<p>Look at peer assessment score in USNews ranking, which reflect what people in Academic think of the level of each school. Within Ives, HYP(4.9)>Columbia(4.7)>Cornell(4.6)>Upenn(4.5)>Dartmout/Brown(4.4)</p>
<p>According to USNWR, the Cornell acceptance rate is about 31%. I don't think it's so high just because Cornell is a bigger school. Almost everyone I know who applied to Cornell got in, including many who I thought had absolutely no chance. </p>
<p>"It just makes me mad when schools like Cornell benefit off the Ivy name when nonIvies like Duke/Stanford/MIT are much better."</p>
<p>I must agree.</p>
<p>i'll intervene a little</p>
<p>i got into columbia, cornell, penn, and yale.</p>
<p>cornell is highest on my list.</p>
<p>go figure</p>
<p>a very minor correction, Cornell's acceptance rate for 2010 was a little over 24% (lowest ever). Still very good though.</p>
<p>"I don't think it's so high just because Cornell is a bigger school"</p>
<p>prove it!</p>
<p>i'll prove it otherwise: Cornell has over 13,000 undergraduates, the highest in the ivy league by far. In order to have proper class sizes, Cornell must admit more students than the other schools. Despite the fact that Cornell drew in the largest amount of applications in the ivy league (by several thousand), they are still able to admit considerably more students than the other schools simply because cornell is a bigger school. </p>
<p>Simplified: larger school = more students that are needed to be accepted. </p>
<p>"It just makes me mad when schools like Cornell benefit off the Ivy name when nonIvies like Duke/Stanford/MIT are much better"</p>
<p>here's where your arugment falls flat on its face. The ivy league is a sports conference. Dolt! When Cornell's athletic teams start to completely suck and MIT's teams start to be highly competitive against other ivy teams like Harvard, Brown, Yale, etc. then come back with the argument of "Duke/stanford/MIT are much better" and add to the end of your phrase "at football."</p>
<p>It always amuses me how clueless people so brazenly show themselves to be with quotes like this, "It just makes me mad when schools like Cornell benefit off the Ivy name when nonIvies like Duke/Stanford/MIT are much better" and how they have no understanding of the history of the schools they are applying to. The Ivy League started in 1956 as a conference with a common goal of associating to de-emphasize big time football with the common mission of increased focus on academics. It was not intended to be a self-appointment of schools 1-8 in academic superiority in the U.S. Are these anti-Cornell trolls expecting 50 years later that Duke should want to get rid of their ACC Div I-A ties and start playing D-IAA against eight schools ~ 800 miles away that it has no historical association with because it has a lower acceptance rate than Cornell by 2%? The way they express their complaint, this seems like the only effective way that it could be resolved to me.</p>
<p>UCB, UCLA and UCSD are fabulous science schools!</p>
<p>well, i dont have anything against Cornell, but I think the Ivy's as such are overrated like hell. Definitely, the statement that duke3d4 made wasnt sensible, but he has a point in the way that better schools are not given thesame prestige as these Ivy's.... niot their fault tho</p>
<p>Just like in football, ask people about thebest and most say David Beckham.. =just sadly overrated (read George Best's comment on him). Unfortunately, the gods like Ronaldinho, Thierry Henry etc. dont get the fair share of limelight when they are the 'alpha and the omega' compared to BeckHAM</p>
<p>Specifically with respect to Biology/ Chemistry, I have to believe that Cornell has the best programs of the schools listed in the initial post.</p>
<p>Remember that in addition to the Biology offerings in its College of Arts & Sciences, Cornell also has a huge College of Agriculture, which is essentially a school of applied biology. The school of veterinary medicine is also located on the Ithaca campus. </p>
<p>Chemistry has been a strong area there for years.</p>
<p>However, for undergraduate study, the differences in these particular programs are probably less significant than choosing the whole school and environment that your son thinks he will best succeed in.</p>
<p>All of these are great schools, and all of them will probably have enough for him.</p>
<p>The four Ivies have some significant differences....what attracted your S to each of them in the first place? What does he not like about the UC's and USC?</p>
<p>Cal's College of Chem is one of the tops in the nation. But, its bio program is a relative slacker (for Cal) -- most of Cal's departments are in the top 5-10, but its bio-sci program is in the teens. But, one thing you should note is the brutal curves for intro science classes at the UCs, particularly for Engineering and premed sciences in Letters and Science (15% A's....).</p>
<p>fwiw: 'SC is way below every one of the schools in your consideration, HOWEVER, the Ivy schools are not $200k better, nor is Cal $100k better, IMO. Unless money is no object, take the full ride and save money for grad school.....</p>
<p>Agree with monydad -- go where he feels most comfortable 9assuming you have the $$) -- my SoCal kid really enjoyed the summer program in Ithaca but would not apply to that school bcos he thought Ithaca was "too dumpy." (his term, not mine)</p>
<p>My theory on why Duke### doesnt like cornell? He was rejected there and now needs a it of an ego boost.</p>
<p>boo.</p>
<p>They're all good. For my preferences, Penn >= Columbia > others.</p>
<p>[url=<a href="http://www.tumr.com/view/?id=20&app=college%5DNash%5B/url">http://www.tumr.com/view/?id=20&app=college]Nash[/url</a>]</p>
<p>from what i understand after talking with a professor, biochemistry is one of penn's stronger departments.</p>
<p>"gang rapes: none"</p>
<p>Touch</p>