Cornell admissions

[Beeeej]

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.

The other prong of that general approach, at least in theory, is that in the general applicant pool there is only one advantage to being a legacy: In the hypothetical situation where there is only one remaining slot and the mythical two otherwise equally qualified applicants, the legacy gets the slot over the non.

[upprdeck]

While applications have gone up that doesn't have to mean that its harder to get in.  Applying to multiple schools is easier and more often done in many cases.  

say 40 ys ago a kid wanted to go to Cornell but applied to 2 other schools as well.. Now many kids apply to all the ivies. And its more of thing to see if they can be accepted to more than 1.

So while more kids are applying to Cornell it could be the same number have it as their top choice.

In theory you could have more applicants but the same number of serious ones.

who knows.

[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.

The other prong of that general approach, at least in theory, is that in the general applicant pool there is only one advantage to being a legacy: In the hypothetical situation where there is only one remaining slot and the mythical two otherwise equally qualified applicants, the legacy gets the slot over the non.

I don't think that is the situation. In the Early Decision pool, there is no 'one remaining slot', and if Cornell likes both, it will take both.  In the regular pool, Cornell will preference the non-legacy.

While applications have gone up that doesn't have to mean that its harder to get in. Applying to multiple schools is easier and more often done in many cases.

say 40 ys ago a kid wanted to go to Cornell but applied to 2 other schools as well.. Now many kids apply to all the ivies. And its more of thing to see if they can be accepted to more than 1.

So sad but true.  I blame technology and the Common App.  If everyone still had to put each school's application into a typewriter, and actually type the words onto the form, then nobody would be applying to 10, 20 or 30 schools as is common today.

[ugarte]

I blame technology and the Common App.  If everyone still had to put each school's application into a typewriter, and actually type the words onto the form, then nobody would be applying to 10, 20 or 30 schools as is common today.

tbh this seems like retconning a virtue of what was a real barrier. there are obviously some negative effects to students over-applying because it makes it harder for admissions offices to get a sense of which accepted students will take the offers, but the most likely effect is a bigger waitlist. that creates more uncertainty for all but the very top echelon of applicants too, but i don't know if that's worse than turning the application process into an obstacle course.

[jtwcornell91]

I seem to recall that application fee was also a deterrent to applying to more schools than one really wanted to attend.  And also the practicalities of visiting all of them, but I guess kids can skip that if they're only applying for sport.

[Tcl123]

I seem to recall that application fee was also a deterrent to applying to more schools than one really wanted to attend.  And also the practicalities of visiting all of them, but I guess kids can skip that if they're only applying for sport.

...

[Beeeej]

The other prong of that general approach, at least in theory, is that in the general applicant pool there is only one advantage to being a legacy: In the hypothetical situation where there is only one remaining slot and the mythical two otherwise equally qualified applicants, the legacy gets the slot over the non.

I don't think that is the situation. In the Early Decision pool, there is no 'one remaining slot', and if Cornell likes both, it will take both.  In the regular pool, Cornell will preference the non-legacy.

This would be the first time I've ever seen or heard it suggested that in the general pool, non-legacies get preference. I'd be interested to see some evidence or examples of that.

[nshapiro]

The other prong of that general approach, at least in theory, is that in the general applicant pool there is only one advantage to being a legacy: In the hypothetical situation where there is only one remaining slot and the mythical two otherwise equally qualified applicants, the legacy gets the slot over the non.

I don't think that is the situation. In the Early Decision pool, there is no 'one remaining slot', and if Cornell likes both, it will take both.  In the regular pool, Cornell will preference the non-legacy.

This would be the first time I've ever seen or heard it suggested that in the general pool, non-legacies get preference. I'd be interested to see some evidence or examples of that.

perhaps I overstated it.  I just wanted to dispute that there was a preference for legacies beyond ED.

[TimV]

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%.

Don't safety schools get large numbers of applicants too?  Just sayin'.  Kinda need to know the metrics on the rejects.

[CAS]

Safely schools don't have high yields (% of admits who enroll).  Last year Cornell had a yield of 68.4%.  Regular decision admits (not including early decision & waitlist admits who enroll at very high rates) had a yield of 50%. I believe both yields were record highs for Cornell.

[billhoward]

Don't safety schools get large numbers of applicants too?  Just sayin'.  Kinda need to know the metrics on the rejects.

The majority of the ~3000 schools that US News tracks admit 70% or more of applicants. So you don't need to apply a large number of safety schools, just one or two that are one level down from your desired/reach school. The University of Rochester, a top 50 school, admits 40% of applicants. Not a lot worse than an Ivy.

Elmira admits 80-94% of applicants (stats vary) which I've learned is "lightly selective." Actually, Elmira would reject you sooner than Rochester, they know if you have the grades to be borderline Cornell, no way are you going there. So an Elmira type school rejects you to keep their yield rate less modest.

Just saw a fall 2022 Harvard Crimson story comparing the admit rate and yield rate at the eight Ivies over 30 years. The key points:

• Harvard is #1 in yield
• Cornell shot way, way up in yield, an increase of 22 points over 30 years
• Cornell is freaking #3, just below Princeton, in yield now.
• Elite schools can tinker with admit and more so yield rates by using early decision / early action, and how much of the class they take that way. When Princeton for some moral reason dropped early admissions for the Class of 2012, its yield went down 10 points. Chastened, it switched to non-binding early action and got most of it back, 8 points worth.
• There's now a trickle-down effect a trickle-down effect where the Tulanes, UofR's, Colgates, Miami's and American Universities of the world are seeing increased interest from would-be Ivy students, some of whom may be discouraged from applying to the Ivies.
• All this even though there ~1.6 million fewer students applying now than circa in 2009.

Harvard Crimson: As American Colleges Struggle to Fill Classes, Ivy League Yield Rates Continue to Rise

[Trotsky]

Failsons across Long Island and New England quake in fear of going to state schools.

A civil rights legal group is challenging legacy admissions at Harvard University, saying the practice discriminates against students of color by giving an unfair boost to the mostly white children of alumni.

(Between tutors, prep schools, and AP class grade inflation, every one of them will still get in on "merit." )

[Trotsky]

Everybody's getting in on it.

Now we just need to train the condors to take out the super talls.

[Trotsky]

It's time for guillotines, but only for the private colleges.

Leadership positions in the U.S. are disproportionately held by graduates of a few highly selective private colleges. Could such colleges — which currently have many more students from high-income families than low-income families — increase the socioeconomic diversity of America's leaders by changing their admissions policies? We use anonymized admissions data from several private and public colleges linked to income tax records and SAT and ACT test scores to study this question.

Children from families in the top 1% are twice as likely to attend an Ivy-Plus college (Ivy League, Stanford, MIT, Duke, and Chicago) as those from middle-class families with comparable SAT/ACT scores. Two-thirds of this gap is due to higher admissions rates for students with comparable test scores from high-income families; the remaining third is due to differences in rates of application and matriculation. In contrast, children from high-income families have no admissions advantage at flagship public colleges. The high-income admissions advantage at private colleges is driven by three factors: (1) preferences for children of alumni, (2) weight placed on non-academic ratings, which tend to be higher for students applying from private high schools that have affluent student bodies, and (3) recruitment of athletes, who tend to come from higher-income families.

[Trotsky]

Elite schools, also Brown, pay millions in lawsuit about coddling wealthy derps.