<p>I go to a very rural/Title One public school in northwest TN, mostly mid to low income. My senior class has been the best in a very long time test scores wise, and several university reps have visited, often talking about how it is easier for southerners to get in because they aren’t very well represented in Yale/Harvard etc. Is it really true that students from the south, especially from underprivileged schools, have a better chance if they still perform highly?</p>
<p>If we used a very oversimplified example, say a 33 ACT from your school vs. one from Long Island, sure, your school has the advantage because a 33 at your school is really rare while a 33 on Long Island is pretty common. But so many other factors go into admission, I’m not sure who exactly has the advantage overall.</p>
<p>Technically, yes. Top schools love diversity, so if you are highly competitive and match the general student profile, they will <em>likely</em> take people from differing areas in order to achieve diversity. </p>
<p>It’s just something I’ve been wondering for the sake of my group of friends,me and one other have a 34 and the other guy has a 35, the first with any of those scores in our school. I know some schools up North churn those out by the dozen, but us having a rare score here helps, provided good EC’s, etc.?</p>
<p>High achievement from a disadvantaged situation (e.g. low income) would often be seen as a greater achievement than the same level of achievement from an advantaged situation (e.g. high income).</p>