<p>
</p>
<p>This is another huge problem I have with Cornell. I agree this should be dealt with accordingly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It seems like it is a good thing from their recent boost in prestige and rankings.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Cornell needs to do what they did then.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s what I’m trying to say. Now, it seems like Cornell is at the bottom, and it will stay that way unless Cornell does something to change that. That’s all I’m trying to say. Penn did something about it and benefited greatly.</p>
<p>I know it seems you have some sort of animosity towards me because of my ceaseless conflicting views with you (to the point of you calling me a ■■■■■ with no affiliation with the school at one time), but I’m just voicing things to help Cornell’s image (which I certainly hope you’re not against).</p>
<p>" it will stay that way unless Cornell does something to change that."</p>
<p>Then it will stay that way. None of your whining about the contract colleges will change the relative esteem the public has for the various locations and surroundings of these different universities. It will not change the fact that Cornell, unlike those other universities, has state contract colleges that are partially funded by the state and are on land owned by the state. It will not change the relative wealth of these universities.</p>
<p>“Penn did something about it .”</p>
<p>As I detailed above, Penn did a little to change its perception, but mostly it was the beneficiary of circumstances that had nothing to do with Penn. When wall street and NYC were hot, Penn became hotter and wealthier. </p>
<p>“…to the point of you calling me a ■■■■■ with no affiliation with the school at one time”
Link??</p>
<p>Penn also manipulates actively the USNWR rankings. Frankly, Cornell seems to feel no need to do so. Like Georgetown, Cornell seems quite happy with the applicant pool it has. Obviously, they wouldn’t turn away more people from applying; however, they also seem to feel no need to increase the competitiveness of one of the already most competitive schools in the country. </p>
<p>Selectivity is all just a perception. For example, at Columbia there are a whole lot of kids from NYC who apply who really have virtually no shot at it. That’s just a given. However, what it does is give Columbia a whole lot of easy rejections to pad their admissions numbers. Penn has a similar situation in Philly. </p>
<p>The point being is that raw reject/accept numbers are meaningless. Cross-Admit and yield percentages function as much greater indicators of prestige and selectivity of schools, and in yield the Contract colleges are actually significantly better than the endowed schools at Cornell (Approx 60% for contract vs 40% for endowed in yield). Thus, it seems that kids much prefer going to the contract schools over their peer institutions. </p>
<p>Penn and UChicago both set out to specifically raise their applicant pools. And they pulled it off well. However, Cornell still has a larger pool than either one of them, and by a hefty margin. Cornell, however, wants different candidates than those schools, and that laudable goal cannot be forgotten in this discussion. The ideal Cornell candidate is frequently the first one to be thrown in the reject pile at Chicago due to their completely different aims as institutions of higher learning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Post #120 in the Cornell is less regarded among the elite but well-known among “commoners”? thread…I unfortunately don’t know how to link just that single post. Also, I’m pretty sure you accused me elsewhere (along with norcalguy, malan, and a few others) at some point but don’t want to take the time gravedigging.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m sorry I ever posted my thoughts about how to better the university on an internet forum. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mass marketing (and aggressive use of ED?) is still something Cornell can try to follow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Their yields are only higher because the applicants are more self-selective (if that’s even a word). Most of the cross-admit battles with the other ivies/top schools go on in the Eng and A&S colleges, because those are the two divisions that most other top colleges have. I don’t really see any other ivy with schools of agriculture, ILR, etc; thus it’s inevitable that the yields would be much lower for A&S/Eng. </p>
<p>Also, the lower stats of the enrolling students to the contract colleges plays a big role in the yield too. They wouldn’t be accepted at other ivies or peer schools with the stats they have, but due to “fit” get into Cornell. Obviously, a lot of those people would pick Cornell because it’s the highest ranked school or the only ivy league school they got into, leading to a higher yield.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Monydad did not use the word ■■■■■ in Post #120, he simply stated his opinion that you were using unscrupulous methods in your techique(s) of posting your arguments.</p>
<p>Also, when you responded to my post #336 in this thread, you took my words a bit out of context. I had stated that I had limited sympathy with a portion of what you said, but I disagree with you strenuously about the value of “superficial reimaging.” Here is a more full abstract of my words:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So, for Cornell to set admissions policy solely – or even partially – upon any kind of “superficial imaging,” as you seem to advocate, is not something I support. On the contrary, Cornell’s refusal to go too far in the direction of the “superficial” is one of the things that I respect most about the majority of Cornell’s board, along with most members of its administration.</p>
<p>“Also, I’m pretty sure you accused me elsewhere (along with norcalguy, malan, and a few others) at some point but don’t want to take the time gravedigging.”</p>
<p>I’ll save you the trouble of gravedigging. You will not find such posts because they do not exist.</p>
<p>This is what I posted before, to which the follow-up post was “amen, monydad”:</p>
<p>"I wasn’t talking about you.</p>
<p>Should I have been?? By your raising this defensively as if I meant you, does that mean you feel you are in fact a ■■■■■? If so, you have company. Or other aliases.</p>
<p>As to your opinion, I dont agree. The other people here associated with the university don’t either. An improvement in CAS selectivity would make as much difference in the selectivity of the aggregate as an improvement in any of the other schools. You just have a prejudice regarding the other schools. Each school needs to improve to be as good as it can be, not just some of them. Because the competition is always striving to improve. Moreover, IMO each school is evaluated externally as its own entity more than as an aggregate. Engineers are not going to lose engineering jobs if Ag school selectivity drops 2%. They have to worry about the engineering school, regardless. If all the contract colleges get more selective, but CAS becomes less selective, CAS grads will not be better off due to the aggregate looking better, they will be worse off IMO.</p>
<p>All universities need to be improving themselves, and are seeking to do so. Whether or not they give their respective improvement programs fancy names. And all parts of the universities need to do so, lest they fall down in their own particular realms.</p>
<p>There is, actually,IMO, something wrong with “playing devil’s advocate” about it on a forum devoted to those making college decisions, because you are giving the impression that friction between the colleges is a big issue on campus when that is not the case. It may be your opinion but it is not a majority sentiment or something people need to be wary of if they attend. You stated your position,fine, but continued harping on it leaves the impression that it is a big prevailing concern there, when it isn’t. Therefore you are giving a false impression to prospective matriculants. Such conduct, inappropriately scaring people away, could drive up the admissions rate, improperly,due to inappropriately lowered yield, which would then lower the US News ranking, you should be against that if you are so worried about these things!!</p>
<p>■■■■■(s) often also keep posting the same divisive and disparaging points repeatedly, maybe that’s why some people accused you of same. I was not one of them though. Should I have been?? "</p>
<p>@bpsbgs:<br>
“Selectivity is all just a perception. For example, at Columbia there are a whole lot of kids from NYC who apply who really have virtually no shot at it. That’s just a given. However, what it does is give Columbia a whole lot of easy rejections to pad their admissions numbers. Penn has a similar situation in Philly.”</p>
<p>Regarding Columbia College: A lot of kids from the NY metropolitan area apply to Columbia, but they are an outstanding group of students. The student profile of this group is impressive. The reason they don’t stand a chance is because too many qualified students from the NYC metropolitan area apply–not because they are of lesser quality. That’s why it is important to take into account demographics when you apply to a very competitive college. One of the hardest places to be from if you are applying to most of the Ivies (I’m including all the elite colleges in this category.) is to be from the NYC metropolitan area. </p>
<p>And practically all colleges play the selectivity statistics game. Their favorite tool is ED. It’s amazing what you can do with your yield and accept rates when you fill 60% of your class with ED applicants. </p>
<p>I’m glad Harvard ended its ED program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What top tier university are you referring to with that 60% ED figure? It certainly is not Cornell, where the ED figure was 35.5% for the entering class of 2010. This figure was calculated from applicable data found in the following pdf link:</p>
<p>[Profile</a> for Cornell Enrolling Freshman - Class of 2014](<a href=“http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf][b]Profile”>http://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000001.pdf)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would be very curious to know how you know that. Also, you were unnecessarily dismissive of the slight admission difference between private and contract colleges. Except the one loophole I mentioned regarding NYS community colleges, it’s really not much easier at all to be admitted to one than another.</p>
<p>I didn’t say 60% admit rate for ED. I said filling 60% of the freshman class through ED.</p>
<p>^ @7Sisters: You’ve misinterpreted my last post. Cornell enrolled 35.5% through ED for the freshman class entering in 2010, per that post. The figure was not cited as an admit rate.</p>
<p>Applejack: I wasn’t dismissive. I just don’t want to address every point where someone disagrees with me. I’m not here to make enemies–more to discuss interesting points. I still stand by my statements. Generally speaking, the student profile for CAS is a more competitive profile than the profile for CALS and ILS. It’s more in line with the typical Ivy profile. </p>
<p>How do I know about student profiles for Columbia? Because I am in the college admissions business.</p>
<p>@Colm: I was discussing Columbia College. CC filled approximately 60% of its class through ED. Many of the top colleges are doing that.</p>
<p>@7Sisters: Thanks for the clarification. Your listing that 60% figure could have been seen as an implication that Cornell enrolls such a high portion of its classes through ED, which it does not – not even close.</p>
<p>Does it really matter? If one is accepted to Cornell . . . and Cornell is the top school for what you want to do . . . attend! If you are accepted at a better school “for your particular thang”, go there. It will not make Cornell a lesser school. The school with the better “thang” that you want to do does not diminish Cornell! Get your head around this obvious (grownup) fact and then there will be need for these ridiculous threads. Just sayin’.</p>
<p>@CoolRunning, Post # 357: “Does it really matter?”</p>
<p>Yes, where inaccurate or deceptive statements are made about a school in a public forum, then it “matters” to refute them, at least for folks genuinely interested in the welfare of that school. It matters so that false information isn’t broadcast to prospective students. It is best when students make their matriculation decisions based on decent information, as opposed to inaccurate and/or malicious comments.</p>
<p>After hearing from another CC member, I checked up on Columbia’s ED statistic, and it was not 60% either, as 7Sisters claimed in her “clarification” post number 355. For the class of 2014 Columbia admitted 43% of its entering freshmen ED. This is per Columbia’s stats page:</p>
<p>[Columbia’s</a> Stats Page Containing its ED Rate](<a href=“http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php]Columbia’s”>http://www.studentaffairs.columbia.edu/admissions/applications/stats.php)</p>
<p>So, 7Sisters is 0 for 2 on this topic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might not have used the word “■■■■■”, but some other posters did and you responded by saying something along the lines of “yes, I’m tired of his inaccurate and demeaning posts too blah blah…everyone should just report problem post like I’ve been doing”. </p>
<p>None of my posts were deleted and I was never banned, so it’s apparent that the administrators of the site didn’t think I was doing anything wrong by throwing out my opinions. I don’t want to go through every forum post you made, and you probably don’t either, so let’s just leave it at that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not prejudiced against the contract colleges. If it was the other way around, I would be ragging on A&S/Eng on how they need to up their selectivity, but it’s not.
Also, the majority of people not affiliated with the school have NO idea that Cornell has 7 different colleges that practice different admissions and are distinctly “segregated”. For example, I thought I was applying to the whole university when I applied a couple years ago; it was only when I came on campus that I realized that the separate colleges were so different. My point is, since most people don’t realize the existence of these colleges, they assume that things like the average stats are for the whole university, and so the more selective colleges are getting the short end of the stick in terms of outside prestige/brand name and such.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you see me starting any threads nowadays? It’s not really harping if I jump on and respond to someone’s post every now and then because I strongly disagree with him. As you can see by my post count, I don’t post that often. It’s just that I occasionally see something that I consider needs a response from someone with an alternate (and more pro-selectivity) view.</p>