<p>arnt u sick of how underrated cornell can be for "smart" kids? im sick of hearing how its a "back up ivy" or a last resort. it was quite satisfying how many competetive seniors got slapped in the face while other top schools wer a bit more forgiving (i apologize if i sound mean =P), but why is cornell so underrated??</p>
<p>i noe its all relative to what you study but cornell architecture is #1, enginerring as an awesome rep, hotel school is hot, and it offers so many other great programs.</p>
<p>Cornell gets a lot of **** because the Ivy League is home to far too many egos for there not to be at least one or two schools at which the rest can sneer. Who are all the snobs better than if not the students at Cornell? At least one of the schools in the Ancient 8 must carry the onus of the underachiever label. These days it's Cornell. At one time it was Penn. Will it ever be Harvard? No, but that's OK. We know we're good.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>We are least selective of the ivies (24.7% this year overall: ~22% RD, ~38% ED)</p></li>
<li><p>Our acceptance rate is not under 20%</p></li>
<li><p>Because we're the "easiest to get into" Ivy</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Honestly.... some people put waaay too much weight on selectivity of the school. If HYP could hold 13000 undergrads their acceptance rates would be above 20% as well.</p>
<p>Oh... I've got plenty of dirt from Harvard and MIT (I know MIT is not an Ivy, but it's got Ivy-like prestige). If anyone wants to know, just gimme a reply or a PM :)</p>
<p>Hahaha.... not meaning to bash the "better" schools, just offering some available info to proud Cornell-bound people.</p>
<p>Oh, and to anyone who is going to attend Cornell because he/she was rejected by the "better" Ivies but still "wants" to attend Cornell for the sake of being an Ivy Leaguer and will be very bitter and disgruntled for the next few years, go attend ur CC, because I don't want to meet you, and I'm pretty sure many who are as excited as I am to attend Cornell are just the same way.</p>
<p>Why Cornell makes sense for many. More diverse in meaningful ways, more courses of study, etc. I went to Cornell over acceptances at Yale, Princeton and Dartmouth & then on to Harvard for law school and further study at Columbia ...only advice is pick the school your heart and gut say is right for you and not based on some transitory "prestige"....right now, Brown is easiest to get into based on entry stats, and Penn has historically been "worst" but now has resurgence. Cornell A & S is comparable to all Ivies, Engineering and Arch are the best, Hotel is only one, and statutory colleges are, well, statutory colleges--very good for what they are, but not the same as rest of school no matter what they wish to pretend.... A lot can change over time, but as "they say" and "they" are right, you only get out of it what you put into it and you cannot go wrong with your choice of any Ivy if it has what you want, and you want to have what it has.</p>
<p>redcrimblue, how did you prepare for law school admissions? What did you major in? I'm possibly looking at a career in law after undergrad and I'd like to hear any words of advice you may have.</p>
<p>polo1A--take any major, study hard, keep an open and inquisitive mind--there is no one major or group of majors that is "best"--good law schools look for excellence of thought and demonstrated achievement. If anything, math or hard science majors, or engineers, might have an edge because of their relative scarcity in the applicant pool and because they bring something different to the law school classroom and subsequent practice. That said, I was a government major, the most mundane possible pre-law choice. I wish I had taken better advantage of the breadth of areas of study Cornell offers.</p>
<p>brown most certainly is not the "easiest to get into by entry stats"</p>
<p>by percentage of applicants, brown turns down more than twice as many valedictorians as penn (according to a recent article in the daily pennsylvanian), and admits a class with considerably higher SAT's and GPA according to the Atlantic Monthly than Cornell, Dartmouth, or Penn, and matriculates a higher fraction of cross-admits than every ivy minus HYP according to the revealed preference study</p>
<p>"and statutory colleges are, well, statutory colleges--very good for what they are, but not the same as rest of school no matter what they wish to pretend...."</p>
<p>This has to be one of the dumbest quotes I have ever read. The statutory colleges are among the most successful and prestigious of Cornell's colleges given their mission. Agriculture and Life Sciences is tops in the country for a myriad number of departments, ILR has a ridiculously high law school acceptance rate, the veterinary school is tops in the country. I could go on....the point is that there are no differences between the quality of the faculty, the resources or anything else in the state funded schools and the endowed colleges. You guys make it sound as if Statutory students are somehow segregated from the rest of the student population. I took almost half of my credits in the endowed colleges and I gaurantee you, nobody knew I was a "statutory" student...there may be differences in the relative admissions statistics between colleges, but these are miniscule.</p>
<p>As an example, the year I graduated (2002), the three highest GPA's in my major (biology) which transcends Arts and sciences and ALS were from the agriculture college.</p>
<p>Anyway, sorry for the rant. It just bugs me when people suggest that these colleges are somehow so different from one another, that you will actually notice differences in students and resources...it's simply not true.</p>
<p>redcrimblue - you are obviously not as educated about the topic as you should be. I'm not sure why you would say something like this (perhaps you're jealous for some reason). The topic has been brought up a few times, please do a search before you make another claim like that. </p>
<p>I should note that professors often work in more than one department. Most of my ilr profs for OB also work in CAS sociology and psychology, same with my labor economics professors as some also teach for CAS and for the AEM program in the ag school.</p>
<p>did not mean to dismiss the statutory schools, just to indicate that they are what they are. I especially should have been implicity kinder to CALS which can be rigorous if one seeks certain majors (like bio); ILR is really just a glorified pre-law program in my view and sends its students to almost all lower level law schools than Arts feeds (as example, 39 Cornellians in my Harvard Law class and not one from ILR or, of course, any other statutory). HumEc is a school any reasonably bright high school student can coast through with design and foods courses and one must concede "baby" psychology courses. That said, last two posters absolutely right that in general day to day dorm and social life no real difference, just in academics and, of course, admissions. With E.B. White, I personally think Cornell is stronger for diversity upstate dairy farmers' kids bring, for example. One major problem tho with statutory schools on campus is the tilt toward heavier than otherwise NY presence, which does harm diversity and affect campus life somewhat. As funding from Albany has declined, however, adcoms at statutories have felt a little more freedom to venture west of Buffalo and south of Binghamton with admits. All must acknowledge, however, that when people talk of Cornell as being the "easiest" Ivy to get into, they are talking about, and reflecting the truth, that this is so solely because of the statutories. And that was part of my prior point in this thread; w/o contract schools (and Hotel), Cornell admitted stats right in middle of Ivies.</p>
<p>I can't get into this school... but should I be satisfied with admissions to NYU (Stern) over say, Cornell Engineering? (My future is largely undecided at this point)</p>
<p>"ILR is really just a glorified pre-law program"</p>
<p>ilr is really a business program that focuses more on the humanities side rather than the financial side. It was never set up as a pre-law program and will never be. ILR teaches its students two or three classes in particular that are heavy in law focus, but this about it. I should note that I do know several students who were ilr graduates at Harvard law, as well as Columbia, Stanford, and Penn law. </p>
<p>Alot of students do go onto law school from ilr (about 30%), but the majority seek jobs or other opportunities elsewhere. I should alot note that ilr boasts the highest acceptance rate in the country for students who applied to law schools. Based on my observations, they're not going to just some state school law programs. </p>
<p>also, for somebody who supposedly went to harvard law, your arguments about acceptance rate are rather weak. Truth, the two schools with both the highest acceptance rate and the lowest average sat and the lowest average GPA and lowest number of admits at the top of their class are both endowed colleges at Cornell. The same goes true for the school with the 2nd lowest SAT range (also an endowed college).</p>
<p>Gomestar you can't honestly say that the endowed schools are easier to get in to than the contract colleges. Yes, AAP has the lowest GPA, but one of the lowest (2nd lowest?) acceptance rates among Cornell's colleges...and Engineering has the highest acceptance rate, but the highest average SAT scores as well. It's tougher to get in to Engineering than CALS, ILR, or CHE, come on.</p>
<p>yeah it's all really based on strength. someone can get into architecture but not engineering, despite architecture's (alone, not including art and planning) 12% admission rate this year (they decreased the freshman class this year for the class of 2010). architecture admissions really stress on portfolio and talent, whereas engineering admissions would look more at academic achievement.</p>
<p>here we go again with the thick headed number and "this school is harder to get into" whores. I am not saying that CAS is easier than ilr. What i'm saying is it varies from student to student.</p>
<p>admission to certain programs are based not solely on scores, but more like interest (arch. ilr and hotel). Score wise, an engineering student probably could also get into ilr, but it's unlikely interest wise. Admissions at ilr plucks out cadidates who apply just because they think it's easy and they'll get in or have no real interest in the school. They do a great job, ilr has one of the higest yield rates for all schools at Cornell. Stop playing the "well the SAT scores of this school..." game and get with the idea that the specialized schools have certain requirements that dont have to deal with the SAT scores. This was emphasized by sashimi talking about arch.: the average arch. student probably couldnt get into engineering, but the average engineering student doesn't have a shot in hell at architecture. If you dont have any experience what so ever in the hospitality industry, it's highly unlikely you'll get into the hotel school regardless of your scores. Get it?</p>
<p>What gomestar is saying--correct me if I am wrong--is that what makes the contract colleges so difficult are the intagible aspects of the application. This is especially true for out of state students like myself (a biology major in Agriculture and Life Sciences). I know of plenty of students who were rejected from contract colleges with incredibly high GPA's and test scores. The admissions committees in these schools try to put forth a diverse class, in the sense that the students get the most out of the college, but also that the college gets the most out of the students--they try to fill every academic niche possible. I am sure Arts does this as well...but my impression from my time there (and from talking to ad com member I knew while there) was that first and foremost--for Arts and Sciences--you need a good GPA, and good grades.</p>
<p>In statistical terms, theres more variance in contract college test scores and GPA, but I bet you the top 25% in any of the contract colleges are on par (numbers wise) with the top 25% in any of the endowed colleges...this could be BS, but I'm willing to bet that's the case. It's the bottom 25%, with lower scores, that have the wierd intagibles that I mention in my first paragraph and trying to figure out what those are, or what the admissions committee wants in any particular year is completely futile.</p>