<p>BTW, I was just using the Woodlands, a school which I have no association with, as an example of a large suburban hs, not as a bone of contention. The discussion is about UT and the top 10% rule.</p>
<p>If we want to start comparing high schools (as in - mine is bigger, badder, meaner, etc. than yours) perhaps we should start a new thread.</p>
<p>Yes, that would be completely different.</p>
<p>It is SLIGHTLY relevant because kids at the Woodlands think that they are more qualified to enter UT than, say a kid from Waller.</p>
<p>I agree that the Woodlands education is more well-rounded, offers more advanced classes, and is likely more competitive. But I disagree that simply because of these opportunities a Woodlands non-top ten kid should receive a place at UT at the expense of the Waller top-ten kid.</p>
<p>The Waller kid is working at the level his school says is the best. Maybe it doesn't reward AP credit, or extracurriculars, but the only way the school compares grads, he's at or near the top. I think this kid absolutely deserves a place at UT.</p>
<p>I think that you could sum it down like this: a kid could transfer from the top ten percent of a rural school or an urban school to a Woodlands or Plano into 9th or 11th grade or whatever and would probably not be in the top ten, because he wouldn't have the preparation to succeed in the advanced classes. A Woodlands kid who isn't top ten could transfer to an inner-city or rural school with 9-11 years of study in the Woodlands under his belt and would very likely dominate. However, I do not think that if the Woodlands kid had gone to school for 9-11 years in the less-advanced school system he would have any better shot at being top ten than any other kid from that system. And vice-versa: I think if a kid from the top ten of an inner-city or rural system had spend 9-11 years in The Woodlands, he would have a strong chance to be in the top ten at TWHS.</p>
<p>UT has strong programs to help students from less prepared backgrounds succeed at UT. They have Emerging Scholars, Longhorn Opportunity Scholars, free tutoring, groups such as WINS, and FIGs to help everyone succeed. And the numbers show that kids even from less-prepared backgrounds are coming to UT and succeeding. They may not be dominating, they may not have 4.0s, but they are coming to the University and learning and contributing to the community and graduating. Should these kids lose the chance at this simply because they lacked the academic preparation to earn a 2100+ on their SATs or didn't have the chance for extracurricular opportunities that suburban kids have because they couldn't afford them or they simply weren't offered?</p>
<p>I know that many people who are hurt by the law won't change their minds. But the fact is that this is how the vast majority of Texans (and thankfully their legislators) feel about the law.</p>
<p>I do know that my school would be seen as one that would be hurt by the law, but it really hasn't been. We are an upper-middle class prep school that is quite a bit more challenging than the surrounding public schools. Our AP program is strong (though not at the level of many suburban public schools simply because we don't have the numbers to offer 22 APs) and our regulars courses (though I haven't taken any), are some of the strongest in the state from what I can see. We have many kids get in outside of the top ten percent--probably half of our 20 or so admits. Some of them may have applied to Geosciences, and several are doing SFC, but I think my school shows a positive success story of how the top ten law isn't hurting the "academically superior" schools that many claim.</p>
<p>loneranger i dont think you realize how much opportunity actually exists in these schools where you say non-top ten kids deserve to get in over non-top ten kids. Waller actually offers alot of AP classes, my cousin teaches ap economics there, and my previous highschool which is probably one of the worst in texas, offered every AP class that my new supposedly rich 5A school does. You need to stop making the assumption that kids in better schools do better because of access to these classes, which the majority of bad schools actually offer. i think because your a minority, and because this law helps minorities, you refuse to see how unjust this law actually is. I can tell your a very smart person, but very closeminded if you refuse to acknowledge how unfair it is. Even if UT had racial quotas, which were ironically deamed unconstitutional, It would much more fair then it is now. Some schools perform better then other schools and that needs to be recognized. In UT admissions minorities are already given extra points, people from low income schools are given extra points, and they go by class rank and not gpa, which helps both of those above. If they cant get in with all that extra help already, they dont deserve to go there. You shouldnt be judged by what school you go to, and thats all this law does. In my school if you make 3 or more B's your pretty much out of the top ten, and thats with all advanced classes. In other schools, you can take no advanced classes and make only B's and be in the top ten percent. This law is essentially comparing apples and oranges.</p>
<p>"Some of them may have applied to Geosciences, and several are doing SFC, but I think my school shows a positive success story of how the top ten law isn't hurting the "academically superior" schools that many claim."</p>
<p>You want to talk about academically superior schools, let's compare admits/matriculation from my school. Last year, where the number of seniors graduating in TX was smaller and subsequently the number of students in the 10% was smaller, 75~ were matriculating to UT. Since classes at my school are roughly 600~, thats about 120 students from my school who got into UT. Flash to this year, where almost everyone got capped that were considered shoo-ins based on years past.</p>
<p>It's hard to use your school as the only example since there is so much variability in the state. Your school may be academically superior, but there are more schools that are in the upper echelon, so competitive that the law hurts the student. I'm sure for every questionable claim of the rule there is an example to support both sides of the argument. But overall, there are academically superior students that are getting shafted.</p>
<p>Also I forgot to mention that there are schools that rank by unweighted GPA, which totally destroys students for trying to excel in their studies in schools, another reason the rule causes suffering in many students.</p>
<p>kdm, I think if you saw my stats or saw ME you would think otherwise...
I am FAR from your typical "minority." My family is not impoverished and in fact is white and upper middle class. My "minority" side is my biological father, with whom I have no contact and who no longer even lives in this country. My high school is largely white, and I blend in with that "white community" to the point that most can't tell I'm Latino. I am far from an ethnik. I think that the law should help students from throughout the state succeed. While I may be a minority, I do not support the law for that reason. I would support the overt affirmative action that was practiced before Hopwood in that case, as it did even more for historically underrepresented groups than the top ten law does.</p>
<p>And further, rural whites are actually benefitted MORE by the law than minorities, because minorities tend to go to a smaller number of larger, majority-minority schools, which means that they have a harder shot at being top ten, whereas there are a large number of almost exclusively white small high schools where students can take more total top ten spots.</p>
<p>The law is essentially comparing apples to apples, in saying that, rather than trying to compare unlike systems throughout the state, students are compared to those in the identical system. So, rather than trying to compare Johnny's 6.98 at Westlake to Shaun's 4.44 at Plano and Jack's 99.94 at Jesuit, they are compared to the rest of that school, where students have been offered the same curriculum and are evaluated on the same scale.
Waller was simply an example. And offering AP classes or not is irrelevant. Most schools in large districts offer AP classes (every school in DISD does, for example). That does not mean the content will be even across the state, that the teachers will be as well qualified, or that the students will be as well prepared.</p>
<p>You want to know what's unfair? The kid that lives in the colonia and whose house is made out of sheets of tin held together with rope. The kid who lives on a farm so isolated that he has to leave for school 2 hours before it starts so he can make it to the bus stop. The kid who had to drop out after 8th grade so he could help his family put food on the table. So I don't think that anyone should be complaining because one of the best universities in the state said that they could come after a one year wait--that's just riddiculous when you look at the larger picture.</p>
<p>Ranking b y unweighted GPA is something you have to deal with. Many schools don't weight at all. There are some students in AP classes who get Cs who would still get Cs in regular classes. There are regular students who could very well get all As in AP classes, but for various reasons don't take AP classes. I think that a student should deal with the system at his school. Systems which heavily weight AP courses are actually harmful in my opinion as they force students who want to get high ranks to take an inordinate amount of AP courses (I know kids who took 8 credits worth, 9 exams), kids who skip lunch to take AP courses, kids who have no extracurricular or social life to take AP classes. If you are taking more than 5, it really isn't healthy--that's more equivalent college courses than the high-achieving college student takes. But if your system says "he who has the highest grades in any course ranks highest," then I think students should find courses that prepare them for what they want to go on to, help them have a high rank, and are beneficial to their total growth.</p>
<p>I really don't think that we should punish people for not having access to AP courses, to research opportunities, to elite summer programs, to things like elite sports programs or music programs or dance programs. I don't think we should ignore the 15 million or so Texans who don't live in a wealthy suburban community at the expense of the 5 million who do (including me). I am grateful for the top ten law making my own admissions process easier, but I don't think it would have made a difference for me. I do think that it has made a difference for a lot of kids who haven't had all of the opportunities I've had. I've been really blessed, and I don't think that only those people who've been similarly blessed should reap the rewards of one of the finest public universities in the state.</p>
<p>The top ten law allows for fair and diverse representation in the state's universities, and no, I don't feel guilty for supporting that. It could be worse: we could live in California, where the state's elite universities overtly say that you have to be in the top 12.5% of the state's grads to be considered for a place at a UC school, where being in the top 4% of your school gets you in the system but not your desired school, and where the top 5 or so schools are almost entirely grads in the top ten percent of their class.</p>
<p>Texas really is quite generous in admitting a large enough freshman class that non-top ten kids have a fair chance. Try having top 20% and a 1250 at Berkeley, and see where that gets you--a nice rejection letter. UT even allows for guaranteed admission after just one year, which really is the icing on top of the egalitarian system which UT fosters.</p>
<p>Personally, I think the university needs to downsize. Enormously. While having almost 50000 students on a campus has its perks(top notch research facilities, better chance to acquire good scientists etc.), it has a very sharp downsize: huge classes. I should preface what I am about to say by saying that I am not (yet, fall '08 is when I begin) at UT and I have only sat in on a very small CS honors course.</p>
<p>The root problem, I believe, with huge classes is that you loose a lot of learning experience from being in the classroom. After all, why not just watch a lecture from MIT OCW rather than go to a huge lecture hall with absolutely <em>NO</em> prof-student interaction? It's a passive experience either way and the latter is free! </p>
<p>With all those students, you lose a lot of potential opportunities to connect with profs. Yes, you can talk to a prof and arrange to do research but it's a LOT harder when there are 350 people in the class versus when there are only 20-40. Honors programs help but don't completely eliminate this. Honors programs only apply to some specific classes and not the general requirements.</p>
<p>UT could really be (excuse me if I sound like I'm saying UT is bad currently) ivy-league quality with the faculty and facilities it has if only it were smaller(and with that in mind, probably more expensive).</p>
<p>The top 10% law is bad for the sole fact that it makes the university admit a ton of students. I think that along with the reduction in the law should come a reduction in the number of admittances(i.e. reduce the admittances by 40% or whatever by cutting the non-needed top-10% kids). The law is a hindrance to putting UT at the top of USNWR.</p>
<p>my argument is not that underrepresented groups or minorities shouldn't receive extra consideration, i believe that everyone should be given the chance to attend UT if they earn it, but that the current system is very flawed. The undeniable truth is that through this law, deserving kids are getting shafted, and non-deserving kids are getting in. while this happens at every college, it is not the actual policy to do this as it is in texas. I agree that AP classes shouldnt be that big of a factor, and as you say alot of kids who take them have no social life because of it, but at schools like mine if you dont take them you cannot get in the top 10%. I think the only way to fix this is to make sure everyone has the same opportunity in highschool, that way no one can use the excuse that they didnt have the opportunity. Texas also needs to have a universal way to measure GPA, so that argument cant be used. Some schools will still outperform others, but the kids there shouldn't be hurt because of it. the legislature needs to stop finding loopholes on how to satisfy minorities and the people from small towns, and actually address the problem of why so many schools are under performing. If texas is going to continue admitting everyone in the top ten percent, the least they could do is give a little extra points to those that go to super competitive schools, just like they do to minorities and low income school students.</p>
<p>The UC system does not calculate class rank in any way into the admissions process (except for the top 4% ELC, which only gives auto admittance to the mid to lower tier UCs). The elites like berkeley, ucla, and ucsd base admittance solely on their own calculated GPA, sat, and other admission statistics, but they also emphasize rigor of course load (adding points to UC GPA by the amount of APs taken), which is sorely lacking in UT's admission process. The top 10% statistic you see on collegeboard is more or less a made up number. There are many non top 10% students that get accepted to top state schools in California because of the difficulty the student placed himself/herself through high school, while some top 10% students from non-competitive high schools in California are not admitted. And look at the schools' rankings by numerous magazines; they are considered as the best schools in the nation.</p>