The New Out-of-State Recruit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a result of the woke schools with large endowments filling their classes with URMs, so state schools are targeting those that have been displaced from their usual destinations, who just happen to be predominantly white UMC candidates.

There aren’t enough urms in t20s to shift hundreds of thousand kids to oos flagships

The author has it right

“Above average” kids got dropped and rightly so

Even if urms went to 0, the above average kid getting into vandy or Dartmouth in 1990 isn’t getting in today

Yes, math is hard but take a minute to do it and you will see the shift. Is it huge when you look at the top 20, no because there are so few seats, but it i present. Using the USNNWR top 20 and ties from last year there are about 50K freshman seats. That will change slightly as different size schools move in and out of the top 20 but from those schools CDS data there were 14,687 URMs and 12,096 Asians enrolled.

So URMs make up about 29.5% of the freshman population and Asians about 24% of the freshman population, leaving 46.5% for whites and unidentified. So, yes white kids are being shifted to state flagships, hundreds of thousands no, but thousands. So, some exceptional kids are losing seats as well as many above average kids. But in the end it only matters if it is your kid.

Why are you adding urms and Asians in one bucket when they are kept separate by admissions?

The pp talked about urm effect

Asians outcompeting above average white kids rightly is pushing non-impressive white kids to oos publics

Not putting into the same bucket. 29.5% URM (Hispanic, Black, Native American, Alaska native). 24% are Asian, the over represented minority.

So 53.5% of student population are minorities. Since minorities represent about 1/3 of the population they are over represented by about 20%. While whites who represent about 2/3 of the US population are underrepresented by about 20%.

Make of it what you will, those are the statistics. So more white kids are going out of state, to other state flagships.

Jews are 2% of the population and used to be 30-40% of the Ivy League and are now around 20% of the Ivy League.

Do you consider Jews as also being overrepresented?

Overrepresented isn’t the right term if the applicant pool from those groups is stronger to begin with.

If anything urms are overrepresented in relation to the strength of their pool.

The scotus case proved that Asians are underrepresented.

Jews are correctly represented probably because they have the highest iq’s so you would expect 20-30% of t10s to be Jewish

You are using “overrepresented” and “underrepresented” in crude terms without any depth of thought

[Anonymous]

It is just the word choice that is wrong. The math is correct. The proper terms for representative sampling are “over-index” or “under-index” vs. the general population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at percentage of white students in the incoming classes at these schools:

UPenn 35%
Northwestern 33%
Yale 31%
Stanford 22%
John’s Hopkins 17%

VS

Some state flagships

Illinois 37%
UMich 49%
UVA 52%
Wisconsin 57%
Ohio State 62%

Cute. Now do the % for the entire school.

African American 13%, Asian American 27%, Hispanic/Latino 14%, Native 3%, International 12%.


https://admissions.yale.edu/sites/default/files/2026profileweb.pdf

All the information is available here for Yale .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:interesting, but I dont agree that places like WI and MI and Il and UVA and UVM are giving much merit money to OOS.

Bama and SC and Ole Miss, yes. But I see the need to buy these kids

What do you mean “buy these kids”. Aren’t all schools “buying” kids? The amount of marketing swag we receive from them indicates they are (e.g., Chicago). Also, in many cases, kids who take the SEC offers are definitely the winners. Although agree with the pp who said these schools are targeting affluent suburban kids, that is definitely happening and agree it is problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at percentage of white students in the incoming classes at these schools:

UPenn 35%
Northwestern 33%
Yale 31%
Stanford 22%
John’s Hopkins 17%

VS

Some state flagships

Illinois 37%
UMich 49%
UVA 52%
Wisconsin 57%
Ohio State 62%

And look at the Asian applicants at those schools. It's not URMs driving down the white seats.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a result of the woke schools with large endowments filling their classes with URMs, so state schools are targeting those that have been displaced from their usual destinations, who just happen to be predominantly white UMC candidates.

Agree

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at percentage of white students in the incoming classes at these schools:

UPenn 35%
Northwestern 33%
Yale 31%
Stanford 22%
John’s Hopkins 17%

VS

Some state flagships

Illinois 37%
UMich 49%
UVA 52%
Wisconsin 57%
Ohio State 62%

And look at the Asian applicants at those schools. It's not URMs driving down the white seats.

+1

Yes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want my state to recruit the smartest and most productive and interesting kids to come here because I know there’s some likelihood they will stay and contribute to making my state better. I don’t care what race or background the kids are. It’s malfeasance for a state NOT to be doing this.

That's not what is happening. They are recruiting from rich white areas to get a bunch of rich kids to pay out of state and correct some budget deficits.

That is why so many W kids go to Michigan. It was a budget issue.

UVA tried to do it with Montgomery County kids but a group of parents sued the school for taking essentially the exact same kid from a W school vs a northern VA school just for the $$, and the parents won, which is why UVA now has a limit on OOS kids from places like MoCo.

citation?

And the MoCo kids are fighting to get into UMD - their own state school. It stinks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schools need the money to afford the non-full pay students, OP. Some colleges say so straight out, when soliciting donations from alum.

Schools are not supposed to "trade applicants" (there was a huge case not that long ago, that I have to look up), but I am certain that it still happens, and likely more often than the parents will ever know.

What does "trading applicants" mean exactly? How does it work in practice?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interesting, but I dont agree that places like WI and MI and Il and UVA and UVM are giving much merit money to OOS.

Bama and SC and Ole Miss, yes. But I see the need to buy these kids

What do you mean “buy these kids”. Aren’t all schools “buying” kids? The amount of marketing swag we receive from them indicates they are (e.g., Chicago). Also, in many cases, kids who take the SEC offers are definitely the winners. Although agree with the pp who said these schools are targeting affluent suburban kids, that is definitely happening and agree it is problematic.

No. Per Jeff Selingo, colleges are buyers and sellers. The buyers (like OOS flagships) are buying kids by offering them a discount masquerading as "merit awards". The sellers (like Chicago) are sending you marketing materials because they expect you to buy their exquisite product at their exquisite price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interesting, but I dont agree that places like WI and MI and Il and UVA and UVM are giving much merit money to OOS.

Bama and SC and Ole Miss, yes. But I see the need to buy these kids

What do you mean “buy these kids”. Aren’t all schools “buying” kids? The amount of marketing swag we receive from them indicates they are (e.g., Chicago). Also, in many cases, kids who take the SEC offers are definitely the winners. Although agree with the pp who said these schools are targeting affluent suburban kids, that is definitely happening and agree it is problematic.

No. Per Jeff Selingo, colleges are buyers and sellers. The buyers (like OOS flagships) are buying kids by offering them a discount masquerading as "merit awards". The sellers (like Chicago) are sending you marketing materials because they expect you to buy their exquisite product at their exquisite price.

Why is it masquerading? It is a merit award.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:interesting, but I dont agree that places like WI and MI and Il and UVA and UVM are giving much merit money to OOS.

Bama and SC and Ole Miss, yes. But I see the need to buy these kids

What do you mean “buy these kids”. Aren’t all schools “buying” kids? The amount of marketing swag we receive from them indicates they are (e.g., Chicago). Also, in many cases, kids who take the SEC offers are definitely the winners. Although agree with the pp who said these schools are targeting affluent suburban kids, that is definitely happening and agree it is problematic.

No. Per Jeff Selingo, colleges are buyers and sellers. The buyers (like OOS flagships) are buying kids by offering them a discount masquerading as "merit awards". The sellers (like Chicago) are sending you marketing materials because they expect you to buy their exquisite product at their exquisite price.

Why is it masquerading? It is a merit award.

No it is a tuition discount. Not available to in state residents, but helps make the OOS cost more reasonable.

[Anonymous]

"Crossing state lines" ...... fetch my fainting couch.