<p>Nah, the top 10% system doesn't work at A&M either. The only difference is that we give people with really good SAT scores a way to be automatically admitted too, so that they're at least on equal footing with the dude who finished top 10% at an uncompetitive HS, and got a 1050 on the SAT.</p>
<p>AustinCE: I bet almost everyone in the top10% apply to UT as a safety. Who wouldn't? What this does is it fills up all of the 'accepted' slots, thus leaving less room for OOS and non-top10% students get in. It doesn't matter whether they go to UT or not; the university has no idea of knowing who is going to UT and who isn't.</p>
<p>Vyse, as soon as A&M's number of top 10%ers starts matching UT's (2008 class- 81% of admits auto-top 10%) then A&M will have to rethink the other method of top 1/4, over 1350 V&M to get in auto. There simply won't be enough spots.</p>
<p>Ihaveahobby, the university has a pretty good idea of how many will actually come, they have a methodology that computes what their predicted yield should be based on historical trends - that's why they're paid the big bucks.</p>
<p>If they suspected that most (or more) top 10%ers were only applying as a safety, with no intention of enrolling, they would admit more non-top 10% or OOS students. </p>
<p>I know someone on the Board of Regents and he told me that they are overenrolled for 2008 at this point (paid enrollment fee). Guess they underestimated...</p>
<p>I found out UT sent me an e- mail about not needing my fafsa because I was not admitted on accident. I received a completely different e- mail today saying that they are currently processing my fafsa application and that I have been ACCEPTED into the class of 2012! Go longhorns!</p>
<p>Hobbie, actually that statement is false.</p>
<p>Many top ten kids ONLY apply to UT. It makes applications a lot easier.</p>
<p>Many also apply to honors programs.</p>
<p>Many also aren't qualified enough because of ECs, SATs, and HS coursework to get accepted to most schools.</p>
<p>So I'd say that, while some do use it as as safety, that number is FAR from the majority.</p>
<p>Personally, UT Plan II Honors was my match, and UT liberal arts was my safety. I also applied to Tulane, Notre Dame, and Southwestern to see if I could get scholarships and to have a backup if I was somehow not accepted to Plan II.</p>
<p>Honestly, though, if I had been rejected by Plan II, but was still accepted to UT and LAH, I think I'd still be going to UT.</p>
<p>danngg cdog08, that's awesome lol </p>
<p>congrats. hopefully, I didn't get accepted on accident lol</p>
<p>a little proof that the system is unfair, kids from my school got in to USC, UPenn, North Carolina, Brown, Northwestern, and NYU, and none of them got into UT. Most cant afford it though, so their forced to go to a sub-par texas university. Im sure something will be done about this in 2010.</p>
<p>Thanx UcMichigan! When I was logging on to the status check page it asked me to change my password and I thought that was a little strange if I was rejected. I was SHOCKED when I saw the congratulations!</p>
<p>Wow cdog I WOULD DO ANYTHING FOR THAT TO HAPPEN TO ME!!!</p>
<p>You know what imma log in to the status check again for the first time today.</p>
<p>The system is not designed to compete against any other university's admissions system. UT and the state could care less what other colleges are doing.</p>
<p>The state legislature believes that class rank is the most fair way to determine admissibility. It does very well in ensuring diversity and fair geographic representation from across the state, rather than the school being dominated by prep schools and suburban enclaves (from which I come).</p>
<p>The non-top ten admission format is very rigorous, but it doesn't allow for individual attention. It is designed to reduce everything you've done in high school to two numbers. There is little human emotion like in other decisions.</p>
<p>Many people who are qualified to enter OTHER colleges are rejected by UT. However, by UT's standards they aren't qualified. I know it's hard to bite because UT does things so differently than any other college. But the key factor is not to say whether you are qualifed by Rice's standards, or Harvard's, or New York Community College's standards for that matter. The key factor is whether you fit UT's standards.</p>
<p>While I do think that the number of top ten admits is getting a little riddiculous, I don't think that the law can or should be changed. I believe that the key fault lies with the legislature in cutting funding to UT in 2002. This change led to skyrocketing tuition bills but STILL can't cover everything UT needs, which is why the freshman class has actually gotten SMALLER while the number of graduating seniors has gotten LARGER. It sucks, but while the GOP is in power funding won't increase so it won't change.</p>
<p>Also, the law won't change due to constituent pressure. There are enough rural Republican and inner city Democrat legislators whose districts would be hurt by the loss of the top ten law to prevent any change.</p>
<p>The bright side: as 2008/2009 is the largest group of graduating seniors for a while, admissions should begin to get easier as the echo baby boom tails off, not surging again until the current college/young adult generation begins to have college-age children.</p>
<p>So if you are 2010 or later, it may get easier to get in outside the top ten.</p>
<p>theloneranger: what i'm trying to say is that why wouldn't a top ten% student not apply to UT? It's a sure thing to a good university. I'm sure this thought is applied and as a result all the top 10% kids are admitted. Then what happens? </p>
<p>There are fewer slots left for OOS and non-top10% applicants. Because UT can't be sure who will or will not matriculate to UT. Especially with this year with the influx of TX applicants and applicants in general.</p>
<p>Many top ten kids may just apply to UT, but UT doesn't know that. I don't think there is a space in the application where you fill out other universities you're applying to. For top10%, it is basically a safety because you are guaranteed in.</p>
<p>Also, I think taking an honor spot also takes up a regular spot, so applying to honors programs wouldn't make a difference right? Correct me if I'm wrong.</p>
<p>kdm - don't hold your breath, fairness has nothing to do with admissions anywhere. I am sure if you look at the threads having to do with the colleges you mention, there will be many kids who feel they have unfairly been rejected by them as well.</p>
<p>It is what it is.</p>
<p>Yes, you must either list other collegs you are applying to on the app or check "I am only applying to UT."</p>
<p>And I don't know why people don't realize this: JUST BECAUSE THEY ACCEPT PEOPLE DOES NOT MEAN IT TAKES UP A SPOT! They KNOW people will get accepted and not come. That's why they accept more students than they want. It's the concept of a yield. Only 60% accept the offer. If UT gave spots to other kids who wanted to come, it would drive the number of entering freshmen too high, so UT would compensate by admitting fewer to begin with and the kids who originally didn't get in STILL wouldn't get in!</p>
<p>And yes, UT is a safety in some ways, but many don't use it as one because they aren't guaranteed the major they want, or they don't like Austin, or they don't want to go to a state school, etc. It CAN be used as a safety but that doesn't mean that it is. I'd say only 2/3 of the 29 top ten at my HS applied to UT at all. About 5 others applied to A&M as their main state school, and the rest only to private and OOS schools.</p>
<p>Yes I know, but look at the history. Because they are required to accept top10% students, the amount of OOS and non-top10% has decreased. Because this year had a 10% increase in top10% applicants, they can't maintain the same acceptance rate as last year, where it was 71%. It shouldn't matter what the yield is. What if they admit more OOS and non-top10% people because of their "research" on who would matriculate, and they were wrong? Overcrowding would occur. That is why I think that the number of top10% people skew the admissions process, especially in Texas where the only other flagship state U. is A&M. This year's applicants had about 24,000 seniors in the top10%, you can't expect UT to widen the number of enrollees. If it didn't matter, then the amount of non-top10% and OOS students should have the same amount % accepted right? But they didn't, cuz of more 10%ers applying to UT. If they followed last year's formula, then the only reason the OOSers and nontop10% people have a lower acceptance rate is because of the 10% applicants, and yield is not affected, but the number of spots for nontop10% is.</p>
<p>i dont think anyone will understand this</p>
<p>As I said in an earlier post - They ARE overenrolled for fall 2008 - they underestimated yield, and the deadline for admissions deposits has not even passed. Stay tuned in the fall for complaints about not being able to get the classes you need...</p>
<p>Every year it is the same old thing - do a search - people b8tching about the ridiculousness of the top 10% rule....</p>
<p>Look, it is what it is, no amount of whining, or complaining about how unfair it is, is going to change it. If you really want to be an instrument of change, then start writing your state representatives and get active in the anti-top 10% movement. </p>
<p>In a few years, it could be that 100% of the class is admitted solely based on the fact that they are top 10%. THAT is what the president of UT is fighting against - but he is running into tremendous obstinancy from certain members of the legislature.</p>
<p>My beef with the top 10% system.</p>
<p>Rank is imperfect because classes aren't consistent. I can take the same subjects as my peers yet get different teachers which means grades are going to be different. At my school, there is usually one hard teacher, and an easy teacher. If you get the hard teacher, you will have to work, while the easy teacher will give away 99s while watching movies every day. (There was an Honors class like this, everyone in there got really lucky with a 5.9/4.0 GPA). Albeit, it can even out but most of the time it doesn't. The entire system of rank is unfair.</p>
<p>Look at it this way, in college teams are always ranked in the top 25. There is a panel of voters doing this, now, what would happen if rank was based on record and only record? </p>
<p>Teams that play community college squads for the entire season will be undefeated and at the top, but teams who actually play against real competition are going to have a worse record.</p>
<p>This is what rank is, it doesn't look at the level of competition(in this case, the rigor of coursework). The only way to look at the rigor of coursework is to actually go into the classroom and look at what the teacher is doing. </p>
<p>Impossible.</p>
<p>Which is why the fairest option is to standardization. Here in TExas, we take a test called the TAKS test. It is one of the easiest tests. I get commended without even thinking about it. My proposal is to make the TAKS test harder, and allow UT to use the TAKS test as it's main tool in giving out admission, not rank. Get rid of the "You must pass the TAKS test to pass the grade" deal, if you get a 70 in all of your classes, you pass. </p>
<p>The only rank that UT will use is based on your TAKS scores during High School. If you score in the top 10% of entire Texas in TAKS scores, you are automatically in. The % can be higher or lower.</p>
<p>This will make every student the same. Also while removing cheating(which can raise your GPA a lot), and still satisfying the rural and urban people.</p>
<p>TAKS would not be a fair comparison because private schools and OOS students don't take TAKS.</p>
<p>They also do not want to reduce your fate of admission to a single test score. If they did, they would just use the SAT.</p>
<p>But there are plenty of kids who can be top ten at THEIR high school but because they are poorly prepared by an underfunded system don't do well on TAKS. The same with the SAT. That's why they use rank, it rewards the kids who do the best with what they've been given.</p>
<p>TLR: What would you say to someone who lives in inner city Dallas, whose closest public high school recently got an unaccdptable rating (and was featured and mocked on a John Stossel investigative report), where Hispanics are the 65% majority (I have nothing against Hispanics, its just that because of this fact, DISD ONLY highers bilingual teachers, irrespective of their other qualifications)?</p>
<p>What would you say if that person's family of humble means saved and sacrificed to send their kid to a private school where everyone is a serious student, the academic atmosphere is dog eat dog, and those who dont have at least a C average dont get to pad the bottom of the class rank; they simply get kicked out. Now let's say that school has a grand total of 65 people in the graduating class, and the kid in question is ranked number 8. To pour salt in the wound, let's say this school is somewhere like St. Mark's or Jesuit.</p>
<p>How is it fair that a family who sacrificed that much for superior education is getting punished? Clearly such a student could easily break the top 2-3% at a poor local public school.</p>
<p>It just reveals how objective the process is. Most of the other comparing publics schools actually look at strength of schedule, not whether you completed the minimum requirements. They also look at the context of the school, etc etc etc. Surely diversity hasn't been sacrificed at those schools so I don't know what the legislatures are thinking when they implemented this.</p>
<p>I think the lack of a "real" admissions process is due to the automatic admission rule; it tends to make going through the process easier and faster.</p>