University of Texas Supreme Court case

[momof4girls]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

I wasn't trying to make an argument for why she didn't get. I was merely trying to dispel the mediocre statement. The whole bases of her case is UT is choosing students based race/ethnicity that fall outside the top 10% rule, which she doesn't believe should be the universities right. She believes the 10% rule provides enough diversity in and unto itself that race/ethnicity should be stricken when considering the balance of the freshman class.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

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).

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Really? Reverse discrimination? Are you going to go there? Please don't be so boring.

Originally Posted by HQWest

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. The Tier 1 Carnegie classifications have to do with the number of graduate degrees given, research dollars brought in, etc.. It is not affected by quality of undergraduate education or the undergraduate experience. So UH could be doing top notch research though medical programs or a research institute but this may not affect their undgergrads much. Some of their ease of access and surge in research can be done through collaboration or funding from Houston companies (which might explain how they got there before Tech).

This is why I said...

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

IIRC, UH has been named Tier 1 by one measure, and is likely to be the next "official" Tier 1 university in the state.

Look for UT-Arlington to be moving up fast in both areas though

I hope so

Originally Posted by 33girl

Is UT wholly state-owned or is it just state-affiliated?

State-owned

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Also, couldn't she have transferred to UT, if going was so important to her?

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.

[carnation]

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

[knight_shadow]

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

[carnation]

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!

[knight_shadow]

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

[justgo_withit]

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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).

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?

[carnation]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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

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!"

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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?

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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

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

[33girl]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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?

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.