Is Cornell Secretly the Best Ivy?

Colleges & Universities Cornell University
321

<p>Actually Bill, it’s kind of obvious what you’re doing. I asked a simple question, you answered, I said it seems weird, why do they do it - your answer was “Oh let me post some examples of schools (not Cornell!) that do this!”</p>

<p>I didn’t ask for examples. What the hell does an example tell me? It doesn’t tell me WHY they do it. It was a nice conversation, you decided you can’t help yourself and turned it into another jab at Cornell. I honestly don’t care about diversity - I wouldn’t care if Cornell was 99% white. That’s just not a ranking statistic that I care about at all.</p>

<p>Also, Cornell is:</p>

<p><1% American Indian/Alaskan Native
15% Asian/Pacific Islander
5% Black/Non-Hispanic
10% Hispanic
46% White/Non-Hispanic
8% Non-Resident Alien</p>

<p>Are you aware that Cornell’s numbers are almost identical to Harvard’s in terms of diversity?</p>

322

<p>I suggest no one responds to this topic anymore. It’s basically become a trollfest.</p>

323

<p>Darkice brought it upon himself. I told the people on this post multiple times not to feed the ■■■■■. Yet they don’t listen. Oh well. This is actually starting to get pretty funny, seeing how hard engineerbill tries to keep his ■■■■■■■■ up to date. The good news is if you guys don’t post in them or respond to him, he can’t keep posting or that will count as spam and will get him kicked (which he is on the verge of anyways). Think, people! Stop feeding the ■■■■■.</p>

324

<p>anti, I just looked at some of the recent posts here; at least you and I are not arguing on this thread. whoever engineerbill is, he needs to find something more productive to do with his time. I still wish him well in his college pursuits. I wonder where he is going to college.</p>

325

<p>I’ve a couple closing comments on this thread, which I hope may be helpful to people considering attending Cornell.</p>

<p>While claims of being “best” may, IMO, be unwise to proclaim on a public internet forum, it is true that a distinguishing feature of Cornell is its diversity of programs, colleges, offerings, and consequently the people who come there to pursue all these different programs of study. I’m not talking about ethnic diversity, rather the different “types” that are attracted to programs at the various colleges.</p>

<p>Its true that not everyone relishes diversity socially. One can legitimately look at this either as a positive or a negative from this standpoint, because it is indeed a feature of the university.</p>

<p>However from an academic standpoint the diversity is most certainly a positive. The vast array of courses offered and fields of study at the various colleges provides a huge opportunity to stretch yourself, become exposed to new and different things that you never considered before you came. And simply provides more courses you can select.</p>

<p>Maybe it takes being there to truly understand the value of having the breadth and depth of the university’s programs at your disposal. But many or most students wind up taking advantage of this while they are there, and come to be aware of its value.</p>

<p>My daughter has taken courses in three colleges there. As did I. She did an independent study with a professor in another of the colleges, in an area outside of traditional liberal arts, that may well have helped shape her future direction. These are things we did not fully appreciate before enrolling, but turned out to be quite significant.</p>

<p>I’ve always found it odd that none of these rankings measure the simple question of what you can learn someplace; what, and how many, areas are being taught. Courses matter. Majors matter. Professors with varied research interests may matter. This has always been apparent to me, coming from Cornell. But it was brought home more recently when D1, who was attending a large LAC, got interested in a particular subarea of her field, and her college offered zero courses in it. She was unable to pursue her interests there, as they evolved. I think that’s a problem, for people whose interests are still emerging and may develop variously, in unpredictable ways, over the course of the next four years.</p>

<p>I personally would not be making proclamations of “best” because of it, but it is absolutely true IMO that there is certainly substantial value to the large variety of programs and colleges available to you as a student at Cornell that will be tangible to you if you attend. Despite the fact that this aspect, though fundamental to understanding and appreciating Cornell, goes unrecognized and unevaluated in the various rankings. </p>

<p>Secondly Cornell is often being compared to schools that are largely liberal arts colleges, when only 30% of its undergraduates are enrolled in its liberal arts college. The different colleges at Cornell are just that, different. Be wary of drawing inaccurate conclusions about a particular college there due to using data that is aggregated across all the disparate colleges in the entire university.</p>

326

<p>@monydad, post #325:</p>

<p>Thanks for the superlative – and definitive – post above.</p>

<p>It is so nice to read some sane, intelligent, and well informed words after the unfortunate odious attacks from a certain poster, who is thankfully now banned from CC (for the second time). You are indeed a credit to your remarkable alma mater.</p>

327

<p>@behappy7: The fact that several organizations have positively ranked the new Cornell business program doesn’t mean that it is one of the top undergraduate business programs. On the undergraduate level, it is the top three business programs that are considered top players. It’s not like the graduate level (MBA programs), where you can be in a top program in say the top 10 to 15 MBA programs. </p>

<p>Ratings change, sometimes dramatically, in short periods of time. That doesn’t mean that a particular school has become suddenly better or worse. Colleges are businesses and the ratings are one of the gauges used to attract customers. What happens is that colleges work the system, and they have learned to play the ratings game very well. In fact some of the gauges even affect their cost of borrowing because they affect their bond ratings. </p>

<p>Colleges work the ratings system. </p>

<p>And Cornell’s Board believes that it has a branding problem on the undergraduate level. It’s been an issue on the table for them very recently. </p>

<p>Here is the problem: It’s the crossover of students who don’t get into CAS. They are sort of liberal arts types, but go to CALS or ILR because they are rejected at CAS. I am not talking about the NYS kids who go to the contract schools because of financial reasons. There is the sense that there is a way to get a Cornell undergraduate degree without having gone through the same hoops the other Ivy students do. Maybe they should rid themselves of the alternate admission system, and I think that has been put on the table.</p>

<p>It’s too bad because there are many students at CALS who are passionate about the animal sciences (It has a top pre-vet program.). CALS can no longer exist as solely an agricultural college because the market for that is tiny, so it grew its anilmal science program. It used to be a college for kids who wanted to run the family agricultural business–no more. At ILR there are many students passionate about public administration and government. </p>

<p>The problem is that there are many kids who would have prferred CAS, but didn’t get in—that’s the image problem. </p>

<p>As far as the undergraduate business program goes–what is it doing in the agricultural college? If that isn’t a branding problem, I don’t know what is. It makes it look more vocational–in fact it is marketed as an “applied economics program”, which describes its more vocational slant. In the business world, it’s critical thinking that is sought after. Clear writing and critical analysis. The more vocational skill set can be taught in management training programs.</p>

328

<p>@Islander4: "You clearly don’t know about the history of AEM, which has been around for decades under other names. As a current student in AEM, I can say that it’s as much of an established undergraduate business program as those found anywhere else. "</p>

<p>I know quite a bit about AEM and its history. It was an established undergraduate program for studying agribusiness. It was top in the field of agribusiness and its applied economics. It is not an established business program. Does it compete with the vast number of undergraduate business programs in the U.S.? Yes. I would rank it with niche undergraduate business programs like Babson. But it is not in the league of Wharton, Berkeley’s Haas, MIT’s Sloan.</p>

329

<p>Despite that, there are still a sizeable number of AEM folks who wind up in major companies and other ventures. Rankings are rankings.</p>

330

<p>Islander4: Totally agreed, rankings don’t mean a lot. But I wasn’t talking about rankings when I said that the CALS business program is not in the top tier. I am referring to what management training programs, graduate schools, peer institutions, and peer business professors think. I find that to be a better measure of a school. </p>

<p>Please don’t misunderstand, I think you are in a very good program, and my posts were more about the confusing brand that Cornell has developed in its undergraduate colleges.</p>

331

<p>@7sisters, posts #327 and 328:</p>

<p>You seem to be hung up on the mistaken impression that there is a substantial difference in selectivity between Cornell University’s four endowed colleges, as compared with its three contract colleges. Nothing could be further from the truth.</p>

<p>The overall acceptance rate for Cornell’s endowed colleges for 2010 is 17.8%. This figure can be calculated from the freshman admission stats presented in this pdf:</p>

<p>[Admissions Stats for Endowed Colleges](<a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000004.pdf”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000004.pdf&lt;/a&gt;)</p>

<p>The overall acceptance rate for Cornell’s contract colleges for 2010 is 22.8%. This figure can be calculated from the freshman admission stats presented in this pdf:</p>

<p>[Admissions</a> Stats for Contract Colleges]( <a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000149.pdf]Admissions”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000149.pdf)</p>

<p>While there is a small differential between these two aggregate admissions statistics, it is so narrow as to be relatively inconsequential. The contract colleges at Cornell (which are still private schools despite their hybrid private/state funding) stand up very well, thank you very much.</p>

<p>Another area in which you seem to have a misimpression is in your claim that the Dyson School (AEM) is predominantly made up of its Agribusiness Management specialization, whereas in reality that major course is only one of its ten specializations. Also, the Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management is one of only two schools in the Ivy League with an accredited undergraduate business program. (The program is accredited by AACSB International—The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business.) It is not some kind of “niche” business school as you misstated, it is rather quite full fledged and robust. Here are the other specializations within the Dyson School: </p>

<p>Accounting
Applied Economics
Entrepreneurship
Environmental and Resource Economics
Finance
Food Industry Management
International Trade and Development
Marketing
Strategy</p>

<p>[Dyson</a> School – Undergraduate Program](<a href=“Applied Economics and Management Degree Program | Cornell Dyson”>Applied Economics and Management Degree Program | Cornell Dyson)</p>

332

<p>Whatever “image problem” you may imagine exists, I see little difference now vs. when I attended myself years ago. The alternative college choices for ILR and CALS students have likely always been predominantly some liberal arts colleges someplace. Why? Because there are few are no other ILR programs to apply to, and few other agriculture colleges around New York. If some of these people want to, and are qualified to, gain admission to CAS, instead of going to some comparable liberal arts college elsewhere, good for them, and good for Cornell. CAS has always been somewhat more selective than the contract colleges. I see no reason why the 2nd choice option would have materially changed the situation there in the manner you asserted, vs the previous state of affairs. As far as I can tell or recall, the entrance stats for the contract colleges have never been stronger; if anything the distinctions are less significant now than ever before. Moreover, from what I understand not many people actually get in via the second choice option anyway. So IMO this whole argument is a red herring.</p>

<p>The AEM program has existed for years, it was a top-flight program in agricultural economics when I was there. They have turned it into a much bigger deal in recent years, with great success. It does seem odd to be in the ag school, absent this historical context, but the program’s high selectivity seems to belie any huge impact of some hypothetical 'image problem". There may well be some impact. And there may be students who want to study business generally but dont want the curriculum there, that’s for them to evaluate and decide. But its rise in the rankings seems to suggest it’s doing quite well anyway. You are not the arbiter of who it does or does not compete with, merely because you make assertions on an anonymous internet forum. Interested applicants should investigate for themselves.</p>

<p>Administrators should always be trying to find ways they can improve the university, and its various colleges and programs. So of course they are trying to see if there are ways to improve. That’s what they are paid to do. That does not really indicate any huge crisis.</p>

<p>Cornell has (effectively) always had seven undergraduate colleges, that were each different.</p>

333

<p>@Colm: I am not getting into a back and forth about this. I stand behind my statements.</p>

334

<p>@7Sisters: I stand behind my carefully substantiated statements as well.</p>

335

<p>7Sisters. Finally glad I have at least one person on this board that agrees with me.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Colm. If you look just at the acceptance rates, the 5% differential doesn’t say too much, I agree. However, you have to take into account the stats of the applicants to the endowed/contract colleges too. SAT score averages differ by more than a 100 points between some colleges (which is pretty significant). GPA, class rank, and most of the other quantitative factors also differ quite a bit. So if you look at the applicant pool itself, the applicants to A&S and Eng are much stronger, thus separating the gap even further.</p>

<p>Most of the arguments follow the “contract colleges are specialty schools and thus look past the numbers and more at extracurriculars and community involvement.” Well, if you just scroll through the accepted results for the previous classes, it is just the opposite. In fact, the A&S and Eng acceptees actually have just as diverse a number of extracurriculars, and some could argue that they were even more involved outside of academics. </p>

<p>AAP and possibly Hotel are probably the 2 colleges where I would say that scores don’t matter as much due to them being specialized. However, the rest of the colleges shouldn’t be so lax on the quantitative factors, as they do play a role in rankings, “branding”, prospective applicants, and somewhat in alumni donations (I wouldn’t want to donate when the heads of my school are bringing Cornell’s reputation down). As superficial as you may think I am, this is just the plain truth in my eyes. Penn, Wash U, Chicago, etc. have all figured it out years ago; I still don’t understand why Cornell hasn’t. </p>

<p>P.S. Seems like Provost Fuchs has…thankfully.</p>

336

<p>

</p>

<p>While I am in some sympathy with your view that Cornell’s administration should advise their adcoms, in the various colleges, to take a more quantitative approach (by emphasizing raw standardized scholastics), I never-the-less believe there to be an inevitable balancing act between giving the disparate colleges due discretion, and between giving broader university goals due implementation. Those broader university goals themselves are diverse. Admissions committees, where they are best serving the interest of their schools, must weigh between a broad spectrum of admissions factors. For example, awards, class standing, extracurriculars, portfolios (some programs), auditions (some programs), interviews, recommendations, essays, et cetera.</p>

<p>The stance that SAT/ACT scores should be the penultimate criterion for admittance would be a mistake in my view. Making that policy would filter out some fantastic, well qualified, and creative applicants whose strengths predominate in areas other than raw SAT performance. Still, I agree that in the interest of Cornell’s inevitable competition with peer schools, that scholastic scores should be given marginally increased emphasis. However, I think it would be a big mistake to entirely disallow discretion from the adcom’s difficult task of selection. The diverse factors that make up the criteria of student admissions are not mutually exclusive, and no one factor should unduly subjugate the others. This, in my view, most properly supports the long-term best interest of an authentic university.</p>

337

<p>

</p>

<p>I couldn’t agree with you more. I realize that standardized tests shouldn’t be the biggest/sole factor for incoming applicants, as some do have other unique talents in other areas that do wonders for the school, but as a whole, Cornell needs to bump up its selectivity. As much as the people on this board hate rankings, they can’t ignore the fact that they do play a role in the long run, and the inevitable competition with peer schools is something Cornell should start thinking about.</p>

<p>I’m honestly surprised how you didn’t blow up on me Colm. Most of the time when I post my views on the “superficial reimaging” Cornell needs to do, a lot of alumni come and bash me for being so shallow and how that’s not the ideals that the school was founded on.</p>

338

<p>Seems that providing an out for architecture and hotel administration (two more technical fields in private colleges) reveals a biased loophole in the argument more than any substantive stance. </p>

<p>If you accept that the skillset for those two fields requires a different standard than mindless testing, then the same logic should apply to various technical CALS programs, including Biological and Environmental Engineering, Biological Statistics and Computational Biology, and Landscape Architecture.</p>

<p>I think Cornell’s wise to avoid the meaningless trap of test scores and helicopter-parent extracurricular lists, but I also think they should rethink the automatic transfer of students who get a minimum gpa at certain NY community colleges. That, to me, is the ultimate back door into the school.</p>

339

<p>Penn, Wash U, Chicago do not have contract colleges, there was never anything they had to “figure out” about them. I’m sure the contract colleges get the best students, based on the criteria that are actually important to their misisons and programs, that they can. Not everybody in the world wants to undertake such specialized studies, they are not liberal arts colleges. Yet they are still quite selective in their own right, based on the criteria important to them.</p>

<p>Penn, Wash U , Chicago all “figured out” aggressive marketing campaigns and tactics to increase applicants, I suppose that’s something one can “figure out”, if that’s a good thing.</p>

<p>But the most important things Penn and Wash U “figured out” was how to get some huge multimillion dollar donations along the way, which had the effect of materially enhancing their financial situations, and hence programs. These schools also “figured out” how to make the cities they were located in rise out of the ashes of urban decay in the 60s and 70s to become more desirable destinations today. And Penn and Columbia “figured out” the meteoric rise in prestige of Wall street in the 8os, from the disdain to which it was held in the vietnam era.</p>

<p>The other thing these schools “figured out” was to be mostly liberal arts colleges, instead of only 30% enrolled in the liberal arts college. and when Penn “figured out” to make Wall street hot again, Wharton became a stats leader there, instead of the drag that it was when I was applying.</p>

<p>When I was applying to colleges, unquestionably the least selective Arts & sciences college in the Ivy League was at Penn. Both Penn and Cornell have exactly the same colleges then that they have now, and if anything Cornell’s statutory colleges were relatively less selective then than they are now. Relative prestige of their arts & sciences and engineering colleges had nothing to do with Cornell’s contract colleges.</p>

<p>I’m all for improving the university and its various programs- so long as this is not done at the expense of the quality and prestige of the elite programs there that are at the forefront of the university’s reputation. Frankly as a grad of two of those colleges, it is their prestige I am most attuned to, and to me that is only secondarily linked to the other colleges there. I hope that their apparently effectively labelled cost cutting intiatives will not 'reimage" away the reputations of the university’s elite programs, to compensate for the reduction in state subsidies to the ag school. But I suggest leaving Fuchs et al for another thread.</p>

340

<p>

</p>

<p>I would liken this to Cornell’s relatively recent push to establish a firm institutional foundation in New York City. City living, once deemed the nadir of human existence, has become fashionable again. Columbia and UPenn’s reputations, once burdened by their locations, have skyrocketed because of it (thus, why Columbia shamelessly changed its name to include New York City). Now high school kids look skeptically at spending 4 years in a beautiful little city like Ithaca.</p>