<p>I think Rice is 56% instate (according to college board) - isn't that fairly high, especially for a non-state school? Is this good or bad for non Texans? Good because they want to branch out, but bad because they want to admit only people from Texas? Im from NY - what does this mean? thanks</p>
<p>I think most schools are instate credited.
Stanford is 40% instate you know. </p>
<p>But that doesn’t matter. As long as you are good enough for Rice. haha :D</p>
<p>Part of the reason it is probably so high is that Rice isn’t (well, wasn’t) that well known to people in other states in the past. I think that number will drop quite a bit now that Rice has had more exposure and people are starting to understand what a great place and value it is.</p>
<p>Yeah Stanford’s a good comparison. Like Texas, California is a large state. And like Rice, Stanford is one of the top options in the state (I’d say each is the best, but others probably disagree). So there’s gonna be a lot of qualified in-state applicants. And Rice, and Stanford to a lesser degree, still carries significantly more prestige in its own region (like the poster above said). It’s really a shame; both are fantastic universities. But yeah this is changing, which is good. Sites like College-Confidential probably help in this process. </p>
<p>Also, like California, I figure Texas has so much cultural diversity so that a large in-state segment isn’t really noticeable. If anything these demographics make it easy to split up teams for pickup sports :). Which sometimes isn’t fair, because in sports like basketball and hockey Californians suck.</p>
<p>I thought there was something in the Rice charter or something that said that it had to remain majority Texan, or somerhing like that.</p>
<p>i completely agree with senior0991. you have to take into account that Rice isnt as well known outside Texas borders. Couple that knowledge with the fact that Texas is probably somewhere between the 1st-3rd most populous states in the US. That’s why there are so many texas students at rice. I think the same can be speculated for why Stanford has a somewhat high percentage of 40% of their students being from california</p>
<h2>56% > 40% </h2>
<p>37 million (California pop.) > 25 million (Texas pop.)</p>
<p>70% (Stanford’s yield rate) > 35% (Rice’s yield rate)</p>
<p>does this mean instaters have less of a chance</p>
<p>If you plunked the Rice campus down in Palo Alto, then it would have the same yield as Stanford. Despite all the things that David Leebron wants to do for Rice, he cannot change the weather.</p>
<p>^^ I think it has less to do with the weather than the false perception of what Texas and Texans are like.</p>
<p>If you plunked the Rice campus down in New Haven, then would it have the same yield as Yale?</p>
<p>
From the online edition of Rice Facts, 2009, a publication of the Office of Institutional Research of Rice University. I’m not sure if that includes grad students or not.</p>
<p>If you plunked a Rice-themed thread down on another forum, would dimsum hijack it?</p>
<p>By the way, in case you’re wondering if you’ll feel outnumbered as a non-Texan, I doubt it. When my daughter, who is a sophomore, and a Californian, talks about her friends I often make the mistake of asking where they’re from and she can rarely answer that question (aside from “Wiess” or “Baker”). You might be surprised how little it matters once you’re there.</p>
<p>
Yes. Also if you plunked Yale down inside the Loop in Houston, it would have a 35% yield.</p>
<p>^I doubt it. Yale has more prestige than Rice in almost all regards. This disparity decreases the more people know about Rice, so the difference for parents is probably pretty high, while the difference for recruiters is probably less . Whether all Yale’s prestige is deserved or not is another question. But, it is there, and it does need to be respected.</p>