My main problem with the Top 10% program: top 10% at some schools would not equal Top 10% at others, even in the same district and even in the same small district. If UGa started this program, it would be disastrous for this very reason. I'm thinking of a district I taught in in which the top 10% of 1 school could easily get into UGa and blow away the classes. Actually, the top quarter probably could. Then there's a rural high school a few miles away that rarely even gets any students into UGa and it'd be doubtful if they'd succeed there anyway. I've taught at both schools.

But I can picture a lot of that rural school's top 10% enrolling because yee-ha, they could slap a UGa sticker on their ole truck bumpers and wouldn't that be great to show the guys? And then they'd flunk out in 1-2 semesters because they found the best pit to go mudding in near Athens--and they would've taken the place of a very qualified student from the other high school who would've aced the classes at Georgia. I'm not generalizing here, I could show this to teachers from that district and get a sad nod of affirmation.

The student from the stronger school could certainly transfer in later but it's really not the same. He or she would be merely marking time at the smaller school, possibly not even getting involved, until the minute they could be in Athens and who knows when that would be?

I can appreciate Texas desperately tying to achieve diversity. They can't win. On the other hand, has anyone ever seen statistics on how many kids from the "weaker" schools don't make it through the first year? I'd like to.

UT does not limit their admission to only to top 10%. The top 10% has automatic admission, but that alone does not meet the freshman class quota. If you look at the statistics for Fall 2008, Ms. Fisher fell right in line statistically with the freshman class that year. She was not mediocre.

Except that lots of students don't get in whose stats fall in line statistically. She could have had egregious grammatical errors in her essays. She could have written bad essays. Nobody knows for sure why she didn't get in. Look at the stats of some of the kids who don't get into Michigan or UNC or any of the original 8 "Public Ivies". It isn't all about test scores and grades at selective schools. If it was, they'd have to admit more students than they can service.

No, it's not, but why would you base admissions on a test knowing that those who can afford prep classes are going to do better than those who can't? Similarly, some students can afford tutors and extra resources to improve their grades. It is erroneous to think that a higher test score or class rank automatically means the student is harder working or naturally brighter without considering what advantages or disadvantages they have had in their own schooling.

Nice strawman.

Also, some of us believe that diversity is a good thing, and trying to structure a freshman class to include students from a variety of backgrounds is a legitimate goal of a public university.

Yes, I know that UT does not limit their admission to the top 10%; this isn't even a topic of debate and has been posted widely in most discussions on this lawsuit.

I was questioning how, if they limit their admits to the Top 10% (or, really the top 7% these days), how would they admit legacies and athletes, two groups who typically DO NOT fall in line statistically with the rest of their classmates? This is a question that's been posed to other schools as well--both public and private.

You didn't answer that question, but decided instead to post what we've all been discussing upthread, and what was pretty much common knowledge. Thanks!

Yes, she was mediocre. Maybe not for an "average" school, but UT isn't an "average" school anymore. Since she wasn't in the top 10% of her class, she was in the general admissions pool with out-of-staters (who may have scored better and had better grades), athletes, legacies, and others who weren't in the top 10% of a high school class in the state of Texas.

She thought she was entitled to get into her state's flagship, and she didn't because her scores didn't measure up. Too bad, so sad.

But some people don't. And some people feel it to be an inappropriate use of their tax dollars. No one answered me about UT's ownership, by the bye.

Re the bolded, no one would give a shit about this 10% rule if it was Baylor (or any other private school).

:)

This is why I said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by knight_shadow (Post 2184297) IIRC, UH has been named Tier 1 by one measure, and is likely to be the next "official" Tier 1 university in the state.

I hope so :)

State-owned

Yes.

The UT System has the CAP program that allows folks to attend a non-Austin school for one year (I think?) to prove that they can handle it. Once they meet certain criteria, they're able to transfer into Austin.

ETA: CAP Information: http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/cap

So, it's not like the dream of being a Longhorn was unattainable. She didn't explore all of her options.

Yeah, but CAP--I mean, some of those schools are absolutely nothing like UT-Austin. Commuter schools with hardly any campus life. And here they want you to make a 3.2 to "prove" you can make the cut when you aced high school but had the nerve to only be in the top 15% instead of the top 10-- what a waste of freshman year and a good brain.

http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/cap/admission

So, an alleged lack of campus life is a waste of a good brain?

No, the comparative lack of educational challenge is. We've had family and friends go to some of those schools and found them far easier than high school. Even their textbooks were easier!

If that's the case, then getting a 3.2 at one of these schools should be a cakewalk. Then, the applicant can spend his/her remaining years at a "real" school.

/grad of one of these dumb UT-System schools

The following is going to be very specific to me and my area, but pertinent to the community college discussion as a general thing:

As someone who went from a 4-yr university to a community college, I feel comfortable in saying that the lack of campus life at my CC makes it much, much easier to excel in my classes. Honestly I'd say it outweighs the ease of the classes, as I go to a fairly good CC for the area and I think my current classes are just a bit easier than the university's. I did a rigorous high school program (IB) so I know how to manage my time- however, time management doesn't even factor in for me since I do basically nothing outside of school and work. At my 4 yr university I was very involved in my sorority and some student organizations which really put my time management skills to the test. Here, I have very little to actually manage.

I defer answers about how much this applies to UT to knowledgeable posters, but lack of campus life definitely has an impact on academic success.

Again, this is from the community college to state school perspective as we don't have any satellite campuses here.

Right, that's why I said upthread that this case has a lot to do with what you really think the mission of a public university is, and how to best fulfill that mission. Why do public universities exist in the first place?

I don't think most of these kids want a cakewalk. Also, not all are "dumb" schools.

However, this is how many people see the CAP Program: "Hey, guys! We're giving you the opportunity to mark time in a school you wouldn't consider otherwise! Then you can come to UT in a year and take the place of the weaker student we admitted in your place who flunked out after 15 minutes on campus!"

Here is how my 3 SEC alma maters and other large universities from neighboring states view the 10% Rule: "Way to go, Texas! Keep it up! Because we're taking in hundreds of your brightest and best who wanted a UT-type experience and it looks like after graduation, most of them aren't going back!"

That's why I wanted to know if they were wholly state-owned or just state afilliated. Honestly, in this case, I think that's for the taxpayers to at least partially decide.

Serious question -- are there any non-Pennsylvania schools that are state affiliated?

LOL. I don't know. We may be the only whackadoodles out there with the system we have (heaven knows CA is still confusing the heck out of me). I'm just saying that if it's owned by the state, taxpayer dollars are going into it and taxpayers should have a say.

California has three public college systems: the California Community College system (CCC - open admission); the California State University system (CSU - top third of California high school graduates), and the University of California system (UC - top 12.5% of California high school graduates).

A “basic” difference between the CSU system and UC system is that the CSU colleges are viewed as “teaching” colleges while the UC colleges are viewed as “research” colleges. The CCC system offers two year programs mainly with classes comprising of general or “lower division” class work – i.e. the same class work as the first two years at a CSU or UC campus.

CCC students may transfer into either the CSU system or UC system as a transfer student - as long as they meet the college’s admission standard as a transfer. My understanding is that CCC students are given “priority” from amongst the transfer students.

And I think this question is the crux of the whole discussion. One where I get discomboobolated (misspelled on purpose!) when it comes to this topic...

Is it to educate the masses in an affordable and academically excellent way? Absolutely yes.

Is it to spit out the smartest/best/brightest into the Texas workforce? Yes, again.

They're not mutually exclusive, but going back to the example I had up thread of the 13% of her class person coming from a competitive high school is not the same as 7%er from a less competitive high school. The 13%er is probably more prepared for that level of study.

It's unfortunate that there's no perfect answer. CAP is a good answer academically, but it tends to be sniffed down upon from people who want a full college experience...same place/friends/connections/clubs all 4 years.

Back in the day (pre-10% rule, but when admission was based upon a combo of class rank and SAT scores only), someone coming from a competitive high school could apply as a "provisional" student. They would go to summer school at UT the summer before their freshman year. They would take 12 hours in summer school of core classes, and the faculty was pretty much mandated to fail half of them. IIRC, "passing" was a 3.0. You passed, you were enrolled for the fall. You failed, you either went to Austin Community College, or wherever your "back up" was. IMO, it was a good alternative to see who was ready for that level of academic pressure...lots was on the line if you didn't pass.

Is it? Or is it to spit out what the Texas workforce most needs? It would be nice if they were one and the same, but the fact is, I wouldn't take that for granted.

This is just silliness. I hate when people use this argument because there are so many people from all ethnic backgrounds who come from disadvantaged homes who still prove to be successful. Affirmative action is not necessary in order to achieve diversity. There are many people from all cultures, races, and backgrounds who are able to get in on the merits.

College admissions should not be based on race or background. It should be based on qualifications.

Well, take this example. Susie and Jenny are both applying to Wawa U. Both of them have the same GPA. Susie's extracurriculars include Mu Alpha Theta, swim team, flag squad and National honor society. Jenny was in NHS, that's it. Obviously Susie is a better choice, right?

Well - what doesn't show on the application is that the average family at Susie's school makes 5 times more than the average family at Jenny's school, and Jenny's school doesn't even HAVE those first three things because the district barely has money to keep the school open.

If you get an assurance that college admissions people are going to take these things into account - that would be one thing - but I seriously doubt that is always the case.

Well, isn't that in part of what college essays are for?

I went to a very small high school that did not have much money, and had few extracurriculars to choose from. But, I highly doubt, that at any high school, NHS would be the only available extracurricular activity. Also, there are activities to do outside of school that do not involve having money - volunteering, church youth groups, etc.

I appreciate your example and I realize that this is a problem, but I do not and will not ever believe that affirmative action is a successful solution.

It's also likely true that Susie's school was more academically rigorous.

Public schools with 50,000 undergrads don't have the staff time to devote to reading tens of thousands of admissions essays. There is no school the size of UT where essays play a big role in the process.

Even if they could read them all, essays can't be the answer. Kids from crummy high schools have crummy guidance counselors too. Those crummy GCs give them bad advice like, "Don't tell them you are working 30 hours a week to help pay the rent. It'll make the college think you won't have time to study." (I've seen it happen; you would not believe the incompetence and ignorance of some counselors.)

I totally get and agree with what you're saying. However, (re: the bolded) keep in mind that Texas is a Robin Hood state...Susie's district has sent MILLIONS to Jenny's to keep the scales closer to balanced. Although Susie's parents pay outrageous property taxes, 50% of that leaves their district - POOF - to go to Jenny's.

Not saying they're balanced...just saying they're not as far off as you're making it seem.

Fair enough. I guess I was blindly seeing them as one and the same. Chicken or egg? Maybe if we always spit out the best & brightest into the workforce, that WOULD be what the workforce most needed.

<rose colored glasses>

Both admissions officers and college counselors have indicated that the availability of classes and programs at your school is considered. Example: Big Rich High School has an IB program, 17 AP classes to choose from, and 8 sports teams. Small Rural High School has only 4 AP classes to choose from, and one boys' sport and one girls' sport each season.

Tim from Big School may have taken 5 AP classes and played football and soccer, but Johnny from Small School who took 4 AP classes and only played basketball might be considered equal or even at an advantage based on these aspects. It's not just about the the opportunities you're given, it's about the ones you take. Big state schools are especially aware of this when they have to compare applicants from different levels of opportunity.

At least you're up-front about having a closed mind on the subject.

I'm not saying you're wrong about affirmative action in general or about this case. (I'm not saying you're right, either.) But I will say that I think that unwillingness to consider the possibility that one might be wrong is rarely a good way to approach things.

I respect your point, but I don't think that refusing to admit applicants to college based solely on race is a bad thing.

I've definitely heard that being from a rural area can work to your advantage. And, as I've said before, there are many things to get involved in outside of school, if your high school does not have many extra-curriculars.

My understanding is that essays DO play a big part. They don't consider race on its own, they consider it as part of a holistic score for all the students who are in the "maybe" pile, along with essays and other demographic factors.

I think essays definitely play a part. I was deferred from a large state school's early decision (or early action? Too long ago; don't remember) when the school was very much a "safety" school for me. I was well above the 75% for SAT scores, had a fine GPA, etc. and put almost zero effort into my essay, assuming I was a shoo-in. I'm also a member of a demographic the school sorely lacks, and assumed this would assure my acceptance as well. After getting deferred, my college counselor contacted the admissions office (she had some wicked connections) of that college to get some insight, and basically was told that my essay just wasn't up to scratch and they really used that as part of the early decision considerations.
If it were just based on statistics and the bullet points of my extracurriculars, I think I would have been accepted in the first round. (As a side note, this isn't UGA that I'm talking about)

My daughter goes to UT. She also went to a very rigerous high school that sends quite a few students to UT each year. She was not in the top 10%, but she did have good test scores, good GPA at a difficult high school, and good extra curriculars. She was in the top 20%. She is a legacy to UT. Her father graduated from there in the 80's. Her legacy status was not a factor in her admissions. I also know that she is surrounded by friends who were in the top 10% of their less difficult high school and they are struggling. Carnation was 100% correct in her earlier post stating that not all high schools are equal.

Munchkin asked in an earlier post about how do legacies get admitted..the simple answer is just like everyone eles. UT does not consider legacy status when making admission decisions. The Hopwood Act, which inacted the top 10% rule, states that it is illegal to consider legacy status. As far as athletes, that is an entirely different ballgame and Im not sure if they are mentioned in the Hopwood Act.

I can't quote the exact breakdown of this year's student body, but I do know that white is no longer considered the majority at UT. The white student population is 49%. Blacks make up only 4%, Hispanics are at 22% and Asians are at 25%..these are approx. numbers based on an e-mail I received from the university. UT is also the most expensive Texas state university, which makes attending there cost prohibitive for many students.

I really dont know what the answer is. I do wonder why Ms. Fisher didnt just transfer into UT, which is much easier by the way, due to attrition from the students that fail out. She would then be a part of "the good ole boy network" here in the state of Texas:)

Has anybody ever suggested admitting applicants to college solely on the basis of race?

I stand corrected, but I firmly believe that race/ethnicity should not be a deciding factor at all.

What I do not believe in is this:
Two students have the exact same GPA, went to the equally difficult high schools, both played two sports and were on National Honor Society and were class president. The minority student gets accepted simply for being a minority.

OR:
One student had a 4.0, was class president, played three varsity sports, was on NHS, etc.
One student had a 3.5 and played one sport.

However, the student with the 3.5 was a minority, so they let that student in over the student with a 4.0 who was clearly more qualified. It happens more often than people think. I just don't see how anyone can see that as fair.

Or because s/he wrote a better essay.
Or because his/her guidance counselor(s) gave better recommendations.
Or because s/he had a better in-person interview.
Or...

The problem here is the phrase "more qualified". Is an athlete "more qualified" than a non-athlete? Is an in-state student "more qualified" than an out-of-state student? If we give admissions professionals the right to decide who best makes up their campus community in these situations, we can't suddenly decide they don't know what they are doing when it comes to race, gender, physical limitations, etc.

There is no such thing as equally qualified when it comes to these sorts of things because people are first and foremost super special snowflakes. And as has been discussed here, a 4.0 is not a 4.0 is not a 4.0. It depends on the school, the curriculum, your class choices, your extracurriculars, etc. AND it depends on your social background. The kid who grows up in South Central with a crackhead for a Mom who manages to pull out a 3.5 with 1 sport has accomplished A LOT. The kid with the tutor and the high prestige high school and a car from before she's 16 and summer camp every year with a 3.5 hasn't done much.

But that being said, I'm really of 2 minds about these arguments, and really would like to err in favor of advantage instead of race. The poor kid described above could be any race, including white, and my opinion of her accomplishment wouldn't change. And as the economic upper echelons become more racially diverse, the racial minority rich kids don't require the same leg up their parents and grandparents did. But I'm also afraid that a lot of schools would quickly backtrack to the good old days when they only accepted white boys. But on the other hand (how many hands is that now) I do believe there is a significant portion of the population, including rich white boys, who would choose not to attend a school that lacked any diversity. Using Harvard as an example, they continue to be one of the toughest schools to get into, and they work very hard at having all 50 states, many countries, both genders, and every race covered in every new freshman class. And they seem to still accomplish this while letting in plenty of legacies. I can't imagine them changing that policy just because they don't have to accept minorities, women, etc. But would Big State U? I don't know.