<p>“Maybe things have changed, but…it used to be one heck of a lot harder to get into Cornell ILR than into Cornell A &S if you were a NY state resident.”</p>
<p>Huh??
Admissions statistics for NYS residents alone have never been provided by the university, so far as I’ve ever seen.Much less NYS residents by college. So how can one really know this?
But my expectation, and common perception as far as I’m aware, has always been just the contrary.</p>
<p>The admissions discount does account for the observed application volume. It would be much lower otherwise, given the relatively specialized nature of the curriculum, vs a traditional liberal arts program. It has not equalled the selectivity of Cornell CAS, overall, (i.e, absent any alleged state-specific factors about which there is no data) taking into account % admits & stats, anytime while I was watching. It also offers a relatively high number of deferred admits, unlike CAS. </p>
<p>It’s a fine program though. if it’s what someone wants.</p>
<p>IIRC, about 1/2 the students at the “contract colleges” (which includes ILR) are NYS residents , vs. about 1/5 at the “endowed colleges” (which includes CAS). These are matriculated students, not applicants. But one may surmise that, though there may be a concentrated NYS applicant volume to the contract colleges, they also must accept a lot of them, to achieve the observed matriculation proportions.</p>
<p>As for kids not getting in, one can’t say without knowing more. Maybe the kid flunked the “Why Cornell?” essay, didn’t seem to care about going there. Maybe for his particular expressed interests, his stats really weren’t all that spectular, and he didn’t seem that interesting a person. Maybe he didn’t come off as someone who would contribute anything to the vitality of the university.
Maybe his recommendation letters said “this kid is really a grade-grubbing tool”.
We just can’t say. But there’s a lot more to an application than the objective factors we are privy to, and the most relevant criteria for admission may also vary by program,</p>
<p>*Maybe the kid flunked the “Why Cornell?” * I think, of all the questions, that’s the trickiest for any Ivy. And for many hs thinkers. “You’re the best” (often naming a program that school is not “the best” for.) “You offer study abroad.” Duh. And when kids note that a degree from College X will ensure their future financial success. </p>
<p>Admittedly, my info is anecdotal. I live in NYC. Lots of kids from my offspring’s alma mater apply to Cornell. Cornell is a bit unique because (taken from Cornell’s website):</p>
<p>
[quote]
You will apply to an undergraduate college or school at Cornell as your primary choice, and also have the option of applying to another one as an alternate.
[/quote ]
</p>
<p>It’s been a long time since my kid was in high school, but back then it was common for kids to apply to ILR and not get in but get into A&S. I also knew kids from 2 other high schools in NY state who put ILR as a first choice and A&S as a second and got into A&S but not ILR. It really was considered much more prestigious to get nto ILR than into A&S. </p>
<p>It is true though that ILR has articulation agreements with some NYS community colleges so if you attend one of them it’s easier to transfer into ILR than into A&S. </p>
<p>The ILR curriculum is pretty flexible. You take about half your courses with A&S students and pay much less for them. </p>
<p>Again, it was a while ago, so maybe things have changed.</p>
<p>Not to beat a dead horse, but if it was really “considered much more presitigious” - ever- one would expect that to be reflected in the overall college admit stats, However that is not what the data shows, in any year, that I’'ve ever seen.</p>
<p>Nevertheless,there are certainly reasons why someone would be admitted to a nominally slighly more selective college, based on the data, and declined at another that is nominally slightly less selective, Due to their different missions and demonstrated fit. A most obvious example would be an engineer type with perfect 800 math scores might be declined at the hotel school. Not to mention the completely stochastic nature of admissions, where different readers reading the same file come to different conclusions. Admission is done separately by college there, so different people at each school would be reading the files.</p>
<p>On the other hand I can’t dismiss the possibility that in some cases the university has played some games to maximize revenue by funnelling applicants who can pay and are qualified for both schools towards CAS…</p>
<p>Things may have changed dramatically but way back in the dark ages when I applied to colleges, it was considerably more difficult to be accepted to Cornell CAS than to ILR. </p>
<p>Admissions officer probably had bad Chinese food the night before…It’s all numbers game, Harvard’s Asian undergraduate population usually gravitates around 19% every year. My guess is the kid was not interesting enough. Secretary of Math club seems boring even to me.</p>
<p>I am certain Ivy League Schools would not divulge stats on different races applying there, but why do I have a feeling that all this recent Ivy League craze (probably starting sometime in the late 90’s) has these Asians to thank for. I am Oriental and I think this whole notion that put Ivies a few levels up from other colleges is plain STUPID. I have attended lectures at Ivies and state schools. Guess what? No difference. </p>
<p>Seriously, what is up with the absurdly elitist “even Cornell rejected him” comments repeated by the OP? Cornell (A/S + Engineering at least) rejects over 60% of Valedictorians… Just because it’s the easiest to get into in the Ivy League doesn’t mean it’s easy to get into… </p>
<p>@SlithyTove, please don’t assume my ignorance of the constant societal platitude that “life is not fair.” The difference in this case (as opposed to the Olympics, jobs, salaries, etc.) is that much more tangible, physical items are advertised as being used as representations of a person. For example, the first thing you see on a college admissions post or site is the minimum and maximum SAT score. Not to mention the long standing correlation between high grades and college acceptance. Therefore to tell students to actually study hard, and get numerically higher grades, is an absolute joke because as schools tell you, you need to get the BEST scores possible (minus 500 SAT points). I agree that numbers aren’t everything, but for four colleges to completely blow over numbers is absolutely ridiculous and an absolute testament to the recent OECD global rankings which show that the US ranks below the OECD average in EVERY category. Life’s not fair, but when some things are clearly spelled out in an stellar essay and written out with outstanding numbers, that seems like a childish excuse for practices you cannot justify.</p>
<p>Just be a regional or national athlete in some attractive sport like lacrosse or football or tennis, etc. BE AN ATHLETE!!! This is the dark secret of the Ivies: they adore good athletes, almost as much as Stanford does.</p>
<p>@tk21769, relatively low? From that same graduating class, the four other students accepted to Cornell, did NOT win national awards, were not “Kennedy kids,” or legacy of any sort. I knew them personally, including one student who cheated on all his Spanish examinations. Yes, he too got into Cornell. What great judges of character and personality! Surely they should reject my salutatorian, perfect SAT/ community service/ volunteer friend and accept that student who aced Spanish after cheating on EVERY exam. And trust me that guy wasn’t the salutatorian, president of any club, or didn’t do any national contest. And yet he was accepted. There was nothing to see in him, the college made a completely random and WRONG decision. Im sorry, but such instances of unfairness get me riled up. Life’s is of course not fair. But as I stress the point, how can it be so unfair that four colleges give NO regard to his accomplishments in high school? </p>
<p>The OECD rankings, by which I assume you mean PISA and TIMMS, is for 9th grade achievement. However if you mean rankings for quality of life, GDP, etc, etc, then there’s no relation to your friend’s situation.
BTW, if schools told you to get the BEST scores, they didn’t advise you well. As long as you have 2100-2150, you’re fine, and students who take the test 4 or 5 times are often looked down upon since they focus on the wrong aspect of education. These tests are basic measurements of basics mastery and hard work but they closely reflect social class, for instance - not intelligence, not “aptitude”, not something meaningful. They’re just a metric. They don’t measure subject mastery, which is why there are Subject Tests, for instance, and those are looked at much more closely. (AP/Subject tests, then the essay, are more important than CR+M for the Ivy League).
You’re right that high grades are the strongest correlation for college acceptance - but you’re talking about specific universities here, where high grades are a given. (If you don’t have them, you’re cut right away, and then only does the discussion begin.)</p>
<p>In the end, there was probably nothing “wrong” with your friend’s application, but these unbiversities turn away 2/3 of applicants whose applications have nothing wrong. Many factors come into account.</p>
<p>The range of numbers you typically see on websites doesn’t indicate highest and lowest, but merely mid50% range, meaning that 25% students get more than the highest number presented.</p>
<p>It sounds like you wish your friend had been admitted to one of the 4. Or perhaps you viewed Cornell as a sort of “safety” because it’s less selective than other Ivies, but that’s very deceiving because stats and selectivity vary greatly by college.</p>
<p>I’m not sure why you’d imagine that all 4 colleges would have different ways of evaluating your friend’s application. I’m puzzled because you seem to find it genuinely vexing that FOUR universities reacted in the same way.</p>
<p>^^ Subject tests aren’t really better honestly. The SAT Literature Subject test or example is the biggest farce I’ve ever seen, It’s the most surface level, nothing test of your interaction with a work, World History just tests what you can memorize, most of the others, the same.</p>
<p>Stuff like Math and Physics are probably better, since those are problem solving oriented subjects, maybe Chemsitry too, but the other stuff is poor. </p>
<p>TrinidadJames, the point is that Top 10 LACs and Universities, and in particular Ivies, value the SAT Subject results more than the SAT Reasoning part, in part because SAT Reasoning, after a certain point, is more about mastering tricks than actually showing competency. SAT Subjects don’t test as much as AP tests but do test content, and in that admission world, they exist in complement to AP tests. </p>
<p>if someone from your high school who always cheated got into Cornell, look in the mirror and blame yourself UNLESS you reported him. Colleges won’t know that someone cheated unless they got caught and the high school put something on his/her permanent record. All too often, kids don’t tell anyone and teachers ignore it… </p>
<p>If you look at the SAT scores for all of these colleges, it’s self-evident–to me at least–that the colleges don’t just ignore them… There aren’t a heck of a lot of people with SAT scores 500 points below your friend’s getting into Ivies. Nor do they ignore grades.</p>
<p>Whether you’re just fine with a SAT score of 2150 depends on where you’re “coming from.” At my offspring’s old high school, that score would put you in the bottom half of the class and probably would kill your chances. Scores are looked at “in context.” </p>
<p>You also shouldn’t assume, Mike, that you know everything relevant about your other classmates. Maybe one has an affiliation with Cornell you know nothing about. Maybe one won a prize or award you know nothing about. Or maybe one has a strong claim to want to major in a subject that is “underutilized” at Cornell. Or maybe some teacher wrote a rave rec. You don’t know. </p>
<p>I also have to laugh at the assumption by some in this thread that Oxbridge admissions is completely merit based. There’s been a lot of criticism of the Oxbridge system in the UK .Basing so much on tests? Well, some UK kids get privately tutored for A levels–they have the same problems we do. Interviewing does have its limitations. Some very smart people don’t interview well. Moreover, kids from working class backgrounds are less likely to impress interviewers who come from posher backgrounds. They may make more grammar mistakes, especially when speaking, than those from more affluent backgrounds. They may not realize it’s inappropriate to use a lot of curse words, because in their world most people use them. They may dress in a manner that the interviewer deems inappropriate–because they haven’t a clue what kinds of clothes they should wear or can’t afford them. </p>
<p>Looks can matter. The pretty–but not too pretty–girl may have a major advantage over the less attractive overweight girl with a bad case of acne or the boy who has annoying mannerisms when he’s nervous. The student may be well matched with an interviewer who knows a lot about his field of interest, but sometimes (s)he isn’t. </p>
<p>Bottom line: the Oxbridge system isn’t perfect either.</p>
<p>Oh if I’m wrong about Cornell–and it seems I am–I apologize. I guess that my posts just prove that when you see things from one perspective, things can be distorted. </p>
<p>Yeah, this thread jumped the shark 8 pages ago. It’s now stuck in an endless loop of recriminations by the OP followed by responses, followed by more OP recriminations, followed by…</p>
<p>@tomwantssnow Havard and some other universities are also huge on collegiate sports competition. If he got into Harvard with that specs, it means he was a very outstanding athlete. Although I’m not an athlete myself at all, from my very close acquaintance who’s a former NFL player, I can tell you that being recognized as a top notch (Harvard only wants to recruit top-notch ones, especially if they have to trade their score with their athletic ability. It’s much harder than getting 2400 or 36. There are so many students getting those scores especially with the tutoring, but the sports is competition. It’s not about how you yourself do it, but how you surpass others’ ability. Even if you get to the top, you gotta keep yourself up all the time. People really should stop whining that they studied so hard and got all the perfect score and athletes, who have done “nothing” gets all the chances. I think it’s totally just for schools like Harvard to accept them, as they are also interested in keeping good standing in their sports leage, and same things go for other schools. Harvard’s interest is not just on the academics. Also, athletes, although they might not have perfect SAT or GPA like non-athletic students, have different culture and POV to enrich the school community. </p>