Fairly shocking admissions news from UT

[srmom]

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.

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!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by srmom

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.

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by srmom

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"

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.

[UHDEEGEE]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Again, admission into a school--even your state's flagship university--is owed to NO ONE.

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.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UHDEEGEE

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.

[Senusret I]

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

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

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

[Senusret I]

LMAOOOOOOOO

My school had crosses, beeeeeyatch!

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

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

[Kappamd]

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.

[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???

[Senusret I]

I agree with you, srmom.

[aopirose]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

LMAOOOOOOOO

My school had crosses, beeeeeyatch!

Yeah, but was it founded by a Saint?

[srmom]

Thanks

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by aopirose

Yeah, but was it founded by a Saint?

No.