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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.