If the reason for affirmative action in academic programs boils down to a lack of economic and/or social access, then students from rural schools are deserving too. Although these schools are getting better with the advent of the Internets, the standards for advancement such as AP and language courses do not exist. And who cares if you are valedictorian if your class size is twenty?

As someone who has seen the insides of the admissions process at the graduate level, I can say very confidently that the process in its current configuration is rigged against white, rural students. It is near impossible to distinguish themselves academically and they get passed over for scholarships because of their skin color. It's even worse if they are male.

Affirmative action is impossible to administer fairly, and I would rather it abolished than extend it to rural students.

I think that is probably true at the undergrad level-many rural schools may lack the funding for guidence counselors to work aggressively to get students into big name universities. However, many state universities have guarunteed admission for in-state students who have met some minimum standard in high schools. From there, I think there is some degree of equal footing.

By the time you're looking at grad school, law school or the like, you've had several years to prove yourself- or not- at an undergraduate institution. The privileges you did or did not have as a child shouldn't matter.

For undergrad, though, those privileges and deprivations have a real effect. While I disagree with the notion of giving special favors because of race or ethnicity, giving some benefit of a doubt to people who grew up in poverty wouldn't be unjustified.