<p>
[quote]
no, the real reason why no one disagrees with Cayuga is because he always praises Cornell
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I've made more than my fair share of criticism surrounding the Greek system at Cornell, the intelligence of students in my own program, decisions by the administration, and the shallow, pre-professional nature of many students on campus, thank you very much.</p>
<p>CR2005 delivery is not always the best, but he generally makes sense. I don't agree with him on the Greek system, but I could see his point.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Further, the overwrought proclamation you provide (basically I'm responsible for financial downturn)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't know how you inferred that you are responsible for the financial downturn. But you're not. Rather, off the cuff assertions similar to the ones you make on this forum parallel a lot of the silly assumptions that were made by "financial engineers" who had no understanding or appreciation of history.</p>
<p>
[quote]
In fact, my primary experience with current engineering students in an academic setting should make me a far better judge of intellectual capability than you or monydad.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Seeing as you have no idea as to what experiences and knowledge monydad or myself bring to this discussion, that's a rather interesting assumption. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I really don't appreciate your deignful tone throughout your response. I also reject the notion that I'm condescending or arrogant. That characterization of my tone, I believe, stems from a fundamental disagreement with my perspective.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'll be the first to admit that I've been a bit cavalier in my attitude towards you. But that's because you have unwarranted, unreasonable expectations that don't really stand up to advanced scrutiny. Consider the following sentence, intended only to provoke and incite:</p>
<p>
[quote]
The level of stupidity (in Cornell engineering) there was mind boggling as well.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sounds sanctimonious and condescending, doesn't it?</p>
<p>
[quote]
I don't agree with him on the Greek system, but I could see his point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Reasonable people can disagree over the merits of the Greek system. Reasonable people cannot disagree over the suggestion that some Cornell engineers are stupid, or that some Cornell students will do no better in life than working at a fast food restaurant.</p>
<p>Now, to return to the question at hand: Whether or not a few "dimmer bulbs" on Cornell's campus should be considered a big deal to the student body, especially vis-a-vis other large, diverse schools like Penn.</p>
<p>Quoting dontno:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Some of those schools have unbelievably high acceptance rate, despite having top notch programs, including GT, Purdue, and RPI. I'd be wary of including them in the statistic. Replacing them with Cornell and even kepping half of their populations, you probably get around 8000 kids who should represent the top notch students. Taking away 10% b/c they probably didn't deserve the degree, you get about 7000 students.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm really not certain what the acceptance rate has to do with anything. Couldn't a school have a very high acceptance but only accept qualified students?</p>
<p>You might have a good point in suggesting that we should be looking at the distribution of aptitudes of students who begin engineering programs as opposed to those who finish and calculate the percentiles as such. But I would contend that those who finish are the ones who should really be considered engineering students; many students enter such programs having no idea what they are getting into. And the larger point is that the expectation for all Cornell students to fall above a certain, arbitrary percentile range is rather naive. What's much more important is that we know the quality of the students and the quality of the opportunities afforded to students at Cornell is far above the average experience for the nation.</p>
<p>
[quote]
That's top 5%. So I admit I was a little harsh. But top 5% is around 740 SAT math. So a huge chunk, probably around 40% score below that standard. Another 20% or so score below 700 which is simply unacceptable. Other schools, like SMC, unabashedly practice affirmative action, especially for females in engineering. Is it any surprise that these schools have significant amounts of students far below the standard, these students who were not accepted on the basis of their intellectual merit. These students are generally welcome b/c they support the curve, but they're clearly not qualified to attend or intellectually capable of understanding a rigorous curiculum (sic).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So now we've gone from top one percent to top three percent to top five percent. I imagine if we keep on going down this path we will probably end up somewhere around top ten to fifteen percent as a reasonable percentile for all Cornell engineers to fall into, levels that I would agree with. </p>
<p>It's important to keep in mind that you're assuming that the top five percent of students should naturally be distributed among the top five percent of educational opportunities. But this isn't so. Even in New York State, many top percentile engineering students who have been accepted to Cornell will end up at SUNY-Binghamton, SUNY-Buffalo, or SUNY-Stony Brook, all of which offer respectable engineering programs. This might be due to financial or familial considerations, but it happens a lot.</p>
<p>The other thing to consider is that the college admissions process is unfortunately a very messy process, and a person's record in high school does not necessarily imply aptitude, hard work, or success in college. This happens at all schools, including Cornell, and it shouldn't be a surprise to you when the aptitudes don't necessarily conform to your rather high expectations of students.</p>
<p>This manifests in two ways:</p>
<p>1) Students who are exceedingly hard workers in high school but a bit short on aptitude will likely be admitted over their reverse counterparts. So you might have an 90th percentile aptitude, but a 98th percentile work effort. If I was in charge of admissions, I would gladly accept that student to Cornell any day.</p>
<p>2) Students who suddenly get to college and don't know what to do themselves. They end up partying and shirking their educational endeavors. This actually happened a lot to students from my high school. They come to mind because they are both 1550+ SAT scorers -- the type of high aptitude individuals you would love to surround yourself with. Both were absolutely brilliant. But one ended up doing a lot of drugs at Williams and somehow manged to get kicked out twice. The other fell in love, got engaged, and let her academics slide. She ended up transferring to a state school after a year.</p>
<p>Both of these examples demonstrate how you might not get the top "five percent" (either in aptitude or in hard work) that you crave. </p>
<p>And while it's another discussion, add in the realities of of legacy admits, athletes, and under-represented students, and it shouldn't be a surprise to you that not everybody will be in the top one percent, let alone the top three or top five percent of the populace. I'm sorry if this came as a shock to you when you showed up at Cornell, but if you think about it for more than a couple of seconds, it really shouldn't be anything to complain about.</p>
<p>But nobody at Cornell is stupid. And everybody at Cornell could do better than working at a fast food station.</p>
<p>Look. Cornell's not for everybody. But I'm glad it has served you relatively well. It's just tough for me to see people complaining about what I view to be one of Cornell's strongest assets: Accepting and educating students who may be a little bit rougher around the edges than some of your other, more snooty, top tier schools. We're commonly identified as "elite, but not elitist", or the "Ivy League school with the Big Ten heart", and I think this is reflected incredibly well in the diversity of students that Cornell educates and ushers on to great success. And you yourself are a testament to this fact -- we educate high achieving transfer students like it is nobody's business. </p>
<p>You would have to have rocks in your head to deny that each and every student that Cornell graduates is bright and hard working -- well beyond the norm for the nation as a whole. And the opportunity that Cornell has presented to students from all walks of life across the generations has been largely unprecedented in the history of American higher education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
70,000 complete the programs, but only about 60,000 actually deserve the honor.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But I'm impressed to see that you still haven't learned how not to draw numbers out of your ass. That takes skill. And there are so many things wrong with this assertion that I can't bother to begin to address it now.</p>
<p>@ CayugaRed:</p>
<p>Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Let me just state that I thoroughly enjoy our varied discussions. I can respect someone who, while generally disagreeing, is able to underpin their arguments with logic and reason. I hope also, that despite your recent animosity towards me, you feel the same way. Maybe that's a pipe dream, but oh well. </p>
<p>I think you make some valid points regarding the standard by which I judge Cornell engineers. Is my standard too rigid and unattainable? Maybe, but you're talking to someone who believes about 60% of the colleges in America should be shut down. </p>
<p>Am I grateful that Cornell intends to provide an education to a wider scale of people than it's peers? Hell yes. But my rejection as a senior was entirely warranted and I don't fault the admissions committee coming to that decision. Given my rather unimpressive record, which I don't believe reflected my ability, I fully support their decision and I would feel rather uncomfortable that similarly unqualified individuals are accepted. My experience at Cornell, as described above, implies this is the case. I love the fact Cornell accepts transfers because I personally benefited. This doesn't mean that I condone Cornell's wider distribution of intellectual ability.</p>
<p>Let me detour briefly.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So now we've gone from top one percent to top three percent to top five percent.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now top five is as far down as I'm willing to go. The idea that not all top students attend the top schools is valid. But I'm not sure how common a top five student doesn't attend a top five school, especially if they're well above the top five benchmark. I imagine the relative infrequency of this wouldn't skew the numbers significantly.</p>
<p>Your points about the disparity between high school performance and college performance is valid as well. But, while I think individual variation is surely a realistic possibility (I personally attest to this), I think we should deal primarily with average populations. We can say that not every single 790 will perform to a corresponding level in college. But we can also say that a group of 790's will basically always outperform a group of 700's. Will people fall through the cracks if we institute a rigid baseline? Sure, but, as you state, the admissions process is messy. I also am wary of accepting 90th percentilers with 98th percentile work ethics. While I admire their personal industry, I am cautious that work ethic can effectively cancel out their decreased mental capacity. In my opinion, and especially at a place like Cornell, engineering requires extremely high level thinking. When given new problems that require a solid understanding of very abstract and difficult concepts, diligent studying won't suffice.</p>
<p>
[quote]
And while it's another discussion, add in the realities of of legacy admits, athletes, and under-represented students, and it shouldn't be a surprise to you that not everybody will be in the top one percent, let alone the top three or top five percent of the populace.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Of course this is reality. But, I wholeheartedly reject these people being admitted.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But nobody at Cornell is stupid. And everybody at Cornell could do better than working at a fast food station.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Fully agree. My characterization of intelligence is relative to a very high standard. I'd say almost every Cornellian (not entirely inclusive. I've seen admits with 300 scores on SAT Math or Verbal) is well above the national mean.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But I'm impressed to see that you still haven't learned how not to draw numbers out of your ass. That takes skill. And there are so many things wrong with this assertion that I can't bother to begin to address it now.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Was it out my as$? Maybe. But let's take a closer examination. I'd estimate, ok now pulling another number from my lower orifice, that a student must score above 85% to indicate they actually understood the material. We'll even put that number down to 75%. In high school, that's a D, so I don't believe it's too far fetched to designate that as an appropriate measuring stick for understanding.</p>
<p>In Cornell engineering, a 75 is usually the average for an average difficulty exam. Assuming a roughly normal dist, that means about half the class didn't grasp the concepts. Further, if we assume a standard dev of about 15 (from experience almost every exam has this stan dev), that means only about 20% of the class had above the 85% benchmark.</p>
<p>So my estimate that 10-15% don't deserve their degree could possibly be an extreme underestimate. The fact engineering courses around the country require immense curves demonstrates that engineering is an extremely difficult undertaking. A huge amount of engineering students (as evidenced by the dropout rate) aren't intellectually capable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Maybe, but you're talking to someone who believes about 60% of the colleges in America should be shut down
[/quote]
sorry if no one is quite up to your standards, but only 1/4 Americans has a Bachelor's degree as it is, so the idea of shutting down the majority of our country's universities is frankly stupid. I would hope you're being sarcastic, after all, you did transfer in from what I'm guessing wasn't an Ivy league school. Students just as smart as you have received perfectly good educations at state schools for a fraction of the cost. Why on earth would you want to shut down most of the colleges in our country? To deny education to those who can't afford the private elite? Or were you just being sarcastic and it went over my non-Ivy league head?:)</p>
<p>^ I actually agree with the above poster. There are a great deal of colleges that have a 6 year graduation rate of less than 50%, and there are even a few who have a six year graduation rate of less than 15%. I actually have a strange pipe dream for how education should work, but now is not the time. Needless to say, some underqualifyed people are wasting their money and time trying to get a degree when the possibility of failure is incredible, and their intellectual capacity is not up to par. I think the government should remove the accredation from every college that has a lower than 50% 6 year graduation rate, and I think they should place limits on the applicant pool as far as testing goes (IE, you must have above a 1400 out of 2400 SAT to attend a university).</p>
<p>yeah but the problem with that is what would it include multiple sittings? lower standards for minorities? geographical areas where education is simply not as strong but kids have potential? kids who get 1370+ being deprived a college education because of possibly 1 question? this is why things can't get fixed. i agree some colleges in the u.s. are ridiculous (my personal favorite is Coastal Carolina). But the guidelines of the past will make a reformation like this improbable, if not impossible. as far as im concerned, let the kids get the degree, but make sure the employers know the story of where that degree comes from. ultimately, that is the real problem imo</p>
<p>Tboonepickens - yep the idea of colleges raising their standards is nice, but 60% of colleges being shut down? having 60% of our universities shut down is just bananas...i'm guessing now that the poster who said that was exaggerating. anyway I don't think the govt should have the right to barge in and shut down a university, but yeah, I can see employers not taking a certain type of degree seriously.</p>
<p>I agree with grantortue, the whole SAT cutoff thing is not a fair standard by any stretch of the imagination, but there are some schools that just... shouldn't exist. Does America need FOUR THOUSAND colleges? A great deal of them are private colleges, too, and do not serve the public well. They're just cash mongerers, and don't give degrees that are worth much.</p>
<p>I would quite happy if the diploma mills and schools like Bob Jones University (handbook says you're not allowed to wear Abercrombie and Fitch or Hollister, since they are stores owned by Satan), but to close 60% of colleges is beyond ridiculous.</p>
<p>I was in a similar situation to you, in that I thought I had no chance whatsoever of getting into my first choice college (Columbia). However, my GPA was higher (but still not amazing) and I scored well on the SAT, as well as being a good writer. Nonetheless, I applied ED to Columbia, was offered an interview, nailed it, and got in. The only other people who thought I would get in were in my family, and that's because they have to. So, my advice to you is go for it.</p>
<p>I agree 60% may be a bit much, but I stand by the SAT cutoff. 1400 points is 100 points below the national mean. I think only kids above the mean should be given not only the opportunity, but the honor to have a chance to earn a degree. So the 100 leeway points are sufficient to ensure that the national mean standard is kept. I think there are a lot of private college programs that do not educate their students, but rather serve as incubators for that weird part of life when you are older than 18 but younger than 21. I also think there are a lot of not well known, unranked colleges that serve the public interest and deliver an excellent education to their students. I think in general, people around/below the mean should be strongly encouraged to go into vocational schools (IE, technology, cullinary, design/arts, mechanics, welding, electricity, plumbing, HVAC, etc). That would provide the public with a large quality, low cost (because it is the lack of competition that is keeping costs up in many of these areas), service industry. It would also provide the people around/below the mean with a good job and proper training.</p>
<p>You have amazing extra curriculars and might be able to get in on a sports scholarship. But with your GPA and PSAT score, sorry, I think it's a large stretch (especially considering the fact that colleges are now becoming more selective b/c of the economic slump). </p>
<p>If you work really hard, however, and manage to raise your SAT score to the 2200 range I think you will have more of a chance. If not, you can always attend for graduate school.</p>
<p>But if you normally display the leadership characteristics you listed regardless of what college you get into you will be successful.</p>