that it is not fair to simply say people who are at "subpar" colleges should be preferred in admissions to those already in pretty decent colleges"</p>
<p>its okay to think ur way (not fair for cc to be preferred)....but that is not what matters....</p>