<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. This is what makes me suspect that Penn has ulterior motives by admitting a higher percentage of top 10% high school grads than its ivy rivals.</p>
<p>
No, the difference is that I only make assertions that I can back up with reliable evidence, logically sound arguments, and hard facts. You, on the other hand, rely on stereotypes, hearsay, and innuendo.</p>
<p>For example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’ve yet to offer any competent, reliable, hard evidence that Penn “will not hesitate to admit less qualified top 10% (or unranked) high school graduates over more qualified ones who do not meet that arbitrary criterion.” You haven’t even specified what you mean by “less qualified” and “more qualified,” let alone backed it up with any verifiable facts or statistics.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cornell supporters argue that their university deserves special treatment due to its many different, specialized schools. The idea is that it makes no sense to treat Cornell as a conglomerate because different types of students apply to the different types of schools. If this is the case, then we can presume that there is going to be great “fit” between the various types of students and their respective schools. In other words, applicants to Cornell represent a highly self-selective pool. </p>
<p>However, despite this higher self-selection, Cornell actually has the lowest yield (the only one under 50%) among the ivies. This demonstrates that Cornell lacks sufficient prestige to attract the majority of admitted students to the university even though these students are great “fits.”</p>
<p>So we’ve established that Cornell has BOTH the lowest selectivity AND the lowest prestige of all the ivies. It goes without saying then that Cornell is indeed the “worst ivy.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks, but I’ve already established this…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Since I do not work for the Penn admissions office, what sort of “hard evidence” do you expect??</p>
<p>The standards of proof vary according to the context of the argument. As far as I know, we are not in a criminal court of law, so I am under no obligation to establish anything beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>All I can do is to provide anecdotal evidence and make educated, reasonable and well-informed judgments based on this evidence. It is really up to the CC members to decide whether that is indeed sufficient…</p>
<p>U Penn may be interpreting the CDS questions differently from others as there is a very sharp difference in their reported % of students who reported Class Rank and other top schools. According to USNWR online, here is the data for the USNWR Top 25:</p>
<p>% of students who reported Class Rank, College</p>
<p>100% , U Penn
100% , UC BERKELEY
100% , UCLA
84% , Harvard
80% , Columbia
62% , U Chicago
62% , Wash U
51% , Caltech
51% , MIT
51% , Stanford
51% , Notre Dame
48% , Georgetown
47% , Northwestern
46% , U VIRGINIA
44% , Duke
44% , Dartmouth
43% , Rice
41% , Brown
41% , Vanderbilt
40% , Yale
40% , Cornell
40% , Emory
39% , Johns Hopkins
38% , Carnegie Mellon
30% , Princeton</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, people know this. Even the students and alums of the guilty schools do, although they’re obviously loathe to admit it…</p>
<p>Here’s the most recent class-rank admissions data available on-line for Penn (from the Internet Archive):</p>
<p>[Penn</a> Admissions: Incoming Class Profile](<a href=“http://web.archive.org/web/20080608153711/http://www.admissions.upenn.edu/profile/]Penn”>Penn Admissions: Incoming Class Profile)</p>
<p>Note this statement:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Furthermore, a review of the class-rank admission percentages on the above page belies the assertion that Penn is fixated on class rank in its admission decisions.</p>
<p>Want some SERIOUS anecdotal evidence undercutting the class-rank allegation? Review the “official” Penn ED admissions threads for the past few years:</p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/614061-official-penn-class-2013-ed-results.html?highlight=official[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/614061-official-penn-class-2013-ed-results.html?highlight=official</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/432843-official-university-pennsylvania-ed-2008-decisions.html?highlight=official[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/432843-official-university-pennsylvania-ed-2008-decisions.html?highlight=official</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/275031-official-university-pennsylvania-ed-2007-decisions.html?highlight=official[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/275031-official-university-pennsylvania-ed-2007-decisions.html?highlight=official</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/126013-official-penn-ed-decisions-class-2010-a.html?highlight=official[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-pennsylvania/126013-official-penn-ed-decisions-class-2010-a.html?highlight=official</a></p>
<p>Of course, it’s a lot easier to just continue regurgitating the same old tired shibboleths and bromides. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Frankly I would have assumed that, if they could be isolated, Cornell’s specialty colleges would have a high PA on their own, not a low one. Each of them is at or near the tops in their respective fields. But then, I’ve no idea what PA really is, so who knows.</p>
<p>With respect to multi-college universities, I feel applicants should be mostly concerned with the characteristics of the college there that they hope to actually attend. Statistics that are aggregates across separate disparate colleges are of limited utility to an applicant who will be applying to, and attending, only a particular one of them. If a multi-college university is showing a high PA, does that mean that its engineering school, which is where you are applying, has that same relative esteem, in engineering-land, as that overall aggregate across the university’s disparate colleges? Not necessarily, IMO. At the end of the day, I don’t think it means much, necessarily, to a particular individual applicant whose particular criteria
are individual, not an aggregate. But go ahead,compute and rank away.</p>
<p>Perceptions about Cornell are skewed by the fact that it has such an unusual structure. A case could be made that Cornell is the best ivy, but only if you are open to the idea of a comprehensive university where ag, architecture, engineering, etc. is taught alongside the liberal arts, and all are taught well. There is old-fashioned class bias against that model. The rather ad hoc presence of a Hotel Admin school aggravates that. (Why not a School of Laundromat Management, for instance?)</p>
<p>If you’re going to compare it to the other Ivies (admit rate, yield, etc) then it sorta makes sense to tease out the rates for arts & science alone. In compiling rankings, though, that would raise practical problems for how to handle all sorts of special programs at other institutions.</p>
<p>“(Why not a School of Laundromat Management, for instance?)”</p>
<p>If George Jefferson donated a zillion dollars to found it, the way Conrad Hilton did with the College of Hotel Administration, they might consider it, who knows. Seems like a logical extension…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[TheDartmouth.com</a> | College sees a decrease in its admissions yield](<a href=“http://thedartmouth.com/2009/05/11/news/admissions]TheDartmouth.com”>http://thedartmouth.com/2009/05/11/news/admissions)</p>
<p>Dartmouth’s yield rate was 49 percent for the Class of 2013.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for pointing this out. It’s obvious that my entire argument turns on this 1% percent difference…</p>
<p>Incidentally, I know a few NYC publishing firms that hire many LAC graduates as fact-checkers and proof-readers. Let me know if you’re interested.</p>
<p>FWIW, despite the fact that Cornell has the lowest yield among all the ivies, its yield is still higher than that of, say, Amherst or Williams. In this case: Worst Ivy > Best LAC</p>
<p>Yes, because the college choices of teenagers provide definitive proof of quality and ranking of colleges. And Lady Gaga is the best vocal artist today.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. The more prestigious and selective a school, the more likely it is to attract the best students, which by definition enhances the quality and ranking of said school. This is sort of a self-prophecy…</p>
<p>The tip-toppy students prefer to go to school with other tip-toppy students. Or at least they want to go to such a school so that other people (friends, relatives, employers) will know or assume them to be tip-toppy students.</p>
<p>This is why at the undergraduate level, the top privates rank so much higher than the top publics. Because all things being equal (cost, distance, etc.), the best students are much more likely to choose top privates over top publics.</p>
<p>Compare the student quality by either input (SATs) or outcome (e.g. access to elite jobs and/or admission to elite grad/professional schools) at top privates vs. top publics and we see that this is manifest…</p>
<p>Studies I have seen show no significant difference in incomes for similarly qualified students who chose “elite” versus non elite schools. You have any proof of your claim?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you admit that state flagships like Wisconsin are non elite schools…</p>
<p>“On UCLA’s campus, there is low morale (not to mention general stress and discontent) due to among other things: lack of access and availabilty of classes (esp. in “impacted” majors) as well as faculty freezes and/or exodus.”</p>
<p>I’m curious where you got the idea that UCLA’s campus has low morale. My daughter who attends UCLA, and her circle of friends, don’t seem to be running up against that problem. (or for that matter the lack of access and availability of classes: they are juniors, and are on track to be graduating in 4 years, or less, some even in impacted majors.) They were discussing over the holiday break how many of their high school friends seems to be unhappy with their private schools, and are transferring, some to UCLA. Whereas those that started at UCLA are all still there. </p>
<p>She did note that often the kids complaining about not getting classes are often those that sleep through their class signup window, and are not willing to compromise on times. (Apparently it’s social suicide to have a Friday class…) Those that have asked professors for entrance to classes that they need to graduate on time have been successful in her limited visibility.</p>
<p>Do you have sources attending UCLA that are having problems?</p>
<p>More acquaintances than friends…</p>
<p>Only by your definition as measured by average SAT scores and such. When it comes to actually producing leaders and ideas UW is elite.</p>
<p>^^^ Most of UW’s “elite” leaders and ideas are derived from its graduate divisions and faculty. But we’re talking about undergraduate institutions here…</p>