Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
buck

Ivy Rankings

Recommended Posts

Really?  Do you think a roster of roughly 30 wrestlers has a significant affect on the National rankings Cornell has?  I am sure several of the wrestlers are still taking advanced classes and holding a high GPA.

 

 

Any negatives that Cornell gets due to an easier academic system(taking it for granted that it actually is) are easily overshadowed by the National recognition the University receives for such a visible wrestling program.

 

There's no question that Cornell is an outstanding school.  Even if it's considered by some to be one of the "lower" Ivies, that still puts in head and shoulders above most other large private or public universities out there.

 

What I'm not sure I understand is how some equate this "lower" academic stance with somehow being easier.  I have friends and family who've gone there, and pretty much everyone says that academically, you work your ASS off for your four years there, no matter how you're admitted.    

 

Cornell has traditionally been referred to as the easiest Ivy to get into, but the hardest to get out from.  I don't think that part has changed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know all the specifics, but there many "ranking" reasons that Cornell is (nearly) always ranked as the "worst" Ivy.  I think the biggest reason is the size of the school.  One major factor in ranking schools is the acceptance rate.  Cornell is the largest of the Ivies by a large margin.  The class sizes, and overall number of undergraduate students are much larger.  Consider that Cornell accepts over 6,000 students each year, but Harvard accepts only 2,000.  Since Cornell and Harvard receive approximately the same number of applications each year (Cornell receives only about 10-15% more - not 3X as many), Harvard has a much lower acceptance rate (approximately 6% - Cornell's is approximately 15%).  Based solely on the acceptance rate, Harvard is more difficult to get into, and more selective.  

 

Also, another ranking factor is endowment.  Harvard is entirely a privately endowed school.  Cornell is not - it is part state-funded.

 

Another ranking factor is average SAT/ACT score.  Because Cornell is partly state funded, it is required to accept a certain percentage of New York residents.  So, in many cases, a more qualified student from out-of-state is not accepted because the admissions office was required to provide that slot to a New York resident.

 

The academics at Cornell are not easier, and Cornell's ranking has nothing to with athletics.  Cornell's consistently "lower" ranking has everything to do with the way the ranking system is designed and the factors considered.

Edited by flaBigRedfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the athletes in the ivy league are unqualified compared to the rest of the university.  It just goes with the territory:  more time spent on a sport=less time spent studying. This is why gut classes still exist at these schools, despite their reputation. It's the same for most of the legacy admits as well, so there is a defined infrastructure in place to not challenge these students too much and get them a degree in 4 years (Imagine if the children of the rich donors failed out....that wouldn't go well).  

 

The bottom line is that it's a "tale of two schools" in the ivy league: half of the class consists of some of the smartest people you will ever meet and the other half is completely ordinary.  There are definitely exceptions and examples of athletes who excel academically, but most don't relative to the rest of the school.

 

This may be the single most ignorant post I've seen on here in a long time.

 

Per league rules, the vast majority of Ivy League student athletes are accepted under the normal admission standards.

 

Per my experience, "gut classes" are not created at Ivy League for athletes, nor are athletes funneled into certain majors, in order to keep them eligible.  Easy classes exist at Ivy League schools, as they do at all schools.  With the requirements you need to fulfill to graduate, you'll be lucky to take one of them a semester.

 

I would love to see the proof you have of athletes underperforming v. the student body as whole academically at Ivy League schools, given none of the schools publish their overall student body GPAs.

 

The schools and the system are not perfect, but you seem to imply the schools somehow run as some sort of athletic and legacy factory and that is simply not the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Cornell is kind of a joke in serious academic circles.  So many guts it would be difficult to list them all but tree climbing has to rank near the top.

 

Tree Climbing: If overprotective parents left you feeling like you lost a part of your childhood, Cornell has you covered. Reclaim your youth with a course in tree climbing–also recommended for students planning careers in the rain forest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be the single most ignorant post I've seen on here in a long time.

 

Per league rules, the vast majority of Ivy League student athletes are accepted under the normal admission standards.

 

Per my experience, "gut classes" are not created at Ivy League for athletes, nor are athletes funneled into certain majors, in order to keep them eligible.  Easy classes exist at Ivy League schools, as they do at all schools.  With the requirements you need to fulfill to graduate, you'll be lucky to take one of them a semester.

 

I would love to see the proof you have of athletes underperforming v. the student body as whole academically at Ivy League schools, given none of the schools publish their overall student body GPAs.

 

The schools and the system are not perfect, but you seem to imply the schools somehow run as some sort of athletic and legacy factory and that is simply not the case. 

As you said, easy classes exist at ivies, just like everywhere else. I'm not claiming that Ivies are worse than other schools in this way, just not on some pedestal. However, your claim that "the vast majority" of athletes are admitted under normal standards is not accurate (just like it would not be accurate at any other NCAA school). The admission boost from being recruited isn't a secret, for example http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/sports/before-athletic-recruiting-in-the-ivy-league-some-math.html?_r=3&.  Coaches have many ways to "fudge the numbers" so that their average AI is within one standard deviation, and keep in mind that having an average one standard deviation below the mean in a class would generally give you a very poor grade.  How often is the AI average one standard deviation above the mean?

 

Also, as i said before, the mean is brought down by a significant number of legacies (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/). You could argue that the children of ivy league graduates are likely to be smarter than the average applicant, but the applicants themselves self-select, and I would argue children of ivy league graduates are often pressured to apply when they really have no business doing so. Somebody has to pay for the beautiful buildings and generous financial aid packages, and if the children of rich alumni were rejected, the funds would quickly dry up.  

 

That is all from admissions data.  As for performance, nothing is released as you said, but when you spend time on one of these campuses in class, the difference (on average) from what I have seen is very obvious. Once again, there are a number of athletes who are also excellent students, but they are exceptions. 

 

The point i wanted to make is that the tricks Cornell uses to get its athletes into school are not bringing down the quality of education offered any more than the tricks used by other schools, in a number of different sports, and among legacy admits.  It is part of the way life is in the ivy league, and why simply graduating from an ivy league school alone does not suggest that you received a better education or were a better student than somebody who graduated from somewhere else.  

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wouldve taken tree climbing. stupid core curriculum.

 

fun topic tho, arguing over if a school is sufficiently nerdy enough. 

 

You missed it about 5 years ago when there was always one thread on the first page of the forum about whether Cornell was cheating out all of the other egghead schools.

 

It's largely a lehigh thing (see buck), but other weirdos come and go too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buck & Billy - Bitter beer?  You both should switch to Keystone Light! ;-P

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOP5PBIghhc&noredirect=1

There's nothing to be bitter about on my end, and I'm actually on Cornell's side of this.  What they do to get in their wrestlers is the norm, not the exception for how Ivies operate, and it definitely does not affect the quality of education that is provided.  Cornell is just a bit more creative in how they do it for wrestling.  

Edited by Billyhoyle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish I wouldve known about the tree climbing class when I was there.  Cornell offers so many great classes like that - it's a shame that varsity athletes can't actually take them because those types of classes are only good for PE credits, which the athletes are exempt from....

 

But, admittedly, I did take a class about the "Biology in the Rainforest" to fulfill some science credits - which turned out to basically be about the different herbal hallucinogens that the Brazilian native tribes use to get high.  Totally useless info, but had my attention from day one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you said, easy classes exist at ivies, just like everywhere else. I'm not claiming that Ivies are worse than other schools in this way, just not on some pedestal. However, your claim that "the vast majority" of athletes are admitted under normal standards is not accurate (just like it would not be accurate at any other NCAA school). The admission boost from being recruited isn't a secret, for example http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/sports/before-athletic-recruiting-in-the-ivy-league-some-math.html?_r=3&.  Coaches have many ways to "fudge the numbers" so that their average AI is within one standard deviation, and keep in mind that having an average one standard deviation below the mean in a class would generally give you a very poor grade.  How often is the AI average one standard deviation above the mean?

 

Also, as i said before, the mean is brought down by a significant number of legacies (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2011/5/11/admissions-fitzsimmons-legacy-legacies/). You could argue that the children of ivy league graduates are likely to be smarter than the average applicant, but the applicants themselves self-select, and I would argue children of ivy league graduates are often pressured to apply when they really have no business doing so. Somebody has to pay for the beautiful buildings and generous financial aid packages, and if the children of rich alumni were rejected, the funds would quickly dry up.  

 

That is all from admissions data.  As for performance, nothing is released as you said, but when you spend time on one of these campuses in class, the difference (on average) from what I have seen is very obvious. Once again, there are a number of athletes who are also excellent students, but they are exceptions. 

 

The point i wanted to make is that the tricks Cornell uses to get its athletes into school are not bringing down the quality of education offered any more than the tricks used by other schools, in a number of different sports, and among legacy admits.  It is part of the way life is in the ivy league, and why simply graduating from an ivy league school alone does not suggest that you received a better education or were a better student than somebody who graduated from somewhere else.  

 

The NYT article you cite does not prove your argument that the majority of athletes admitted do not fall under normal admissions standards, as there is no comparison normal admissions standards.  Likewise, the Harvard Crimson's article does not detail any stats regarding the admissions profile for legacies or the general student population of Harvard.

 

I'm still waiting for the evidence to your previous assertion that the Ivies have an "infrastructure" (your words) to funnel underperforming athletes and legacies into easier classes in order to assure these Neanderthals graduate, as well as to this post's assertion that the difference in academic performance between athletes and legacies and the general population is "obvious" (again, your words). 

Edited by Voice_of_the_Quakers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornell may not be as flashy as Yale, Harvard or Princeton but is still quite a powerhouse in hard sciences and engineering (might be in others as well, my scope is a bit limited). Dartmouth that is not famous for, well, pretty much anything at all would be the easy winner of the Worst of the Ivies title. With Brown being a close second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things stick in my mind when it comes to Cornell's wrestling team and how it relates to academics and $$.  First is the sheer number of recruits it seems to bring in each year and secondly something Coach Koll stated in an interview this past summer (I believe during an exhibition in NYC).  When the interviewer commented on how tough it must be to get kids in Koll said something to the effect "You would be surprised at who we can get in"!!

 

I would love to see the avg debt of their wrestling recruits vs that of other wrestling recruits at other universities.  Does their set up actually have advantages over 9.9 schollies??

 

I would assume that theirs would be higher proportionately to the tuition. room and board costs.  But to what degree?

Edited by BDB50

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornell may not be as flashy as Yale, Harvard or Princeton but is still quite a powerhouse in hard sciences and engineering (might be in others as well, my scope is a bit limited). Dartmouth that is not famous for, well, pretty much anything at all would be the easy winner of the Worst of the Ivies title. With Brown being a close second.

I don't actually agree. I consider Cornell more like Berkley. (The West coast lacks private schools so the top public schools fill the void for the kids not wanting to go east). Dartmouth is a very good school with a great liberal arts reputation. They often get singled out due to their lack of affiliation with the AAU but that is because, much like Cornell, they are not like the other Ivy League schools which are a little more homogeneous. Dartmouth is kind of more like a Williams but they are very much a top destination for students also accepted to other Ivy league schools.

 

I wouldn't say Dartmouth isn't known for anything. Of the Ivys, Dartmouth produces the second most PhDs in Physics (trailing only Harvard), despite being the smallest Ivy member. Over a third of all Dartmouth grads with a degree in Physics will end up with a PhD.

 

In fact, Dartmouth grads have a higher ROI, on average, for their education than every Ivy, except Princeton.

 

Here is a ranking of the best feeder schools in the country to the top professional schools: http://www.inpathways.net/top50feeder.pdf

Edited by Pinnum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: BDB50's comment above on "the sheer number of recruits (Cornell) seems to bring in each year..."

 

This year Cornell's roster lists 33, with 6 new freshmen; certainly a nice number, being average 3 deep per weight (more in some weights, less in others) but that doesn't seem unreasonable - a little more than EIWA schools like Franklin and Marshall (they list 20), but less than major programs like Iowa or PSU.

 

BTW, the really long rosters in the EIWA are at Army and Navy, though many of those no doubt are walk-ons.

 

Edit:  Just took a quick look at some of the other Ivy's, Princeton lists 31, Penn 32, Harvard 34, Columbia 37... So Cornell is not at all excessive by comparison, at least not in terms of quantity.

Edited by redblades

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dartmouth is also pretty well known for being the place where the writers of Animal House went and what they based the screenplay on. the two people i know who went there did little to diminish my impression of the school as portrayed in the movie. 

 

When i hear Brown mentioned i think of being able to take 100% of your courses pass fail and being extremely jealous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cornell may not be as flashy as Yale, Harvard or Princeton but is still quite a powerhouse in hard sciences and engineering (might be in others as well, my scope is a bit limited). Dartmouth that is not famous for, well, pretty much anything at all would be the easy winner of the Worst of the Ivies title. With Brown being a close second.

 

Brown's unique curriculum, where you can pretty much shape your own major out and cater to exactly what you want, rather than find the best in what classes are pre-determined for you, is actually very popular. Also, my high school senior year, Brown was actually more selective than Penn, Cornell and I'm pretty sure Dartmouth, as well.

 

I don't really think you can give out a Worst of the Ivies title. Sure, not all of them will be for everyone, and some of em will be better than others, but all of them are great at something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What catches my eye was that D1CW'S recruiting record since2011-14 has Cornell with classes of 7,7,1 and 9,  PSU has 5,3,6,and 5 with 1 transfer.  Iowa and Minny seems to be around 5 - 6 most years......... with the lone year of Cornell showing 1 they appear to have larger classes that most of the elite programs.

 

My question is does their no athletic scholly/need based aid set up allow them to bring in more kids on a yearly basis allowing for success if some of the recruits fall short??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What catches my eye was that D1CW'S recruiting record since2011-14 has Cornell with classes of 7,7,1 and 9,  PSU has 5,3,6,and 5 with 1 transfer.  Iowa and Minny seems to be around 5 - 6 most years......... with the lone year of Cornell showing 1 they appear to have larger classes that most of the elite programs.

 

My question is does their no athletic scholly/need based aid set up allow them to bring in more kids on a yearly basis allowing for success if some of the recruits fall short??

Correct.  Since Cornell is not a scholarship program - which means 9.9 does not apply, they can recruit as many as they feel comfortable carrying on their roster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A friend's son was recently accepted at the Hotel school as well as a number of other places. He is genuinely interested in the hospitality industry but the more he reads about the hotel school the more it seems that NO ONE at Cornell takes it seriously.

 

It seems like a solid program and it seems that their graduates generally do well for themselves, but he doesn't want to be made fun of for 4 years because his curriculum includes classes on how to plumb a toilet and make a bed.

 

Can anyone at CU provide some insight on this?

Are you trolling here?  Post taken word for word from:  http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/cornell-university/1317672-is-the-hotel-school-a-total-joke.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What catches my eye was that D1CW'S recruiting record since2011-14 has Cornell with classes of 7,7,1 and 9,  PSU has 5,3,6,and 5 with 1 transfer.  Iowa and Minny seems to be around 5 - 6 most years......... with the lone year of Cornell showing 1 they appear to have larger classes that most of the elite programs.

 

My question is does their no athletic scholly/need based aid set up allow them to bring in more kids on a yearly basis allowing for success if some of the recruits fall short??

 

I haven't broken it down year by year, but overall, the Cornell roster size relative to a number of other programs are all pretty comperable, so it seems to stand to reason that on average, the number of kids coming in would have to be about the same. 

 

Correct.  Since Cornell is not a scholarship program - which means 9.9 does not apply, they can recruit as many as they feel comfortable carrying on their roster.

 Yes, certain Lehigh posters like to bring this up an an annual basis, it seems! ;-P  But as we have discussed on WR so many times, there are several reasons this theory doesn't hold water:

 

- I'm not sure exactly what the restrictions are about mixing aid, but I'm pretty sure that schools that offer athletic scholarships can ALSO offer need based aid - just can't combine aid for a single athlete.  Same with academic scholarships, which the Ivy's do not offer (and as an aside, I think I read over on the Scout forum that David Taylor had a full ride academic scholarship, not included in the 9.9)

 

- Even if they don't choose to mix aid sources, there is nothing that would prevent other schools from adopting the Ivy League system, i.e. no 9.9, no academic scholarships, only need based aid.

 

- There are 6 other wrestling programs in the Ivy league that are based on the same financial aid setup as Cornell; and while all are based on the same need formula, some can offer more aid, at a higher income threshold, than Cornell due to higher endowment/enrollment ratios (in this respect being the largest Ivy hurts Cornell, they need to divide the pie into many more pieces).  So if the financial setup is the reason for Cornell's recruiting success, it would seem to stand to reason, Harvard, Princeton, etc. should be doing even better!

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure sometimes the need based aid works out well for Cornell, and they can provide aid that beats the others, especially for recruits not too widely pursued by the top teams; but many times they have lost blue chips because they can't offer enough aid.  To quote Earl Smith in his breakdown of the 2014 recruiting class: "What separates the three schools ahead of Cornell is the fact that they all have at least one clear cut superstar in their recruiting classes.  Cornell "just" has a group of really solid recruits."  I also know that several blue chips in recent years have attended Cornell with NO financial aid, willing to go for both the wrestling experience as well as the unique degree programs offered.

 

One theory I've NEVER seen the Lehigh fans put out - maybe Cornell's recent recruiting success has something to do with the coaching, and the overall strength of the program? ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...