<p>I apologize if my comments were considered insulting. However facts are facts. we all know that NMSF cut off scores vary wildly depending on the states. sometimes as much as 20 out of 240 PSAT. That’s a lot. There is INDEED geographical difference in standardized test scores (I said, TEST, not capability). </p>
<p>Very few schools publish data like acceptance rate by the state. AU is an exception. I checked couple of other colleges that also supply this data. In the case of these couple of other colleges, the acceptance rates for the “unusual” states were very comparable to the general acceptance rate. By the way, these couple of other colleges are a bit better ranked or comparable to AU and better known in the academic circle overall with long history of establishment. So, the argument of self selection among top student from these regions in favor of AU is highly suspicious. From these regions, mostly the top kids heard of a lot of schools far away, not just AU but other schools too. I highly doubt that they only heard about AU, while they heard nothing about other more prominent colleges. </p>
<p>Given the general score distribution discrepancy among the states, even the “comparable” acceptance rates between MA (for instance) and Mississippi (as an example) may signal that they are favoring the kids from Mississippi. In AU’s case, the discrepancy among the states was so PRONOUNCED it really popped my eyes. The only plausible explanation is, AU puts A GREAT DEAL OF emphasis on geographical diversity, and yes, they are willing to take students with lower stats.</p>
<p>It’s common knowledge that URM, for instance, get an admission boost. So, why do you feel insulted when I point out, based on objective data, that in all likelihood an unusual state origin is likely to be an admission hook at AU? By the way, I have no problem with this policy. Any good university for aspiration for national prominence should have good geographical diversity. </p>
<p>Instead of shooting the messenger, try to look at it this way. When kids want to know their chances at AU, if they are from unusual states, they can see that they have now something working for them, and can aspire to apply to AU, rather than be discouraged by all the negative “chances” comments from people who tell them their scores are too low, etc.</p>
<p>Why is it a bad thing to let these kids know what their assets and what leverage they have?</p>