<p>
[quote]
Be careful mentioning this opinion. Last time that happened, everyone got very agitated and offended. It's a hidden truth at Cornell that many of the smartest students are disappointed at their peers' lack of intellectual ability and/or desire.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>My perception of Cornell is burdened by one individual. I don't know if he was an idiot savant who could test well or what, but he was truly the stupidest person I have ever met. He just had a blank stare on his face and had no capacity for any level of nuanced thought, at all. I would stare at him and wonder, over and over, "how?" To this day, he taints my perception of the school.</p>
<p>Then again, some of the most intelligent people I've ever known also went to Cornell. It's truly a mixed bag, but the more I've gotten out and worked with people from Harvard, Yale, etc..., the more I've realized it's all a mixed bag. I've been amazed at how unimpressive people can be who go to very impressive schools. I even found myself wondering how in the world some MIT students got accepted into Ph.D programs. </p>
<p>I think everybody is a little disappointed if they go to any school that isn't hyper focused on one strict discipline. For those of you just starting out, I'd be interested to know if your expectations ever match the reality of your peers.</p>
<p>dontno, no one has problems with your opinions. In fact, I agree with you to certain extent. I feel that some of the kids in my AP Calc and Chem classes back in hs, many of them at flagship state schools now, were more deserving to be at Cornell by pure intellectual standards compared to some people I met here. My best friend from my high school got rejected from most top schools, including Cornell, and he attends U of I. I would bet that he is at least smarter than half the people at Cornell. But, the problem is, this isn't just exclusive to Cornell. My cousin noted how surprised he was several years ago to see many of his peers at Yale to have gotten in. He expected everyone to be very bright, ambitious, and intrincially motivated to learn, which was not the case.</p>
<p>But I assume that this the case in Cornell, right patlee? I mean from what I have heard, it is really tough with extremely motivated, diligent, and tenacious students ready to prove why they are the best. Is this theory correct?</p>
<p>Everybody is obsessed with studying at Cornell. It's not that people are extremely intelligent, but they are so eager to do well in classes, that you have to be the same if you want to survive.</p>
<p>Capitalism.... reminds me of what Adam Smith said once.... "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people." I'm sure Adam Smith would've been horrified to see his name and legacy invoked so shamelessly to justify such pathological, or in current terms, "capitalist" behavior that is so common these days. </p>
<p>A lot of political/economic commentators seem to forget the basic foundation of Adam Smith's argument for free markets.... "under conditions of perfect liberty, markets will lead to perfect equality" In other words, he thought that the equality of condition, and not just opportunity, is what one should be aiming for.</p>
<p>When I said "It's called capitalism," I was referring to what I perceived to be Cayuga's antagonistic opinions towards the wealthy (i.e. prep schools, people who use SAT prep services, etc...). I said capitalism because a free market implies that some people have wealth and others do not. Thus, why should one speak badly of those who have profited from the free market that makes society function? In this case, supporting capitalism wasn't a cover for being against social programs aimed at the lower class. Although as an aside and completely absent from my initial mention of capitalism, I'm against throwing endless amounts of money at these programs (i.e. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). BTW: These types of programs, many of which seek to increase the general economic status of blacks who were most affected by the lack of equal rights, have been given 40 TRILLION dollars since the 60's. So, I hate to say that it doesn't seem to be working. </p>
<p>Also, owing some inspiration to Ayn Rand, I don't understand the maxim that says others' welfare should take precedence over the welfare of the self. I think the main goal (but not only) of an individual is his own happiness, which is defined subjectively.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I was referring to what I perceived to be Cayuga's antagonistic opinions towards the wealthy (i.e. prep schools, people who use SAT prep services, etc...).
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I wouldn't describe my stance on the wealthy antagonistic. At the end of the day, I am probably wealthier than 95% of the people in the world, but there are people far more wealthy than I am. </p>
<p>Rather, my concern is that the wealthy are able to game the admissions process through college counselors, expensive SAT prepping, and ECs and experiences that only rich and well-connected kids can obtain. This is disheartening because it often means that the smartest students -- the one most capable of benefiting from a Cornell education -- are not offered the opportunity. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Thus, why should one speak badly of those who have profited from the free market that makes society function?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Maybe because those who have so profited from your "free market" have created endless social problems? Unnerved speculation? Cancer clusters? Obesity and diabetes? Rigged 401ks?</p>
<p>I'm not some sort of anti-market zombie either. I work in the private sector for a corporation that is owned in large part by Warren Buffet. But it is clear that the free-market mantra of the last thirty years has gone too far.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Also, owing some inspiration to Ayn Rand, I don't understand the maxim that says others' welfare should take precedence over the welfare of the self. I think the main goal (but not only) of an individual is his own happiness, which is defined subjectively.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I think when we come to more fully understand the quantum theory, we will come to understand that, ultimately, there is no difference between the self and the whole or between one person and another. Then we will pursue interests that serve both simultaneously and capitalism will fade into the annals of being an important but ultimately short-sighted period of human development.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think when we come to more fully understand the quantum theory, we will come to understand that, ultimately, there is no difference between the self and the whole or between one person and another.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow! New agey pseudo-science as a buttress of Marxism! I can't even adequately respond to this inanity. Keep hoping for quantum theory to find the soul because it'll be awhile.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Rather, my concern is that the wealthy are able to game the admissions process through college counselors, expensive SAT prepping, and ECs and experiences that only rich and well-connected kids can obtain.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I know this is a fundamental disagreement between us, but I just don't think you can buy your way into Ivy League universities. That was certainly the case 40 years ago when the New England prep schools like Exeter, Andover, and others were feeding factories for HYP. Furthermore, the aids that you list above do not help so much in the admissions process. The defining factor of an application is the applicant's hard work, by studying for the SATs not buying a tutor, by leading successful EC's not being told to do so by a private college counselor, etc. Yet the point is moot because the middle class, largely becoming a presence at elite universities, do not have access to these services. And in this day of transparent college admissions processes, the information is widely available for free online or through a school's own college counselor which are even hired at poor high schools.</p>
<p>
[quote]
This is disheartening because it often means that the smartest students -- the one most capable of benefiting from a Cornell education -- are not offered the opportunity.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm not sure if Cornell and other elites don't already find the "smartest" amongst its applicant pool. Maybe the middle and upper classes harbor almost the entirety of smart individuals this country has to offer.</p>
<p>"school's own college counselor which are even hired at poor high schools" </p>
<p>a college counselor at a poor high school would be busy trying to retain kids to avoid having only 1/3 of the freshman who started out graduate and not get 1 or 2 kids into HYP...</p>
<p>I got bored halfway into the first page just cuz I hate seeing ppl ask this question. Transfers are highly respected and often do very well. My transfer friends are all doing extremely well and many are on the deans list. I can't remember the stat (whether its just for gts or all transfers) but they do better than the regular students in my college. Transfers are highly valued and if u think u will be treated badly u either have low self-esteem or have an inferiority complex. Get over it...everyone's diplomas will be the same.</p>