Re GT going private: “The big problem is real estate. The Georgia Tech Foundation only owns a fraction of GT’s land, and they would have to buy the rest from the Board of Regents.”
So GT will drop from 29 to ? in the USNWR rankings? Their endowment is over $1B and they get over $1B in research grants every year. They’ll be OK.
Lets use CMU as an example. CMU SCS had 9,209 applicants last year. Only 218 enrolled. Where will the other 8,991 high stat kids go? I bet some go to GT.
Not sure how fundamentally changed GT would become. We’re only talking some more in-state EA applicants. They’re not talking about lowering standards. Look through the GT threads. Plenty of in-state, high stat kids were denied or deferred.
GT has over a $1B endowment and I’m sure they can raise more easily. They also get over $1B in research money. I think they can figure something out. It’s funny how money can solve problems. They could build a satellite campus. Build high-speed transit. Probably get government money to do it too. Be a big project for GT engineers.
Current middle 50% ACT scores:
Caltech: 35-36
MIT: 34-36
GT: 31-34
How, do you suppose, the proposal being discussed would impact GT’s scores, @chmcnm?
GT used to have a satellite campus. They closed it.
GT could still keep the same overall class makeup they have now, but just have to change how the do their EA and RD process. The bill only states that EA acceptances have to be 90% in-state, not total admissions. They could make EA primarily for in-state acceptances and the EA OOS acceptances would primarily just be students selected as Stamps and Gold finalist. There would be a lot more EA OOS deferred. Then in RD OOS acceptance rate would be higher and the in-state much lower. For the EA OOS students that get deferred that would have normally been accepted they could even provide some sort statement or guarantee that if they respond to the continued interest inquiry and provide updated grades they will be accepted in RD. Not sure if that last part is truly feasible, but you get the idea. This would put more pressure on in-state students to get their application in EA.
Has this bill gained support outside of the author’s district ?
Alpharetta is a wealthy community & seems to be the center of the often repeated complaint that Tech limits admissions by zip code.
Great move politically by the State Senator from Alpharetta, but probably not in the best interests of Georgia Tech & of the state of Georgia (which benefits from attracting highly talented, hard-working students from other states & countries).
Don’t know. Better comparison would be CS/Engineering averages. That’s mostly what OOS kids want at GT. Does GT break them down?
GT also admits more kids and is a public school. They also weight GPA higher than scores in admission. The infamous “holistic approach”.
Will GT lose OOS applicants? Maybe a few but @Chekov was GT ever your kids top pick? There will always be those that pick MIT/CMU/Stanford first. So where do all the rest go…and there are a lot of other kids out there.
GT isn’t a bad 2nd choice and there’s so many kids they’ll be OK.
FYI. My son texted me today. We’re OOS in Pa. 10 kids from his Calc BC class applied to GT. 1 admit, 2 deferred (son), 7 rejects. All those kids are high stats kids.
Also, MIT/CMU/Stanford are all private colleges. They don’t differentiate in-state and OOS so no this kind of message sent anyway, which exactly was my point.
You listed probably the 2 colleges with the highest test scores in the world (Caltech has the highest one for sure). There’re many others perceived as more prestigious such as ivies, Duke, Chicago, JH etc. that many OOS students could happily apply instead.
DS took Calculus BC Sophomore year, FWIW.
How does this proposal by this politician differ ethically (not legally) from what Harvard was sued for by Asians? That is, favoring one group defined by a superficial characteristic while disfavoring another group with a differing superficial characteristic?
@racereer I was thinking the same. If high stat OOS all come in via RD and GT chooses to try and retain some level of OOS admits, then it would drive the Georgia applicants to EA. You’d end up with a really weird admissions process.
GT aspires to be a public Ivy. If the legislators do this, it will turn the clock back on GT, and it will probably end up looking like it did in earlier years: more in-state, more white, and more male. That is counter to the trend of the other public Ivies like UMichigan, Berkeley, etc. Anyway, it’s all speculation for now.
GT was 32-35 for this EA
So did my S19, though he did not get accepted to MIT. What math is your DS going to complete in HS? My S19 completed through DiffEQ. GT accepted all of his math credits (Calc BC, MV, LA) except DiffEQ since it was only a DE 3 credit class while at GT it is a 4 credit class. He took it his first semester and got an A. What is MIT going to accept for math credits? When we asked I thought they would allow them to try and test out up to a certain level.
Ok? Good for him? What’s the point?
Some take it earlier, some later. Some load up on sciences early, math later. Some kids even it out because of sports and ECs.
Re: RoboticsDad’s comment: “Wow, 73% of EA acceptances are already going to instate residents? That seems high for a world class institution like Tech. And the Senator is not satisfied with that?”
No, this is not enough for the senator because the senator knows that increasing the percentage even beyond the whopping 73% it already is will buy votes for the senator, as he has constituents who cannot get in to Georgia Tech under the current admissions platform because they don’t meet the criteria. It is entirely a self-serving gesture. If the senator was truly interested in the quality of education in his state (instead of winning votes for himself), he would do everything in his power to support and foster the amazing school that Georgia Tech has become.
In just a few short years, GT has shot to the top of the engineering rankings. It’s #1 in Industrial, #2 in Aerospace, and #4 overall. It’s ahead of the Ivies and Stanford in most engineering disciplines. That’s quite an incredible accomplishment for any school, but especially for one that admits so few out-of-state students. They are indeed the cream of the crop that drives this bus, as I have stated in other posts. To diminish their numbers and instead admit lower-quality in-state students who currently don’t meet standards would be disastrous for the school. As a vehement supporter of Georgia Tech, I am so disheartened by this. To think that an accomplishment of this magnitude could be knocked down to serve the selfish interests of a few is maddening.
Although one poster said that “Georgia Tech will be just fine,” well, my response is that the school is far, far better than “just fine” right now as it is one of the best in the world. It won’t be able to hold on to that distinction if it becomes a 90% Georgia admit school. Is that really what you want for it? Why would anyone not want it to rise even higher?
I attended a parents group webinar last week, and when a question was posed about what parents wanted to see for the school over the next decade, the resounding #1 response was for it to become even more respected and higher-ranked than it is now. Nobody was in favor of this proposed sham legislation. Do you want a lesser-quality school that is available for more Georgia students, or a higher-quality school that is available for fewer Georgia students while still admitting them in huge numbers? I don’t see how anyone could pick the former unless they are the parent of a kid who can’t cut it under the current system.
I’ve been looking online for information about Georgia Tech’s position on the matter (one poster said the school opposes it, not surprisingly) but I can’t find anything. Steer me in the right direction? Curiously, this ridiculously short-sighted legislation does nothing to help UGA either, which is also enjoying a surge in reputation, albeit nothing on massive scale of Georgia Tech’s. What a shame this is.
Son completed Multivariable Calculus/Diff Eq and Linear Algebra/Discrete Math Junior year, and is doing independent study Senior year. I do not know that that was necessarily a big factor in his admissions (his national and international STEM awards are probably more unique than his HS course load), but it likely did not hurt either.
MIT accepts some credits automatically, and allows one to try to test out of others:
https://firstyear.mit.edu/academics-exploration/ap-and-transfer-credit/advanced-placement
http://math.mit.edu/academics/undergrad/first/advanced.php
That GT is probably quite used to seeing Calc BS on HS transcripts.
Ok. Let’s say you’re a high stat student from Georgia. Your parents pay taxes to Georgia. Your family roots are in Georgia. You apply to GT and get denied. How would you feel?
You have a world class institution close by. You can see your family. COA is $28k/year. Much less with Zell or Hope. Now you have to go OOS to get a comparable education AND it could cost you another $200k.
That’s what the bill is trying to stop. It’s only for EA, not overall and nobody said it would lower stats. Look through the EA thread. You’ll see in-state kids with high stats that were rejected.
Someone said it would deter high stat, hard working kids from OOS. Is that better or worse than forcing high stat in state kids to go OOS?
@WhrlingColleges you might want to read some of the further discussion as the 73% is not correct. While we don’t know the true EA numbers, overall GT actually admits almost twice as many OOS applicants than in-state as they get over 4.5X the OSS applications. Though the in-state yield is much higher, so the class make up ends up being 55-60% in-state. Also look at post #485 as it describes how GT could still keep the same class make-up if this bill were passed since the 90% was only a restriction on EA.
@WhrlingColleges As was mentioned previously, the 73/27 mix assumed 50/50 in-state/OOS EA applicants, which is probably not true. Let’s say it is more like 3xOOS, which is closer to the ratio from the total (ED+RD) applications. Then you have about 5K EA in-state applicants and about 15K EA OOS applicants. Using the 40%/15% admit rates, you end up with about 50 in-state, 50 OOS for every 100 admits. That would change to 90 in-state, 10 OOS.
The bigger question in all of this is what is the role of premier state-funded universities.