Why is Cornell called "lower Ivy"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing new.

There are the top Ivies - a/k/a HYP.

There are the striver Ivies - Columbia and Penn.

And there are the lower Ivies - Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

The lower Ivies are still great schools with very competitive admissions. But if HYP only have a few peers like Stanford and MIT, there are a larger number of schools, including other private universities, top state schools, and top SLACs, generally considered on par with Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

That’s just the way it is, and has been for years, and no DCUM thread is going to change things.

Things do change, however I don't think it's in the lower ivys favor. I think non ivys have gotten better at a faster rate than the ivys thus schools like Emory, NYU, WashU, Notre Dame etc are now on par with the lower ivys, which I don't think you could say that 20, even 10 years ago.

You picked the wrong set of schools there, when you should have been referring instead to schools like Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, JHU, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Williams, and Amherst instead. Certainly not Emory, NYU or WUSL.

Now I’m just embarrassed for you.

Michigan has a 20% acceptance rate. Emory and NYu have the same acceptance rate as Williams and Amherst respectively. Duke Northwestern, JHU, and Chicago have always been better than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown so that wouldn't have made relevant sense to my argument. Like it or not Emory, NYU, WashU, etc are lower Ivy level.

Acceptance rate is a useless stat

If that makes you feel better, undergrad prestige is predicated on selectivity and desirability. Which is a combination of acceptance rate, Test scores, and yield. Get over it. Michigan is a teir 2 school and a Match for high stat students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing new.

There are the top Ivies - a/k/a HYP.

There are the striver Ivies - Columbia and Penn.

And there are the lower Ivies - Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

The lower Ivies are still great schools with very competitive admissions. But if HYP only have a few peers like Stanford and MIT, there are a larger number of schools, including other private universities, top state schools, and top SLACs, generally considered on par with Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

That’s just the way it is, and has been for years, and no DCUM thread is going to change things.

Things do change, however I don't think it's in the lower ivys favor. I think non ivys have gotten better at a faster rate than the ivys thus schools like Emory, NYU, WashU, Notre Dame etc are now on par with the lower ivys, which I don't think you could say that 20, even 10 years ago.

You picked the wrong set of schools there, when you should have been referring instead to schools like Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, JHU, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Williams, and Amherst instead. Certainly not Emory, NYU or WUSL.

Now I’m just embarrassed for you.

Michigan has a 20% acceptance rate. Emory and NYu have the same acceptance rate as Williams and Amherst respectively. Duke Northwestern, JHU, and Chicago have always been better than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown so that wouldn't have made relevant sense to my argument. Like it or not Emory, NYU, WashU, etc are lower Ivy level.

Acceptance rate is a useless stat

+1 Acceptance rates can be deceptive and were manipulated for a long time (which is why most major rankers no long take them into account)
In addition to top schools like Pomona and Amherst (both with acceptance rates under 10%) taking large portions of their classes early, which drives acceptances rate way down, the following schools have acceptance rates of 16% or lower:
Curtis Institute of Music 2%
Wiley College 9%
Faulkner University 13%
United States Coast Guard Academy 13%
Alice Lloyd College 16%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing new.

There are the top Ivies - a/k/a HYP.

There are the striver Ivies - Columbia and Penn.

And there are the lower Ivies - Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

The lower Ivies are still great schools with very competitive admissions. But if HYP only have a few peers like Stanford and MIT, there are a larger number of schools, including other private universities, top state schools, and top SLACs, generally considered on par with Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

That’s just the way it is, and has been for years, and no DCUM thread is going to change things.

Things do change, however I don't think it's in the lower ivys favor. I think non ivys have gotten better at a faster rate than the ivys thus schools like Emory, NYU, WashU, Notre Dame etc are now on par with the lower ivys, which I don't think you could say that 20, even 10 years ago.

You picked the wrong set of schools there, when you should have been referring instead to schools like Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, JHU, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Williams, and Amherst instead. Certainly not Emory, NYU or WUSL.

Now I’m just embarrassed for you.

Michigan has a 20% acceptance rate. Emory and NYu have the same acceptance rate as Williams and Amherst respectively. Duke Northwestern, JHU, and Chicago have always been better than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown so that wouldn't have made relevant sense to my argument. Like it or not Emory, NYU, WashU, etc are lower Ivy level.

Acceptance rate is a useless stat

+1 Acceptance rates can be deceptive and were manipulated for a long time (which is why most major rankers no long take them into account)
In addition to top schools like Pomona and Amherst (both with acceptance rates under 10%) taking large portions of their classes early, which drives acceptances rate way down, the following schools have acceptance rates of 16% or lower:
Curtis Institute of Music 2%
Wiley College 9%
Faulkner University 13%
United States Coast Guard Academy 13%
Alice Lloyd College 16%

Now combine acceptance rates with test scores, and yield.

[Anonymous]

Wouldn't it be great if some top private schools would try to educate close to the number of students top public places like Michigan and Cal do though? Yes, their acceptance rates would be higher but society as a whole would benefit and they can certainly afford to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing new.

There are the top Ivies - a/k/a HYP.

There are the striver Ivies - Columbia and Penn.

And there are the lower Ivies - Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

The lower Ivies are still great schools with very competitive admissions. But if HYP only have a few peers like Stanford and MIT, there are a larger number of schools, including other private universities, top state schools, and top SLACs, generally considered on par with Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

That’s just the way it is, and has been for years, and no DCUM thread is going to change things.

Things do change, however I don't think it's in the lower ivys favor. I think non ivys have gotten better at a faster rate than the ivys thus schools like Emory, NYU, WashU, Notre Dame etc are now on par with the lower ivys, which I don't think you could say that 20, even 10 years ago.

You picked the wrong set of schools there, when you should have been referring instead to schools like Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, JHU, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Williams, and Amherst instead. Certainly not Emory, NYU or WUSL.

Now I’m just embarrassed for you.

Michigan has a 20% acceptance rate. Emory and NYu have the same acceptance rate as Williams and Amherst respectively. Duke Northwestern, JHU, and Chicago have always been better than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown so that wouldn't have made relevant sense to my argument. Like it or not Emory, NYU, WashU, etc are lower Ivy level.

Acceptance rate is a useless stat

+1 Acceptance rates can be deceptive and were manipulated for a long time (which is why most major rankers no long take them into account)
In addition to top schools like Pomona and Amherst (both with acceptance rates under 10%) taking large portions of their classes early, which drives acceptances rate way down, the following schools have acceptance rates of 16% or lower:
Curtis Institute of Music 2%
Wiley College 9%
Faulkner University 13%
United States Coast Guard Academy 13%
Alice Lloyd College 16%

Now combine acceptance rates with test scores, and yield.

Test scores, are we living in 2005?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be great if some top private schools would try to educate close to the number of students top public places like Michigan and Cal do though? Yes, their acceptance rates would be higher but society as a whole would benefit and they can certainly afford to do it.

The bottom 10% at T25 privates are better than corresponding at Umich, Berkeley, and UCLA. And that's the problem with publics, they're forced to dip too low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing new.

There are the top Ivies - a/k/a HYP.

There are the striver Ivies - Columbia and Penn.

And there are the lower Ivies - Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

The lower Ivies are still great schools with very competitive admissions. But if HYP only have a few peers like Stanford and MIT, there are a larger number of schools, including other private universities, top state schools, and top SLACs, generally considered on par with Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

That’s just the way it is, and has been for years, and no DCUM thread is going to change things.

Things do change, however I don't think it's in the lower ivys favor. I think non ivys have gotten better at a faster rate than the ivys thus schools like Emory, NYU, WashU, Notre Dame etc are now on par with the lower ivys, which I don't think you could say that 20, even 10 years ago.

You picked the wrong set of schools there, when you should have been referring instead to schools like Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, JHU, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Williams, and Amherst instead. Certainly not Emory, NYU or WUSL.

Now I’m just embarrassed for you.

Michigan has a 20% acceptance rate. Emory and NYu have the same acceptance rate as Williams and Amherst respectively. Duke Northwestern, JHU, and Chicago have always been better than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown so that wouldn't have made relevant sense to my argument. Like it or not Emory, NYU, WashU, etc are lower Ivy level.

Acceptance rate is a useless stat

+1 Acceptance rates can be deceptive and were manipulated for a long time (which is why most major rankers no long take them into account)
In addition to top schools like Pomona and Amherst (both with acceptance rates under 10%) taking large portions of their classes early, which drives acceptances rate way down, the following schools have acceptance rates of 16% or lower:
Curtis Institute of Music 2%
Wiley College 9%
Faulkner University 13%
United States Coast Guard Academy 13%
Alice Lloyd College 16%

Now combine acceptance rates with test scores, and yield.

Test scores, are we living in 2005?

Lol so what makes a school elite to you then... Vibes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing new.

There are the top Ivies - a/k/a HYP.

There are the striver Ivies - Columbia and Penn.

And there are the lower Ivies - Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

The lower Ivies are still great schools with very competitive admissions. But if HYP only have a few peers like Stanford and MIT, there are a larger number of schools, including other private universities, top state schools, and top SLACs, generally considered on par with Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

That’s just the way it is, and has been for years, and no DCUM thread is going to change things.

Things do change, however I don't think it's in the lower ivys favor. I think non ivys have gotten better at a faster rate than the ivys thus schools like Emory, NYU, WashU, Notre Dame etc are now on par with the lower ivys, which I don't think you could say that 20, even 10 years ago.

You picked the wrong set of schools there, when you should have been referring instead to schools like Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, JHU, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Williams, and Amherst instead. Certainly not Emory, NYU or WUSL.

Now I’m just embarrassed for you.

Michigan has a 20% acceptance rate. Emory and NYu have the same acceptance rate as Williams and Amherst respectively. Duke Northwestern, JHU, and Chicago have always been better than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown so that wouldn't have made relevant sense to my argument. Like it or not Emory, NYU, WashU, etc are lower Ivy level.

Acceptance rate is a useless stat

+1 Acceptance rates can be deceptive and were manipulated for a long time (which is why most major rankers no long take them into account)
In addition to top schools like Pomona and Amherst (both with acceptance rates under 10%) taking large portions of their classes early, which drives acceptances rate way down, the following schools have acceptance rates of 16% or lower:
Curtis Institute of Music 2%
Wiley College 9%
Faulkner University 13%
United States Coast Guard Academy 13%
Alice Lloyd College 16%

Northwestern and Chicago are the schools that this manipulation brings to mind. Back when acceptance rate counted for USNWR, they were practically spamming fee waivers!

[Anonymous]

Because of the hotel school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing new.

There are the top Ivies - a/k/a HYP.

There are the striver Ivies - Columbia and Penn.

And there are the lower Ivies - Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

The lower Ivies are still great schools with very competitive admissions. But if HYP only have a few peers like Stanford and MIT, there are a larger number of schools, including other private universities, top state schools, and top SLACs, generally considered on par with Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

That’s just the way it is, and has been for years, and no DCUM thread is going to change things.

Things do change, however I don't think it's in the lower ivys favor. I think non ivys have gotten better at a faster rate than the ivys thus schools like Emory, NYU, WashU, Notre Dame etc are now on par with the lower ivys, which I don't think you could say that 20, even 10 years ago.

You picked the wrong set of schools there, when you should have been referring instead to schools like Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, JHU, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Williams, and Amherst instead. Certainly not Emory, NYU or WUSL.

Now I’m just embarrassed for you.

Michigan has a 20% acceptance rate. Emory and NYu have the same acceptance rate as Williams and Amherst respectively. Duke Northwestern, JHU, and Chicago have always been better than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown so that wouldn't have made relevant sense to my argument. Like it or not Emory, NYU, WashU, etc are lower Ivy level.

Acceptance rate is a useless stat

Especially when the school has over 30,000 undergraduates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the Ivy League really Harvard and Yale and everyone else? If we're talking just general prestige anyway. Some people have heard of Princeton. Many of them rate its law school as being great

Cornell has a #7 ranked computer science dept and Yale is #20.

Where does that rank even come from? Something semi-useless like USNWR's undergrad department rankings?
Yes, everyone knows Yale was late to the CS game but it is now pouring $$ into it and Yale has plenty to invest and improve quickly. I'd go to Yale over Cornell for CS in a heartbeat with the recent investment and overall name recognition.

Sounds like you went to clown school.

Please don't use USNWR departmental rankings or have your kids use them! At the very least look at their grad school rankings to better understand relative strength. Their departmental rankings are simply a survey of academics at peer institutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is nothing new.

There are the top Ivies - a/k/a HYP.

There are the striver Ivies - Columbia and Penn.

And there are the lower Ivies - Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

The lower Ivies are still great schools with very competitive admissions. But if HYP only have a few peers like Stanford and MIT, there are a larger number of schools, including other private universities, top state schools, and top SLACs, generally considered on par with Brown, Cornell, and Dartmouth.

That’s just the way it is, and has been for years, and no DCUM thread is going to change things.

Things do change, however I don't think it's in the lower ivys favor. I think non ivys have gotten better at a faster rate than the ivys thus schools like Emory, NYU, WashU, Notre Dame etc are now on par with the lower ivys, which I don't think you could say that 20, even 10 years ago.

You picked the wrong set of schools there, when you should have been referring instead to schools like Duke, Northwestern, Chicago, JHU, UCLA, Cal, Michigan, Williams, and Amherst instead. Certainly not Emory, NYU or WUSL.

Now I’m just embarrassed for you.

Michigan has a 20% acceptance rate. Emory and NYu have the same acceptance rate as Williams and Amherst respectively. Duke Northwestern, JHU, and Chicago have always been better than Cornell, Dartmouth, and Brown so that wouldn't have made relevant sense to my argument. Like it or not Emory, NYU, WashU, etc are lower Ivy level.

Acceptance rate is a useless stat

Especially when the school has over 30,000 undergraduates.

Doesn't this make pp's point. UMICH accepts everyone. For any DC private student only getting into Michigan would be a big let down, not true for the other mentioned in thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the Ivy League really Harvard and Yale and everyone else? If we're talking just general prestige anyway. Some people have heard of Princeton. Many of them rate its law school as being great

Cornell has a #7 ranked computer science dept and Yale is #20.

Where does that rank even come from? Something semi-useless like USNWR's undergrad department rankings?
Yes, everyone knows Yale was late to the CS game but it is now pouring $$ into it and Yale has plenty to invest and improve quickly. I'd go to Yale over Cornell for CS in a heartbeat with the recent investment and overall name recognition.

Sounds like you went to clown school.

Please don't use USNWR departmental rankings or have your kids use them! At the very least look at their grad school rankings to better understand relative strength. Their departmental rankings are simply a survey of academics at peer institutions.

+1
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduat...-schools-methodology

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn't the Ivy League really Harvard and Yale and everyone else? If we're talking just general prestige anyway. Some people have heard of Princeton. Many of them rate its law school as being great

Cornell has a #7 ranked computer science dept and Yale is #20.

Where does that rank even come from? Something semi-useless like USNWR's undergrad department rankings?
Yes, everyone knows Yale was late to the CS game but it is now pouring $$ into it and Yale has plenty to invest and improve quickly. I'd go to Yale over Cornell for CS in a heartbeat with the recent investment and overall name recognition.

Sounds like you went to clown school.

Please don't use USNWR departmental rankings or have your kids use them! At the very least look at their grad school rankings to better understand relative strength. Their departmental rankings are simply a survey of academics at peer institutions.

The grad school rankings were listed here as measure of the department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't it be great if some top private schools would try to educate close to the number of students top public places like Michigan and Cal do though? Yes, their acceptance rates would be higher but society as a whole would benefit and they can certainly afford to do it.

The bottom 10% at T25 privates are better than corresponding at Umich, Berkeley, and UCLA. And that's the problem with publics, they're forced to dip too low.

Except the bottom 10% at top publics might excel in other endeavors in which they are world class like athletics, fine arts, and performance. The bottom 10% includes 3,000 students as compared to to 600. With all the legacies at so called T25 private schools, I’m not so sure you can even make that claim about academic superiority.