It would, a school doesn't have to be regionally accredited to submit, it just has to be accredited, so ITT, UOPHX, and other online schools are acceptable, of course they are low on the tier ranking, I think most are all listed as Tier 4.
I think @
NavyOffRec is starting to get this topic back on track. I believe the original intent of the conversation was to see whether higher ranked schools were looked more favorably upon than lower ranked schools for the sheer fact that higher ranked schools are more difficult to get into and have more challenging academic programs based on the quality of the institution itself along with the standard set by the aptitude of the students chosen to attend them. Of course there are exceptions such as the guy whose dad bought his way into some good school or the girl who worked very hard to excel at some unknown school. And we all have our own subjective experiences to purport. But for the purposes of this discussions, let's try to be objective.
There are a number of different ranking companies but I believe that U.S. News and World Report is probably the most well known. For those of you unfamiliar with these rankings, as you can imagine, schools like Princeton, Harvard, and Yale appear at the top of the rankings and then there are schools that aren't even ranked that make up the bottom of the rankings. These rankings are published annually and are composed of a number of factors pertaining to admissions, test scores, employment following graduation, quality of the teaching staff, graduation rate, staff to student ratio, etc. While these rankings are usually questionable and arguable, we have to lend some credence to them and acknowledge that Harvard is probably a better and more challenging school than XYZ Community College. And we have to assume that schools, for the most part, fall somewhere in between the two extremes. We can also assume that individuals see value in attending higher ranked schools or people wouldn't pay $X00,000 to attend Harvard and $X,000 to attend XYZ Community College. (I did not attend Harvard, I'm just using it at as a paradigm).
http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandr...ges/rankings/national-universities?int=9a3408
The sacrifices individuals have had to make along with the challenges they have had to overcome to complete higher education is certainly an important factor in the "whole person concept;" at least I think so, but I'm not on the Board. So if someone had to attend XYZ University (a hypothetically lower or unranked school) but excelled and did so while overcoming adversity, then I'm sure that would carry some weight, even if that weight made its appearance more in the Motivational Statement than on the GPA Calculation Sheet. I.e., overcoming that adversity is more indicative of a person's character rather than the quality (for lack of a better word) of their education. On the flip side, if someone
earned their way into Harvard, surely you would expect the Board to look more favorably upon the quality of their education even if they may, perhaps, lack in other areas such as character. All of that being said, I would assume that most of us probably fall somewhere in the middle where we didn't go to an Ivy League school but we did the best we could in our circumstance. Some of us went to "better" schools and have that accolade and some of use overcame occupational or other challenges to obtain our degrees. And then there are some of us that did both and some of us that did neither.
In full disclosure, I have attended schools at all levels. I took classes on my ship through the AFLOAT program which is tied to Central Texas College. Central Texas College doesn't even show up in USNews's rankings. Then I got my undergraduate degree from a school who is listed as RNP, which means Rank Not Published, which means that it is a Tier 2 school. I was fortunate enough to be accepted to a Tier 1 law school. I can say that the minor leagues did not prepare me very well for the Big Leagues when my successful Tier 2 undergrad was put up against individuals from Tier 1 schools like Cornell (there were lots of Cornell grads at my law school for some reason). Because of that, I went from being at the top of the class in undergrad to middle of the class in grad school. I came out of undergrad with no debt and had around $250K in debt from grad school. I constantly wonder whether it would have been better for me to have gone to a lower ranked law school where I would have graduated with a higher GPA and paid a lot less money or whether it is better that I went to a top-tier law school where I had an average GPA and paid a fortune. I guess I'll never know but, that being said, I can understand why someone who went to a higher ranked school would be concerned with the board taking into consideration the quality of their education and I can see how someone who had to overcome a lot of adversity to finish their degree at a lower ranked school would hope that the board would favor that. Who knows what the board thinks or favors!