<p>Sorry just have to butt in here on somethng that bugged me a little.
“It means they blew off high school cause they didn’t care”
Not true wavedasher. Two of my siblings, both smart but had trouble with the sats, got into some decent uc’s and privates, but couldn’t afford the cost. So, they end up at a cc. This way they can save a ton of money for two years, while working, to transer to some school like Cornell where they can actually afford to cost of attendance. I didn’t like how you said that people at cc’s are those who blew off high school because they didn’t care. It’s just not true and somewhat offensive to those at cc’s for financial reasons (which there are quite a few of).</p>
<p>… So why not state school?</p>
<p>Anyway, it’s three in the morning and I’m done here - I’ve expressed my opinions and that’s that. Nothing personal against ccers or transfers for that matter - just that they should change the way on which they evaluate/take in transfers.</p>
<p>state school was still too much because of room and board. Altogether it was about 25k and my parents already had (still have) a huge debt from my eldest sibling’s college expenses. On paper, it looks like our family can pay the cost, but in reality we can’t. So cc was a good option for financial reasons. I agree with you Colene on that they should change the way they take in transers. I was just upset at wavedashers comment on ccers. For some it’s a financial issue.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Like mentioned before, money is one of the most prevalent excuses. If tier 3 universities were too expensive, it’s obvious that they got little to no scholarships. If they got little to no scholarships, it’s obvious that they weren’t smart enough and/or didn’t have the stats to impress these colleges. If they’re not smart enough to get scholarships from tier 2-3 schools, what makes you think they’re smart enough for a school like Cornell? Also, smart kids will apply to scholarship programs in case they don’t get any from the schools they apply to. Bottom line is once again: financial problems are 99% of the time NOT the reason people go to community colleges. Most of the time, it’s cause they had no choice. These people who blew off high school should NOT be getting second chances from a top school like Cornell; a 4.0 gpa from some random cc should not be good enough to wipe away the past 4 years. I’m not saying that this was the case for your siblings, but it is the case for the majority of people in cc’s. </p>
<p>I know I’m being harsh, but those are my views, and so far no one in this thread has convinced me otherwise. Hint: calling me an idiot or a ■■■■■ isn’t the way to do it as some posters have tried.</p>
<p>I agree with you on that those who blew off high school shouldn’t get second chances and end up at Cornell. I’ll admit that my two siblings who went to a cc didn’t apply for any outside scholarships, which could have covered room and board. Even if they got tutiton covered, the cost of room and board would still cause them to go to a cc. But they didn’t “blow off high school”. I’m not saying that most ccers are like my siblings who actually tried and struggled, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that most ccers blew off high school either. Also, there are those who are there for fall semester because they are spring admits. Well if I still haven’t convinced you otherwise then allow me to adopt the methods of other posters. IDIOT! you’re such a ■■■■■! lol just messing.</p>
<p>Cornell is looked down upon because frankly they live their mission statement of “any person, any study”… do some want their mission statement to be “any person…who has stats that enable us to rank the highest in the Ivies”???</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>csdad, the problem is that Cornell is twisting the model to “every person, every study”. Frankly, Cornell just doesn’t have the funds to sustain some of its low popularity classes even now, and yet it wastes valuable money that could go into growing its more popular programs just so it can keep 5-10 students satisfied and/or boast about its number of courses and breadth. It should be looking at the greater good for the entire university.</p>
<p>There’s nothing wrong with any person…any person that is QUALIFIED. I just don’t think it’s fair how so many 4.0 cc transfers are accepted when much more capable high school students who were able to prove their competence through metrics like standardized tests are rejected. Honestly, do you really think the high achievers that were rejected wouldn’t be able to get high GPAs in cc’s? And even if you take stats of the applicants out of the equation, the fact that the state schools accept literally half of the applicants is just ridiculous. Also, if Cornell is really promoting “any person”, then how come nearly half of the transfer class come from New York? That statement should be adjusted to “any person from NYS”.</p>
<p>Yes, wavedasher, let’s get rid of a bunch of those unpopular majors and students like poultry science, dairy farmers, and perhaps ornithology or entomology. Never mind that these areas are part of what makes Cornell a great school and a great institution. After all, I will be looking to an investment banker to provide my milk and poultry in the future.</p>
<p>If we are looking at the greater good, why do we need english majors or history majors either. People seem to learn very little from the lessons of history - I should know; I studied history and english. </p>
<p>Everyone should just major in whatever is popular right now. Great idea.</p>
<p>I met many transfer students during my time on the hill, and as far as I am aware, once they arrived they took the same courses, and tests as everyone else did. </p>
<p>I was never once, not one single time, asked for my HS GPA or SAT scores when I went on a job interview. (They were great too, so no sweat on that.) </p>
<p>BTW, it cracks me up that places like HYP, with their long history of racism, sexism and religious discrimination are considered “better”. Perhaps a few decades of penance have changed them, and they can’t go back now. Cornellians can be proud of the more accessible, yet excellent, education that they received without a history of such hallowed institutions like sexism and racism.</p>
<p>… I don’t get how racism and sexism are hallowed institutions.
Anyways, I am being objective in saying that HYP are great in the present for the connections you get there and their amazing faculty- that’s pretty much what makes them great. I don’t get how racism and sexism makes this situation “hilarious”. They are simply amazing schools, stepping stones to success. It doesn’t matter as much what they were in the past as what they are now.</p>
<p>Cornell is too - however, I simply thought they had better ways of allocating those stepping stones to those who deserve it more.</p>
<p>anothermom2, everyone probably hates you right now cause they probably wanted this thread to die, but since you responded with so much sarcasm that did nothing to change my opinion, I’ll kindly address your comments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, those less popular majors should be cut back plain and simple to improve the more popular ones. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to provide “milk and poultry” for the future; you really think if Cornell got rid of those majors, all of a sudden the world would go into chaos cause of a deficit of farm animals? I’m not saying to drop all of the programs that make Cornell special. At this point, Cornell is using up a lot of money on things I don’t get; like how they create new positions that aren’t really needed just so the professors’ wives can have jobs. Oh yea and a quick tip, investment banking isn’t the only career path if you don’t go into poultry science, dairy farming, and other things of that nature. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I said greater good for the university, not for humanity. You seem to be either misinterpreting or just putting words in my mouth at this point. Cutting departments like English or History would be devastating. You really think there’ll be an uproar if they cut poulty science? Look what happened when they cut Africana Studies and merged it into A&S. A few passionate people protested for a few days, but Provost Fuchs really couldn’t care less as he knew that the fund money would be better off elsewhere. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Stop being so childish. You really think sarcasm’s going to do anything to prove the point you don’t really have?</p>
<p>When did I say that? I said popular programs should receive more funding. Have you looked at the econ and bio buildings at Cornell? Two of the most popular majors with some of the worst looking buildings. You really think that’ll help attract prospective students?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That honestly has nothing to do with what I’m arguing. The only part that has anything to do with my argument that transfer admissions should be more selective is that you saw many transfers during your time here, which proves my point. A school like Cornell shouldn’t be comprised of 1/6 transfers, esp. if half of them come from NY and are in the state schools. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cause you majored in English and History. There are several jobs out there, and not just investment banking, where companies ask for SAT scores. But I really don’t get why you even brought this up when we’re talking about transfer admissions, which is an entirely different thing. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re exactly the kind of “old-timer” who stubbornly refuses to see past your own views. Great you don’t agree with me; that’s fine. I don’t agree with you. Your post did nothing to convince me. Just because you’re older doesn’t mean you always know more. You’re talking like the typical, “oh those ignorant kids, they’ll realize how wrong they were when they’re my age”. That doesn’t always work.</p>
<p>Anyway, as long as no one responds to me, I’ll let this thread die cause that’s what it seems like people want. Just remember that no one has yet to genuinely counter anything I said about the flaws of Cornell’s transfer admissions - tells me so much.</p>
<p>@wavedasher</p>
<p>I agree, to some extent, with some of what you advocate, but you ignore an important factor regarding the bulk of transfer acceptances to the contract colleges-- the GTs: they are fully vetted up-front when they apply from high school. You, and some others, seem to imply that the lion’s share of transfers are not reviewed on a par with the ED/RD admits. Most of the tranfers are (GTs). With respect to the non-GT transfers-- at least a substantial portion of them have shown the Cornell adcoms the right stuff from a different perspective. As I’ve said, maybe the policy might be best a bit more stringent with the latter group, but tacit political agreements with New York State (in regard to continued partial funding) may preclude that happening in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@ Wavedasher-</p>
<p>This seems to be the main point of your argument. I’ll bite. What makes you think it’s so easy to get a high GPA at a CC? It’s not like there’s a curve, so competing with lesser students really won’t be that advantageous to you in terms of grading. At my school, all full time faculty is require to have a PhD and part-time at least a masters. </p>
<p>Looking at my current professors (I’m taking 5 classes), I see a PhD from the state flagship, Duke, a masters in business admin. from Columbia, a masters in math from the state flagship and an English degree from Brown. The average professor at a community college is probably much, much more educated than an average teacher at a high school. In fact, this is fact. </p>
<p>The average GPA for the entirety of the California Community College District is a 2.7. Unimpressive and also unsurprising. Here’s the surprising part, this 2.7 exists despite the fact that a significant percentage of students there graduated in the quartile-ish of their high school. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.asccc.org/sites/default/files/Grade_Distributions.pdf[/url]”>http://www.asccc.org/sites/default/files/Grade_Distributions.pdf</a>
<a href=“http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/HighSchooltoCommunityCollege.pdf[/url]”>http://www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/HighSchooltoCommunityCollege.pdf</a></p>
<p>Of course, that document also discusses the very wide deviation in grading. My school in particular sent students to Cornell (2011, 2010, 2009), Columbia (2009, 2005), Stanford (2009), Brown (2010) and M.I.T (2005). Focusing on the outliers is never a good practice, but it just goes to show that very capable students are around. Only three of all of the students above were URMs, by the way. </p>
<p>Anyway, to conclude, yes, CCs are easy. However, I doubt a random person in the top 10% of their respective high school would get a 4.0 or even above a 3.75 taking all of the transfer requisites for a school like Cornell.</p>
<hr>
<p>I’m not disagreeing with your argument, just trying to point out that the idea that anyone can get a 4.0 at a CC is false. Adcoms know this, which is why they accept CC students to begin with. The only real concern is the disproportionate rate Cornell does this compared to other top schools</p>
<p>It really depends on which community college you are talking about. This sure wasn’t the case for the kids in my district, where literally the only kids who went to cc were the ones that could not get into state school.</p>
<p>@ Colene</p>
<p>This is extremely true. Heck, students within the same district vary tremendously. I’m not saying CC is hard or anything, just that it’s not THAT easy to get a 4.0 The workload (of taking 12 hours at my school) is comparable to taking about 2 or 3 APs. Which really isn’t that much, but still.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Colm. I am aware about GTs skewing the acceptance rates, but I still don’t think that’s the full story. The concept of a GT still boggles me. If they were qualified, why weren’t they accepted? What separates them from people who were waitlisted? Many people argue that GTs were just as qualified, but Cornell ran out of room for them. So they’re essentially saying that if Cornell came across a guy with 2400 SAT, rank 1/1000, 5’s on 15 APs, USAMO, USABO, USAPO top placer, son of a billionaire who donated millions to Cornell, etc. the adcoms will say "oh, we already reached our quota of [some number], we better just give him a GT. I don’t think so. GT’s are GT’s because they weren’t qualified enough. The state schools should just do what A&S does and give them a fee waiver for the transfer process and encourage them to apply again. Last year’s transfer acceptance rate for HumEc was – over 50% – if these guys who hate me really see no problem in that, I don’t know what to say. </p>
<p>However, I do believe they are more qualified than the droves of cc students that are accepted every year. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>First of all, majoreco, I believe you’re an African American cc transfer to Cornell, so I really respect how you’re keeping your cool when my posts probably come out as offensive to you (although others are spouting nonsense cause they can’t think straight after getting offended). I recall you had a 2100+ SAT and was not your normal everyday cc applicant, so I’m glad you got in. You’re probably one of the few cc applicants that deserved it.</p>
<p>Now. I know that the level of difficult at cc’s probably varies, but I’ve taken a class at a cc before during the summer, I know people who went to cc’s, and I wasn’t impressed. Students there were learning how to add variables, they didn’t even know what a derivative was, and their writing/grammar was on par with that of a 5th grader. I’m sure the top students at these cc’s are smart and take harder courses, but smart for an Ivy League? That’s a different kind of smart. The level of students and difficulty of the coursework are at a whole other level, and some 4.0 from a random cc isn’t enough to gauge if the guy will be capable of handling Cornell. Not to mention even if it is, his past 4 years shouldn’t be so easily excused when others who worked their tails off when he wasn’t got rejected.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am very skeptical of this figure of 50% that you cite for HumEc’s transfer acceptance rate last year. After the quick search I just did, I found a figure for a HumEc transfer acceptance rate of 29.02% that was listed in a Daily Sun article from 2007. So, I doubt very much that the college would have accepted that kind of percentage last year. The acceptance rate trends have by-and-large been heading in the other direction. If that figure is kosher (which I doubt), then I can understand some of your rancor. Where did you find that figure?</p>
<p>One more thing-- the transfer acceptance rate figures are skewed because of the relatively high number of GTs passed out by the contract college adcoms. While it may be understandable that some take issue with the practice of using GT acceptances, the fact still remains that they were (conditionally) accepted during the RD round, where the vetting rigor is normal.</p>
<p>I think you’re looking at this too simplistically, wavedasher. A LOT of guaranteed transfers are very smart but come from families without money. Rather than carry those students for four years at a higher cost or force their families to find a way to afford Cornell way beyond their means, Cornell gets them as alumni but only has to carry the financial burden for 2-3 years. There’s a lot more economics at play in these guaranteed transfer decisions to make it work for people who can’t afford a place like Cornell.</p>
<p>Not to mention the fact that loading a class with all top stat students is not the goal. The educational experience would be much diminished if they did that; they would also miss many very smart people that the current way of measuring aptitude does not adequately capture.</p>
<p>@Colene post49 - Sarcasm was the intention regarding such practices. Great if it doesn’t bother you that women and minorities were excluded for hundreds of years from certain places. My point was that places like HYP are almost deified among certain students and parents.</p>
<p>People who want to think that any education is their golden ticket for success like are free to do so. However, it is what you do with the education that makes it a winner or loser for the individual. </p>
<p>My personal belief on SAT and GPA is that these are not a referendum on the worth of any individual. They may give you a piece of the picture, but are not the whole picture. If people want to believe that they are “smarter” or more gifted because they got 2400 on the SAT, that is also their privilege.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I found those figures at Cornell’s site. Cornell actually reports a lot of data and statistics that other schools keep hidden; you’d be surprised to see what kind of other things they report. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000156.pdf#zoom=100[/url]”>http://www.dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000156.pdf#zoom=100</a></p>
<p>Compare the state schools’ rates with those of the endowed colleges, barring hotel. There is a world of difference. Most people don’t know about these rates, which is why it’s been quiet; cause frankly, it’s embarrassing looking at some of those numbers (although I know GT skews them a bit). Also, a 29.02% is still ridiculously high. Transfer rates should be lower than the freshman rates at the very least. Preferably <10%.</p>
<p>@applejack, I need to go to class, so I’ll give you a proper response later.</p>