<p>I'm not saying it matters to me, I love Cornell no matter what - but it bugs me they seem to be the only school that doesn't have a decreasing admit rate.</p>
<p>We saw Penn's admit rate decline rapidly from, I think someone mentioned, in the 50% range. Columbia, Harvard, Yale, and Stanford all had acceptance rates below 10% this year - yet Cornell is around 20%. </p>
<p>Cornell has the MOST applications of all the Ivies, so they could be selective if they want to. It just makes no sense. Why purposely not be selective? It's stupid, but applicants really do put maybe 75% of their college choice on how hard it is to get in. It also hurts Cornell's ranking (again, while it's not important to me, the ranking system does have an effect on things), and I'd hate to see Cornell continue to fall. If they lowered their acceptance rate and took less students, FA would travel further and they could compete with other schools in terms of FA. They would also have smaller class-sizes, a better student:faculty ratio, etc. In other words: Cornell has all that's required to be ranked a lot higher, but it isn't using it.</p>
<p>Uh... because it is anti-ethical to the founding principles of the University?</p>
<p>Ezra wanted to found an institution where any person could find instruction in any study. And the university endeavors to enroll the most number of students qualified as possible subject to the physical constraints of the campus. This means transfer students from community colleges.</p>
<p>Why become more selective? Just so that another 2,000 students do not have access to the fantastic resources available at Cornell? Do you really think a student faculty to ratio of 5 to 1 or 7 to one makes a huge difference at the end of the day? No. It's more about student effort and ambition.</p>
Ezra wanted to found an institution where any person could find instruction in any study. And the university endeavors to enroll the most number of students qualified as possible subject to the physical constraints of the campus. This means transfer students from community colleges.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Umm... this is very debatable. Any person any study could mean a number of things. I for one, think it referred to the fact that Cornell would be one of the first Ivies admit people regardless of race, gender, and creed, rather than "let's admit as many students as we can."</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why become more selective? Just so that another 2,000 students do not have access to the fantastic resources available at Cornell? Do you really think a student faculty to ratio of 5 to 1 or 7 to one makes a huge difference at the end of the day? No. It's more about student effort and ambition.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The more students that have access to Cornell's resources, the less resources each student has access to.</p>
<p>My biggest complaint is financial aid. I don't really care about rankings/selectivity and not many other people do either. I really wish that Cornell could reduce class size so that it can offer a financial aid program on par with other Ivies and compete for top students.</p>
<p>I read this article in which someone high in Cornell's admissions office (I forget who) said that, while peer schools seem to want to admit as few people as possible, Cornell wants to admit as many people as possible. Cornell's mission and goals are the same as they were back in Ezra's day.</p>
<p>^ I read the same article - it goes on to say that they had a 9% spike in applications, but the acceptance rate went down by only 1 TENTH of a point. It just makes no sense - they have a matriculation rate of only like 49% because people apply just to see if they can get in since it's the easiest top school, but then don't go.</p>
<p>The reason the acceptance rate stayed the same this year is that Cornell made it a point to use the waitlist less this year. Thus, they accepted more people RD and ED than they normally do. And they pretty much accomplished their mission. There was very little waitlist activity this year. </p>
<p>Personally, I think it's refreshing that, in an era where schools are trying to use the waitlist as much as possible (ie WashU), Cornell is trying to reduce the amount of stress and waiting for its applicants by using the waitlist LESS and accepting more people outright instead of jerking them around for a few more months.</p>
<p>I agree with you that Cornell is the least rankings-conscious out of any of the top schools...for better or for worse.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The more students that have access to Cornell's resources, the less resources each student has access to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now this isn't true either. Resources are not "divided" cleanly and economies of scale very much exist. If the Cornell Library has 8 million volumes or if there basic research labs on campus, taking away 2,000 students doesn't meaningfully change the amount of resources and opportunities on campus either. The same classes would still be offered, the same research opportunities would still be available.</p>
<p>
[quote]
just like the USGOVT can say what the intent of the founders were...</p>
<p>the current head honchos at cornell can say what the intent of the founder was...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sigh... no. Only a strict reading of the historical context of the founding can say what the intent of the founders were. Here is a good place to start:</p>
<p>I'm a little bit confused when it comes to Cornell's prestige.
At my school, there have recently been about 11 students per year accepted to Cornell. This has come with a drop in prestige at my school (a huge drop, actually -_-) and I don't understand it. Some people are going as far as to say NYU is better than Cornell!
I find it ridiculous bull, but I don't quite understand Cornell's selectivity. How selective is it compared with other top schools?</p>
<p>Since I live in upstate NY, most of them were accepted to the contract colleges.
But I only know which ones a few of them were accepted to, 3 at HumEc and 1 at CALS is all I know.</p>
<p>I truly despise those who believe that the contract colleges "bring down" Cornell or are weaker than Cornell's other schools. They are simply not either of those things.</p>
<p>It chooses to be less selective because it can. It's not like its filling its classes with unqualified students. It has the resources to educate 13000 undergrads, and there definitely are 3000-4000 students per year worthy of Cornell- why would it turn people down just to make itself look better to narrow-minded high schoolers? </p>
<p>I don't think it loses by attracting and accepting so much talent.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Now this isn't true either. Resources are not "divided" cleanly and economies of scale very much exist. If the Cornell Library has 8 million volumes or if there basic research labs on campus, taking away 2,000 students doesn't meaningfully change the amount of resources and opportunities on campus either. The same classes would still be offered, the same research opportunities would still be available
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well you can't disagree that things like financial aid suffer direly because of Cornell's size. Here, the more students that have access to Cornell's resources, the less resources each student has access to. If there are too many students, Cornell can't spend that much money on each of them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Well you can't disagree that things like financial aid suffer direly because of Cornell's size. Here, the more students that have access to Cornell's resources, the less resources each student has access to.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not quite. You have to understand where the financial aid money comes from at Cornell. It doesn't come from the endowment. The endowment mostly goes towards professor salaries and programmatic support. It comes from tuition that full paying students provide. So if you decrease the number of students enrolled, yes, the number of students requiring financial aid will decrease. But so will the number of full-paying students subsidizing the financial aid packages.</p>
<p>I completely agree with soccer_guy...the admission rate is too high...I had a friend who told me her college is outstanding just because its admission rate is lower than Cornell's. The reasoning was stupid and the conclusion false, however it's something to think about. </p>
<p>One of the first things someone asks you about your college is "what's the admission rate?". I'd like to be able to say 10% for a change.</p>
<p>And the "every person, every study" doesn't mean "every applicant"...a resource is desirable if only a few have access to it, not if anyone can get it. It's human nature to put value on the unachievable.</p>