Fairly shocking admissions news from UT

[srmom]

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.

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.

Hopwood was overturned:

On June 23, 2003, the Supreme Court abrogated Hopwood in Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) in which the high court found that the United States Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body." The ruling means that universities in the Fifth Circuit's jurisdiction can again use race as a factor in admissions (as long as quotas are not used, per Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)).

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

2.

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,

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

Since the implementation of the Top 10% Law, there has been no significant change in the percentage of UT students from school districts classified as "rural" or "non-metropolitan" by the Texas Education Agency.

AND from the Austin American Statesman

Enrollment of Hispanics and blacks has not risen significantly since 1997

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.

and academic performance has improved, since the 10% admits do better in college than the others.

From the report:

While Top 10% students on average earn slightly higher grades at UT, the performance is not uniform throughout the Top 10%. Those students in the 6th through 10th percentile of their high school graduating class earn on average a grade point equal to students in the 11th through the 20th percentile.

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???

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by srmom

AND, Munchkin, as for your arguments -


Hopwood was overturned:

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

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.

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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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

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.

/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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by epchick

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.

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.

[mu_agd]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

I felt I was too good for my state flagship. what does that say about me?

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by mu_agd

I felt I was too good for my state flagship. what does that say about me?

Haha, it probably says the same thing about you that it says about me. I didn't even consider UConn undergrad.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Haha, it probably says the same thing about you that it says about me. I didn't even consider UConn undergrad.

I felt like I HAD to apply to UF, but as soon as I got my acceptance letter from my alma mater, I chucked the UF offer. It was my super duper safety.