<p>I don't understand why an applicant who lives in Kentucky, South Dakota, or Alaska should have an easier time getting admitted than an applicant from New York, California, or Texas (all other things being equal). When colleges boast on their websites that they have students from all 50 states, aren't they just admitting that they care too much about US News and World Report rankings?
I believe geographic diversity is good. Colleges should aim to enroll students from all regions of the country and from rural, urban, and suburban areas. But it shouldn't matter whether a student is from Nevada or California or from Texas or Arkansas.</p>
<p>You’re ascribing too much to the “geographic diversity” thing, IMHO. Sure colleges like to brag about it – but only a handful have such recognition that they might even approach it. Plus USNWR rankings don’t give any “points” to this so-called achievement.</p>
<p>As to whether it “matters”, everything about a student’s background matters. An applicant from Long Island is going to have a very different life than some kid in East Texas. It’s incumbent upon the colleges to discern what’s valuable about each and to weigh those factors.</p>
<p>You will see mention of it on many college websites and in many freshman class profiles. I am sure many colleges in the NE would rather be able to accept fewer applicants from California, New York, and New Jersey and a few more students from Alaska, Tennessee, and Mississippi in order to be able to boast they that have students from all 50 states.</p>
<p>I started this thread after reading one reply after another to “Chance Me” threads suggesting that since the applicant was from Mississippi, Wyoming, Idaho, etc, he would have an easier time being admitted to college.</p>
<p>No one has ever suggested in a comment on CC that it makes no difference.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have argued for a long time that it makes much less difference than people in the Northeast often imagine. On the whole I think there’s far more whining about this than there is actual cause for grievance; but at the same time, it’s a comforting rationalization for Northeasterners to use to explain why they didn’t get admitted to their favorite college.</p>
<p>Has anyone ever produced actual evidence that the admit rates of applicants from the so-called “underrepresented states” are higher than those from “overrepresented” states? Or that the stats and qualifications of admits from Idaho (or wherever) are weaker than for admits as a whole? I’ve never seen a shred of such evidence.</p>
<p>And while it’s admittedly imperfect, there is some evidence to the contrary. Consider a school like Princeton, which requires SAT subject tests of all applicants. That means every applicant must submit an SAT score report. The College Board tracks how many score reports are sent to each school from each state (though for each state they publicly report only the 50 or so colleges that received the most SAT score reports from applicants from that state). </p>
<p>For the class entering in the Fall of 2012, 246 New Jerseyans enrolled as Princeton freshmen, out of 3,210 New Jerseyans who sent SAT score reports to Princeton, presumably with the intention to apply (though the actual number who completed applications might be slightly smaller). That’s one enrolled freshman for every 13.05 New Jerseyans who sent a score report to Princeton. Only 3 Idahoans were in Princeton’s freshman class; 71 Idahoans sent score reports to Princeton. That’s 1 enrolled freshman for every 23.67 Idahoans who sent score reports to Princeton. If everyone who sent a score report actually completed an application, and every admitted applicant actually enrolled (unrealistic assumptions, I know), Princeton’s admit rate for New Jerseyans would be 7.66%, while for for Idahoans, it would be 4.22%.</p>
<p>Now of course it could be that all the New Jerseyans who applied were better qualified, yada, yada, yada. But we don’t actually have any evidence of that; it’s just rank speculation, invariably coming from Northeasterners.</p>
<p>If I had the time, I could show you that the numbers are generally the same for almost every “underrepresented” state. Yes, Princeton likes to boast that all 50 states are represented, but it can achieve that by landing just a single matriculant from each state, and it gets at least dozens if not hundreds of applicants from every state, so its actual admit rates for applicants from “underrepresented” states remain quite low–lower than for New Jerseyans in most cases.</p>
<p>bClintonk: </p>
<p>1) Is it necessary to talk about people “whining” about this issue and imply that I am a whiner, too?</p>
<p>2) I live in California, not in the NE.</p>
<p>3) Without hard data (such as SAT scores), I don’t accept your argument. You think you provide it, but you don’t. I would not be at all surprised if students from NJ enrolled at Princeton boasted higher SAT scores than students from Idaho also enrolled at Princeton. To qualify as NMSQT semi-finalists, students from the class of 2013 needed PSAT scores of 207 and 221 in Idaho and NJ, respectively. </p>
<p>Oh, sorry. I forgot. The SAT and similar tests don’t mean anything, because they are culturally biased- even when comparing students with similar educational opportunities.</p>