Texas 2011 Applicants Forum

[sojuteacher]

I know I posted this last week, but any OOS RD's hear back? I did a scan of LSN but even from those who submitted past 11/1 who were accepted, I can't tell who's OOS and who's in-state.

I was OOS RD. I submitted sometime during the first week of November and I got a call just before Thanksgiving.

Same with me, but no scholly letter yet. Have you gotten anything?

[sylvernight]

I'm getting the feeling I'm the only EDer left. And I doubt that's a positive thing.

I applied ED two years ago, and didn't get the call until late January. If you haven't gotten a letter yet, there's still hope.

[swiftwings88]

I'm getting the feeling I'm the only EDer left. And I doubt that's a positive thing.

I applied ED two years ago, and didn't get the call until late January. If you haven't gotten a letter yet, there's still hope.

My friend is a 3.9 171 student and he has heard back either. He just got into UVA and NYU so I don't think it means anything yet.

[brose]

I'm getting the feeling I'm the only EDer left. And I doubt that's a positive thing.

What are your numbers? Judging from your profile, I'm guessing you're out of state?

[whitman]

I'm getting the feeling I'm the only EDer left. And I doubt that's a positive thing.

What are your numbers? Judging from your profile, I'm guessing you're out of state?

Yeah, out of state, 3.5/172. I bet I'm gonna get that ding for the GPA.

[neonx]

So, I'm getting so paranoid. I've been complete since 11/18, RD/non-EA. Is there room for concern yet?

[awahoya]

I'm getting the feeling I'm the only EDer left. And I doubt that's a positive thing.

What are your numbers? Judging from your profile, I'm guessing you're out of state?

Yeah, out of state, 3.5/172. I bet I'm gonna get that ding for the GPA.

I'm realllly hoping not, numbers twin! I'm an Austinite but b/c I went to school out of state I'm 99% sure I'm considered OOS...my avg LSAT is right around you.

[leopardRAWR]

I'm an Austinite but b/c I went to school out of state I'm 99% sure I'm considered OOS.

I also went to school out of state but was still considered in state. If your family still lives in state and counts you as a dependent, and/or you never changed your voter registration, driver's license etc to your new state from Texas, I think you'd still be in state. At least that was what happened for me.

[whitman]

I'm getting the feeling I'm the only EDer left. And I doubt that's a positive thing.

What are your numbers? Judging from your profile, I'm guessing you're out of state?

Yeah, out of state, 3.5/172. I bet I'm gonna get that ding for the GPA.

I'm realllly hoping not, numbers twin! I'm an Austinite but b/c I went to school out of state I'm 99% sure I'm considered OOS...my avg LSAT is right around you.

I think you're gonna be all right. Judging by your profile, you've got a 10-point spread on the LSAT so I think they'll just take your highest. I think that'll be enough to cover your relatively low (by their standards) GPA. Good luck, my man.

[weejonbu]

Any idea how big a boost there is for instate?

I went to a big state school in North TX area, 3.9~/mid 160s... you guys think I should be good?

[JTMan]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

[weejonbu]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

Fair enough... I mean, I've perused LSN and LSP up the wazoo, so I think I should be good. Anyways... we TLSers are all wanting constant reassurance. Pretty funny really.

[JazzOne]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

I recall reading somewhere that Dean Ingram made the exact opposite argument. Despite the fact that there are more spots for in-state applicants, there are disproportionately more applicants from Texas. So, admissions may in fact be more competitive for in-state applicants.

[birdlaw117]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

I recall reading somewhere that Dean Ingram made the exact opposite argument. Despite the fact that there are more spots for in-state applicants, there are disproportionately more applicants from Texas. So, admissions may in fact be more competitive for in-state applicants.

Yeah, but that's for the applicant pool as a whole. I would assume in-state applicants are, on average, lesser applicants than OOS. I think for two applicants with the same numbers, one in-state and one OOS, the in-state applicant has a better chance. I could be wrong though.

[JazzOne]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

I recall reading somewhere that Dean Ingram made the exact opposite argument. Despite the fact that there are more spots for in-state applicants, there are disproportionately more applicants from Texas. So, admissions may in fact be more competitive for in-state applicants.

Yeah, but that's for the applicant pool as a whole. I would assume in-state applicants are, on average, lesser applicants than OOS. I think for two applicants with the same numbers, one in-state and one OOS, the in-state applicant has a better chance. I could be wrong though.

That seems inuitive based on the number of slots available, but that's not the only relevant factor. It's based on desirability. A guy with 3.8/175 from [insert any place not near Texas] is probably uninterested in Texas and won't even apply. A guy from Texas with those numbers will almost definitely apply to UT, and he might even go to UT over better schools if he has an attractive combination of scholarship money and in-state tuition. I'm sure I could have gone to a school higher up in the rankings, but I only applied to UT. They hooked me with the home stage pride (and a big scholly didn't hurt either). UT attracts Texans with big numbers a lot easier than UT lures OOS applicants with big numbers.

[bartleby]

JazzOne is right. People in Texas get such a boner for Texas.

[birdlaw117]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

I recall reading somewhere that Dean Ingram made the exact opposite argument. Despite the fact that there are more spots for in-state applicants, there are disproportionately more applicants from Texas. So, admissions may in fact be more competitive for in-state applicants.

Yeah, but that's for the applicant pool as a whole. I would assume in-state applicants are, on average, lesser applicants than OOS. I think for two applicants with the same numbers, one in-state and one OOS, the in-state applicant has a better chance. I could be wrong though.

That seems inuitive based on the number of slots available, but that's not the only relevant factor. It's based on desirability. A guy with 3.8/175 from [insert any place not near Texas] is probably uninterested in Texas and won't even apply. A guy from Texas with those numbers will almost definitely apply to UT, and he might even go to UT over better schools if he has an attractive combination of scholarship money and in-state tuition. I'm sure I could have gone to a school higher up in the rankings, but I only applied to UT. They hooked me with the home stage pride (and a big scholly didn't hurt either). UT attracts Texans with big numbers a lot easier than UT lures OOS applicants with big numbers.

I agree with most of the things you just said. The one thing missing, however, is that I think there would be a lot of in-state applicants with a 3.0/150 applying and very few OOS applicants with those numbers. Obviously there are a lot more applicants like 3.0/150 than 3.8/175.

[brose]

So... from what I see on LSN there's been no acceptances this month... and I've only seen one on here. Weird.

[neonx]

So... from what I see on LSN there's been no acceptances this month... and I've only seen one on here. Weird.

Yeah, what's up UT? =(

[birdlaw117]

Yeah, and I'm pretty close to next in line. I don't really like this whole waiting thing...

[nonprofit-prophet]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

I recall reading somewhere that Dean Ingram made the exact opposite argument. Despite the fact that there are more spots for in-state applicants, there are disproportionately more applicants from Texas. So, admissions may in fact be more competitive for in-state applicants.

This doesn't make sense to me. Since the number of in-state slots is a slot floor, not a ceiling, they could fill the entire class with only in-state students (if there were enough in-state applicants with the numbers to do so). That essentially means that while in-state applicants are somewhat insulated within their own pool, out of state applicants would be measured against the entire applicant pool. Therefore, the out of state applicant pool would always be more competitive, regardless of how competitive the in-state pool is (which I totally agree is very competitive to begin with).

[yanksbgood]

This doesn't make sense to me. Since the number of in-state slots is a slot floor, not a ceiling, they could fill the entire class with only in-state students (if there were enough in-state applicants with the numbers to do so). That essentially means that while in-state applicants are somewhat insulated within their own pool, out of state applicants would be measured against the entire applicant pool. Therefore, the out of state applicant pool would always be more competitive, regardless of how competitive the in-state pool is (which I totally agree is very competitive to begin with).

Thats what I would think. Even if in state applicants with really high numbers choose to go to UT over better schools, UT would still accept those applicants whether they were in state or OOS. I dont see how that would make in state more competitive.

Only a max of 35% of the class can be out of state, and these are the same people that are going to schools like vandy, ucla, cornell, gulc, gw, fordham...etc, yet in these schools there is no regulation on the class composition.

[JazzOne]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

I recall reading somewhere that Dean Ingram made the exact opposite argument. Despite the fact that there are more spots for in-state applicants, there are disproportionately more applicants from Texas. So, admissions may in fact be more competitive for in-state applicants.

This doesn't make sense to me. Since the number of in-state slots is a slot floor, not a ceiling, they could fill the entire class with only in-state students (if there were enough in-state applicants with the numbers to do so). That essentially means that while in-state applicants are somewhat insulated within their own pool, out of state applicants would be measured against the entire applicant pool. Therefore, the out of state applicant pool would always be more competitive, regardless of how competitive the in-state pool is (which I totally agree is very competitive to begin with).

What I think you are not taking account of is the effect of in-state tuition. It's essentially a scholarship offered to every in-state admit compared to every OOS admit. So if we compare a Texas resident with good numbers to an OOS resident with the same numbers, the offer from UT will be much more attractive to the Texas resident. OOS admits with good numbers will have equally atractive offers from other schools. Even if you say, well, a lot of OOS applicants get IS tuition. Sure, but that differential is also offered to IS admits in the form of scholarship money.

I don't have any stats to confirm. All I can say is that there is no way in hell I'd be at UT if I wasn't from Texas. My numbers were competitive at much higher ranked schools. One of my friends on LR who's from Texas (who posts here, BTW), got into Harvard, but he chose to come to UT instead. That's not uncommon at UT.

I don't really know why I debate this point since no one knows without the statistics. I just want to point out that in-state applicants may not get any advantage at all, and there are some rational stories we could tell that would suggest in-state applicants are actually taking the worst of it in terms of admissions.

[mr_toad]

I agree with much of what you say, but when you say "Even if you say, well, a lot of OOS applicants get IS tuition. Sure, but that differential is also offered to IS admits in the form of scholarship money", anecdotally, at least, this doesn't always seem to be true. When I look at OOS people with my numbers, we all got about 9500/year plus IS tuition, whereas applicants from in-state seemed to just be offered the 9500/year. You're right, though, without statistics it's hard to say if that's just an anomaly or not. But your overall point is taken and would probably be true at more state schools if 1) there were a bigger difference between IS and OOS tuition, like at Texas (and in contrast to, say, Michigan) and 2) if those state schools had huge home markets that would prefer to see people from UT at #15 or so then Michigan at #9 or Berkeley, etc. There's a lot going on here that makes Texas special and completely logical for some people. But now I'm rambling. I should have had coffee before writing this...

[nonprofit-prophet]

In-State is definitely a huge advantage, remember they only accept 35% (max) out of state students, and given the volume of out of state applicants, the competition there is MUCH higher than in-state.

I know we all want quantitative projections but thats all I have for you.

I recall reading somewhere that Dean Ingram made the exact opposite argument. Despite the fact that there are more spots for in-state applicants, there are disproportionately more applicants from Texas. So, admissions may in fact be more competitive for in-state applicants.

This doesn't make sense to me. Since the number of in-state slots is a slot floor, not a ceiling, they could fill the entire class with only in-state students (if there were enough in-state applicants with the numbers to do so). That essentially means that while in-state applicants are somewhat insulated within their own pool, out of state applicants would be measured against the entire applicant pool. Therefore, the out of state applicant pool would always be more competitive, regardless of how competitive the in-state pool is (which I totally agree is very competitive to begin with).

What I think you are not taking account of is the effect of in-state tuition. It's essentially a scholarship offered to every in-state admit compared to every OOS admit. So if we compare a Texas resident with good numbers to an OOS resident with the same numbers, the offer from UT will be much more attractive to the Texas resident. OOS admits with good numbers will have equally atractive offers from other schools. Even if you say, well, a lot of OOS applicants get IS tuition. Sure, but that differential is also offered to IS admits in the form of scholarship money.

I don't have any stats to confirm. All I can say is that there is no way in hell I'd be at UT if I wasn't from Texas. My numbers were competitive at much higher ranked schools. One of my friends on LR who's from Texas (who posts here, BTW), got into Harvard, but he chose to come to UT instead. That's not uncommon at UT.

I don't really know why I debate this point since no one knows without the statistics. I just want to point out that in-state applicants may not get any advantage at all, and there are some rational stories we could tell that would suggest in-state applicants are actually taking the worst of it in terms of admissions.

Our points are not mutually exclusive. Actually I would say your points support mine. If UT is outperforming its ranking among in staters, then it stands to reason that UT could (and from what i understand has in the past) create classes that are more than 65% IS. Unless you think that the benefit derived from being able to say "UT has students from all across thie country" is amazing, I see little reason as to why they woukd admit a less qualified OOS student over a more qualified IS student. And as you said, IS admissions is probably more difficult than is assumed due to a number of factors like COA and state pride. Therefore OOS applicants are not only competing against each other for a spot, but also the top IS talent.