OOS Legacy chances

[MomPhD]

<p>For freshman fall 2011 admission</p>

<p>superscored SAT 2300 (790/710/800 CR/M/W); 760 Bio E Sat 2
GPA weighted 4.5
top 10% rank, maybe top 5%
AP Scholar with Distinction (scores 5, 4, 4, 4, 3) in Comp, Bio, Chem, Enviro, Art
Taking 3 APs senior year
NM Commended, may be SF but not assured
a few demanding extracurriculars with some regional recognitions (band) and a publication
worked part time
should have decent recommendations
white public school northeast female with legacy as only hook</p>

[HoComom]

<p>Her stats look comparable to those of my daughter (also a legacy), who just finished her freshman year at UNC. As an OOS applicant, being a legacy definitely has an impact on her chances of admittance.</p>

[eadad]

<p>She should be fine especially with the legacy connection…that said, make sure she really puts a lot of effort into her essays, they carry a LOT of weight in UNC admissions. Since they don’t interview, it’s her only chance to have a voice and to let them see the person behind the numbers. Make sure they aren’t the usual pabulum…remember they are reading 20,000 plus applications with multiple essays…make them memorable.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

[MomPhD]

<p>How many OOS spots will be reserved for the OOS athletes and scholarship admits who had been previously classified/counted as in-state (this was a loophole that was closed)? I imagine this will make admission odds tougher for the the OOS kids who are not in those categories, but how much tougher?</p>

[eadad]

<p>OOS academic scholarship admits (as well as Morehead and Robertsons) are not impacted by the legislature change only-athletes. I’m not sure what that number is but I would guess it’s got be approximately 75-100…the biggest number would obviously be on the football team and they can only have a max of 25 total (in state and OOS) recruits per class and the loophole was only for those on a FULL scholarship anyway. In many sports they only offer partial scholarships.</p>

[MomPhD]

<p>eadad, that helps, thanks.</p>

[DonaldDraper]

<p>eaded is mistaken. all scholarship kids are counted as in-state.</p>

[eadad]

<p>^ Not true any longer…only academic scholarship kids are. The NC legislature just repealed part of the loophole to eliminate recruited athletes from that exemption. From the other thread’s discussion:</p>

<p>From the News and Observer</p>

<p>

With a state budget still reeling from the recession, North Carolina lawmakers at long last pulled a gift from beneath the tree of university booster clubs that never should have been offered in the first place. Scholarship athletes from out of state no longer will be classified as in-state for tuition purposes, which they were for five years thanks primarily to the lobbying heft of UNC-Chapel Hill boosters.</p>

<p>The break saved the booster clubs about $9 million, which means it cost taxpayers that much. And it made the university system in effect sanction a lie: Students from out of state are not in fact in-state students. The wealthy Rams Club in Chapel Hill had friends on Jones Street, including former state Sen. Tony Rand of Fayetteville, their chief advocate. And UNC-CH also has a political action committee that contributes to key lawmakers friendly to their aims.</p>

<p>This was a bad idea from the start, although those who pushed it tried to cover it in a cloak of virtue by also including in the tuition break full scholarship students with prestigious academic scholarships. The foundations that sponsor them will continue to get the break under a deal hammered out during state budget negotiations. They argue that they will be able to bring more top-notch students to campuses as a result, and with more out-of-state students and foreign students, the educational experience for in-state students will be enhanced.</p>

<p>Yes, some smaller schools will have to scramble if they want to continue bringing in as many out-of-state athletes. But the poor-mouthing on behalf of the well-heeled Rams and the Wolfpack Club of N.C. State is ridiculous. Their members will simply have to cover the difference, and they’re perfectly capable of doing so. Considering the millions of dollars lavished on improvements to stadiums and the millions paid to coaches these days, to stick the taxpayers with a bigger tab is and always was unfair.</p>

<p>There is little good news in the budget this year, but the lean times have at least forced the elimination of this ill-advised and, for taxpayers

</p>