Buried in the news is the statement “the System would support potential legislation under which, beginning in 2025, UW–Madison would admit the top 5% of graduates from Wisconsin high schools, based on their GPA ranking. (Other Universities of Wisconsin institutions would admit the top 10%.)”
If passed (which looks like it will, as part of the compromise), UW–Madison and the rest of the UW system will follow the footsteps of UT–Austin and Texas A&M (auto admit for instate top 6% and 10%). How UW–Madison handles this top 5% rule will be interesting to see.
First, UT–Austin’s auto admit does not guarantee a major, only admission to the university. This gives the university an out, allowing it to place students it is forced to take in “unpopular” majors. Will UW–Madison do something similar?
Second, auto admit has helped make UT–Austin extremely competitive for OOS (<10%). Will UW–Madison head down the same path? Although Wisconsin’s population is only a fraction of Texas’, UW–Madison is far more likely to be the number 1 choice for Wisconsinites than UT–Austin is for Texans. So will the OOS acceptance rate of 43% in 2023, take a nose dive starting 2025? Will Minnesotans get squeezed out too?
Third, the top x% rule favors rural folks in Texas and makes it insanely difficult for students from competitive school districts (e.g., Plano and Richardson in Dallas) to get into UT–Austin and Texas A&M. Looks like high schoolers from Madison and Milwaukee will be facing the brunt of this change (as intended by Republicans, of course).
The rule was historically adopted to address racial disparities in the absence of using race as an overt factor in admissions. Isnt that the case here? UW Madison student demographics do not remotely resemble the actual ethnic diversity of that state.
UT Austin is extremely popular among Texans; most are aware by early in high school they have little chance of admission. UT Austin does not place people into unpopular majors so much as limit the admission to the most popular impacted majors, wherein class rank is again used as a determining factor. Liberal arts are almost never impacted, so students have their choice in that school.
It makes me sad that three generations of my family attended UT but none of the next generation will. My nephews and niece did very well at Austin High School but didn’t rank high enough to get into UT.
My OOS son was admitted into biomedical engineering but fell ill and dropped out after his first year.
Not doubting the extreme popularity of UT–Austin, just that there isn’t a “close second,” Texas A&M equivalent in the state of Wisconsin to compete with UW–Madison for students. Much like there isn’t a close second in the state of Ohio to compete with Ohio State. Hence my statement “UW–Madison is far more likely to be the number 1 choice for Wisconsinites than UT–Austin is for Texans.”
Also not trying to debate the merit of the top x% rule. The debate would inevitably become political and take on a life of its own . I’m just curious how UW–Madison plans to handle this change. I mentioned UT–Austin and Texas A&M only because they are among the small number of schools in the country that have had this rule in place for years. UW–Madison is new to this.
UW Madison’s demographics were not particularly diverse with affirmative action. I don’t think that was the primary objective behind the law. It will have the effect of decreasing the outcomes where high achieving kids get rejected from their state, flagship school.
It would appear this rule would result in a student body that more closely mirrors the 30% of the state that is black or hispanic. Given how segregated public high schools are, that is the typical result. And yes, kids from affluent suburbs do suffer as a result.
Wisconsin has 1 state flagship for just under 6 million citizens. Texas has 2 flagships for over 30 million. I still think you have the better deal.
I stand corrected. I read a couple articles on the initiative and the legislature is definitely trying to reach first-generation college students and other potential students who might not have considered attending a four-year school. Good for them. Resources in high school can give a big leg up over schools that don’t have the same.
Idunno – couldn’t we probably consider Texas Tech and the U of Houston to be flagship(ish) schools as well? They certainly are if measured by enrollment.
The only other UW system school over 20,000 students is UW-Milwaukee – with fewer than half as many as UW-Madison.
No, the school that would come closest to flagship status next would be UT Dallas, which already has a stronger undergrad student academic profile that UT Austin.
Texas Tech and UH serve an important purpose but flagship status is not it.
UW Madison has about 90% the number of undergraduates as UT Austin, but is in a state with about 20% of the population. So it is unlikely that a top 5% automatic admission rule at UW Madison would fill up anywhere close to about three quarters of the class like top 6% automatic admission does at UT Austin. This would leave plenty of space available for non-automatic admission, unlike at UT Austin, which all non-automatic admission applicants should view as a reach. (Even if you add Texas A&M as another Texas flagship, a similar calculation holds.)
Focusing on class rank does introduce a greater level of competition within any given high school, although it may not be as intense as it has been reported in Texas.
I agree that Wisc won’t fill as much of the class as UT Austin. Just noting that it’s 75% of the in-state students (which typically comprise about 90% of an incoming class) that are Top 6% at UT Austin, not 75% of the entire class, according to the law:
Under this law, 75 percent of the first-year in-state students must be automatically admitted. The law requires the university set the threshold for automatic admission on an annual basis to meet these requirements,
It will be interesting to see how Wisconsin writes their law about this, and to what degree they will have to increase course offerings and supports for the students who may not be college ready (something UT Austin does well but it also costs $$$).
Oh well… 9 to 8 votes. UW system students, employees, and Wisconsin residents continue to pay the price for this political struggle .
The compromise was to not completely eliminate DEI, but limit it, so each side can claim they win. The ‘no’ to a system-wide pay raise and to a long overdue engineering building will hurt the most.
Wonder how many universities in the country have to consistently go through this.
I am used to colleges like Michigan. They go out of their way for their students and families. Lots of building happening on campus.I feel for the Wisconsin students. The politics is going to destroy a very good school. If their nonsense continues many families will choose to go elsewhere.
In another twist, UW Regents re-voted to approve the rejected deal. Looks like the top 5% rule for UW–Madison will happen after all, along with a new engineering building and a system-wide pay raise.
I love UWisconsin just don’t like their state politics etc. I didn’t read the article but Michigan has like free tuition for fsmikes under $75,000 instate and does give financial aid for oos.
. I’m just curious how UW–Madison plans to handle this change. I mentioned UT–Austin and Texas A&M only because they are among the small number of schools in the country that have had this rule in place for years. UW–Madison is new to this.
.
