<p>My question is is it true that people from a certain region get a boost in admissions? Which regions are these and why is this so?</p>
<p>For some schools, they want geographic diversity. Therefore, it’s nice to get the top kid from North Dakota or Wyoming. Maybe MS or MT as well. But the tip is minimal</p>
<p>No, the tip is not minimal. Top colleges get scores of applications from major cities and affluent suburbs. They get few from rural areas of less affluent states. They want representation from every corner. So what an ivy or peer looks for in a prep school kid from NYC and a farm raised kid from Iowa is vastly different.</p>
<p>I remember at the Amherst info session the admissions guy said–we are very diverse, we have students from 47 states, many countries, blah blah blah. And someone asked which states weren’t represented–I think it was was South Dakota, Wyoming, and something else random… The admissions guy said–so if you’re from South Dakota, we need you! I’d think that if admitting you let Amherst say they had students from 48 states (as opposed to 47), it’d be a fairly big boost, and this probably holds true at most top schools with low representation from certain states.</p>
<p>Does the opposite hold true as well? For instance, would being a suburban kid from New Jersey or California be an anti-hook?</p>
<p>Of course, the schools have so many to choose from in that pool and they only want so many from suburban NJ.</p>
<p>Conversely, there are schools that clearly give preference to instate students. If you are oos your stats generally have to be higher for consideration. In this case, being the lone applicant from SD who has qualifying stats in a sea of excellent oos students, then it may help.</p>
<p>"Does the opposite hold true as well? For instance, would being a suburban kid from New Jersey or California be an anti-hook? "</p>
<p>That’s true when, for instance, such students apply to private schools that get many applicants from their region.</p>