Texas top 10% HS admissions challenged (again)

[simba]

"Simba, that study you stated has no basis if it doesn't also include how many students were in the study and their academic credentials."

actually that study was very comprehensive and done by researcher(s) at Princeton. They looked at data from several years.

[ldmom06]

"If you think that students who did not take AP classes in high school should be denied admission to A&M and UT as a freshman, then I disagree."
-----------

I did not say this Hi-power. But what I did say was that a candidate who was lackluster in all areas except a ginned up rank created by a local grading system that allows for gaming should get in line behind outstanding candidates who rank outside the top ten percent merely because they opted for a strenuous courseload and unfortunately reside in an area that causes them to attend a highly competitive public school.

Furthermore, my complaint is that holistic evaluation plays no part in the admissions of approximately 70% of the latest freshman class at Texas and about 50% of the same at Texas A&M. These students essentially could have submitted their rank to either flagship and not bothered to take the SAT, participate in extracurricular activities, submit an infernal number of essays or counselor/teacher recommendations for admission into the universities as a whole. They could have just had their h.s. counselors fax over rank and the colleges could fax back an acceptance letter. Imho, this is not how you build a great university.

Even the most competitive of colleges at UT seem to rely too much on rank for program admissions. There is no excuse for this since no law requires UT to only accept the top 2% to McCombs for example. It's just a bad, bad trend that is seemingly contagious and doesn't accomplish what was originally intended....racial diversity. I suppose it's great if the top ten percent law increases the number of rural kids at the flagships; but the law was adopted for the purpose of increasing racial diversity. If it doesn't get the job done, then it needs to go away.

[fabrizio]

Idmom06,

I thought about applying to Texas a few months ago. I read that even if a student is in the top 10% of his class, he still needs to complete the Texas Common Application for admission.

I think he'd have to write a few essays and submit recommendations (application has to be complete), but he wouldn't have to do volunteer work or participate in extracurriculars.

[simba]

fabrizio: You are correct. Also remember that top 10% only guarantees you a spot. You may not get the major you want to study.

[Hi-Power]

"actually that study was very comprehensive and done by researcher(s) at Princeton. They looked at data from several years."

Yet you have not posted the rest of the data. All you've said is the summary, without posting the data, and where the research came from.

If you meant it in that context, ldmom, then I agree with you. But I don't think you HAVE to go to an AP class in order to get into UT or A&M. I agree with you 100% on the rest of what you say. However, being in extracurricular activies during high school DOES help your chances at getting a scholarship. True, it might not help with admission requirements at all but at the very least you can get some scholarships.

The good thing though is if you can't get into UT or A&M, you can also bust your butt somewhere else and transfer in. For someone that's gifted that shouldn't be hard to do. Except you can't really transfer in to the business school at either university directly.

fabrizio, I've never made the assumption that every single well-to-do family sends their kids to a private school. Please quit putting words in my mouth. But I'll tell you one thing, there's a good reason why a lot of them DO send their kids to private schools and it isn't just because they can afford to.

I really don't care where you're from, fabrizio, because it's obvious to me that I wouldn't want to come from your background. You have to have intelligence in the first place for me to insult it, and the fact that you can't even understand the phrase "for the most part" and that you read words that aren't even there doesn't really change my judgment.

If you live in Georgia, then what do you know about the CURRENT situation with public schools in Texas? Not enough to be a part of this thread it seems.

lonestardad, it's not the state's damn business to "level the playing field" when it comes to education and the economy. The ones that have the best chance of contributing to the economy should be the ones that get the nod towards a good university, not someone from X racial background.

Money isn't really an issue when it comes to admission standards, so I don't think saying that kids from "more privileged" backgrounds has any bearing on admissions. The fact is that there's a lot more kids who CAN succeed that do NOT go to inner-city schools than vice versa. So why are the inner-city schools getting an upper hand?

I almost went to an inner-city high school myself until my parents became the wiser and put me someplace else. I know exactly what they're like, and succeeding academically is NOT the top priority at those, regardless of all the movies you watch. I had a friend of mine that DID go to an inner-city school who was pretty bright. He could have succeeded at ANY high school in Texas; he didn't need a handout from the state (top 10% rule) to succeed.

My problem with Texas public educations, and the Texas legislature in general, is that they ASSUME that Texas public high schools are, on average, great institutions. That's why I have a problem with the top 10% rule. By law, they have to allow some slacker with a 3.25 GPA at a less competitve school, like an inner-city school, in as long as he's in the top ten percent. However, for some kid who's not in the top 10%, but in say the top 20% at a really good, really competitive high school, it's a crap shoot for him to join. Just go over to the UT-Austin message board on this site and you'll see what I mean. Generally bright students that have to sweat bullets.

I met a girl once that was in the top 11% of her class and still couldn't get into UT. I don't know if she could have handled the coursework or not but I'd imagine that there's other high schools in Texas where she would have been in the top 10% and then automatically accepted.

If the high schools in Texas are not the same academically, why is the State of Texas assuming that they are as far as top 10% admissions? All it turns into is a big "diversity" mess that screws over more people than it helps.

[ldmom06]

fabrizio -

I was speaking conceptually. For admission to the university, top ten percent guarantees your spot in COLA (Plan I) at a minimum. AND unfortunately, rank plays a far too important role in an applicant's admission to competitive colleges/majors like McCombs, journalism, Plan II, etc..., regardless of quality of essays, ecs or SATs.

Reliance on rank, seemingly, makes the rest of the application process to be merely 'going through the motions'.

[simba]

"Yet you have not posted the rest of the data. All you've said is the summary, without posting the data, and where the research came from."

don't be lazy. If you want to check the data go do it yourself. Think google.

[fabrizio]

Hi-Power,

Your new sentence, "But...there's a good reason why a lot...DO send...," is much clearer than the old sentence.

For someone who "really [doesn't] care where [I'm] from," you must have had a lapse of judgment when you assumed that I came from a 'lower-tier' public high school in Texas. (Despite the fact that my location says Georgia, which doesn't border Texas.)

And since you don't care where I'm from, then you shouldn't mind my participating in this discussion, unless you're embarrassed that a high school senior is exposing your shoddy sentence construction.

Hi-Power, let's review your words once more, because it appears to me that your memory is a mere shadow of what it used to be. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)

No, actually, Texas high schools and public education for the most part are a joke.

In context, Texas high schools is referring to Texas public high schools, which is a subset of American public education (i.e. it is a specific example.)

You then mentioned "public education for the most part." Hence, you were no longer writing simply about one part of American public education; you were writing about the whole. You went from the specific to the general. In previous posts, you claimed that Texas high schools are atrocious. With the quoted sentence, you expanded that claim to the whole of American public education. Thus, according to you, not only do Texas (public) high schools suck, most (public) high schools in other states also suck.

It's not my fault that your writing is poor. Please don't blame my "lack of intelligence" for one of your problems. If you have the time, I recommend that you purchase Strunk and White's The Elements of Style. I believe you will find it enlightening.

Once again, have a nice day!

[fabrizio]

Idmom06,

Reliance on rank, seemingly, makes the rest of the application process to be merely 'going through the motions'.

I see your argument, and yes, that seems to be the case.

[higherlead]

"I hate this because in my area there are great schools and deplorable ones. I know of kids who transfer to these deplorable ones where a 2.8 is top 5%"

And why is that a bad thing? This law is doing exactly what it was intended to do which is why the upper middle class is screaming so loud. I think it is a good thing and will in the long run improve the economic base of poorer school districts in Texas, increase diviersity in Texas universities in a fair manner with resorting to racially based affirmative action quotas where kids are admitted from separate racially based pools of applicants, and in the long run tap hithertoo untapped human potential in the state which will benefit all Texans.

[bbecker]

Are you people ragging on "high achievers", since when is it bad. I do see the bad in the admission rule for other people yes it is unfair but why take bad about the kids who worked so hard to get the GPA and SAT scores they did? I dont understand. It's almost like some parent's and student's are looking down upon people for who do very well instead of just barely making it.

[BG123456]

The fallacy with some of the thought processes here is the assumption that those who currently don't get in to UT because of the top 10% rule would get an admit to UT if the rule didn't exist. Some of them might but not all would. UT is committed to enrolling as diverse a student body as possible - all kinds of diversity - not just racial. I do think UT should have some more flexiblity in determining who gets an admit but I also think some level of automatic admit (maybe top 5%) is a good thing. UT is a state school, funded by tax dollars. As such, it is tasked with ensuring that it educates a diverse student body from all walks of life in the state. Not all top 10% kids choose UT, many have other schools, outside of Texas as their first choice schools. I just don't think that a kid should be automatically tracked to a particular University/college simply because of where or to whom he was born.
UT has published lots of information and research on the performance of their top 10% admits. Believe it or not, those kids do as well as and sometimes better than those who enter UT with much higher stats. Check it out.

[higherlead]

The folks screaming the loadest about the 10% rule, most of whom are upper middle class kids and parents from well funded suburban school districts don't like the results I have a couple of possible solutions for them. One is to tell their legislators and gonernor to pump more money into the university system so there are more slots and the schools can dig deeper than 10%. A second option is to do something to improve the funding and hence the quality of the crappy schools in the state and athird is to move to a poorer school district and see if you can just slide in by ranking in the top 10%.

Dropping this rule without putting more tax money into the system will neither improve your chances or make the system more equitable. What UT and A&M will do if the rule goes away is have three separate admissions pools with set asides for each and region quotas within them. Whites will compete against whites, blacks against blacks, and hispanics against hispanics and each group will have to have regional diversity. This of course is illegal but that is a law that can't be enforced and is exactly what Michigan does now thought hey will lie right through their teeth about it if asked.

Yes there are some problems with this system but by and large it is fair, merit based, and color blind plus it allows the taxpayers of the state to improve the situation if they so desire and are willing to cough up the tax dollars.

[ldmom06]

higherlead -

First, the purpose of the top 10% law was to promote racial diversity and to address the fact that the racial makeup of the student body at Texas flagships did not mirror the racial makeup of college eligible students in the state of Texas. The law has not accomplished this prime directive. The increase in Hispanic and African American students at UT-Austin and Texas A&M has not significantly increased since implementation of the law. Logically, since the law doesn't work, it seems there is no reason for the law.

Furthermore, to consider just one parameter in an admissions decision doesn't make sense unless that paramenter is computed in a consistent manner across all schools in all parts of the state. If the state can't figure out how to make rank a comparatively meaningful number, they have no business implementing a law that places such importance on that number.

[higherlead]

"it seems there is no reason for the law."

Yes if you want to go back to an affirmative action quota system that is as harmful to the beneficiary as it is to society in general there is no reason for it. OTOH the mere fact that racial diversity has remained the same or slightly increased under a system that is merit based and color blind is a plus in my book. What is keeping minorities out now is finances and that is a lot easier to fix than racial suspicion.

The fact that the folks screaming about the 10% rule are the very same ones who have it in their power to increase and redirect state resources put towards public education and who have disproportionately sucked up those resources is neither surprising nor cause for alarm as far as I am concerned. Rather it is a sign that the system is working. Throw more rsources into the system and take the percentag to 15 if you want. Make one more flagship. Better yet if you thing it terrible that a 3.0 can put you in the top 10% in some school throw more resources in that direction and make it harder to get there.

The bottom line is there always has to be a way to ration a scarce resource and this one seems to make a lot more sense to me than either racial quotas or biased standardized tests or the economic discrimination that results in poor kids going to poorly funded schools.