<p>
</p>
<p>ha!..</p>
<p>I don’t know what to say to that. I only hope someone with some admissions connections will hop on and dispute that. My source was actually some random kids post somewhere in the archives of CC, and I was too embarrassed to cite it. It would be nice if this information were actually available…</p>
<p>You still haven’t really addressed the focal point of the argument though: social mobility and rigid class structure that the SAT reinforces…</p>
<p>A mind driven by ego will hardly feel fulfilled.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK thanks</p>
<p>now, here is a more important stat:</p>
<p>More admitted students turned down Cornell than the sum of admitted students turned down Harvard PLUS admitted students turned down Yale PLUS admitted students turned down Princeton PLUS admitted students turned down Stanford</p>
<p>Total Amount of Admitted Students that Turned Down University
512 — Harvard
650 — Stanford
686 — Yale
1,016 - Princeton
2,864 - Total for HYPS</p>
<p>3,401 - Total for Cornell</p>
<p>For Fall 2010, CAS accepted 15.7% of applicants, 50% midrange SATs were 650-740CR, 720-800 M.</p>
<p>Clearly there are some arts & sciences programs in the country that are yet more selective, as well as many more that are less selective. Whether the college, or the university, is “best” for a particular person, is up to them based on their personal preferences and criteria.</p>
<p>IMO OP was just making a “feel good” post, based on his own perspective, and unfortunately some people have chosen to take him literally as if he were making ubiquitously-applicable global claims. I don’t think he intended to speak for everyone globally.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you serious WHMI? Go take a class full of engineers and tell me with a straight face that it was just as hard/easy as the class full of hotelies. Although Cornell looks for different things in hotelies, and they may excel in the extracurricular and other departments, in a purely academic setting, you can see a difference in the quality of the AVERAGE engineer and the AVERAGE hotelie (I’m not trying to single hotelies out; it’s just the example WHMI used). </p>
<p>I know you might be a diehard Cornell student/fan, but let’s not keep bending the truth. The rest of the ivies ARE harder to get into, numerical wise. You can’t really argue that. By trying to defend Cornell by giving out a list of weak reasons, you’re actually making us look worse, not to mention making the student body seem defensive. </p>
<p>Engineerbill, you’re right. Those aren’t the stats of the A&S college. I remember the math being slightly lower, but I can’t seem to remember the link to the stats page with every college broken down by SAT scores. I’m sure someone will eventually post it.</p>
<p>engineerbill</p>
<p>Found it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000176.pdf[/url]”>http://www.dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000176.pdf</a>
<a href=“http://www.dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000177.pdf[/url]”>http://www.dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000177.pdf</a></p>
<p>Having 15% non asian minorities in cornell is a larger number than say 15% in princeton. But the reality is that cornell has to accept a lot of students to keep it going, and that is always going to take a toll on the admission statistics
Although applicants may get accepted to the other ivies but rejected from cornell, I am pretty sure Cornell is easier than the rest of the ivies to get into, at least on the whole. However, it is still very selective. I was actually quite surprised when a number of my friends with stats well above the reported average got rejected, but other people from other schools got in with much lower stats, which makes me question its admissions process a little (caring more for passion/fit than numbers?). But since everyone (supposedly) knows this already, they shouldn’t worry about it, since its reputation is built on its strength of its programs.</p>
<p>Many people would agree with this (first google result):
<a href=“http://www.plant-biology.com/Ivy-League-university-Rankings.php[/url]”>http://www.plant-biology.com/Ivy-League-university-Rankings.php</a></p>
<p>Penn in my opinion is severely over ranked on USNews but I semi-agree with it being slightly ahead of cornell. It really shaped up recently.</p>
<p>…Was it ever a secret?</p>
<p>I mean to say, has more of a negative effect on the “average” test score of students enrolled (since we can’t even look at accepted stats, which is generally higher than enrolled stats for pretty much every school except HYPSM)</p>
<p>By accepting cornell’s 15% (say, i don’t know, 900 students?) than say princeton’s 15% (200-300?), cornell has to be less selective in picking these minority students from their scores and in my mind, a good number of them would deviate further from a hypothetical line that marks “cornell average test score”. Princeton has more choice in choosing URM students that stick close to the 2300 line, while cornell would have to settle with URM students with less (the percentile scores for URMs are considerably lower). This is pretty obvious though, since cornell has to accept more students, hence less selectivity.</p>
<p>I don’t really see what’s the big deal. Cornell is not like princeton or harvard. It’s more like a Penn.</p>
<p>The difference is that berkeley doens’t cap its asian students (where it has a disproportionate amount of asian students to buff up scores & is public so in states have it quite easy compared to out of state competition which is pretty ridiculous) – i think affirmative action there is near non-existence. It is less heavy on athletic recruits, and has less legacy benefits in admissions and we all know people with legacy has it quite a bit a bit easier. This says nothing about the awesome quality of a berkeley education, though.
UMich is private and is very engineering focused. Comparisons between umich and cornell should be made between their engineering schools. The biggest difference between these two school sis that cornell is much more diverse in the people that it looks for. Speaking of which, Cornell u. is also partially state so selectivity is also a bit lopsided (which is amplified by its very very rewarding Early Decision). It is much much easier to get in say early CALS than regular A&S or engineering.</p>
<p>Oops, CAS math range should have been 670-770. I read the wrong column when I went back to enter the math scores; I just looked for the CR scores I’d just entered, and didn’t notice that they happened to be identical for both CAS and engineering. Sorry about that. Anyway, you have the data, per #148.</p>
<p>I think we’ve gone away from the original point of the thread and into yet another useless debate about admissions selectivity.</p>
<p>@Antiflamer, from post #:155</p>
<p>“UMich is private…”</p>
<p>No, it is not. It is one of the top public universities in the United States. It is the flagshiip university of the state of Michigan.</p>
<p>I can’t believe u guys are actually arguing about this. Get a life. I hope this won’t be all i hear about at cornell next year.</p>
<p>Don’t worry, once you get into college, no one spends 20 posts debating whether a college’s avg SAT score is 2100 or 2130 lol</p>
<p>My guess is that Norcalguy describes the selectivity debate as “useless” because proponents of higher selectivity see it as a status symbol, hence no argument will ever get them to agree that in many academic disciplines there are other, more pertinent, factors than SATs and selectivity. Regarding SATs for example: the portfolios of students in architecture (or the fine arts, graphic design, etc.) take precedence; also, auditions in music and drama rule; interviews and extracurriculars might dominate in subjects like marketing, public relations, et cetera. With respect to selectivity, Cooper Union’s rate is usually right there with Princeton’s sub-ten percent. Does that make Cooper Union a better school? Norcalguy makes a good point in my opinion, the debate devolves into an incessant rehash.</p>
<p>
I’m completely serious. You seem to have missed the point of my initial post: intellectual talent and societal contribution equate to more than simple arts, sciences, and exam scores. Cornell realizes this, but no other Ivy League school does. </p>
<p>A “purely academic” setting means different things to different people, and while an engineer may kick ass on the SAT’s, there is no quantifiable way to measure social skills or organizational ability, which is what Hotel looks for. While it is true that the average Hotel/Architecture student may not have the mathematical capacity to be an engineer, I don’t think the average engineer has the social capacity to provide customer support nor the structural knowledge to design a building. Keep in mind that though the hotel school, agriculture school, and architecture school, collectively admit the largest quantity of below average SAT-scoring students, each of these schools is consistently rated #1 in its field across the board by any authority on the matter.</p>
<p>And remember, Dragon beats Phoenix.</p>
<p>Here’s what I’m saying: these “less academic” colleges that you speak of teach knowledge that is crucial to the development of a human society. Providing/Designing Shelter, Growing Food/Resources, Developing Humanity, and Exploring Productivity. The school is about more than reading books or designing technology, though Cornell students that do specialize in those two fields tend to excel as well.</p>
<p>
Ouch. Good math here sir, I will grant you this point. It pretty thoroughly negates my point on total reject count.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I definitely haven’t been arguing against the numbers, rather disputing their validity as indicators of intelligence. Let’s be honest, how many kids do you know that got a higher SAT score than you that you KNOW you are smarter than? I bet everyone can think of a few. Countless studies have been done that indicate SATs are a truly poor indicator of academic performance and intellectual vitality. The president of the University of California has even advocated dropping it as a requirement for admission.</p>
<p>Accepting a disproportionate percentage of your incoming class from low-income public high schools is a completely valid explanation for a lower SAT average, especially when you consider Cornell’s long history as the only Ivy League University that contributed to social mobility, as the inventor of financial aid, and the only secular integrated campus in the Ivy League. A school like Columbia, with such a long history of brutal segregation (first black student in the 1950’s, first woman in the 1980’s, Jewish quotas – in a city as thoroughly integrated as NYC nonetheless) has a lot to make up for. </p>
<p>Cornell students should be on the defensive at this point! The strength of the academic programs have only been growing while the USNWR rank has been steadily declining. In the past decade Cornell has built new physical sciences labs, recruited some of the most reputable professors in academia, founded a top-5 undergrad business program, and is planning a new grad student campus in NYC (mayor has already approved).
Thus my point about 15%<em>14000 > 29%</em>7000 (comparing total URM populations of Cornell vs Columbia). It’s not that Cornell is “less selective” than Princeton or Columbia in picking its URM’s, it’s that Cornell targets students from disadvantaged backgrounds which provides a more vibrant and diverse culture.</p>
<p>
Bingo.
No actually, my intention was to start a long-winded and erroneous debate. By provoking these haters, I have managed to push this thread close to 10k views. The end result is Google highlights this thread whenever anyone searches for “Best Ivy” and many related search terms. </p>
<p>hehehe.</p>
<p>
We refer to those people as “Plant Biologists.” </p>
<p>We also refer to them as “incapable of updating their lists” (USNWR rankings on this list are several years old).</p>
<p>I’m so tired of that link. Everyone posts it and it’s completely useless.</p>
<p>also, antiflamer is ignorant. He should quietly exit the thread.</p>
<p>I’m going to start just posting pictures of the campus, as Cornell’s buildings are some of the most beautiful in the world.</p>
<p>Ah I actually thought only Michigan state was public. My bad. Still, everything else i said was pretty on the spot. And the thread’s change of focus to selectivity was not my fault, though I did contribute to it by continuing to discuss it.
Ivies don’t really “cap” strictly per se, but they kept the number at around 15% for a long time now.</p>
<p>Uhm I’m ignorant? Considering you quoted me several times in your last post and agreed with everything I said? The only thing I didn’t know was that UMichigan was public. I did not even apply there, but I know people that did and the things that my peers told me. Not knowing this one point instantly makes a person dumb? It would have hardly made a difference to a person applying from out of state. The only difference is that I did not google this before replying and responded based on what i knew (though it may have been false).</p>
<p>“I definitely haven’t been arguing against the numbers, rather disputing their validity as indicators of intelligence. Let’s be honest, how many kids do you know that got a higher SAT score than you that you KNOW you are smarter than? I bet everyone can think of a few. Countless studies have been done that indicate SATs are a truly poor indicator of academic performance and intellectual vitality. The president of the University of California has even advocated dropping it as an requirement for admission.”</p>
<p>They got nothing else to work with besides SAT numbers to compare applicants. GPA systems and course difficulty are different in every school. Unless you can somehow invent something that “Objectively” measures the intellectual potential every single person has relative to one another, we are sticking to the SATs.</p>
<p>Why are you posting pictures of the campus? I’m pretty sure Cornell’s reputation for having a beautiful campus has been long established. </p>
<p>I don’t get the point of this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ha! My point was exactly the opposite, as you likely realize: my point was that Princeton is generally superior to Cooper, despite Cooper’s high selectivity. Same for Cornell vis-</p>