<p>Our family's experience was like Jonri's. Academic stats in the top quarter (or higher) at three popular OOS schools -- three waitlists. Fortunately this was anticipated and thoroughly discussed with D before applying.</p>
<p>I think Jonri's right. It does seem evident (again this year) from the results at my kid's school that the odds continue to be stacked against them at the highly selective schools in their own backyards. Everyone seems to have gotten in somewhere, but few of them got into their first choices when those first choices were highly selective local colleges. </p>
<p>It's logical, though. These colleges and universities do ensure that a certain percentage of each class comes from the school's own region, but the competition for those limited spots continues to get tougher. Until the baby boom echo begins to fade out in a few years, this will continue to be the case. </p>
<p>BWRKs from big, square states, in particular, do not have to compete at the same level for admission to highly selective NE corridor schools. They have to be academically qualified, of course, but they aren't placed into the ultra-competitive pile of local applications and therefore have a better chance of making the final cut. That's just the way it is going to be as long as colleges have the luxury of large applicant pools that can provide their campuses with geographic diversity. </p>
<p>The more realistic NE students, families and counselors can be in advance about this fact, the better. My impression is that families are getting this message and there's more of an air of resignation about these outcomes than there was a few years ago when the trend began to become really evident--particularly on the part of parents who've been there before with their older kids. Boards like this really help to get the word out.</p>
<p>I'm not sure that Harvard gives an edge to kids from the greater Boston area. It certainly gives an edge to Cambridge kids; Boston Latin has also traditionally been a feeder school; But the Boston area abounds in excellent private and public schools (as well as mediocre ones) so it stands to reason that there would be many successful applicants from both the private and the excellent suburban public schools without Harvard giving them preferential treatment. </p>
<p>Forty year ago, Harvard, Yale and Princeton were still primarily regional schools with a few students from affluent families from other parts of the country attending. They are now national and even international institutions, which means that it has gotten harder for students in the corridor to get admitted to HYP since the student body size at HYP has not increased markedly.</p>
<p>"I'm just wondering what "harder" means (regionally). Is that relative to the previous admissions numbers from NE students, to desired U's in the NE area? Or is it relative to some supposed favoritism toward students from all other regions than the NE?"</p>
<p>Just follow the money. As the number of high-income families living outside the northeast increases, so will applications to prestige schools, and admissions wil follow. It's not particularly mysterious, and may not have anything to do with a desire for "geographical diversity" at all.</p>
<p>QUOTE: ..."which means that it has gotten harder for students in the corridor to get admitted to HYP since the student body size at HYP has not increased markedly."</p>
<p>Again, such statements imply harder for Northeasterners relative to past Northeastern admissions, in this context -- not necessarily harder than the similar (current) level of HYP admission experienced by MidWesterners, FarWesterners, Southerners, etc.</p>
<p>Mini, your statement is a mere hypothesis, not backed up by fact. Looking at CC postings alone, many of those being admitted from "new" places like Nebraska, Kansas, New Mexico, Arkansas, Alaska, Iowa, etc. are not, from their own descriptions, "wealthy." In fact, generally far from it. HYP and similarly selective colleges have stated a commitment to geographical diversity as part of an inclusive admissions policy, valuing that aspect of diversity in itself.</p>
<p>It is not that suddenly there are 50 states represented. But now that spread is just more dispersed state by state than it once was.</p>
<p>epiphany:</p>
<p>I don't think CA applicants get a tip in Harvard admissions (CA produces the third largest contingents of admits and presumably of applicants). But there is a tip for students from under-represented areas.</p>
<p>Another factor: the influx of women into HYP in the 1970s. That has doubled the pool of applicants all by itself at Yale and Princeton and significantly increased the pool at Harvard (taking into account Radcliffe).</p>
<p>"It is not that suddenly there are 50 states represented. But now that spread is just more dispersed state by state than it once was."</p>
<p>And so is income. Fancy that. ;)</p>
<p>Not much of a statistically relevant datum, but here goes, from the Harvard Gazette, January 9, 1997:</p>
<p>The geographical distribution of early acceptances remained relatively unchanged from last year, with the exception of a small increase in students admitted from the West Coast and slightly fewer from the East Coast. Also unchanged from last year are the fields of concentration in which admitted students have expressed interest.</p>
<p>Re: Post 27, Again, so what? Dispersed income or not, students from <em>lower</em> income strata and thinly represented regions have gained in HYP admissions, if slightly, in the last few years, BOTH in early and in RD rounds.</p>
<p>You haven't cited me evidence, mini. Because some of the wealth is dispersing, and/or some of the long-standing residents of non-NE areas are gaining in "wealth" (perhaps <em>compared</em> to previous years) does not at all mean that there are a bunch of millionaires migrating to the plains states & (therefore) being admitted to HYP in some Enrollment Management scheme deceptively disguised as 'geographical diversity.'</p>
<p>Can you learn a new note in the musical scale, please?</p>
<p>Marite, I don't think that H has opened up very much to lower income, but I know that P has, possibly Y, too. Also, I'm not sure why you singled out CA. I certainly wasn't.</p>
<p>It's no disguise. It's stated in the colleges' strategic plans. The babyboom shift is to the south and west. The wealth shift is to the south and west. The colleges have no intention of decreasing the percentage of full-freighters - that's not in any strategic plan I've seen. Means if they want the student body to look the same (and meet their institutional missions) they have to shift their focuses somewhat. </p>
<p>Nothing nefarious about it. Nothing secret about it. There's nothing worth hiding.</p>
<p>The point I was trying to make is that of geographical diversity. And you seem to agree.</p>
<p>
[quote]
students from <em>lower</em> income strata and thinly represented regions have gained in HYP admissions, if slightly, in the last few years, BOTH in early and in RD rounds.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>While representation from CA has probably held steady (it is and has been for a long time one of the three top regions for sending students to HYP, the other two being New England and the Mid-Atlantic states), there has been greater representation from other states. Which means that students from the NE have to look further afield, given that college slots are not expanding to account for both demographic increase and greater representation from non-NE states. </p>
<p>As for Harvard opening up to lower income, there's the HFAI. Harvard and Princeton seem to have spent the same amount of money on finaid per capita, or around $12.5k at Princeton and $13k at Harvard. I have not run the figures for Yale, but it has been trying to play catch up to Princeton and Harvard.</p>
<p>pasted from another thread:
QUOTE: "I have had admissions officers tell me that being from an urban area which is highly educated and wealthy is definitely a disadvantage. "</p>
<p><em>Disadvantage</em> (being wealthy), not advantage.</p>
<p>^^^ directed toward mini.:)</p>
<p>I don't see a way to take the anxiety out of the college admissions process unless it becomes more predictable and magically the number of spots appear for the number of qualified applicants colleges receive. </p>
<p>There seem to be untold numbers of straight A students with near perfect SAT scores (and the whole package) applying to the top ranked colleges. When you consider the sticker price of a private or OSS for most middle class families, you want the most reputable school you can get for the money. </p>
<p>I'm trying to decide if having greater knowledge of the process leads to more anxiety over it, or if knowing more about what to expect results in less anxiety.</p>
<p>From the thread "Why Doesn't Harvard Love Me":</p>
<p>"Before the rankings systems, [the process] was much more regionalized," Brenzel said. Now because of the rankings, " you have kids from Texas trying to get into a school in Maine. You have perfectly wonderful students, but they're all trying to get into the same handful of schools."</p>
<p>My translation:
It used to be relatively easy for students from NE to be admitted to colleges in NE. Nowadays, they have to compete with applicants from TX (and elsewhere)
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ion-columnists%5B/url%5D">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...ion-columnists</a></p>
<p>Yes, my point exactly.
Translation approved. :)</p>