Tough Times ahead for Class of 2010

xiggi · February 3, 2006, 7:28pm

“xiggi - we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But you can check the enrolled freshman profile for the class of 2005 at McCombs at the UT website. Ave rank 3%, Ave SAT mid 1200s.”

LD, you can’t assume that I did NOT know the statistics numbers at McCombs.

2005 Business Honors Program
Applications Received 475

<h1>Offered Admission 146</h1>

<h1>Enrolled 100</h1>

Average SAT 1458
Average Class Rank Top 2.4%

Fall 2005 BBA : Admissions : Freshmen Class Profile

Applicants: 5,223
Admitted: 1,209
Enrolled: 768
Average SAT (admitted): 1304
Average SAT (enrolled): 1284
Average high school rank (enrolled): 3%

<a href=“http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/udean/admissions/freshprofile.asp[/url]”>http://www.mccombs.utexas.edu/udean/admissions/freshprofile.asp</a>

kinglin · February 4, 2006, 1:02pm

I know we have been talking a lot about texas, but what about the other schools? Indiana doubled in admissions this year. Do you think its because people are finding it to be a hidden gem? But why all of a sudden did admissions more than double?

ldmom06 · February 4, 2006, 1:42pm

xiggi -

I’m really not trying to argue with you. I look at those numbers and I see one thing…you see another. What to do?

The point lies in my example in my previous post about the two students…and in the fact that the problem is an escalating one. The ratio of top ten percenters to non top ten percenters is not stabilizing or flattening out at UT, and other universities cannot assume they will be exempt from the same situation in the future if the law remains in place.

And I reiterate: Never should one single attribute be the driving factor in determining whether a student should be admitted or not. It is a disservice to all parties. Kids who are prepared have to take left over spots. Kids who are not prepared are thrust into a situation where they are more likely to fail. Better to grant admission to the most prepared students and counsel the unprepared so that they can become prepared and gain admission through transfer.

If you don’t think I’m right, fine. But there is a reason UT and TAMU are offering tuition incentives for kids to take more hours and graduate within four years or with no extra classes. They are addressing the rapidly declining graduation rate and the propensity for more recent entering classes to linger for 5 and 6 years without graduating… which is creating a crowding problem. And say what you want, the first kids crowded out will be the nontop ten percenters, even those with 1500s and 11% rank.

I’ve read your other posts and you don’t seem a person who is easily swayed. So we can just leave at this. We agree to disagree.

ldmom06 · February 4, 2006, 1:48pm

kinglin -

lol…it’d be interesting to know how many of those Indiana applicants are Texans.

kcirsch · February 4, 2006, 2:12pm

Xiggi, actually what you said about the McCombs Business School’s policy is incorrect. 75% of spots are for the very top ranked students. They start with the top 1% and work their way down the percentages until they have filled 75%, and then the other 25% are competitive spots based on normal admissions figures (GPA, SAT, comm service, etc).

Another problem with the top 10% law is that it severely damages UT’s national reputation and concurrently its rankings.

kinglin · February 4, 2006, 3:06pm

I’ve just found out that U. Iowa has also created a waitlist, which is rather rare.

xiggi · February 4, 2006, 5:47pm

Ldmom, it does not take much to make me change my mind: factual evidence works very well. I also agree that you see something and I see something else.

Actually, please do not believe that I support the top 10% in its current application.

However, this does not mean that I agree that the 10% is detrimental to a lot of students who miss the 10%. One of the typical voices of discontent comes from students at schools such Dallas Highland Park high school. The problem of those schools is that they believe that EVERYONE who attends their school should be given a free pass to UT-Austin … which represent an impossible and blatantly ridiculous proposal.

For what it is worth I believe that the 10% percent is way too high and that the automatci admission should be confirmed by other elements such as standardized tests. The system should be reviewed but pay attention to socio-economic differences. What the system should do is restrict the numbers of students that are accepted from a number of huge and rather non-competitive school districts, especially from predominantly white and rural areas.

The system should also be cleaned up by eliminating a number of “tools” that are actively pursued with families who know how to bend the rules. One example would be to rein in the cyncial abuses surrounding the grading of the mostly watered down IB programs that are become so popular in Texas.

dt123 · February 4, 2006, 5:58pm

I just don’t see the top 10% rule in Texas as being a problem that needs to be fixed. I like the diversity it has promoted. It has had the effective of raising the quality of student populations at state schools besides UT and TAMU.

Remember the rule was a response to the Hopwood decision, in which the UT law school was spanked for using affirmative action to admit lesser-qualified non-white students over better-qualified white students. Hopwood made reverse racial discrimination as impermissable as the more familiar kind. Hopwood said race was factor that could not be considered at all, either way. Only other factors could be considered. It was obvious that UT and TAMU would be almost completely white in no time at all. So the 10% rule was put in. Race was not a factor, but racially-diverse student bodies were ensured anyway.

Since then, the Hopwood decision has been reversed by the Supreme Court. Race may now be considered as one of several factors. The Lege, however, has been afraid to do anything about the 10% rule, as it has had the result of producing diverse classes of really good students, and is highly popular in many communities even though it is arbitrary.

ldmom06 · February 4, 2006, 6:29pm

well okay xiggi…now we’re talking. Not bad ideas you espouse. But if you start restricting admission based on race (rural whites), you re-open the can of worms re: reverse descrimination. And I actually agree with you that if you are going to create a system of automatic admissions, it must consider much more than rank. My sticking point with the law has been the consideration of one attribute and total disregard for all others. It doesn’t work.

dt points out that the top ten percent has created diversity. This is true, but I don’t think the failure of over 65 percent of students to graduate within 6 years is an indication that the the law has produced ‘really good’ students.

It seems we all agree that opportunity must be created where it is lacking. But victimizing one group to benefit another, especially when the benefit is short-lived is not the solution. Rather than have the legislature focus their attention on telling the Admissions Offices at UT and TAMU and others how they will do their jobs, perhaps the legislature needs to focus on discovering why students from some areas of our state are not competitive candidates for admissions at these universities without a boost from the top ten percent law. Fix the problem at that level and you don’t need to manipulate the system.

ldmom06 · February 4, 2006, 7:11pm

Here is some interesting facts about the very ‘modest’ gains in minority enrollment at UT and TAMU

Before top ten percent law (Fall 1997):

UT - African American students: 2.5%, Hispanic students: 12.1%
TAMU - African American students: 2.8%, Hispanic students: 9.7%

After top ten percent law (Fall 2004):

UT - African American students: 4.6%, Hispanic students: 17.2%
TAMU - African American students: 3.0%, Hispanic students: 12.2%

Improvement? A little. But the percentages are disturbingly low when you consider that in 2004, African American college age students totaled 12% of the total population of college age students in Texas, and Hispanic college age students totaled 40%! of the same total population.

Combine that with the ridiculously low graduation rates…and then it doesn’t seem the law is that much of a success in accomplishing what it purports to accomplish. And given that the Supreme Court has reversed Hopwood as dt mentioned, there is no need to hang on to a law that doesn’t work. Race can be considered in admissions in Texas, along with other attributes, so a top ten percent law is not necessary.

To build a diverse student body, top ten percent laws are not needed. Outreach to minority commmunities, improvement in secondary education in those communities and an admissions process that consists of an holistic evaluation of each student considering merits and life experiences…are how you build diversity.

xiggi · February 4, 2006, 7:25pm

Ld, it has been a while since I looked up the detailed statistics. FWIW, UT does a remarkable job of tracking down the changes that occured post Hopwood and posting the results on its website. If I remember correctly, I think that the 10% rule did NOT stop a further erosion in the relative diversity numbers. However, we have to recognize that it will be hard for UT to reverse the pattern because the minority population is growing a lot faster than the caucasian population. When it comes to discrimation or reverse discrimation caused by the 10% rule, we almost always assume that the minorities representatives would be the most adamant about protecting the system. But that is not necessarily the case! A further illustration is that a good number of minority students who qualify for automatic admission at UT and TAMU do NOT use for a number of reasons -cost, not feeling comfortable at mostly white college, not comfortable leaving the family environment, etc.) On the other hand, students at very large suburban schools consider the 10% as inadaquately low.

It is obvious that any future change in the 10% system will create “winners” and “losers” in the quotas. Inevitably someome will be upset! However, I would like to see what-if analyses of the automatic admission lowered to the top 4 or 6% or capped at 50% of total admission or enrollment. The number of 50% seems to offer a good compromise, but I believe that the complainants were as vociferous when the number of direct admission was at around 50%.

PS Wrote this post before reading the above post. :)

curmudgeon · February 4, 2006, 7:34pm

Say what? If the purpose of the 10% is in any way to have any equalizing effect at the public college level in attempting to correct the inequities in our public schools and the way we “finance” them (we are going to finance them, right? LOL) , it must consider that rural school districts are our poorest and that rural standardized test scores are our lowest. I was looking at the SAT Texas report from last year’s class and there was a large discrepancy between the lowest scores, being rural and the highest. Even “large city” was higher than rural.

Xiggi, why would you think it was appropriate to further penalize this group of already put upon kids? By and large they have the poorest paid teachers, smallest per student spending, and shabbiest facilities. Not to mention most are run by someone who reminds me of either Floyd or Goober from The Andy Griffith Show. Just doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense.

ldmom06 · February 4, 2006, 7:37pm

I’m usually one for compromise. But when the law doesn’t get the job done, compromising is not a solution. It’s just delaying the solution.

I would probably oppose a lower percentage and caps as well, unless there was some inclusion of admissions attributes in addition to rank AND funds earmarked to reach into disadvantaged communities to assist them in creating a system of secondary education that puts their children on an equal footing with the rest of their peers as well as a good faith effort to make sure that the desired end results are actually accomplished. But hey once, you do that, why do you need percentages and caps?

Our legislators manipulate the system for the purpose of appeasing their constituents, but they never want to take a hard look at what is working and what is not, nor do they seem to want to remediate their errors in judgement.

thesiren72102 · February 4, 2006, 8:33pm

I perused this thread, so please forgive me, if what I’m about to say has already been said.

As a Texas high school student (who will benefit from the 10%), I don’t think the 10% rule is fair. I’ve seen this scenario way too much, students go to super-competitive high schools, and some of them fall just below the top ten percent rule. These students have steller stats despite their rank, but they would have more chance of getting into other public schools outside of Texas than at UT-Austin.

I don’t think the percentage should be lowered, because if the percentage is lowered, then it will decrease the quality of the students (when I say quality, I mean people who have good work ethic, don’t skate by, motivated and driven, and etc). In most cases (there are always exceptions), the cream of the crop in academics are at the top of the ranking system (unless the school doesn’t weigh). Also, we have to take into consideration the public school system, the quality of students just decreases after the the top 10%, I don’t know why but this is true.

If the state of Texas really needed to use ranking to equalize education, I think that UT-Austin (and other simular Texas public colleges) should have a different criteria for public schools students and private school students. They should keep the 10% rule for the public schools, and for students who go to private schools they should give them a top 15% rule. I know that some students may get shafted, if the Texas public schools were to do this. For example, the public school student who doesn’t fall into top 10%, but has 2300 and good ECs. The school should be willing to review these cases in an in-depth matter, and give extra consideration to those types of student who don’t benefit from their system, but still have something to offer.

Also, I believe that different schools should have different criteria, they should be allowed to decide whether or not they should go with the top ten perecent or not. Interesting fact: UH goes by a top 25% rule.

Now if a school wanted to boost up minority enrollment, they should market like crazy. Show minorities in the brochure, don’t just go to lily white subrubs to represent the college, but go to areas where there are a high number of minorities. Do well in sports (football/basketball), show how Austin is a good city for minorities (for example Austin is not an Atlanta or San Antonio, but it can accentuate its positives), have a Diversity weekend (not sure if they have this, but if they do, they need to make it better and more well-known to public schools), and there are various other tactics that they can use.

texastaximom · February 4, 2006, 8:35pm

xiggi…re post #39…an additional 5,800 dollars of debt to just what my kids will owe on their education is a kick in the head no matter how you read it. Skyrockting percentages on the PLUS loan are another. The fact of the matter is money has been cut from Pell, Perkins, Work Study, and there have been increases in the loan rates. But I’m not here to argue politics with you.

ldmom06 · February 4, 2006, 9:04pm

siren - I think you touch on a good point. One good start would be to require a statewide uniform courseload with uniform grading requirements to qualify for any automatic admissions program. We need to have apples to apples comparison of these students. Rank becomes a meaningless number when making interschool comparisons.

[And the president of UT has said that he believes soon Texas will completely fill with top ten percenters. Even if special consideration is given to highly qualified students outside of the top ten percent, there won’t be space for them.]

xiggi · February 4, 2006, 9:17pm

TTMom, that $5,800 figure might be oft-repeated but is also unverified.

You have to know its orginal source to appreciate its veracity. The numbers quoted were developed to provide some of our (?) politicians with grand-standing ammunition. The report where this figure originated from is a hodge-podge of a little bit of truth, a bit of half-truths, and outright fabrications. The typical Washington fodder, I guess.

xiggi · February 4, 2006, 9:34pm

*They should keep the 10% rule for the public schools, and for students who go to private schools they should give them a top 15% rule. *

One issue to consider is the VERY low level of enrollment of the TOP 10% from private schools. While I cannot speak for every private school in Texas, I am familiar with several of them. The top 10% of the graduating class at selective private schools consider UT as a safety and demonstates by turning down the admission in favor of out of state schools. If you take away the business school and other selective schools at UT, the yield of private students becomes horrendous.

Take a look at the first ten students at ESD in Dallas - a better than average private school, but not the best private by a wide margin.

<ol>
<li>Stanford University</li>
<li>Columbia University</li>
<li>Princeton University</li>
<li>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</li>
<li>Pepperdine University</li>
<li>University of Southern California</li>
<li>University of Texas (Liberal Arts Honors)</li>
<li>Washington and Lee University</li>
<li>Princeton University</li>
<li>University of San Diego </li>
</ol>

Nine students matriculated at UT. Would it worth betting how many came from the top 10 or 15% of the class?

<a href=“http://www.esdallas.org/media/sp/admiss-0607/college.pdf[/url]”>http://www.esdallas.org/media/sp/admiss-0607/college.pdf</a>

*For example, the public school student who doesn’t fall into top 10%, but has 2300 and good ECs. The school should be willing to review these cases in an in-depth matter, and give extra consideration to those types of student who don’t benefit from their system, but still have something to offer. *

Why do you assume UT does not review those cases? Thousands of non top 10% students are accepted every year.

ldmom06 · February 4, 2006, 10:19pm

“Why do you assume UT does not review those cases? Thousands of non top 10% students are accepted every year.”

Can’t assume this will remain the case though xiggi. In the 6 years of top ten percent law, the percentage of the freshman class that were top 10% grew from about 35% to an expected 70+% for Fall 2006. At my d’s school, the senior class numbers 700, the freshman class 1300. This is a situation that cannot remain static.

thesiren72102 · February 4, 2006, 10:32pm

-----From The Daily Texan, Feb. 3, 2006

To Xiggi: You make a good point about private school students using UT as a safety, in that case from UT’s point of view, it should take away the 10% rule for the private schools in order to look out for their own interests of accumulating applicants who would actually attend. This would require that the state of Texas give all Texas public colleges free reign in determining how they should do their admissions. Either way someone will not benefit from it, the key is to find a solution that will benefit the most amount people without lowering the standard of education. There are only about 30% who arent top ten percent, and take into consideration the out-of- staters and internationals who make up that 30%.

Tough Times ahead for Class of 2010

CONNECT WITH US