I have a question

<p>If you're from an overrepresented state (i.e NJ)applying to Yale but you come from a really crappy public school in that, are you at a disadvantage? The reason i asked is that applicants from overrepresented states like NJ come from top public high schools in the state and even nation. So would applicants in overrepresented states coming from crappy public schools be at a disadvantage compared to applicants coming from the same state but MUCH MUCH better high schools?</p>

<p>Not per se. It all depends on what you were able to do within your means, including quality of high school. If you are a great applicant, it doesn't matter what school you went to, just as if you were a crappy applicant.</p>

<p>^So essentially the people that go to MUCH BETTER high schools are expected to more than the people with the lower high schools. In other words, the standards are lowered even if you apply from an overrepresented state but go to a crappy high school? Am i interpreting this correctly?</p>

<p>Sort of. I wouldn't say the standards are lowered if you go to a crappy high school. Admissions officers expect that if you were given many, many, many opportunities, you did something with those. You don't appear as a very ambitious person if your school had extensive resources and you did not make use of them. On the other hand, if your school did not provide many opportunities, but you used the ones they did provide to the fullest extent possible, then you are clearly more ambitious than someone with possibly a similar application from a "better" school.</p>

<p>It's all a matter of relativity.</p>