Fairly shocking admissions news from UT
 

UT has decided to NOT have a summer admit class this year.

Summer admits were people who didn't make the cut for fall, but were close. With the 10% rule, more and more kids are getting auto admission, and there are fewer and fewer spots for anyone else. Guess this means the numbers for 2009 are going to be ridiculous.

http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/freshm...sfc/index.html

This is a real bummer for those who were hoping for this chance...

Also a bummer for the greek system who uses summer for recruiting.

My son is staying in Austin this summer as a rush captain. Guess he will have time to find a job now;)

I think this is a great idea. Summer B admits at UF were usually people who couldn't get in for the Fall Semester. If they can't hack getting into their state school with everyone else, maybe they should spend that first semester (or year, or two) at a community college.

I did know some people who did Summer B so they could get ahead on classes they needed for pre-med, or to boost their GPA for a specific college. I wonder if they'll still let regular Fall admits start in the summer...

You cannot compare the Florida method with the Texas method. In Florida, you do not get automatic admission to the flagship (UF), in Texas you do.

The problem with the top 10% rule is that it is squeezing out people who should be able to hack getting into their state school.

I know a kid who got summer admit last year from our highschool who had 3 B's in his entire highschool career - in all AP and honors classes, with a 1480 SAT (math and eng,2180 total), he was in the top 15%.

My junior son (baby) has 1 B from a freshman pre-AP honors class, he got a 33 on the ACT (perfect 36 math) and we are sweating him getting another B because it could bump him out of the top 10%. By taking away even the chance of summer admits, it will pretty much rule out anyone who has great test scores, but goes to a ridiculously competitive highschool from having a shot at Texas. CRAP!!!!

Read this article and it will elucidate the issues - UT could lose its football program if it gets out of hand :eek:

Maybe that will get the legislators to change the rule.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...305topten.html

^^^ Thanks for posting that article. There have been rumblings about auto-admits in Virginia, but I think alum would know more about that.

Well, if it starts messing with football, you KNOW that law will be changed!

Yes, I can compare the Florida method with the Texas methods, so I will continue to do so. Florida also guarantees admission to those who are in the top of their classes. The difference between Florida and Texas is that the demand is spread out among the 11 campuses of the State University System; it looks like most students in Texas pick UT as their first choice.

It might simply come down to the fact that UF and UT-Austin may end up like UVa and Berkeley in that admission isn't guaranteed to everyone from that state who applies.

I think the state legislature or whoever will act before the UT football team has to be done away with.

Or y'all could just join the Ivy League :)

I guess it's because we don't have anything like this in CT, and I didn't apply to any state schools for undergrad, but I don't see this being a big deal (beyond changed expectations for those students who want to go to UT). Doesn't this just turn into the same issue that every high school student will have in assessing their college choices?

Exactly.

I'm sorry, but I don't see any problem with the Top 10% rule. So some kids gets good grades and get left off their school's top 10%, so what? Not everyone can be in the Top 10%.

The people that should be blamed for how UT enrollment is today are the people in charge of budgeting the money to the schools. If the other UT schools could get enough funding, then maybe they might be a little bit more desirable to students. But until that happens, UT is going to be overcrowded.

Now lawmakers wanna lower the number of top 10% students---instead of it making up about 85% of UT's enrollemnt, then wanna make it something like 50% (or 15% can't really recall the number). Once they do that, there are gonna be people complaining that their kid can't get in. :rolleyes:

The Northeast as a whole is not as committed to keeping their students in-state than the South, Southwest, and West. I don't understand it. Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana offer full-tuition scholarships for in-state students who do well. New Jersey and New York lose more 18-year olds to out-of-state colleges than any other states in the country. I guess when you think of a top state school, nothing in the northeast comes to mind other than say, Penn State and Pitt.

Not every kid from Michigan feels like Ann Arbor is "owed" to them; the same is true for California, Virginia, and now Florida and Texas. Georgia's headed that way. I think the best thing to do is just realize that other schools have to be an option for the kids who can't stay within the top 10%.

That's true; UConn has gotten much better over the years for undergrad, but when it comes to Northeast state schools, in general their graduate programs (like UConn law and UConn and University of Vermont medicine) have better reputations than their undergrad programs. People I talk to who have high-achieving kids (high in their class and good SAT scores) tell me that more and more of those students are considering UConn, so perhaps things are starting to change, at least in CT. For the top 5% or so in my high school class, I think only one person considered UConn. The rest of us applied only to out-of-state schools and the private colleges within the state (Yale, Wesleyan, Trinity, etc.).

As to the rest of your post; it's just an interesting mindset for me, for someone to feel that a school is "owed" to them. Again though, as you said, it's just a far different mindset up here when it comes to state schools for undergrad.

I think it's a legacy thing, and how much the identity of some state residents is tied up in one or a handful of universities. Even though I grew up in Florida, where I grew up is close enough to Alabama that a lot of people have parents and grandparents who went to Alabama and Auburn; it's pretty much a given that they're going to get in, so if they don't, it's a big deal. I have a HS classmate who didn't go to Auburn, although her whole family did...she's pretty much the biggest Auburn booster I know!

I suspect it's even stronger in Texas, given that Texans seem to have a very strong identity related to the state.

You're correct, not everyone CAN be in the Top 10%....but just because they are does not mean that they should be guaranteed admission. When a student in Texas attends a high school so competitive that a 4.0 isn't even in the top 25% and is denied admission over a student with a 3.0 from a less competitive school and is in the top 10% who is admitted, there is a problem.

The President of UT recently released this report on the impact of the Top 10% Law on the university. Legislators voted to keep this law to assist high school students living in rural areas attending less competitive schools gain admission to Texas's flagship universities. According to this report, UT has seen no significant change in admissions of these "rural" students. If that's the case, then Texas legislators have no valid reason to retain this law.
http://www.utexas.edu/president/spee...dInterest=1292

Munchkin, you made my point. Yes, Florida guarantees admission to A state college to those who are in the top of their classes, BUT they don't guarantee that you can go to the school of your choice, it is spread over the 11 schools (or however many).

IF Florida was like Texas, then conceivably, every graduating senior in the top of the graduating classes in Florida could choose UF (it being somewhat the college of choice in Florida), thus it could completely overwhelm UF and eventually, there would be NO room for anyone from out of state or even all of the top graduates.

That is what is happening at UT. If you are in the top 10% in Texas, you are guaranteed a spot at your choice of Texas public colleges- since UT is THE most popular, a VAST majority choose it. It is getting to the point that they are running out of spots in the freshman class PERIOD! That is why they closed the summer program, they cannot offer those spots anymore because too many guaranteed people are choosing UT.

Read the report posted in UHDEEGEE's post - it spells it out plainly

The president of UT is saying that it is getting to the point that there will not be enough spots to even take all the 10%ers (why the athletics programs are in danger). What do they do then? Build more dorms? Hire more professors? UT is already one of the largest universities in the country (numbers wise) and it is landlocked in the center of Austin!!!

The law must be changed!

Also, as UHGEEDEE states above, at our highschool, the top 1/4 has significantly higher grades than a 4.0, so a straight A student who only takes "academic level" classes cannot even be in the top quarter.

I guess I could have pulled my son out of that school and transferred him to a crappy school where he would be assured of being at the top.

Oh well, he is currently still in the top 10% (despite his freshman B, his GPA is 4.49 and he is ranked at around 6%), he just has to finish this year with no B's while he is taking AP Physics, AP Calculus, AP English, AP US History, Spanish III, Journalism (he's the sports editor), and Football.

Yeah, that's clearly a kid who "couldn't hack getting into his state school with everyone else, and should maybe spend a year (or two) in community college" :rolleyes:

LOL! My husband and I have said this same thing. I have friends who pulled their kids out of our high school and put them into private school for this very reason.

The LAW in TEXAS is that they HAVE to guarantee admission to anyone in the top 10% who wants to go to UT-Austin - SO they can't ever be like UVA or Berkeley who can choose their new students by using a combination of GPA, Rank, Standardized Test Scores, Rigor of highschool curriculum, extra-curriculars, essays, etc.

That is my point!!! That there are better ways to choose the makeup of the incoming class, and that due to the Texas legislated laws, they have no discretion in their choice - it all comes down to ONE FACTOR - class rank!!!

UHGEEDEE, yeah, it's pretty pathetic when that is even a consideration you have to make - in our case it would have been to put him in one of the other publics where the turnover rate is 100% from fall to spring because they are all chasing the "Free Rents" at the area apartment complexes, so they move from school to school!

I understand you're frustrated, and it sounds like your son is doing some excellent work in high school...but you do realize there are a bunch of people on this site (myself included) who had these same numbers, with the same (or more) activities, without any sort of guarantee of getting into an in-state school?

I mean, maybe it's not the optimum situation; but really, this stuff happens all the time in the college admission process. Alums get preference, in-state people get preference over out-of-state people, etc.

Your son sounds like a good student, but many many other kids in the country have similar or superior track records, and many many of them don't get into their first choice schools. Again, admission into a school--even your state's flagship university--is owed to NO ONE.

Perhaps I'm more harsh about this than others would be, but I do a lot of work in college admissions, so I meet a lot of kids with impeccable records who get their hopes dashed every year and end up going to a school whose bumper sticker doesn't look as good on the back of the family SUV, but they're happy with. It all ends up working out. Really. It does.

It is in the State of Texas if you graduate from a Texas high school within the top 10% of your class...it's the law.

Look, I understand it's the law that you're guaranteed admission to a public school in Texas. It's the law in Florida too.

That does NOT mean that any student in the top 10% is entitled to get into UT-Austin and only UT-Austin.

You're guaranteed admission to any public school within the Texas system--which doesn't that include any and all UTs, A&M, and other state schools? I understand that there's a huge demand for UT-Austin because it's an excellent school, but still. My original point still stands. Just because you do well, the best school in your state isn't owed to you--a public school is. Remember, not every state with a great public university system can guarantee this!

I also understand why the law was instituted--since the Hopwood decision eliminated traditional affirmative action in the 5th District, they had to come up with a way to admit a diverse class. To that end, it has worked. UT is far more diverse both racially and socioeconomically than it was 10 years ago. More high schools are represented than pre-1998, and academic performance has improved, since the 10% admits do better in college than the others.

Who wants to go to public school anyway? *barf*

:mad:

LMAOOOOOOOO

My school had crosses, beeeeeyatch!

I don't think it's harsh at all, I think it's just the reality of the process.

I agree with Ksigkid and Munchkin. Sorry, but I don't care if your kid has a 6.0 GPA, cured cancer, and solved the economic crisis. To feel like you are owed an education, let alone at one specific school, is pretty unrealistic, even if it is the LAW.

And last time I checked, there were A LOT of public schools in Texas and none of them were bottom-of-the-barrel. Your kid is not going to end up taking fry orders at McD's just because they didn't get into UT-Austin.

Okay, take my kid and my feelings about it out of it (he's probably going to be top 10% anyway).

- For argument sake, say all universities decided that grades no longer mattered, that SAT/ACT scores in the top 5% guaranteed you admission - forget holistic reviews, forget anything else that goes into what makes a student. Only Test Scores. So kids who can ace a test in one sitting would get in over kids who have proven by making good grades that they can be successful in their studies day after day. Do you think that is a good way to pick college students? With only ONE aspect of who they are, and what constitutes them as a student, considered??

What if the one thing they decided to count was essays? So, only the best writers could get into college, leaving out mathmeticians and engineers. Would that be a good way?

The reason schools like UVA, Berkeley, Harvard, Yale (pretty much every other school in the country) use Holistic (meaning they look at the ENTIRE application - grades, testscores, activities, essays, etc.) is because they feel that it gives them a complete picture of the person, and they can have a more diverse and interesting mix of students, bringing different talents and assets to the university.

Now change that to the idea of ONLY using class rank and see what it would do to the makeup of the campus. Is that more fair? Is that a better way?

AND, Munchkin, as for your arguments -

1. Hopwood was overturned:

So race can now be used as a determining factor in admission - takes care of the need for the 10% rule

2. From the The Top 10% Law Report and its impact:

AND from the Austin American Statesman

This statement can be backed up by information on the University of Texas Common Data Set, but there's way to much to quote here.

AND

3. From the report:

There is also no discernable difference in retention or graduation rates.

Look y'all, I've been involved with this for 6 years (when my oldest was looking at schools, ironically, he ended up at UF) - I know the statistics, I know the arguments for both sides, and based on a lot of study, I've come down on the side that college admissions should be based on more than ONE factor.

EVERY other TOP school in the country uses a holistic measure. If it was better to only use ONE factor, then schools across the country would be doing that - it would certainly cut down on salaries for admissions folks.

And, the University of Texas is desperate (see all the information regarding the President of UT's pleas to the legislature) to change the laws. If it was a good way to fill their school, do you think they'd be trying to change it???

I agree with you, srmom.

Yeah, but was it founded by a Saint?

Thanks:)

No. :(

That's OK. I still love ya, but mine was founded by a Saint. :p

Mine too! :D

Loyola?

Yes, but Hopwood was overturned in 2003; the 10% law was instituted in 1998-99 (I believe). So, why didn't the State legislature change the law when Hopwood was overturned? Clearly, someone is benefitting from that law.

Please don't think I pulled my statements out of a hat:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...z/5634400.html

This article states that black and hispanic enrollment at UT increased by an average of 30%.

http://www.utexas.edu/student/admiss...8-Report10.pdf

This one supports the assertion that the students who are admitted under the 10% deal actually do better. Who better than the actual university to determine how its students are faring?

I can tell that this may impact your kid, which might be why you're so against it. But, I've been involved in selective college admissions for a while--if I wasn't doing architecture as a career, that's what I'd be doing, and I might start doing it full-time within a few years--and we're extremely familiar with national trends, and not just state/regional ones. The Texas, Florida, and California responses to the removal of race-based affirmative action is a VERY hot topic, and one I feel completely qualified to discuss.

The plan may not be perfect, but it shouldn't be thrown out completely just because your kid may not be guaranteed entry to UT-Austin.

I doubt it will change anytime soon, so this back-and-forth may be a moot point.

Obviously, you and I will never agree and that's fine.

I, personally, feel that colleges benefit from having artists, musicians, athletes, mathmeticians, writers, etc. This is also believed by a vast majority of both public and private institutions. That is why they have Holistic Reviews when evaluating applications.

AND -

Actually, you're wrong in stating that the reason I'm so against it is because of my kid.

I was against it 5 years ago when my oldest was accepted to UT because of NMF status; I was against it 2 years ago when my middle son was accepted because of class rank (he was 1%); I will be against it when this son is (most likely) accepted because he will be top 10% (unless he completely caves this semester - his class rank will be set at the end of this, his junior year).

The reason I'm against it, as are a large percentage of Texas residents, is because we are against the idea that college admissions should be decided by ONE factor and one factor only - as I laid out in my novel on the last page. And, I feel strongly that it will hurt our state college system in the long wrong to be shackled by this law that does not allow for any discretion on the part of the admissions committees to look at anything other than rank.

If college admissions based solely on rank is such a fair and fantastic method of acceptance, then why don't all schools move to this? It would certainly speed up the process and make it much more economical - no need to read those pesky resumes or essays, no need to verify test scores.

What a waste of time - CLASS RANK is the only indicator of how a student will perform!

You know, another biproduct of this would be to put the evil College Board (who administers the SAT) out of business! No need for test scores anymore!!

Let's start a movement!!

CLASS RANK IS KING!

FORGET HOLISTIC REVIEWS!

THIS WILL SOLVE ALL THE ILLS OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS!

I bet the Ivies will jump right on board! What do you think?

But doesn't this analysis only work if every student outside of the top 10% is shut out? I mean, there's still a chance for them to be admitted, right? They just won't get the automatic acceptance that goes with being in the top 10%?

I just think there's a big difference between the rule limiting the amount of people who get admitted, and completely shutting everyone else out. Looking at your analysis, you don't make that distinction.

Thank you! I was just about to call BS on srmom claiming that the black & Hispanic enrollment hadn't increased since '97.


I'm just going to say that I am NOT referring to anyone here on GC, because I haven't seen these type of comments, but I (and many of my friends) have been hearing these things....so here I go.

I am soooo sorry that you don't think the Top 10% rule is inadequate for your situation. But i'm soo tired of hearing, "well if the students in your city can't pull the grades to compete with students in Austin/Dallas/Houston, then too bad, you have UTEP." UTEP is a good school, a great school but this isn't the fucking '60s. You keep referring to us going to UTEP, because you wanna keep us "stupid Mexicans" out of UT. I'm sorry that your son/daughter couldn't get into UT w/ the Top 10% and that he had some outrageous 10.0/4.0 scale. But to say that, "his/her spot probably got taken by some stupid kid in El Paso" doesn't make you look too bright. Me, along with the other El Paso students, deserve to have a good education. We should be given the option of being accepted at any state school and not be relegated to UTEP just because it's here.

Don't blame the Top 10% school, just say what you really feel. You want UT to be white-washed, and want all the minorities at the smaller state schools. God forbid that your son/daughter couldn't get into UT and had to go to UTEP. :rolleyes:

/end rant



I know that srmom and the others probably don't feel this way, but everytime I see the whole "my child has a 4.0 and still can't get in the top 10%" I remember these conversations.

I got this from a news article I was just reading from the LA Times and thought is was apropos to my view:

KSigkid - read this report put out by UT - it will explain the conundrum that UT is getting into. You ask if every student outside the top 10% could be shut out - the answer is Yes. That is why they are not having "summer admits" this year - they don't have room in the freshman class for those non-top 10% kids this year. They are projecting that by 2013 there will be NO spots at all for anyone out of the top 10%.

http://www.utexas.edu/president/spee...dInterest=1292

and epchick - I don't even know where to start with your post, honestly... as you so eloquently put - that you were going to call bs on my post, please read the above report. The quote I sited earlier comes directly from it.

I'm not trying to keep anyone out. I would hope that the people who get in have more to offer than just a rank.

Like I've said, one single soletary measure, in Texas's case RANK, should not be the entirety of a student's admissions criteria - there's just too much that goes into what would make a student an asset to a campus.

To quote from the report (for those who don't want to read it):

How's that for a diverse and interesting campus composit??

You know, I sometimes feel the same way when I hear those complaints. A lot of people, even mediocre students, feel like they're "owed" their state flagship, and if they don't get it--blame a minority! That seems to be what triggered the four major affirmative action lawsuits of our time.

Yeah, that's what it's all about. I want UT to be a white enclave of priviledged students from suburbia - You've all found me out:cool:

Forget all the other tripe I've posted, it's clearly just to cloud the argument from my real purpose - white supremacy

Thank Heavens I don't have to hide behind the mask of reasonableness and fair judgement that I've been wearing.

so glad to see you've read the entirety of my posts - snark.

Beating my head against the wall......:(