Why isn't Cornell better?

my gut wrote:

However, that is still leaves A LOT of households making over $75,000 who may opt for the full scholarship. I know $75,000 sounds like a lot, but not if both parents work. That's probably less than a husband and wife bus driver and a waitress will make.

Up to $120,000 and you only have to take out $3k a year in loans. $12k for an Ivy League education vs. your "full ride" (and lets face it, there aren't a lot of full rides out there for distance runners) at State U.

Take a look at income distribution in the U.S.

The $120,000 mark basically covers 90% of American households.

And this "family contribution" too has shrunk at Ivy Schools. Harvard doesn't require you to pay ANYTHING - no family contribution, nothing, if you make less than $60,000 a year. Nothing. Not a cent. That's a free ride. Penn, Yale, and Princeton do the same. (Not sure about Cornell's policy on that.) And they have reduced tuition for those who are making up to $100,000.

(By the way, Stanford has a similar program too. Seems like and "end-around" the way of the number of athletic scholarships if you ask me.)

So basically, if you're a decently smart athlete, you should be at an Ivy League - any tiny cost you have now will be more than made up for with the earning power of an Ivy.

If you're turning it down for a full ride to somewhere else, then I'd question whether you were smart enough to be in the Ivy League in the first place.

Facts:

~There is no SUNY-Cornell transfer deal. Transfers get into Cornell one of 2 ways:

a) They decide after a year (or more) of being someplace else that they want to transfer, apply, and gain admission. This is easier than getting in out of HS (as it is almost anyplace) simply because class sizes shrink over 4 years and schools like tuition dollars.

b) They apply out of HS and are granted a guaranteed transfer. Basically, you receive a letter stating that you weren't quite good enough to get into Cornell, however, if you are willing to go someplace else for your freshman year and maintain a minimum GPA, you are guaranteed a place here your sophomore year. This option is only given to a very limited amount of kids who DON'T get in straight out of HS but are good students and are basically deemed good replacements for the inevitable attrition losses suffered by every freshman college class. Many of these kids attend a SUNY school because they are from NY and SUNY schools are cheap, however, there is absolutely no requirement or preference that they do.

I know this because my girlfriend is such a transfer.

In my time here, there hasn't been a single person (to my knowledge) that has competed at a HEPS after such a transfer.

~It is damn hard to get into any Ivy, especially when you're middle class/poor

Any clue as to how Harvard (or any Ivy) can afford to be so generous to those of lower incomes? Its because they don't have very many poor kids. Say what you will about the country's education system or affirmative action or whatever, but the bottom line is the VAST majority of kids at Ivies are white kids from families pulling 100k or more a year (or Asian engineers). If you're poor, its incredibly hard to put together a HS resume that would gain admission to an Ivy.

~Cornell is cold.

I'm amazed that with all the recruiting talk, no one has mentioned the fact that there are a lot of recruits that don't want to train someplace that snows. If you're from Cali or the South, does snow 4 months a year sound appealing to you? Cross out half the (already small) recruiting pool by half.

~Recruiting isn't impossible

Yeah, its hard (substantially harder than many schools) to consistently recruit, but it isn't impossible. Ivies that bitch and moan that their XC team isn't in the top ten of their region because they can't get kids in are suffering from one of two problems: Bad coaching, or bad recruiting. You can get top 10 in any region (save the west) with a stable full of 930 HS kids, and trust me, theyre a dime a dozen. Maybe Ivy teams can't flood the top 25 every year, but they sure as hell should at least be respectable.

~I'm out of breath

Peace.

Why all the fuss about how much money somebody can get at a school? In the end, what matters is who goes where. 50 guys could get need-based full rides at one school, but if they're all a bunch of 9:30-10:00 guys and the school up the road gets 5 Foot Locker All Americans on half scholarship, the amount of money that was available probably ain't gonna matter, folks. Extreme example there, but point made.

Look at the rosters to see what level of recruits are actually going where, not the financial aid options or how easy it is to get in. The bottom line is, with the obvious exception of Princeton, the Ivy rosters aren't chock full of FL finalists and sub-9 guys. For whatever reason (can't get in, can't get enough financial aid, prefer the facilities and perks at other places, etc.), those guys aren't going to the Ivies. Same story in most other sports. Are the football blue chippers headed to Dartmouth and Yale or Texas and FSU? Right. It doesn't make any difference why they don't strive to play for Brown and instead settle for Michigan, but in the end, Michigan's third string has more accomplished and touted recruits than Brown's starters and a Michigan-Brown matchup would almost surely be a blowout.

So let's look at the most talent laden team (by far) in the Ivies and compare them to their competition. Princeton has 8 sub-9:00 3,200 (or converted 2 mile) high school recruits on their current roster - Amirault, Cabral, Kaulbach, Leung, Mathabane, Sitler, Soloff, Webb. Sitler is injured now, but he's a stud recruit they landed, so we should count him. Three of those (Cabral, Leung, Sitler) were FL All Americans. In addition to those guys, they have another FL finalist (Galasso), a 4:07 1,600 guy (Andrews) and a 4:05 miler (Callahan), plus a few other sub-9:10s. Despite all this, ***even Princeton hasn't made Nationals!!!*** Why? In their region, Georgetown's roster is stocked with even more impressive high school recruits (on the current roster, Bumbalough, Dennin, Furcht, Roberts, Sorenson, Springer and Taye were all FL finalists (4 All Americans) with superb track credentials and Grimes, Miller and Peavey weren't far behind those credentials in high school). They consistently land that type of talent. Villanova goes overseas to get a quick fix. In the Northeast, it's the same story. Iona and Providence bring in ringers if they can't land enough US talent and Syracuse has a roster that is probably more talent laden than Princeton's - seven FL finalists (Dupont, Graves, Koloseus, Medrano, Murdock, Rivers, Whelan) and other proven high school cross guys like Bixler, Busby, Miller, Molke and Scull (Canadian World Cross team).

And yet people ask why Princeton normally dominates the Heps XC and why other Ivy teams, most of them with *no* FL finalists *or* sub-9 guys, aren't "better" when compared to Georgetown, Villanova, Iona, Providence and Syracuse with their rosters? Those questions needn't be asked.

It's kind of hard to quantify XC credentials in the same way track times can be compared, but in terms of the number of people who accomplish the feat, making FL All American is probably equal to 8:56 for 3,200 and making the finals is about the same as a 9:01 3,200. If anything, when comparing XC recruits, FL finalists are probably more valuable than sub-9 guys who weren't as good in cross, since they are already proven XC commodities, maybe better than they are on the track. The Georgetowns and Syracuses of the world, as long as they consistently continue to have 7 FL finalists and a few All Americans on their rosters, are generally going to be marginally favored over Princeton and vastly favored over the other Ivies, even against a team like Columbia, which has a roster comprised of 75% or more middle distance and up. Columbia clearly focuses on the 800 and up, including cross, and they consequently have a lot of untapped potential from the boatloads of mid-level recruits, but teams that bring in FL finalists on a regular basis will generally have immediate front-end help from these guys even when they're freshmen and sophomores, while the 9:15-9:30 guys might have to develop and won't reach that level until they're older, if ever. Add to that the fact the Ivies (except under special circumstances) don't get a 5th year out of these guys, and you've got a set of guys that are 22-23 years old on non-Ivy teams being replaced by a set of guys who are 18-19 on the Ivy teams. Enormous difference. Some of the Ivies are often only one to three frontrunners away from making Nationals and adding that 5th year to bring back their graduated stars would make them just as competitive as anybody, even though they don't get the same level of high school talent.

Hey Douchebag Dave, either you're really being a douchebag or you're just an idiot. It's not a cap of $3,000/yr for families with an income under $120,000. That's the most *NEED-BASED* *LOANS* that they will give to families under that threshold. But, Cornell determines the amount of need that these families have. So, they could easily say that a family making $120,0000 needs $25k in aid. $22k will be grants, $3k loans. The family still has to pay another $25k/yr for their child to go to Cornell. Several of the other Ivies (H, Y, P, D I know for sure) have completely eliminated need-based loans, but that does not mean that everyone under a certain threshold gets free grant aid.

Do you finally get it?

Why do you need to use calculus to prove 0.9999... = 1?

Let x = 0.999999...

10x = 9.999999...

10x - x = 9.999999... - 0.999999...

9x = 9

x = 1

give me a break wrote:

Hey Douchebag Dave, either you're really being a douchebag or you're just an idiot.

Can't it be both?

I can't believe how little emphasis has been put on not having a 5th year in the Ivy League. It is an absolutely huge detriment to most teams. Ivies generally get fewer "spots" for their runners anyways, and lose them faster because of those rules. Huge disadvantage.

give me a break wrote:

Hey Douchebag Dave, either you're really being a douchebag or you're just an idiot. It's not a cap of $3,000/yr for families with an income under $120,000. That's the most *NEED-BASED* *LOANS* that they will give to families under that threshold. But, Cornell determines the amount of need that these families have. So, they could easily say that a family making $120,0000 needs $25k in aid. $22k will be grants, $3k loans. The family still has to pay another $25k/yr for their child to go to Cornell. Several of the other Ivies (H, Y, P, D I know for sure) have completely eliminated need-based loans, but that does not mean that everyone under a certain threshold gets free grant aid.

Do you finally get it?

The other poster had it right - I'm a little of both.

But you're missing the point in that the colleges listed are offering tuition discounts to being with. Anyone under $60k is going FREE - no need based contributions. And yes, if you're making $120,000 a year you'll be expected to contribute to your kid's education; but the odds are that unless you just started making $120,000 last year that you have been planning and saving so you'll have some money to play with.

If course it's not COMPLETELY free for those who are in the top 20% of household income.

Then again, when push comes to shove - if you're an Ivy League you can get the vast majority of the runners in this country for free, or next to nothing. Look, German Fernandez would have gone to Harvard for free. Know why he didn't? Because the coach sucks and it's not a great place to run.

And ditto Cornell. It's got nothing to do with "being able to afford it." Only the brain dead are turning down discounted Ivy League educations when they can get it.

"And ditto Cornell. It's got nothing to do with "being able to afford it." Only the brain dead are turning down discounted Ivy League educations when they can get it.

"

I completely agree with this statement. I turned down Cornell (ironic since we are now talking about it) with enough financial aid to make it the same price as a state college. I went to the state college (on scholorship so it was cheaper) thinking "this is a better place to run" and it was. But in hindsight (20/20 right?) I should have gone to the better school in regards to education. You see, for the rest of my working life, my college running career means squat while my education means a lot. Man I wish I could have made that decision over again.

When my children are choosing which college to attend, I'm definately going to promote the better educational institution over the better athletic program.

Conclusion? I was brain dead when choosing a state U. over Cornell as it turned out to cost about the same (after financial aid and such).

cornell doesnt have to mental game if u ask me...

HK 47 wrote:

I can't believe how little emphasis has been put on not having a 5th year in the Ivy League. It is an absolutely huge detriment to most teams.

The redshirt year makes most of the difference. Within the Ivy League meet itself, if Princeton had Maag back and the other teams remained the same, they could have had a swing of 18 or 19 points at the Heps, which would have been an easy romp for them. If Cornell had Hine back and Dannemiller wasn't abroad, they'd probably score under 60 points (assuming Hine in the top 3 and Dannemiller in the top 10) and win if the other teams were unchanged. If Dartmouth had True and Randall back and everybody else was the same, they'd win (True probably 1st, Randall almost certainly in the top 7). In fact, with True and Randall running as well as they did in last year's Regional, Dartmouth probably could have scored 80 or less this year, taking 3rd by bumping Providence back a few points, and maybe getting pushed into Nationals. That's assuming everybody runs a good enough race on the same day, but if nothing else, they'd have a very realistic chance of being at the show. As it was, they were only tied for 3rd in the conference and 5th in the Northeast and nobody gave them much thought as a potential national caliber team. That's the difference the 5th year (or lack of it) can make.

The academic pressure at any Ivy League school, top small liberal arts schools, etc., in any academic program, is very, very different from the academic pressure at other schools. If the average SAT of admitted students is 1420, the workload is far from average. They all grade with curves, remember.

Missing classes for travel, volume of school work, getting adequate sleep, and no priority in registering for classes, all are different at the top academic schools.

My kid goes to Princeton. I sure as heck wouldn't want to compete against her academically - think of an academic award in high school - she had it - and she is representative of most of the class and not all that unique. Been around the block is right - the Ivies are no cakewalk - and the intellectual rigor is tremendous.

From my experience, there are three main reasons why Ivy League schools including Cornell don't perform as well as one might expect:

1. Lack of a 5th year - If you bring Hine and Luff back for a 5th year after their regional performances last year and Dannemiller not going abroad, it's completely reasonable to assume Cornell has 3 guys in the top 10, one around 20-25 and their 5th guy around 30th. As someone else said, that's around 80 points and maybe they get pushed into the show. That goes for a bunch of Ivy teams every year, you bring Maag, True or Randall back and things change a bunch in the team standings

2. Admissions standards - I can't count the number of times I've talked to a coach about recruits and heard the lines "This guy is a stud but there's no way he's getting in" or "This kid wants to be an engineer but his math SAT's just aren't high enough". Even if a kid wants to come to an Ivy and the coach wants him in, that is no guarantee at all. Again, college coaching is 90% recruiting and Ivy coaches lose a lot of good runners to the high admission standards.

3. Academic workload - This one hasn't been mentioned very much on here, but it's a huge factor. To run well at the highest levels in college, you need to be at your best and that is very hard for Ivy students to do with their course work. Pulling all-nighters for papers, cramming for tests, stressing about grades and exams, all this makes it harder to train at your peak and recover as best you can, leading to injuries and sickness, and sometimes general burnout. I've seen a lot of kids with decent talent walk away from the team due to their academic commitments. It might seem minor but all those little things can cost a team a lot points in the final results.

A note on the financial aid side - back when I started college, there were no tuition breaks like there are now. I came from a middle class family - well off, but not rich by any means - and we got almost no need based aid from my Ivy League school. I received an 3/4 academic scholarship to a state school that I turned down to attend an Ivy and it cost me a lot in loans. Thankfully my family had saved for my education to help me out but there are probably many many families with a top level recruit that couldn't make the same choice I was able to and thus that kid isn't coming to an Ivy.

Wimpy, today IS Tuesday wrote:

The redshirt year makes most of the difference . . .

If Dartmouth had True and Randall back and everybody else was the same, they'd win (True probably 1st, Randall almost certainly in the top 7). In fact, with True and Randall running as well as they did in last year's Regional, Dartmouth probably could have scored 80 or less this year, taking 3rd by bumping Providence back a few points, and maybe getting pushed into Nationals.

It's worth noting that True actually matriculated with the class of '08, and took some time off to train (for skiing in Idaho, I believe), so he kind of did get a 5th year (for XC, nordic, and indoor, anyway).

Also, I would like to remind Douchebag Dave and a few other folks that not everyone can get into an Ivy League school--and in fact very few can, even with a substantial bump from athletics--and that that is likely in many cases a greater restricting factor than finance (which is also at times a restricting factor).

What coaching credentials did Rojo have prior to Cornell....other than his LetsRun notoriety.

Also, didn't he go off to World XC last year right when spring relay season was starting.

Is LetsRun more of a priority than Cornell?

And, if he needs Kellogg to hold his hand what kind of coach is he.

Food for thought.

Not An Expert wrote:

It's worth noting that True actually matriculated with the class of '08

Ah, that's right. He was a senior Withrow's year.

At any rate, Ivy teams could be a lot more - tremendously more - competitive with that redshirt option. Columbia was a pretty good team this season, probably around 35th-38th in the country, just not quite good enough to be in Terre Haute. With everybody back from last year, and assuming they had a reasonably good meet, all three teams from Princeton, Cornell and Dartmouth would be better than Columbia was this year. Good enough? Maybe, maybe not. Highly doubtful they'd be good enough to get top two in their regions, but they'd be definite threats to at least beat some top teams during the season and maybe get a point or two or come through at the Regional and get pushed in. And this is with nowhere near the high school recruits or foreigners of the teams that regularly make it. With that 5th year available, there are a few Ivy teams that would have very good chances of going to Nationals at least every second or third year, despite not getting the top talent.

And why don't the Ivies get the talent that Oregon, Arkansas and Oklahoma State get? For one thing, despite what some people seem to think, not everybody can get into an Ivy or qualify for a financial aid deal that's as good an option as an athletic scholarship from a non-Ivy. There are several cases every year of blue chip runners whose first choice is an Ivy but they either couldn't get in or they couldn't get the financial package they would need to make it their best option money-wise. It is absolutely untrue that "anybody can go to Harvard."

hook em wrote:

Why do you need to use calculus to prove 0.9999... = 1?

Let x = 0.999999...

10x = 9.999999...

10x - x = 9.999999... - 0.999999...

9x = 9

x = 1

0.999999x10=9.999990

9.999990-0.999999=8.999991

8.999991 =/ 9.000000

8.999991 = 9x

x=0.999999

UR SMART RIGHT???

need based financial aid wrote:

Do people understand what need based financial aid means?

It means, "oh, your parents make $140,000 per year combined, so they can afford to pay $25,000 per year for school, so we'll find a way to get you that last $15,000 per year". Which means you (ie, your family) still have to pay $25k per year, or $100k over four years. Sure the school is finding a way to fill in the gaps so you don't have to worry about being unable to attend, but it's way different than a full ride.

Compare that to a full ride at a non-Ivy. It's a no brainer.

Few freshman get full rides, period, Ivy or non-Ivy. Unless your name is German Fernandez or Jordan Hasay, it's just not happening. So you're making a strawman comparison.