Cornell admissions

[French Rage]

And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

And requiring every house to have a live-in advisor with their own separate unit and bathroom is just an attempt to price more fraternities out of existence.

Good.

So edgy.

Not really.  I had no idea kids were still buying their friends.

Ooh, and original too.

[Trotsky]

And fraternities are down to about 28 houses. Had been up around 50, just not recently.

And requiring every house to have a live-in advisor with their own separate unit and bathroom is just an attempt to price more fraternities out of existence.

Good.

So edgy.

Not really.  I had no idea kids were still buying their friends.

Ooh, and original too.

Again, not in the original claim.

[CAS]

I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren't that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450.  Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

[Robb]

I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren't that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450.  Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

Right, but did those additional 45% applicants drive the SAT average up or down?  I expect it is the latter (but I don't have any data, either)

[David Harding]

I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren't that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450.  Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

Right, but did those additional 45% applicants drive the SAT average up or down?  I expect it is the latter (but I don't have any data, either)

And is your definition of "outstanding" simply a high SAT score?

[French Rage]

I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren't that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450.  Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

Right, but did those additional 45% applicants drive the SAT average up or down?  I expect it is the latter (but I don't have any data, either)

And is your definition of "outstanding" simply a high SAT score?

No, but assuming they lack other objective metrics to compare across the entire body of applicants, it is probably the best one they have to illustrate the point, and probably one that correlates pretty well (albeit not perfectly, as none do) with other relevant metrics.

[Robb]

I disagree with Robb that the tremendous increase in applicants are of students who generally aren't that outstanding. The last year that Cornell provided detailed analysis of the applicant pool was for the Class of 2023, when Cornell accepted fewer than 11% of applicants. In that year, the majority of applicants (not admits) had SATs higher than 1450.  Since then applications have increased another 45% (and admit rate has declined to 6.9%).

Right, but did those additional 45% applicants drive the SAT average up or down?  I expect it is the latter (but I don't have any data, either)

And is your definition of "outstanding" simply a high SAT score?

Um....you're the one who introduced high SATs as an indicator that the applicant pool was strong.  I'm simply speculating about which direction *your own* metric changed as the number of applicants increased.

[Trotsky]

It should also be noted that SATs, grades, and nearly all objective measures of "merit" can be goosed by the kind of full court press rich parents give their adorable little Karens and Kens in tutors and classes not to mention their being sheltered from the real life problems that every other kid has to contend with.

There's a reason the wealthy replicate themselves in each succeeding Ivy class.  And that reason is not genetics.

[CAS]

I used one objective measure (high SAT scores) for a recent class (2023) to demonstrate that a substantial increase in the number of applicants may bring more qualified applicants (not uncompetitive ones).

[Robb]

I used one objective measure (high SAT scores) for a recent class (2023) to demonstrate that a substantial increase in the number of applicants may bring more qualified applicants (not uncompetitive ones).

Sorry, but you did no such thing.  You provided two independent facts: the average SAT scores for the class of 23,  and the fact that 4 years later the class of 27 has 45% more applicants.  Those two facts are not enough to establish any sort of relationship, not even a correlation, between the number of applicants and the average SAT scores.

[CAS]

Applications had already increased materially in recent years, leading to an admit rate of below 11% for the Class of 2023.  We don't have the same data for the Class of 2026 (not 2027).  You suggest many new applicants are less qualified, (not just for the class just admitted, but other recent classes), while providing no data.

[heykb]

Ahh, the good old days that I remember.  Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980.  The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

I freely admit that my status as a dual legacy (both my father and uncle went to Cornell) had something to do with my being admitted. I wonder how much weight is given to ancestral legacy nowadays.

N.B. that neither my father nor my uncle stayed all four years at CU. My dad busted out partway through his junior year. My uncle transferred after one year because he missed his girlfriend. My uncle's been married to her for 65 years now. My dad never finished college, which was fine with me. I have told my children and those of numerous friends that the best place to go to college is where one of your parents flunked out. Dad encouraged me to do well, but he couldn't really hassle me about my grades. Which is good, because they were just enough to graduate and not a whole lot more.

[nshapiro]

Ahh, the good old days that I remember.  Cornell posts admission stats dating back to 1980.  The total number of applications received this year are up over 300% compared to 1980 (71K vs 17K), while the total number of admits is actually down 10% this year vs 1980 (4,908 vs 5,456). How many of us older alums would be admitted if we applied today, with the admit rating falling to 6.9% from 32%.

I freely admit that my status as a dual legacy (both my father and uncle went to Cornell) had something to do with my being admitted. I wonder how much weight is given to ancestral legacy nowadays.

N.B. that neither my father nor my uncle stayed all four years at CU. My dad busted out partway through his junior year. My uncle transferred after one year because he missed his girlfriend. My uncle's been married to her for 65 years now. My dad never finished college, which was fine with me. I have told my children and those of numerous friends that the best place to go to college is where one of your parents flunked out. Dad encouraged me to do well, but he couldn't really hassle me about my grades. Which is good, because they were just enough to graduate and not a whole lot more.

I don't know exactly what you mean by 'ancestral legacy', but I do know that the general approach to legacies at Cornell, is that there is an assumption that the applicant should be familiar with Cornell and know it is the right school for them, so legacies are expected to be applying early decision if they want that thumb on the scale.

[Trotsky]

In reality, almost all schools (including likely Cornell) are significantly less selective than they used to be.  There are several reasons why, including the perks of wealth that get rockhead children magically in and also the press of schools to artificially increase their selectivity by enticing borderline students to apply so they can be rejected.

[ugarte]

In reality, almost all schools (including likely Cornell) are significantly less selective than they used to be.  There are several reasons why, including the perks of wealth that get rockhead children magically in and also the press of schools to artificially increase their selectivity by enticing borderline students to apply so they can be rejected.

this analysis is a little jumbled. the perks of wealth grease the skids for their rockhead kids, but that leaves fewer slots for actual merit applicants. for the strivers, getting in is significantly harder than it used to be.