<p>
</p>
<p>No “personal shots” were taken at all. You’re the one who brought up your personal motives when you stated that you were not in it for “self-aggrandizement.”</p>
<p>I was merely disputing your claim in the context of the discussion. It is not off-topic for me to question the validity of your claim by means of intention. The issue is not ad hominem because you introduced your “self” into the argument.</p>
<p>Please save me the SELF-righteousness.</p>
<p>"Please save me the SELF-righteousness. "
Another personal attack.</p>
<p>It was a comment about the nature of your post, not you. Feel free to cry me a river.</p>
<p>Hopefully there will be others you can make that case to.</p>
<p>Oh, for crying out loud!</p>
<p>Go Big Red and all that!!! Happy???</p>
<p>It is much more helpful for students to know the SAT for the particular unit to which they are applying. In the case of Cornell, A&S and Engineering are units found at other schools. The other schools at Cornell are unique. So if you want to compare more accurately you should use the Cornell A&S and Engineering SATs.</p>
<p>Hmmm…</p>
<p>No dog in this fight here. </p>
<p>I agree with monydad’s point about Cornell’s stats. Cornell is a combination of Land Grant college and Private University. At its very missional core it is at least schizophrenic, and must be discussed here focusing on one entity or the other, not an aggregation.</p>
<p>I posted last week on the 25/75 SAT at top colleges and Universities, and made a note next to Cornell that the 1400 figure was for all the aggregated colleges (Hotel, Labor Relations, Agriculture, CAS, Engineering), and that the CAS + Engineering would likely be much higher.</p>
<p>This reminds me of a television spat between Keith Olberman and Ann Coulter, wherein Coulter characterized Olbermann as not being an alum of the “Ivy League part of Cornell”. Olbermann attended the Ag school, a subisidized Land Grant part of Cornell. Even in our popular media Cornell is viewed as a bifurcated entity. <a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost;
<p>Your little spat made me look further. I cannot locate CAS stats broken out, but did find the Engineering School having a 25/75 midpoint of 1465. That is indeed a horse of a different color in comparision to the 1400 aggregate number.</p>
<p>Oh, forgot the school of Architecture… though my gut tells me those students wouldn’t be dragging down the aggregate number nearly so much as those of ILR, Ag, and Hotel – which might have aggegated stats below those of Cornell College in Iowa :)</p>
<p>Again, my comments do not apply to Cornell solely, or even mostly. The point is generic.</p>
<p>an applicant to Wharton might wish to assess his odds of being admitted to wharton,without the rest of Penn comingled.</p>
<p>An applicant to Stern at NYU might wish to see the stats for Stern alone, and not comingled with stats for Tisch school of the arts, or Steinhardt college of education. Those others will not represent his peer group, either for admission or for the bulk of classes, or for future opportunities either. The differences there might dwarf the differences at Cornell, for all I know. similarly, an applicant to Steinhardt would want to know what that peer group looks like, without the other irrelevant colleges there comingled.</p>
<p>The point is, the relevant peer group for selectvity is the college you are being selected for, whether that college is more selective than the aggregate or less selective.
what is most helpful to an applicant assessing his chances is accuracy. </p>
<p>Someone seeking to apply to both georgia Tech and Cornell for engineering better be assessing his odds by looking at Cornell’s engineering college, not a university aggregate. Lest he be misled. Because selectivity, and selection, is by college and they are all different. I would imagine he’d want to look at stats for carnegie Mellon’s engineering college by itself too, without its performing arts College thrown into the mix. Ditto berkeley, etc.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is more obvious to me because, as I said, I came from an era
before Us News, where the stats were reported indivdually by college with no
comingling at all. But obvious it does seem.</p>
<p>monydad – disaggregation is so… messy. Aggregation makes our conversations about schools clean and efficient :)</p>
<p>“I agree. But we can compare public universities against one another, no? Your post does not help support your claim that Michigan is a top two public.”</p>
<p>First of all nyccard, although I believe Michigan is #2 among public universities, I also believe that other publics can lay as legitimate a claim as Michigan to that spot. I have often said that UVa is as good as Michigan. I also listed other elite publics such as UCLA, UNC, Texas-Austin and Wisconsin-Madison as peers. This said, I never believed the SAT played a major role in establishing a university’s overall academic excellence. I have always maintained that a university’s faculty, facilities and academic offerings were more important than SAT averages. But even if I did believe that SAT was the be-all, end-all as many on CC do, Michigan would be tied for #3 among public universities, not a far cry from #2. </p>
<p>“Some of the public schools that have higher SATs than Michigan include: William & Mary, Georgia Tech, Berkeley and New College of Florida. The following publics have SATs which are virtually indistinguishable from that of Michigan: UVa, Illinois, UNC and UCLA. So it seems that one can claim in terms of selectivity (as defined by SAT scores), Michigan is no better than a top ten public.”</p>
<p>First of all, comparing GT to other publics isn’t fair. 65% of students at GT major in Engineering and/or Computer Science, compared to 20% at most public elites. Engineering students generally tend to have slightly higher SAT averages. For example, the SAT average of Engineering students at Michigan is roughly 30 points higher (on a 1600 scale) than the SAT average of LSA students. That’s not significant, but it is slightly higher. Secondly, the New College of Florida has 700 undergraduate students and William and Mary has 6,000 undergraduate students. It is unfair to compare such small student bodies to much larger student bodies. This said, Michigan’s SAT average is not lower than any of those schools. In absolute terms, Michigan is tied with GT at #3 in terms of SAT average, with Cal having a 10 point advantage at #2 and William and Mary having a 15 point advantage at #1. The College of New Florida’s average SAT score is actually 10 points lower than Michigan’s. And I am not sure why you would say that W&M and Cal’s 10-15 point advantage over Michigan is noteworthy, but that Michigan’s 40 point advantage over UCLA or UIUC is indistiguishable. Seems like a double standard.</p>
<p>Below are SAT stats for many of the publics you discussed:</p>
<p>College of William and Mary: 1240-1450 (1345 average)
University of California-Berkeley: 1210-1470 (1340 average)
Georgia Institute of Technology: 1230-1430 (1330 average)
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor: 1230-1430 (1330 average)
University of Virginia: 1220-1440 (1330 average)
New College of Florida: 1220-1400 (1310 average)
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill: 1210-1390 (1300 average)
University of California-Los Angeles: 1170-1410 (1290 average)
University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign: 1180-1400 (1290 average)
University of Wisconsin-Madison: 1160-1400 (1280 average)</p>
<p><a href=“http://web.wm.edu/ir/CDS/cds0910.xls[/url]”>http://web.wm.edu/ir/CDS/cds0910.xls</a>
<a href=“http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2008-09.pdf[/url]”>http://cds.berkeley.edu/pdfs/PDF%20wBOOKMARKS%2008-09.pdf</a>
<a href=“http://www.irp.gatech.edu/Common_Data_Set_archives/Final%20CDS2009_2010.pdf[/url]”>http://www.irp.gatech.edu/Common_Data_Set_archives/Final%20CDS2009_2010.pdf</a>
<a href=“Office of Budget and Planning”>Office of Budget and Planning;
[UVa</a> CDS - C. First-time, First-year Admission](<a href=“http://www.web.virginia.edu/IAAS/data_catalog/institutional/cds/current/admissions.htm]UVa”>http://www.web.virginia.edu/IAAS/data_catalog/institutional/cds/current/admissions.htm)
<a href=“http://www.ncf.edu/uploads/1J/fM/1JfM8v7B-xMBBr-72UDoyw/Freshman-Class-Profile.pdf[/url]”>http://www.ncf.edu/uploads/1J/fM/1JfM8v7B-xMBBr-72UDoyw/Freshman-Class-Profile.pdf</a>
[Common</a> Data Set - Office of Institutional Research and Assessment](<a href=“http://oira.unc.edu/facts-and-figures/data-summaries-and-publications/common-data-set.html]Common”>http://oira.unc.edu/facts-and-figures/data-summaries-and-publications/common-data-set.html)
<a href=“http://www.aim.ucla.edu/cds/cdsformC.asp[/url]”>http://www.aim.ucla.edu/cds/cdsformC.asp</a>
<a href=“http://www.dmi.illinois.edu/stuenr/misc/cds_2008_2009.xls[/url]”>http://www.dmi.illinois.edu/stuenr/misc/cds_2008_2009.xls</a>
<a href=“http://apa.wisc.edu/CDS_USNEWS/CDS_2009.pdf[/url]”>http://apa.wisc.edu/CDS_USNEWS/CDS_2009.pdf</a></p>
<p>This said, I repeat that I do not believe that SAT averages determine quality of institution. What separates universities is faculty, facilities and curriculum. That’s what establishes a university’s overall excellence and reputation.</p>
<p>“Michigan is a very good school with strong academics. Let’s leave it at that and not try to oversell or make excuses for its (lack of) selectivity.”</p>
<p>I am not making excuses nyccard. And I don’t think Michigan lacks selectivity. I consider Michigan to be one of the most selective universities in the nation. What I am saying is that you cannot compare SAT averages between universities that have very different approaches to admissions and to reporting SAT scores. </p>
<p>“You state this as a matter of fact, but this is only pure speculation on your part. If this is more than speculation, please provide a source. Considering that a significant portion of prospective students to top publics such as Berkeley and Michigan also aspire to the ivies (and equivalents), this seems to be a far-fetched rationalization at best.”</p>
<p>Although I do not have a source nyccard, I know what I have seen. For a variety of reasons, a significant portion of gifted students who attend schools like Michigan and Cal do not approach the SAT the same way that students who chose to attend private peers do. They do not prepare as hard, take prep classes or sit for the SAT as many times as their private school peers. I do not pretend to know the exact percentage of the total student population that such students represent or by how much the average SAT score would improve if they approached the SAT in a similar fashion to students attending smaller private universities, but I know for a fact that this element is noteworthy and not “far fetched”. It is a reality. </p>
<p>Please understand that I fully admit that neither this fact above, nor all of the other facts I mentioned (superscoring, presence of non-academic programs such as nursing or agriculture, private universities omitting data from certain segments of their undergraduate population etc…) combined make a large difference in the final outcome. It’s not like Michigan’s SAT range and average would magically equal Harvard’s if all factors were properly weighed. But people on CC generally differentiate even with very small margins and there is sufficient variance to justify not comparing SAT results between universities that are sufficiently different from one another…or to draw conclusions when doing so. Saying that University X has a better student body than University Y simply because the reported average SAT at University X is 50 points or 100 points higher than the reported average SAT at University Y is very flawed. Even more flawed is claiming that University X is better than University Y because its reported average SAT is higher than University Y’s.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah people here want to use every metric as a judge of prestige, but this is an important distinction. When you’re applying to a specific school in cornell or penn and judging difficulty of entry it doesn’t matter for anything what the average SAT scores are for the entire undergrad population.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why exclude the lower admission stats of the Cornell ILR and Ag Life students? Cornell A&S students are likely competing for the same jobs and spots in graduate & professional schools with these students as other A&S students.</p>
<p>I know plenty of New Yorkers who apply to the state-affiliated colleges over A&S simply because they are cheaper. These ILR and Ag Life applicant pools are not fundamentally different than that of A&S, except possibly for academic talent and ability.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Including Cornell’s so-called “guaranteed transfers” who were not admitted as frosh. They drag down the selectivity of Cornell but are not counted at all in the final analysis.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Here’s the difference. Unlike Michigan students and alums, those of UVa, UCLA, UNC, Texas-Austin and Wisconsin-Madison do not huff and puff about their schools in the CC forums. In fact, they rarely huff and puff about anything despite the fact that their claims to top public status are as valid and legitimate as yours.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I referred to the IPEDS data available on the first page of this thread. Apparently, they don’t perfectly match the CDS data you provided. </p>
<p>Also, you do realize that the midpoint of the 25-75%ile range is NOT the “average,” right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is true, then in terms of selectivity (AS DEFINED BY SAT SCORES), Michigan should be considered a top ten public university. But this doesn’t seem good enough for you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Michigan admits 1 in 2 applicants and is a SAFETY for ivy-caliber applicants. 'Nuff said.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As a reply, I am simply going to quote something you said in another thread: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Including Cornell’s so-called “guaranteed transfers” who were not admitted as frosh. They drag down the selectivity of Cornell but are not counted at all in the final analysis.”</p>
<p>They are counted in the transfer admission statistics. This is actually sort of a problem because it’s impossible to figure out what the “real” admissions chances are for transfer applicants to the contract colleges who are not guaranteed transfers. Their chances of admission are actually much lower than the stats indicate, for this very reason.</p>
<p>It is absolutely correct that colleges tend not to publish stats of their transfers beyond admit %, as far as I’m aware at least. Since stats are not published it cannot be proven whether the transfers as a whole are a net asset or detraction. At least, for one thing, these people have demonstrated that they could succeed at the college level, someplace, which not all direct entrants can claim. But it is certainly legitimate to want to make mental adjustments for this, wherever relevant, I quite agree.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of Cornell’s “guaranteed transfers” were denied admission as frosh. </p>
<p>I don’t know if this condition applies to every single one of them, but the ones I know only had to meet one requirement to be admitted the next year: get a 3.0 gpa or above. There are no requirements regarding in which type of school or courses the guaranteed transfers must enroll. What other ivy GUARANTEES acceptance to transfers? Isn’t this a transparent method by which to make Cornell’s incoming (frosh) admission stats look better than they really are?</p>
<p>Also, it goes without saying that all the “guaranteed transfers” I know were rejected at every other ivy to which they applied.</p>
<p>"Why exclude the lower admission stats of the Cornell ILR and Ag Life students? "</p>
<p>If you are an applicant, you should exclude any college you are not applying to.
If you are applying to Brown, good chance that if you applying to a college at Cornell it would be Arts & Sciences. In that case, to determine your relative chance of admission/ college selectivity you should look at the entrance stats at Brown and at Cornell’s College of Arts & Sciences. Because that’s where you are applying. You would not, in that case, look at Cornell ILR admissions stats. Because you are not applying to Cornell ILR. </p>
<p>However, if you are an applicant to Brown and are also applying to Cornell ILR, then you should look at the stats for ILR to gauge its relative selectivity and your admissions chances. In that case you should not look at the stats of Cornell’s Arts& Sciences college. Because you are not applying to it.</p>
<p>You should look at the stat of the college you are actually applying to.</p>
<p>In most cases, applicants to other Ivy league universities would probably be applying to Cornell Arts & sciences or engineering, because those are the two colleges there that have programs of study most similar to the programs at those other universities.</p>
<p>But if you are the guy who is applying to both Dartmouth and the Cornell Hotel School, by all means you should look to the hotel school’s stats to assess selectivity and your chances. Not Arts & Sciences, or some aggregate, because to the extent they differ you will be misled.</p>
<p>In every case, where there are separate admissions and applicant pools by college, stats should be broken out by college, and selectivity should be viewed based on the college there that you are applying to. At every university where this is applicable.</p>
<p>“Isn’t this a transparent method by which to make Cornell’s incoming (frosh) admission stats look better than they really are?:”</p>
<p>I don’t really know why they do it, they didn’t used to. Maybe to get higher quality transfer students to the contract colleges? No idea, really, but that would be my guess.</p>
<p>But for all such situations I quite agree that mental adjustments may be appropriate.</p>
<p>I think it would be interesting to see detailed stats of transfers, at all colleges.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, an applicant should do this. But this does not explain why Cornell itself should do this when it reports its admissions stats, unless the university is cherry-picking #'s to make itself look better than it really is.</p>
<p>You state that it is misleading when other private universities exclude the #'s of some of its constituent colleges. Why isn’t it misleading when Cornell does this? And does this exclusion help prospective students better guage their chances of admissions, especially if these students are interested in ILR or Ag Life?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How exactly does GUARANTEEING acceptance to ex-rejects improve the quality of transfer students?</p>
<p>You know why Cornell does this (and it definitely used to do this too), but you won’t admit it.</p>