<p>^ Well they have one of the largest international populations, so I gess they did, lol.</p>
<p>I thought that Cornell was one of the Ivies who actually gave aid to internationals. In Asia, Cornell is favored because they get a better package.</p>
<p>
[quote]
So no Ivy league institution is going to offer a middle class family a free ride, if that is what your ideal is.
[/quote]
Harvard is working to make its school very affordable, if not free for many middle class families. If you earn less than $60k tution is free. Less than $180k and you pay a lot less than you would at comperable colleges with no loans. Harvard is able to do this because they have more money than many small countries. Princeton is another school that almost always beats the competition at giving out aid. There are tons of students who see a few thousand more in aid from Princeton than the other Ivies. Now, one probably can go to Cornell and ask for them to match the package given by Harvard or Princeton, but for kids who didn't apply to HP or didn't get into HP they probably can't get a comperable aid package as they would have received from HP.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Cayuga, I found the article that states that the cost of educating a Cornell student is greater than the tuition that Cornell students pay, which contradicts what you said above:
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow. My bad. I was really tired last night. I meant to say that the average cost is greater than the sticker price for tuition, but that the marginal cost is not. Which is consistent with all of my arguments. But the marginal cost is a different story. Cornell would never "lose less money" by decreasing enrollment.</p>
<p>I don't know why the OP would even pose the question. Cornell has always accepted varied students from varied backgrounds. If it weren't for Cornell's policies, then perhaps the OP, who previously attended a community college, would not have the amazing opportunity before him with his transfer to Cornell. It reminds me of the famous Groucho Marx quote, "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member".</p>
<p>
[quote]
Harvard is working to make its school very affordable, if not free for many middle class families. If you earn less than $60k tution is free. Less than $180k and you pay a lot less than you would at comperable colleges with no loans. Harvard is able to do this because they have more money than many small countries. Princeton is another school that almost always beats the competition at giving out aid. There are tons of students who see a few thousand more in aid from Princeton than the other Ivies. Now, one probably can go to Cornell and ask for them to match the package given by Harvard or Princeton, but for kids who didn't apply to HP or didn't get into HP they probably can't get a comperable aid package as they would have received from HP.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yes Venkat, but we could care less what Harvard, Yale and Princeton do. We don't often compete for cross-admits with them and they have endowments way larger than ours. We should at least have an FA program that's at least as good as Penn, Columbia, etc. because we often share cross admits with those schools and because we can- we have similar endowments, and a similar number of **overall<a href="grad%20and%20undergrad">/B</a> students.</p>
<p>I've been reading this thread with respect to financial aid, and something is still bugging me.</p>
<p>Cornell's admissions are need blind, correct? If so, Cornell is admitting a pool of students that includes some students with financial need and others without. I assume that Cornell hopes to have a balanced mix of students in each pool, some of whom can pay full freight tuition and some of whom will need financial asistance. </p>
<p>However, the mix of students in the accepted pool can change from year to year, can it not? In other words, in some years more students may have greater financial need than in other years. Assuming that the return on Cornell's endowment is relatively steady over the long term, where does the additional money come from to pay for the greater financial need of the pool of students accepted in some years? In years where the financial need of the admitted student pool is greater, does Cornell dip into the principal of its endowment? Should Cornell defer maintenance, construction of new facilites, salary increases, hiring and purchases of books and computers?</p>
<p>Is the answer that Cornell should no longer have need blind admissions?</p>
<p>Just for the record, I am not advocating any of these points (and I actually feel strongly that need blind admissions is an important part of how Cornell fulfills its mission), I am truly asking for your opinions.</p>
<p>It's never need blind. Every school has a set budget for FA, ivies just have a bigger budget than other smaller LACs. On your application you would indicate whether you are applying for FA or not. They could also guess by your application whether you will actually need FA. I have posted at few other threads that it's not a good idea for borderline studens with high parents contribution to apply for FA because you'll be put in a different pool. More kids get off waitlist if no FA is needed.</p>
<p>^Ivies do not consider their FA budget when doing admissions. They are separate. Ivies can guess what your income is (parent's job, parent's college, where you live, where you went to high school, ECs, college summer program vs summer job, etc.) and they do so they don't expect someone living paycheck to paycheck to have the same SAT scores and ECs as someone who is a trustfund kid.</p>
<p>Also, Brown Man, I was responding to a poster who said that aid at all Ivies should theoretically be the same. It's sad that Cornell has the worst fin aid among its peers (in this instance I will not consider schools like WashU that give merit scholarships a peer) but it also comes with the territory of being very large compared to its peers. Maybe if the school did a reverse financial aid and charged millionaires more than the sticker price for tuition...</p>
<p>They do so to determine who will actually need financial aid - profiling.</p>
<p>There are quite a few misconceptions on this thread about Cornell and what needs to be done to "improve" it. First thing people need to realize is that Cornell, doesn't need to improve anything. Its is one of the best universities in the world by any standard with some of the best programs among all elite institutions. </p>
<p>Cornell's SAT ranges are averages across all undergraduate colleges, all of whom don't place equal weight on SAT Scores. Some, like AAP and Hotel, are more pre-professional and evaluate applicants more on demonstrated ability/interest in their fields. What other peer institution has programs like this contained in separate schools? None of the ivies. Additionally, if you compare the analogue to "liberal arts + engineering" Cornell's SAT quality will be the same as the other ivies - throw AEM in there for Wharton's sake as well. </p>
<p>Additionally, a reduction in class size, meaning an increase in selectivity, will do nothing more than potentially boost us in the US news rankings. The financial implications will be dire because Cornell does in fact rely heavily on its tuition for a lot of the things it does. Since the fixed costs are, well, fixed, and the marginal cost is about = to the cost of tuition, there will be no benefit to the students if we cut class size. If anything, there will be a net loss of resources for students which will effectively be problematic. What needs to happen is an increase in our overall resources, ie. the new iniativie aimed at raising 4billion dollars. This way, we add more capital with which we can work. This would not only serve to maintain our current student body, but also solve a lot of financial aid woes. The solution isn't to cut class size if you're worried about resources.</p>
<p>As far as the rankings go, Cornell can just as easily play the ranking game as its peers, but I don't think they should, because we are different and that's one of the most attractive features of the university. I think its ridiculous to cater to the liking of ignorant high schoolers who can't beyond the US News doctrine of lower number = better. Based on peer review Cornell is one of the best institutions in the world. </p>
<p>Also, people seem to forget that we're still more selective than most elite institutions. Just not ivies. But even that is untrue, if you take a look at specific colleges. Ie. Arts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Since the fixed costs are, well, fixed, and the marginal cost is about = to the cost of tuition, there will be no benefit to the students if we cut class size.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>If marginal cost is equal to the cost of tuition, then Cornell receives no monetary gain in admitting one or more extra students. Keep in mind that some people don't pay full tuition either. In order for Cornell to use tuition as a source of income, average tuition paid (incorporating financial aid) by Cornell students must be greater than the marginal monetary cost of admitting that student or those students.</p>
<p>So if marginal cost of a student = the tuition they pay, how exactly does tuition benefit Cornell monetarily? </p>
<p>Some of you might say that the benefit is not monetary but that we are being more egalitarian, etc. but what about all the problems we experience from overcrowding? There is a pretty big housing shortage which is why most upperclassmen are forced to live off campus. Plus, we are going to lose socioeconomic diversity if we don't up our financial aid program.</p>
<p>So what you're saying is that despite all of the rhetoric to the contrary, admissions decisions are not need blind? Cornell and other purportedly need blind schools make assumptions about whether each applicant has financial need and considers that need as part of its admissions decision?</p>
<p>If true, that would certainly make all of the statements over the years about need blind admissions look rather fraudulent, would it not?</p>
<p>Brown Man, but Cornell does get benefit because the Average Total Cost of attendance goes down if we add students and cover their marginal cost. Also, even if there is no visible benefit right now, that doesn't mean that there won't be detriments if we lost those resources. Look, the average total cost of attendance for students is a function of the a lot of things. (Housing, faculty, etc.) Meaning, that once a student body size has been set, and money has been spent, maintenance, rent, etc, become part of the cost factors. That means, if you take out 2000 students, you lose that additional income thus increases the Average Total Cost per student, which would either, a) cause a spike in tuition, or b) force Cornell to expend more resources to subsidize the tuition or c) cause it to cut faculty. All of those outcomes are worse than what is currently occurring.</p>
<p>I don't think it should be all at once, because I agree with cornell2011 that that would be like a shock to the system. However, a small reducuction, by college, each year for a few years would help.</p>
<p>Also, I feel Cornell would actually gain MORE from tuition if they had a smaller class size. I mean, let's say Harvard offers someone a $5,000 grant, but Cornell offers the same person nothing. The person, who would have paid full tuition, chooses Harvard. In other words, Cornell loses $50,000 dollars because they have so many students they can't offer a $5,000 grant to people in such a high income bracket.</p>
<p>Second - I don't like how Cornell doesn't guarantee housing for all 4 years. Only the first two are guaranteed. If they lowered the acceptance rate, slowly they could begin to offer housing for all 4 years.</p>
<p>All in all, I feel the benefits outweigh the negatives. After all, if having a huge class size was really that beneficial, wouldn't all the top schools do it? They surely get enough applications from qualified students, and I'm sure any of the top schools could easily double their class size, but they don't. Obviously they feel a smaller campus community is beneficial, and I have to say that I agree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Second - I don't like how Cornell doesn't guarantee housing for all 4 years. Only the first two are guaranteed. If they lowered the acceptance rate, slowly they could begin to offer housing for all 4 years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>North Campus is exclusively for freshman...that will never change. West Campus only has approx. 1800 beds...no way Cornell will reduce the campus size to 1,800 students :-)</p>
<p>
[quote]
Brown Man, but Cornell does get benefit because the Average Total Cost of attendance goes down if we add students and cover their marginal cost.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Cornell has a fixed cost of what it spends on undergrads regardless of how many students attend- i.e. research costs,the costs of building new facilities, etc. If the marginal cost of admitting another student is equal to the tuition that he pays(which is what you said), then none of the tuition money goes towards defraying the total fixed cost that Cornell spends on undergrad. Thus it gains nothing monetarily from admitting this extra student(assuming marginal cost = tuition). In order for Cornell to actually monetarily gain something from admitting this(these) extra student(s), the tuition that they pay must be greater than the marginal cost to educate them so that their tuition helps to pay for the total fixed costs that Cornell spends on its undergrads.</p>
<p>^ There's only North Campus and West Campus?</p>
<p>If that's true....not even sophomore housing would be available, because there are more than 1,800 sophomores.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If that's true....not even sophomore housing would be available, because there are more than 1,800 sophomores.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not all sophomores live on West Campus.</p>
<p>When they mean guaranteed housing for sophomores, they mean that they'll stick you into Ujamma to guarantee your housing. You're not guaranteed good housing.</p>
<p>Brownman, I have to humbly disagree. If the marginal cost of an additional student is covered by the tuition, and the fixed cost of attendance across the university stays the same, then the average total cost of attendance for each student the the university would have to pay, would go down. Meaning, the difference, Actual Cost - Tuition, would go down, meaning Cornell would be covering less of what they would have been before hand, per student.</p>
<p>And I feel as though, Ithaca is advantageous because of the opportunity for students to live off-campus.</p>