<p>I’ve been trying for the last 20 minutes to find that report, but I looked at the wrong place (UT Statistical Handbook), and gave up when I couldn’t find it. I figured that you would probably find the stats, these stats just seem to show the breakdown between the 10% students and non-10% students who enrolled. </p>
<p>The stats doesn’t show the exact breakdown between the non-10% students vs. the 10% students that were admitted, doesn’t show the exact number of out-of-staters that comprised the 30% that were admitted. Yeah, it is worth looking at the stats, but it still does not change the fact that they need to review the cases that are the exception to the 10% rule in a more in-depth matter. </p>
<p>If what you say about there being only 3% internationals is true, then about 27% are non-10% students, and we still haven’t found the percentages of just how many of those that make up the 27% are from Texas and from out of state. 70% vs. < 27% is a big discrepancy, if they are truly looking in-depth into cases that are the exception.</p>
<p>xiggi - Actually, it seems more and more private schools are declining to rank these days which would put all of their applicants in the 30% pool.</p>
<p>I’m not quite sure what your position is at this point. </p>
<p>You stated that there is no problem because qualified applicants get in regardless of rank. Yet it is obvious, from the numbers, from the concern expressed by UT administration and from common sense, that we are not operating in a vacuum here. What was true yesterday will not be true tomorrow.</p>
<p>Also, you stated you do not support the top ten percent law because it is flawed, yet you support a watered down version of a flawed law. The flaw is the flaw, regardless of floors, caps, percentages. The fact is that rank alone does not accurately describe the abilities of a candidate. Especially when rank is subject to varying levels of gaming and manipulation within each school system. That is the flaw and it cannot be overcome by multiplying it by a different factor.</p>
<p>"Yeah, it is worth looking at the stats, but it still does not change the fact that they need to review the cases that are the exception to the 10% rule in a more in-depth matter. "</p>
<p>Siren, I’m sorry you do not find the information you sought. I guarantee you it is THERE, you just need to look in the right place. Hint: if you find to find information about internationals, look at the Freshman Profile section.</p>
<p>"A special task force review has determined that the holistic approach adopted in 1997 by The University of Texas at Austin to de-emphasize standardized tests in its admissions process is a fair and effective system that should not be changed.</p>
<p>The “holistic” approach to admissions uses several factors other than test scores to determine whether or not an applicant should be admitted, said Dr. Bruce Walker, director of admissions and chairman of the university’s Task Force on Standardized College Admissions Testing."</p>
<p>Ldmom, I think I have expressed my point of view. I rather see changes than an outright repeal. A change could be as drastic as lowering it to 3 or 4%. I mentioned the need to run what-if scenarios. I believe that restiricting the direct admissions to the top 5% would bring the number of direct admit/enrollees to about 35%, reducing it to 3% would be about 25%. However, I would also like a system where the 10% is only one of the requirements. We could use a reverse system of what TAMU uses: you would need a top 10% ranking, but 250 points above the national SAT (using the ethnic scores) or a minimum number of AP scores of 4 or 5.</p>
<p>It seems that you would prefer a system without any direct admissions, or a return to pre-Hopwood. I would prefer to borrow from the actual system a bit. However, we are in agreement that the current system is flawed. </p>
<p>Here’s a good link that helps see how COMPLEX this issue is:</p>
<p>I was curious about this discussion because I have an interest in Hopwood and the fallout. Also, my crazy state of Georgia is considering such a rule, unfortunately. (Now you know my position- I think schools should be free to make their own decisions. How is it we have turned into a society of top-down rules?) </p>
<p>I want to make the point that I have have made before elsewhere that the distinction between public and private high schools is too crude. Not all private high schools have excellent students and excellent programs. Not all public high schools have such terrible students that anyone who falls below 10% is a dreg. In some public high schools a large percentage of the students are excellent. In some private high schools, the students are not so impressive. Schools do differ from one another, but why can’t we use another method of making that distinction, like the school profile of national test scores, AP and IB scores, difficulty of classes offered, etc? The gross distinction between public and private is an injustice to students in public schools.</p>
<p>My children have gone to both public and private schools. I have friends all over Atlanta with children who have gone and do go to both. I believe I know quite a bit about the public and private schools in metro Atlanta. I am sure metro Atlanta schools are fairly representative of the country. </p>
<p>If a % rule is to be used for reasons other than diversity, then a more fine-tuned rule than that in Texas needs to be crafted.</p>
<p>“Wouldn’t removing the 10% law from private schools be discrimination?”</p>
<p>There’s a level of self discrimination. Look at your private high schools in Dallas … how many are still ranking? FWIW, I think it is a gray area. For instance, St Marks of Dallas does not have an official ranking but the school provides information that goes well beyond the official ranking as they provide grade distributions for every class taken by a student. It is child play for the adcoms in Austin to KNOW exactly where the students are ranked.</p>
<p>However, the rule is that to qualify for a top 10% slot, your school has to have an official ranking. Further, I am wondering how that pans out for the valedictorian schoalrships.</p>
[quote]
The House plan requires that schools consider course difficulty in figuring class rank, which means the first students admitted under the rule would be the ones who had the best grades and took difficult classes.
All eight Valley representatives voted against the bill, saying the rule has brought diversity to the state’s largest universities, both geographic and ethnic, without sacrificing academic quality at those schools. <a href=“May%202005”>/quote</a></p>
<p>It seems like the special task force is there just to “de-emphasize standardized tests in its admissions process”. Well four years later, they sure did manage to de-emphasize the use of test scores by replacing it with the importance of class rank. Representatives voted against consideration of difficulty of course load, allowing students who took a less rigorous schedule and do not have any disciplinary issues to automatically get in. Someone who takes the hardest course load at a school that doesnt weigh the GPA has less of a chance of getting into UT, because of their de-emphasis of test scores. If this special task force is so effective in weeding out the applicants then how come 72% of this years applicants have been automatically admitted?</p>
<p>Texas A&M also has academic admittance. Last year (old SAT), anyone with over a 1300 SAT was automatically admitted. My son was homeschooled, so he had no class rank, but he was automatically admitted due to his SAT. </p>
<p>Also, the rumor is that your application at Texas A&M is much more highly regarded if you state that you commit to joining the Corps of Cadets. Corps enrollment has been lagging. Being in the Corps is hard, and not many kids are willing to do hard stuff anymore if they don’t have to. It sure is good for those kids, though.</p>
<p>I knew a girl who was valedictorian at a private high school and was offered the val scholarship. Maybe if the private school is in TAPPS, they are eligible. (This girl didn’t take the scholarship…she went to Johns Hopkins instead)</p>
<p>An argument can be made that the 10% rule does increase diversity. If you think about a kid who was in the top 10% in an inner-city school, he/she undoubtedly did not have as challenging a course load as the kid from the suburban h.s. However, if that kid managed to stay away from all the things that often drag down inner-city kids and keep his/her grades up, then maybe there is something there that needs to be nurtured. Maybe that kid could succeed (with some help) in one of the big universities.</p>
<p>These universities seem to be putting an awfully lot of effort into helping these kids succeed. It’s not always going to work, and I suppose it’s inevitable that graduation rates will drop, but some of those kids are going to make it.</p>
<p>In an article in the Houston Chronicle about one such student, it says:
"His scholarship provides $20,000 over four years, allowing him to attend full time and live on campus without needing a job. As a Century Scholar, Tadesse must enroll in a first-year seminar that teaches study skills and time management, attend the office hours of at least one faculty member each week and sign in at the honors program office on a weekly basis. " <a href=“http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4043873[/url]”>http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2006_4043873</a></p>
<p>I think it’s great that these schools are working so hard to give these students a chance to succeed.</p>
<p>Except that it isn’t increasing diversity in a meaningful way at state schools (see post 50)…and there is no need for the top 10% rule to create diversity. Hopwood was reversed two years ago and state universities can consider race as well as mitigating circumstances such as socioeconomic status and adversity in making admissions decisions. If the top 10% law isn’t working and the reason for it’s creation no longer exists, why do we still have this law?</p>
<p>Xiggi…the figure is calculated from the rising interest rates. The PLUS loan rates will go up to 8.6% for example. Do you have to put four kids through college on a “middle class” income? Every percent is a big deal in my household. Rising interest rates on the loans = more money spent by both students and parents.</p>
<p>Then there is the issue of what will happen to Perkins loans, Pell Grants and Work study, ie the “self-help” portion of financial aid. Reduction in those, combined with higher interest rates = more money burden on people who already are having trouble affording a college education. </p>
<p>I want to stay away from why this administration does what it does with regards to education and attempts to defend what they do. I’m sure there are other threads for that. As an interesting aside, you can go look up the discussion in the Congressional record where some of our wonderful representatives think they have done enough to help with college because after all “not everyone goes.” </p>
<p>The focus here is money, more money is needed to pay the bill, independent of regular cost of living increases. This bill increases the burden. Are you saying that it doesn’t? Am I just imgaining that if the interest rate goes up I will owe more mony on my loans? If the interest rate on Staffords go up plus the amount routinely given that it will not cost students more money? If less work study money is available that students will not have to seek other sources of work income to make up the difference, and those sources may not be available? Without work study eligibility, that would tack on another 2K per year on my children’s tuition bill. I’m sure that people who find themselves no longer eligible for Pell or Perkins programs and have to seek higher cost/interest options will feel the same.</p>
<p>Perhaps another 2K here and another 2 percent there won’t affect some people, but it greatly affects my household. When I get my new bills this summer I should post the net increase.</p>
<p>Title: A bill to amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to establish fixed interest rates for student and parent borrowers, to extend current law with respect to special allowances for lenders, and for other purposes. </p>
<p>Sponsor: Sen Johnson, Tim <a href=“introduced%2012/4/2001”>SD</a><br>
Related Bills: H.RES.334 </p>
<h2>**Latest Major Action: Became Public Law No: 107-139 [GPO: Text, PDF] **</h2>
<p>SUMMARY: </p>
<p>Amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) to set fixed interest rates for new loans made on or **after July 1, 2006 **, under: (1) the Federal Family Education Loan program (FFEL) for student loans (6.8 percent), parent (PLUS) loans, and consolidation loans (8.25 percent or a lesser amount based on a weighted average of interest rates of the loans consolidated); and (2) the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan program for Federal Direct Stafford Loans and Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loans (both 6.8 percent), Federal Direct PLUS loans (7.9 percent), and Federal Direct Consolidation loans (8.25 percent or lesser weighted average). Extends current interest rate provisions for: (1) student or parent loans with a first disbursement before July 1, 2006; and (2) consolidation loans with an application received by the lender before July 1, 2006.</p>
<p>Extends provisions for special allowances for lenders. Prohibits payment of such special allowances in the case of PLUS loans made on or after July 1, 2006, unless a certain percentage is reached according to a formula based in part on the average of certain bond equivalent rates published by the Federal Reserve System’s Board of Governors for the last calendar week before such date.</p>