- Joined
- Apr 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,185
In the c/o 2024 DIY Appointment thread, the concept of States having a fixed number of slots came up. I had never heard of this level of definition, and it peaked my interest. A court case is referenced by @beyond and links here: https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/Domine v. Kumar.pdf
Here is my summary of the case:
1) Plaintiff was a resident of Wisconsin and on the wait list as a qualified applicant
2) State of Wisconsin has 4 reserved slots per class
3) KP offered to higher ranking Wisconsin students prior to April 1, but 3 vacancies remained
4) After 1 April, USMMA transitioned to the National Wait List and proceeded making additional appointments based on overall order of merit on the National list
5) KP offered appointments to students and filled the allocation with students from outside of Wisconsin
6) The judge ruled that the school followed the defined procedures and was within their rights to move onto the national wait list to fill the class with most qualified applicants after 1 April of the admissions cycle.
Although this case does not lay out the State allocations, the references and case notes lead here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/310.53#b
While not limited to this table, the States do appear to have a defined allocation that can/should be filled with qualified applicants prior to the 1 April milestone. After that date, USMMA can use the highest qualified alternates from the National Wait List to fill any vacancy in the class.
The annual distribution of each entering class by State is:
Here is my summary of the case:
1) Plaintiff was a resident of Wisconsin and on the wait list as a qualified applicant
2) State of Wisconsin has 4 reserved slots per class
3) KP offered to higher ranking Wisconsin students prior to April 1, but 3 vacancies remained
4) After 1 April, USMMA transitioned to the National Wait List and proceeded making additional appointments based on overall order of merit on the National list
5) KP offered appointments to students and filled the allocation with students from outside of Wisconsin
6) The judge ruled that the school followed the defined procedures and was within their rights to move onto the national wait list to fill the class with most qualified applicants after 1 April of the admissions cycle.
Although this case does not lay out the State allocations, the references and case notes lead here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/310.53#b
While not limited to this table, the States do appear to have a defined allocation that can/should be filled with qualified applicants prior to the 1 April milestone. After that date, USMMA can use the highest qualified alternates from the National Wait List to fill any vacancy in the class.
The annual distribution of each entering class by State is:
ANNUAL | |
Alabama | 4 |
Alaska | 1 |
Arizona | 3 |
Arkansas | 2 |
California | 19 |
Colorado | 4 |
Connecticut | 4 |
Delaware | 1 |
Florida | 10 |
Georgia | 5 |
Hawaii | 2 |
Idaho | 2 |
Illinois | 9 |
Indiana | 3 |
Iowa | 4 |
Kansas | 3 |
Kentucky | 2 |
Louisiana | 4 |
Maine | 2 |
Maryland | 4 |
Massachusetts | 5 |
Michigan | 7 |
Minnesota | 3 |
Mississippi | 3 |
Missouri | 3 |
Montana | 2 |
Nebraska | 2 |
Nevada | 2 |
New Hampshire | 2 |
New Jersey | 6 |
New Mexico | 2 |
New York | 15 |
North Carolina | 6 |
North Dakota | 1 |
Ohio | 8 |
Oklahoma | 2 |
Oregon | 3 |
Pennsylvania | 10 |
Rhode Island | 2 |
South Carolina | 4 |
South Dakota | 1 |
Tennessee | 4 |
Texas | 13 |
Utah | 2 |
Vermont | 1 |
Virginia | 5 |
Washington | 5 |
West Virginia | 2 |
Wisconsin | 4 |
Wyoming | 1 |
American Samoa | 1 |
District of Columbia | 4 |
Guam | 1 |
Northern Mariana Islands | 1 |
Puerto Rico | 1 |
Republic of Panama | 2 |
Virgin Islands | 1 |
NOT TO EXCEED ANY TIME | |
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands | 4 |
Western Hemisphere nations (other than U.S.) | 12 |
Foreign Nations | 30 |