<p>Well, my mommy and daddy did not have a BFF in the undergrad admissions, and I still got in.</p>
<p>^same here, btw, good luck in RD Cbing, I like your attitude</p>
<p>
[quote]
ugh go back to Laguna Beach and frolick on the beach with L.C.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Greatest quote ever.</p>
<p>
[quote]
where half the student body's mommies and daddies just HAPPEN to have BFF's in undergraduate admissions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Garbage. I imagine at places like HYP, there are way more unfair athletic admits than legacy admits. The vast majority of people at HYP are qualified academically, probably moreso than you. Your attitude here is actually a great depiction of the attitude described below by nasen:</p>
<p>
[quote]
It's just a sour-grapes attitude that people have with Cornell. If they didn't get in, they tend to say, "Oh well. Cornell wasn't good enough for ME anyway."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You just apply that negativity to Harvard and it's supposed student body filled w/ prep school-educated, rich, Connecticut dolts (fyi: this isn't 1955). And further, god forbid a parent who has attained a reasonable amount of success and wealth use that to increase their child's ability to be accepted at an Ivy League school. I'm not including the legacy admits in this. I've noted a ubiquitous disdain for the perks of wealth on this board and it's quite annoying.</p>
<p>First of all, dontno, I have had personal experience with a few kids who are less academically qualified than many Ivy admits who have gotten in because of connections. I'd rather see someone get in because of real athletic talent than someone who didn't apply for financial aid and whose parents have convenient little connections in admissions. Excuse me for having my own opinions, but I think that people whose parents have nice little connections all over the place and plenty of money should not have the upper hand over other, equally qualified but maybe poorer kids. If institutions of higher education preach diversity (and reject tons of academically qualified students in the name of diversity) should not consider connections as a major boost in admissions. With legacies, I can understand why that could push a kid in, but I don't think it should be as important as it is (and yes, I do know that it's not super-important, but still). </p>
<p>You don't need to go insulting me, dontno, I am myself applying to a couple HYPS and, though I doubt I'll get in, I have a lot of respect for their educational prowess. I was not, indeed, applying my "negativity" towards HYPS in particular, just basically to the system of higher learning. No need to make brash generalizations.</p>
<p>And the whole "academically qualified, probably moreso than you" was unnecessary, at best.</p>
<p>And thanks, Tboone, I need a lot of luck, especially after being deferred.</p>
<p>I also agree with dontno about the attitude of CCers regarding rich/legacy admits. It is fine to be mad at the system or whatever, but just don't play the victim. If you are rejected, it is not because some rich kid took your spot, its because the adcoms formulated a class that was better without you than with you. You are accepted/rejected based upon your own merits/demerits, not based upon another group of rich kids, or for that matter URMs.</p>
<p>And did I ever say I was deferred because som rich kid took my spot?
No.
Therefore, your criticism is invalid.
And the whole URM thing has been discussed ad nauseam in other threads... I don't personally want to get into that.
And I'm not playing the victim, you're just taking the side that's easier to defend. Maybe stand up for something slightly difficult and create your own opinions rather than go with a poster who is more adept at posting vehemently. I rather suck at posting argumentative things, but I'll post my opinions when I happen to have strong ones.</p>
<p>Congratulations on having merits and not demerits, I commend you on your superiority.</p>
<p>I think Chandler was bashing the system rather than playing the victim...anyway legacy is really not that huge of a deal. It doesn't guarantee you a spot, it just boosts your chances a teeny bit, kind of like being a URM. It won't get you in, but it gives an already qualified applicant a little help. Anyway maybe this is just a CC rumor, but I read on these boards once about an applicant whose daddy paid Brown big bucks and she got rejected anyway...boohoo :)</p>
<p>CB, I actually like you. After the EDs were posted, there was one kid, fire something or other that kept posting all of these toxic things. I made me mad. You were deffered, but you didnt have a bad attitude, and I appreciate that. I was just talking about the general attitude of the forum, not you specifically.</p>
<p>"I think Chandler was bashing the system rather than playing the victim"
Yup, exactly :)</p>
<p>Oh I see, Tboone, my bad for getting all riled up, I thought you were accusing me of having a bad attitude. I think college admissions this year is slightly... ridiculous. So many kids that I know who are absolutely AMAZING (like a girl in CA who's in triple advanced math) got deferred/rejected. That girl got rejected Stanford SCEA and she's pretty much a genius.
And on top of all these amazing kids not getting in, I just get angry at the college system in general for favoring rich/legacy applicants while also being self-righteous about it. </p>
<p>For myself, I look at it this way. I still have a shot RD at all the schools I like, so I'll be optimistic. With Cornell, I've pretty much given up because they accepted a lot ED and probably won't take any deferred applicants.
And I agree, some people on here are really toxic.</p>
<p>Well, college first and foremost is a business...businesses are nice to those who give them large sums of money and they usually don't want to anger important people in/for the company by not helping out their kids.</p>
<p>True that, but should college really be a business?
'Tis the question.</p>
<p>Just remember that selection is not just based on scores, but the fit you have with the major you are applying for as well. At Cornell, fit is the most important factor, which is how admissions should be. If you did excellent in school grade-wise, but you know little or nothing about the major you are applying for or show minimal interest in, they will not want you. Cornell wants students that will succeed in their major and apply the education toward an ideal career. When you hear people upset about getting rejected despite having high SAT's, high HS GPA, many EC's, and so on, the main conclusion is that they did not demonstrate enough interest in their major; for the most part. Sure, a student may be good at taking standardized tests (which almost seem pointless in my opinion), but how well would he or she perform in a specific major or career? Or how about the real world in general? I applaud Cornell's fair method of selection, because it rewards those who actually show interest and commitment in their major rather than just take anyone who gets just good grades and test scores. If that was not the case, I, as well as many others, probably would not have been accepted haha :D.</p>
<p>Everyone missed my point. I think its BS that legacies get a boost in admissions (and let's be honest here, it's huge!). URM's and legacies being admitted when they're clearly not qualified is assuredly unfair. </p>
<p>My beef is with those that believe everyone at HYP are accepted only b/c of their father's connections. It's not really that common. HYP will only accept maybe 50 development admits every year. These students have no right to be there. Just ahving legacy will give you a very small boost, nowhere near the boost a URM gets.</p>
<p>Also my beef and I've noted it alot on Cornell's CC forum is the disdain for those that use money to boost their child's chances. This is a capitalistic society where one is free to use his own wealth to help who he pelases. I have no problem w/ a father buying his child a volunteering trip to Cambodia.</p>
<p>Further, so many people are rejected each year by HYP. Many get on boards like this or speak with their friends and condemn the institution they got rejected from. I was rejected my senior year from Cornell, which I desperately wanted to attend. My mom starts going on and on about how Cornell wasn't worth it anyway. "Oh it's not that good and there are so many snobby Ivy Leaguers there." However, for me, my rejection didn't taint my image or discount the merits of Cornell. Many individuals criticize those that engage in this behavior in regards to Cornell, but then mimic that BS in regards to Harvard. Chandler's post, from my perspective, implied this attitude and I called him out on it. Maybe I was mistaken.</p>
<p>@ chandler, sry but your opinion (as well as mine) is completely irrelevent...college is a business. Accept this and use it to your advantage. You could email cornell and show them that ur still the gung ho ed'er doing wonders for their advertising through your indocrination of junior minority super geniuses via community service, :D.</p>
<p>@ mhawkjr, yeah I think Cornell is aware that professional test taking isn't very lucrative. Can't have their alumni giving rank go down in the U.S. news.</p>
<p>@dontno, and this is why (ceterus paribus) a 3.6 from Cornell is going to get a job/into grad school over a 2.8 from Harvard . Yes, a Harvard degree is arguably the shiniest, but I think a Cornell degree is pretty impressive too. I remember being quite pleased the last time I looked where most ILR grads went.</p>
<p>CB - you may have a better chance at RD this year. It appears many schools with increase in ED are seeing a drop in RD. Don't know how Cornell is stacking up right now. I think Cornell's contract schools may be up, and other schools down. Good luck.</p>
<p>dontno-- I wasn't trying to apply this attitude to any school in particular (I myself am applying to Harvard/really want to attend Cornell, and think both institutions are amazing). I was just condemning the "overarching theme", for lack of a better phrase, of accepting the legacy, development case, etc. But I of course realize that the vast majority of Harvard admits are truly spectacular, and I hope to at least not fly to the reject pile without my essays even being read :P</p>
<p>oldfort--I hope I do, but I applied to Human Ecology as an instater. I sent an adcom I spoke with on the phone with my GC an email about specific things I loved about HumEc about 9 days ago and never got a response back. So I'm not hopeful for an RD acceptance.</p>
<p>Adcoms are usually too busy to respond to emails, which is why they require appointments to talk with them. I definitely wouldn't expect an email reply. If anything, they would just put it in your admissions file for later review.</p>
<p>I see, it was an email about why HumEc was the place for me, what classes I'd like to take, etc.
I hope they review it! haha</p>
<p>From the Cornell admissions site:</p>
<p>"Cornell is currently receiving a very large volume of application materials. During our peak application-processing period, from December 15 through mid-February, our staff will be unable to respond to phone calls or email inquiries about application materials. </p>
<p>Additionally, the online application status materials list will be unavailable between December 15 and mid-February. For the next several weeks we will devote all of our time and effort toward getting freshman applications to selection committees so that they may be given a thorough review. In mid-February, when our mail processing nears completion, we will notify you if we are missing materials from your application, and we will provide you with an opportunity to complete your application. In the meantime, please do not send duplicate copies of your application materials. Thank you for your patience and understanding."</p>
<p>I personally think Cornell is very fair in admitting students...if they think that you're smart enough for their school, they will admit you. It's selectivity is very academic oriented. (BUT THIS IS ONLY MY OPINION)</p>