Program selectivity question - Cornell example

[iowaguy]

So, I was reviewing Cornell's latest annual report:

 

http://www.gradschool.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/field_file/2010_2011_Annual_Report_Final.pdf

 

In my mind, I regard Cornell as a very selective, Ivy League institution.  I was amazed to see that they accept over 57% of graduate applicants (MS+PhD) to their Civil & Env Engineering field!?! (page 13)  As opposed, say, to English Language (4%) or EEB (12%).

 

Of the 511 applicants to CEE, 292 are accepted and 104 matriculate.  Can they possibly be funding all of those matriculants?  Why would a selective university accept such a high percentage of applicants to a certain field?  Is that parcitular field some sort of cash cow for them???

 

I'm trying to understand the logic behind university admissions, and if selectivity can be considered an indicator of the quality of a program...

[TakeruK]

I think it's important to distinguish between reputation of undergraduate and graduate programs, or even University reputation vs. department/program reputation. But I do think that Cornell is both reputable and selective all around and many Ivy League schools have good graduate programs since they have the money! 

 

So, going on the assertion that Cornell is indeed a highly selective school, I think there is some issues with your interpretation of the numbers. For example, page 4 makes it clear that there are two main types of programs -- "research" degrees and "professional" degrees and that a M.Eng degree is a professional degree. On page 31, it shows the breakdown of funding support for the types of degrees. For a professional masters degree, a whopping 97% (750+ students) are listed as "self-funded/unknown" (i.e. not funded). Only 52% of students in a research masters degree in engineering programs are funded by the school. This number is in line with the university-wide funding scheme (charts at top of page 30).

 

So, I think it's pretty clear that engineers in MS or MEng programs are usually not funded (there are over 10x as many students in MEng than MS programs too, from page 31). But how many students enter Cornell as MS/MEng vs. PhD? Page 18 implies a roughly 50/50 split (63 PhD students enrolled and 85 MS+MEng students enrolled [again with 10x more MEng than MS]) for CEE. If we measure selectivity as # admits / # applications, the report doesn't show the selectivity of CEE PhD vs. CEE MEng. However, from the chart on page 9, we can see University-wide results, showing that PhD selectivity is low (looks like 10% to 15% overall) while professional masters is higher (about 50% overall). The text below also says that the latter number has been rising over the past few years.

 

Anyways, what I'm trying to say is that you probably cannot compare "selectivity" between e.g. English Language and CEE because programs with unfunded degrees (e.g. MEng) can accept a lot more students. So, I guess the answer could be yes to your question that the field could be a "cash cow". However, that possibly gives it an unfair negative connotation -- professional degrees serve a very different purpose than research degrees so there could be good reasons to not fund these students. For example, Law and Medical students do not normally get funded degrees but if they are successful, their careers should be enough to pay back the loans (in theory anyways).

 

Overall, I don't think selectivity is a good way to measure the quality of a program! But if you do want to measure selectivity, you would have to only consider the selectivity for fully funded degrees -- it's easy to accept lots of students if they're paying their own way. Also, selectivity can vary a lot over the years as the number of applicants changes, or as funding changes. And results from previous years can impact the future year (a program with more matriculated students than normal might admit fewer students next year). 

[ridofme]

I second what Takeruk said about the difference between professional masters and research masters/PhDs.

 

Another important question to consider is students' prospects post-graduation. I doubt that only 4% of applicants (maybe about 10 people) to Cornell's lit program could perform graduate-level work and research in the field. It's just that even with that low of an acceptance rate, a number of those people are going to end up teaching adjunct at community colleges. Meanwhile, the hundreds of students who matriculate in engineering master's programs every year at Cornell look forward to great job prospects in the field.

[practical cat]

I second what Takeruk said about the difference between professional masters and research masters/PhDs.

 

Another important question to consider is students' prospects post-graduation. I doubt that only 4% of applicants (maybe about 10 people) to Cornell's lit program could perform graduate-level work and research in the field. It's just that even with that low of an acceptance rate, a number of those people are going to end up teaching adjunct at community colleges. Meanwhile, the hundreds of students who matriculate in engineering master's programs every year at Cornell look forward to great job prospects in the field.

Well. I'm not sure about that. Literature is not keeping people out in order to fix the job market situation, not by any stretch of the imagination. (And NO ONE is looking at "great" job prospects right now.) I suspect, though, that sciences have way more funding and fewer applicants (and, yes, fewer unqualified applicants -- Literature is notorious for unserious applications, quite a few of the hundreds of applications are no where near capable of or serious about performing graduate-level work at Cornell or anywhere).

[cunninlynguist]

I agree with Takeruk. In addition, the nature of professional degree programs is not comparable to research-based programs. Students seeking professional degrees are very self-selected -- there must be a confluence of work experience, knowledge of field, career preparation, and all of the usual academic credentials. (This isn't to say that researchers aren't self-selecting... just demonstrating what characteristics professional students usually have).

 

Also, professional degrees are structured entirely differently. For instance, the vast majority take 2 or 3 years to complete, and cohort sizes are pretty large. The ratio of school/departmental commitment to each student isn't the same as research-based programs; it doesn't have to be. Students don't apply to work with a specific advisor for 5-7 years. There's no way a department could handle 150 incoming doctoral students every year and fund them all. However, professional students are enrolled for career purposes and do not require the same level of interaction with faculty (after all, PhD students are essentially paid researchers of universities).

 

Selectivity is a bit deceptive w/r/t grad programs, overall. For most programs with rigorous application processes (e.g. GRE scores, multiple letters of recommendation, substantive personal statements, etc.), the candidate pools are generally strong. Numbers aren't artificially inflated like undergraduate acceptance rates.

 

Lastly, it's hard to assess how selective a program is if you only judge it within its university. If a professional program at Cornell accepts 50%, but the average for that field at other universities is 80%, now you see why the program is considered as elite, and can imagine the quality of applicants.