<p>I asked an admissions person this last month and they said if you are from a state with few applicants, like North Dakota, it is easier to get in if you live in a bigger state, like California, and have the same stats. Thus, yes, it is easier to get in depending on where you live.</p>
<p>dx1992: Although women have represented about 57 percent of enrollment at American colleges since 2000, the Ivy League maintains a 50/50 balance in their numbers. See: <a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/07/fashion/07campus.html</a></p>
<p>I am not sure if this is a “quote” per se, but in my alumni interviewer, the man said that there is a general trend where 2-3 kids from my area get admitted every year. I think it’s next to impossible not to use some sort of quote system to some degree. Good luck everybody!</p>
<p>There are no quotas, period. But that obviously doesn’t mean that soft factors like geographic diversity and race aren’t taken into account in less mathematical ways. I can’t find the link now, but there was an affirmative action Public Forum debate topic last year and the benefit for black vs. white applicants equates, on average, to a 200-point SAT boost. Asians are disadvantaged 150 points (again, on average). So while there aren’t numerical quotas, there are very real impacts when colleges seek racial diversity, impacts that can be measured numerically.</p>
<p>I imagine it’s the same for geographic diversity. Just as black and Hispanic applicants are in a pool of less (which isn’t to say un) qualified applicants, an applicant from North Dakota will face much less competition than a tri-state applicant. It’s just the name of the game.</p>
<p>“There are no quotas, period.”</p>
<p>Hahahahahahahaha! Your comment implies a total lack of knowledge in the subject, or a complete disregard for the history of Harvard. In the past 100 years, the Ivy League – and Harvard in particular – has always used quotas for admission. To wit:</p>
<p>In the 1920’s, Harvard had quotas to restrict jews: [The</a> Right Coast: Jewish Quotas at Harvard in the 1920sGail Heriot](<a href=“The Right Coast”>The Right Coast)</p>
<p>In the 1980’s, Harvard had quotas to restricts asians: [Harvard</a> and U.C.L.A. Face Inquiries on Quotas - NYTimes.com](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/1988/11/20/us/harvard-and-ucla-face-inquiries-on-quotas.html]Harvard”>Harvard and U.C.L.A. Face Inquiries on Quotas - The New York Times)</p>
<p>In 2003, the Supreme Court sited Harvard’s use of quotas in affirmative action for minority enrollment: [Citing</a> Harvard | Harvard Magazine Sep-Oct 2003](<a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/citing-harvard.html]Citing”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/citing-harvard.html)</p>
<p>In 2005, there was even a book written about the subject of quotas at Harvard: [How</a> Harvard, Princeton, Yale Restricted Jews, Smarties, Blacks - Bloomberg](<a href=“Bloomberg - Are you a robot?”>Bloomberg - Are you a robot?)</p>
<p>Make no mistake – a “soft factor” – no matter how you dress it up – is a quota!!!</p>
<p>Exactly^^^.</p>
<p>Geographic Distribution of the Class of 2012 at Harvard</p>
<p>State –
Alabama – 5
Alaska – 1
Arizona – 16
Arkansas – 1
California – 189
Colorado – 8
Connecticut – 44
Delaware – 5
District of Columbia – 14
Florida – 51
Georgia – 25
Hawaii – 8
Idaho – 1
Illinois – 49
Indiana – 10
Iowa – 3
Kansas – 2
Kentucky – 7
Louisiana – 2
Maine – 9
Maryland – 40
Massachusetts – 216
Michigan – 20
Minnesota – 15
Mississippi – 1
Missouri – 12
Montana – 1
Nebraska – 2
Nevada – 5
New Hampshire – 26
New Jersey – 59
New Mexico – 11
New York – 193
North Carolina – 12
North Dakota – 1
Ohio – 30
Oklahoma – 6
Oregon – 6
Pennsylvania – 48
Rhode Island – 10
South Carolina – 8
South Dakota – 0
Tennessee – 14
Texas – 67
Utah – 5
Vermont – 5
Virginia – 25
Washington – 22
West Virginia – 4
Wisconsin – 11
Wyoming – 1</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>State Population, 2009 Estimate :
CA – 36,961,664 [14.96M Whites, 14.01M Hispanics, 4.78M Asians, 2.16M Blacks, 2010]
NY – 19,541,453
MA – 6,593,587</p>
<p>Not having highschool senior data by state, a quick estimate of per capita harvard class of 2012 is
CA – 5.11ppm [if only asians and whites are counted, then 9.45ppm, similar to NY]
NY – 9.88ppm
MA – 32.76ppm</p>
<p>MA residents are clearly favored, by over a 3:1 margin over CA and NY. Moving to MA will enhance your odds of harvard admission by 3x.</p>
<p>
Like Stanford, Harvard is a local school. 
Especially if you add all the New England States.</p>
<p>^^ That is just silly… Did you not consider the fact that perhaps more MA students apply to Harvard BECAUSE it is local? Just as more NY students apply to Harvard than CA students because NY is closer to H than CA?</p>
<p>You cannot use such basic statistics to claim that Harvard favours MA students. Show me the applicant numbers and then we can talk…</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>I thought some reductio ad absurdum would be fun so;</p>
<p>Population of Liberia - 3.5 Million
Liberians at Harvard - 0
Per Capita - 0 ppm!</p>
<p>Harvard HATES Liberians!</p>
<p>Hey guys, I’m from North Dakota :D</p>
<p>
read carefully. CA has such a high hispanic population (14M), nearlly the same as white population (14.9M). With a very gross approximation that very few hispanic students apply to harvard (that’s why they are URM), the percapita number is nearly the same as NY. Of course this is not accurate but when you dismiss someone’s numbers as ‘silly’ you better present a stronger argument than that. perhaps you (Idiosyncray) shouldn’t keep your hopes high come Mar.30th. your such bs attitude will show in your dossier easily and an adcom will take no time in ‘dismissing’ you.</p>
<p>I am just saying that there are other reasons as to why the number (or per capita rate) of MA students is higher at Harvard. Your reasoning that it is due to bias from the adcoms while perhaps (I would say probably) has some truth, it almost certainly does not account for the 3-1 bias the numbers show. This is due to another bias (and the one that I alluded to) - the sampling bias. You have not mentioned that anywhere…</p>
<p>Instead you chose to attack me which while appearing effective does not actually advance your argument in any way. </p>
<p>I take offense at statistics being used incorrectly, and I attacked your figures. You attacked me. Which of those responses would be more attractive to Harvard?</p>
<p>(I do admit though that my tone was mocking, but it was intended in a humorous manner… Tone does not carry well over the internet.)</p>
<p>Clearly having too much time on my hands, I’ve reconciled US Census data with the Harvard 2012 geographic distribution numbers to determine how each State stacks up in overall representation at Harvard.</p>
<p>Any State over 1.00 is overrepresented and any State under 1.00 is underrepresented.</p>
<p>USA 1.00
Massachusetts 8.78
District of Columbia 6.25
New Hampshire 5.26
Connecticut 3.35
New York 2.65
Rhode Island 2.54
Vermont 2.15
Maryland 1.88
Maine 1.83
New Jersey 1.82
Hawaii 1.65
Delaware 1.51
New Mexico 1.47
California 1.37
Pennsylvania 1.02
Illinois 1.02
Washington 0.88
Virginia 0.85
Minnesota 0.76
Florida 0.74
Texas 0.72
Ohio 0.70
Georgia 0.68
Arizona 0.65
Tennessee 0.60
West Virginia 0.59
Michigan 0.54
Missouri 0.54
Wisconsin 0.52
Nevada 0.51
Wyoming 0.49
Utah 0.48
South Carolina 0.47
Oklahoma 0.44
Kentucky 0.43
Colorado 0.43
Oregon 0.42
Indiana 0.42
North Dakota 0.41
Alaska 0.38
North Carolina 0.34
Nebraska 0.30
Alabama 0.28
Montana 0.27
Iowa 0.27
Kansas 0.19
Idaho 0.17
Louisiana 0.12
Arkansas 0.09
Mississippi 0.09
South Dakota 0.00</p>
<p>I agree, where does Idio get off posting here</p>
<p>That sentence makes no sense… ^</p>
<p>I believe we had a ‘discussion’ where you claimed you were possibly the best applicant in Harvard’s pool, despite having only 2 SAT II tests. I and a few others told you that you were very wrong. </p>
<p>If you want to criticise me, do so, instead of writing barely intelligible insults.</p>
<p>Do not flame me because I am not going to search for a link to the article, but I did read an interview some years ago where Dean Fitzsimmons stated that part of Harvard’s mission is to educate the future leaders of its city, state, and region which leads to over-representation of those from greater Boston, Massachussetts, and New England. It is more than people choosing to apply to schools close to home.</p>
<p>I totally feel for Idiosyncra3y. hopingdad’s and homer314’s use of ad hominem argumentation is not respectable, especially among educated people. Idiosyncra3y has posited some solid points with respect to the variety of factors that can explain why Massachusetts is overrepresented in Harvard’s admit pool. </p>
<p>That being said, there is some truth to hopingdad’s assertion that Harvard has a special preference for applicants in MA. As cltdad indicated, there is an interview somewhere with Dean Fitzsimmons in which he explicitly states that Harvard holds MA students in special favor in contrast to out-of-state students (I forgot the exact wording). However, to say that moving to MA increases one’s chances of admission by a factor of three is a gross oversimplification of the variety of factors that go into screening applicants, as Idiosyncra3y argued. You cannot simply look at the statistics posted above to determine how much of a role geography plays in getting into Harvard. </p>
<p>Adding on to Idiosyncra3y’s example, there are several traditional Harvard feeder schools in MA, such as Boston Latin School, that send a disproportionate fraction of their graduating classes to the college. For these students, the edge in admissions comes from attending these high schools, not necessarily from living in MA. So while applying from MA has intrinsic value, judging the impact of living in MA in admissions from state representation statistics alone will inflate it.</p>
<p>18 days, 20 hours, 42 minutes</p>
<p>For class of 2012 at Harvard:</p>
<p>23 from Boston Latin, 14 from Milton, 12 from Deerfield and 10 from Andover. Harvard enrolled 59 from those four schools, the same number from the entire New Jersey, where it had about 94800 high school graduates that year.</p>
<p>No I don’t think so felix. My comment was a nonchalant one. I find Idio to generally make low substance posts that have more provoking than anything else, because that’s the way his posts are. If you have time to spare, check out his posts. Another member, hopingdad, put it well… End of story. -but I would read about how you “feel for him.” :)</p>