Is Cornell really still the "worst" ivy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Cornell were the worst Ivy, which is itself a dubious claim when you have Brown and Dartmouth in the mix, it would still rank among the top 15 universities in the country. It's like being the poorest billionaire: still extraordinarily privileged by any reasonable standard.

The hostility toward Cornell stems from academic snobbery rooted in its size, land-grant origins, and the elitist prejudices that pervade Ivy League culture. Because it has some features of a public university, including state-supported programs, and is slightly more accessible than other Ivies, the thinking goes that it must be inferior.

What features of it are public? State-supported programs are not state schools. Do you know what are you talking about?

Why does selectivity has anything to do with prestige? Penn has 40% acceptance rate in the 90s, no one has any doubt it's an ivy, then or now.

PP didn’t say they were state schools.

Penn was also looked down upon by the snobs for being too pre-professional. Undergrad business programs were akin to trade school.

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to say that it is now July 9th. Nothing has changed from July 8th: Cornell is still the worst Ivy.

I guess tomorrow is another day…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cornell is the Ivy that is least differentiated from strong public universities.

Why?

Cornell and Penn are similar to each other. Large sizes. Separate admissions for Wharton/Dyson.
If you think Agriculture is public school, what about Penn nursing?
I don't think they are that different.

Penn would be next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Cornell were the worst Ivy, which is itself a dubious claim when you have Brown and Dartmouth in the mix, it would still rank among the top 15 universities in the country. It's like being the poorest billionaire: still extraordinarily privileged by any reasonable standard.

The hostility toward Cornell stems from academic snobbery rooted in its size, land-grant origins, and the elitist prejudices that pervade Ivy League culture. Because it has some features of a public university, including state-supported programs, and is slightly more accessible than other Ivies, the thinking goes that it must be inferior.

What features of it are public? State-supported programs are not state schools. Do you know what are you talking about?

Why does selectivity has anything to do with prestige? Penn has 40% acceptance rate in the 90s, no one has any doubt it's an ivy, then or now.

Read again closely. I didn’t write that “features are public.” Land grant status and state supported schools are definitely public like attributes. And what does Penn’s 40% acceptance rate in the 90s have to do with Ivy status?

Re: Penn. The point is that it was always prestigious just for being an Ivy in leaner times when its Philly neighborhood was suckier and it was a lot easier to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cornell is the Ivy that is least differentiated from strong public universities.

Why?

Cornell and Penn are similar to each other. Large sizes. Separate admissions for Wharton/Dyson.
If you think Agriculture is public school, what about Penn nursing?
I don't think they are that different.

Penn would be next.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Don’t believe in the concept, but even if Cornell was the “worst” Ivy, it’s still elite and a ranked far better than nearly every other institution so it’ll be okay.

[Anonymous]

It is HYPS… and then a very large set of both Ivy and selective non-Ivy schools where rankings become stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Cornell were the worst Ivy, which is itself a dubious claim when you have Brown and Dartmouth in the mix, it would still rank among the top 15 universities in the country. It's like being the poorest billionaire: still extraordinarily privileged by any reasonable standard.

The hostility toward Cornell stems from academic snobbery rooted in its size, land-grant origins, and the elitist prejudices that pervade Ivy League culture. Because it has some features of a public university, including state-supported programs, and is slightly more accessible than other Ivies, the thinking goes that it must be inferior.

What features of it are public? State-supported programs are not state schools. Do you know what are you talking about?

Why does selectivity has anything to do with prestige? Penn has 40% acceptance rate in the 90s, no one has any doubt it's an ivy, then or now.

PP didn’t say they were state schools.

Penn was also looked down upon by the snobs for being too pre-professional. Undergrad business programs were akin to trade school.

I think most of these posters do not have a current ivy kid, and surely did not attend one themselves. Spouse and I attended and kids are at two different ones.
All ivies are "preprofessional". Penn is no more into IB and consulting than HYP or Brown. They all have tons of premeds which are a large part of preprofessional vibe. Then there are the prelaw kids. All total those 3 groups make up 75% of undergrads at all ivies. Who cares. It is no different than when I was at an ivy in the mid90s. People gunned for Goldman, med, or law school. Even the engineers --if not premed BME they were part of the startup dot com surge. Nothing has changed: now there is a new CS bubble. We know many current ivy/elite kids including our own and this is just how they all are. The Stanford kids are the same, CS kid has a patent now going to law school. Brown kid already has his banking internship for 2026, "everyone" there wants banking per the parent. Penn kid gunned and got top research internship, already has startup dreams or phD plans. Chicago premeds complain-bragging on the grind there, comparing notes with the grinding premeds at other top schools.

Whatever the lore on DCUM is of finding a love-to-learn college with no professional goal chasing, kids who just ponder through many different classes with no stress or sense of urgency, intellectual but not ambitious...NO top school has this. They didn't have it 30 yrs ago. Students there are highly intellectual AND ambitious, they do love learning, but they also are worried that "everyone" has figured out what they want to do before them. Summer research/internship/clinical experience is very important for med/grad/law as well as jobs: they have to be focused on the future from the moment they get there if they want to reach their goals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t believe in the concept, but even if Cornell was the “worst” Ivy, it’s still elite and a ranked far better than nearly every other institution so it’ll be okay.

+1000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Cornell were the worst Ivy, which is itself a dubious claim when you have Brown and Dartmouth in the mix, it would still rank among the top 15 universities in the country. It's like being the poorest billionaire: still extraordinarily privileged by any reasonable standard.

The hostility toward Cornell stems from academic snobbery rooted in its size, land-grant origins, and the elitist prejudices that pervade Ivy League culture. Because it has some features of a public university, including state-supported programs, and is slightly more accessible than other Ivies, the thinking goes that it must be inferior.

What features of it are public? State-supported programs are not state schools. Do you know what are you talking about?

Why does selectivity has anything to do with prestige? Penn has 40% acceptance rate in the 90s, no one has any doubt it's an ivy, then or now.

PP didn’t say they were state schools.

Penn was also looked down upon by the snobs for being too pre-professional. Undergrad business programs were akin to trade school.

I think most of these posters do not have a current ivy kid, and surely did not attend one themselves. Spouse and I attended and kids are at two different ones.
All ivies are "preprofessional". Penn is no more into IB and consulting than HYP or Brown. They all have tons of premeds which are a large part of preprofessional vibe. Then there are the prelaw kids. All total those 3 groups make up 75% of undergrads at all ivies. Who cares. It is no different than when I was at an ivy in the mid90s. People gunned for Goldman, med, or law school. Even the engineers --if not premed BME they were part of the startup dot com surge. Nothing has changed: now there is a new CS bubble. We know many current ivy/elite kids including our own and this is just how they all are. The Stanford kids are the same, CS kid has a patent now going to law school. Brown kid already has his banking internship for 2026, "everyone" there wants banking per the parent. Penn kid gunned and got top research internship, already has startup dreams or phD plans. Chicago premeds complain-bragging on the grind there, comparing notes with the grinding premeds at other top schools.

Whatever the lore on DCUM is of finding a love-to-learn college with no professional goal chasing, kids who just ponder through many different classes with no stress or sense of urgency, intellectual but not ambitious...NO top school has this. They didn't have it 30 yrs ago. Students there are highly intellectual AND ambitious, they do love learning, but they also are worried that "everyone" has figured out what they want to do before them. Summer research/internship/clinical experience is very important for med/grad/law as well as jobs: they have to be focused on the future from the moment they get there if they want to reach their goals.

+1 I wonder sometimes if some of the people here are actually familiar with college at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Cornell were the worst Ivy, which is itself a dubious claim when you have Brown and Dartmouth in the mix, it would still rank among the top 15 universities in the country. It's like being the poorest billionaire: still extraordinarily privileged by any reasonable standard.

The hostility toward Cornell stems from academic snobbery rooted in its size, land-grant origins, and the elitist prejudices that pervade Ivy League culture. Because it has some features of a public university, including state-supported programs, and is slightly more accessible than other Ivies, the thinking goes that it must be inferior.

What features of it are public? State-supported programs are not state schools. Do you know what are you talking about?

Why does selectivity has anything to do with prestige? Penn has 40% acceptance rate in the 90s, no one has any doubt it's an ivy, then or now.

For the public colleges (ILR, CALS, etc): preferential admissions to NY students, for one.

Is stanford a state school (40% in-state)? Is rice a state school?
In large states like NY, CA, TX, they can fill their class solely with in-state kids, same quality same outcome.

These states have a size equivalent to a small country. Oxford fills 80% of their class with UK students, does that make it less selective?

Do they have lower tuition for in-state kids?

Lower tuition does not make it a state school. It's a benefit to the in-state resident, and has nothing to do with prestige or academic rigor. AEM program, Cornell's crown jewels, is in the contract college, and in-state residents enjoy a lower tuition. If anything to complain about it, it's that they didn't lower it enough.
If you are going to pick on Cornell, find something else.

[Anonymous]

How can Penn or Cornell be the worst when Brown is still in the Ivy League?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Cornell were the worst Ivy, which is itself a dubious claim when you have Brown and Dartmouth in the mix, it would still rank among the top 15 universities in the country. It's like being the poorest billionaire: still extraordinarily privileged by any reasonable standard.

The hostility toward Cornell stems from academic snobbery rooted in its size, land-grant origins, and the elitist prejudices that pervade Ivy League culture. Because it has some features of a public university, including state-supported programs, and is slightly more accessible than other Ivies, the thinking goes that it must be inferior.

What features of it are public? State-supported programs are not state schools. Do you know what are you talking about?

Why does selectivity has anything to do with prestige? Penn has 40% acceptance rate in the 90s, no one has any doubt it's an ivy, then or now.

PP didn’t say they were state schools.

Penn was also looked down upon by the snobs for being too pre-professional. Undergrad business programs were akin to trade school.

I think most of these posters do not have a current ivy kid, and surely did not attend one themselves. Spouse and I attended and kids are at two different ones.
All ivies are "preprofessional". Penn is no more into IB and consulting than HYP or Brown. They all have tons of premeds which are a large part of preprofessional vibe. Then there are the prelaw kids. All total those 3 groups make up 75% of undergrads at all ivies. Who cares. It is no different than when I was at an ivy in the mid90s. People gunned for Goldman, med, or law school. Even the engineers --if not premed BME they were part of the startup dot com surge. Nothing has changed: now there is a new CS bubble. We know many current ivy/elite kids including our own and this is just how they all are. The Stanford kids are the same, CS kid has a patent now going to law school. Brown kid already has his banking internship for 2026, "everyone" there wants banking per the parent. Penn kid gunned and got top research internship, already has startup dreams or phD plans. Chicago premeds complain-bragging on the grind there, comparing notes with the grinding premeds at other top schools.

Whatever the lore on DCUM is of finding a love-to-learn college with no professional goal chasing, kids who just ponder through many different classes with no stress or sense of urgency, intellectual but not ambitious...NO top school has this. They didn't have it 30 yrs ago. Students there are highly intellectual AND ambitious, they do love learning, but they also are worried that "everyone" has figured out what they want to do before them. Summer research/internship/clinical experience is very important for med/grad/law as well as jobs: they have to be focused on the future from the moment they get there if they want to reach their goals.

Yes, the masses today sure do want pre-professional and the acceptance rates at Wharton/Dyson reflect that. But, back when I attended an Ivy in the 80s, the snobs definitely looked down on Penn & Cornell for being too pre-professional. B-school was respectable, undergrad business degrees were not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even if Cornell were the worst Ivy, which is itself a dubious claim when you have Brown and Dartmouth in the mix, it would still rank among the top 15 universities in the country. It's like being the poorest billionaire: still extraordinarily privileged by any reasonable standard.

The hostility toward Cornell stems from academic snobbery rooted in its size, land-grant origins, and the elitist prejudices that pervade Ivy League culture. Because it has some features of a public university, including state-supported programs, and is slightly more accessible than other Ivies, the thinking goes that it must be inferior.

What features of it are public? State-supported programs are not state schools. Do you know what are you talking about?

Why does selectivity has anything to do with prestige? Penn has 40% acceptance rate in the 90s, no one has any doubt it's an ivy, then or now.

For the public colleges (ILR, CALS, etc): preferential admissions to NY students, for one.

Is stanford a state school (40% in-state)? Is rice a state school?
In large states like NY, CA, TX, they can fill their class solely with in-state kids, same quality same outcome.

These states have a size equivalent to a small country. Oxford fills 80% of their class with UK students, does that make it less selective?

Do they have lower tuition for in-state kids?

Lower tuition does not make it a state school. It's a benefit to the in-state resident, and has nothing to do with prestige or academic rigor. AEM program, Cornell's crown jewels, is in the contract college, and in-state residents enjoy a lower tuition. If anything to complain about it, it's that they didn't lower it enough.
If you are going to pick on Cornell, find something else.

I’m not picking on Cornell, I didn’t say anything about prestige or rigor, and I didn’t call it a state school (nor did the PP).

https://www.suny.edu/campuses/cornell/
“Cornell University is the land-grant university for New York State. It is home to four contract colleges and schools that were created by an Act of the New York State Legislature. Each contract college enjoys the benefits of being part of a private, Ivy League university, while being connected to The State University of New York.
The land-grant mission of the university includes a commitment to make contributions in all fields of knowledge to help improve the quality of life in the state, the nation, the world. In return, the state contributes a portion of the operating expenses of the contract colleges. This allows the contract colleges to keep the cost of tuition lower for New York State residents, making their Cornell degrees more affordable.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Cornell is the Ivy that is least differentiated from strong public universities.

Why?

Cornell and Penn are similar to each other. Large sizes. Separate admissions for Wharton/Dyson.
If you think Agriculture is public school, what about Penn nursing?
I don't think they are that different.

Both are confident enough to reinstate test requirement. That differentiates them from state universities the most. Most ivies now are test required.