<p>Bill would force students to take harder classes</p>
<p>AUSTIN (AP) - Students who want automatic admission to Texas universities would have to take tougher high school classes under a bill filed Wednesday by Sen. Royce West.</p>
<p>West, D-Dallas, said the university admissions law that requires universities to accept graduates who rank in the top 10 percent of their class is doing what it was intended, increasing diversity at Texas universities. But he said that some students who haven't taken challenging courses have been unfairly admitted....</p>
<p>I'm in the mood for a lively discussion. ;)</p>
<p>Well, I'm not sure I'll be lively enough. I agree that it would be much better if a person were to take a real "college prep" curriculum in order to qualify for the auto-admit, but since I'm not a resident I don't know what the "advanced" curriculum referenced in the article consists of. I would hate to see so many hurdles put in place that it defeats the purpose of the program (e.g. what if they put in place a requirement for a certain number of honors or AP classes, but the schools don't have the resources to offer them?)</p>
<p>Ah, I should probably elaborate. While you can use AP for your advanced measures, that is not the only way to meet the requirement.</p>
<p>Recommended = 4 English, 3 Science of which one can be IPC, 3 math, 2 social science, 2 years same language, Gov/Econ, speech, PE, health, plus electives.</p>
<p>Advanced = 3 years same language, 3 sciences (bio/chem/physics), 4 Advanced measures (any combo of PSAT commended or above, 3+ on an AP exam, College dual enrollment or Tech Prep classes) and then your basic recommended curriculum.</p>
<p>Currently the lowest plan allows you to graduate with only 22 credits, 2 math (through geometry) for example.</p>
<p>Because the rigorous prep school that I attended in San Antonio did not rank students, few of us could get into Texas Colleges; we all had to go to Harvard(3), Princeton(2), Stanford(3), Rice, Swarthmore and a host of other selective colleges instead... but a 1050 SAT and few basketweaving courses at a local public high school with good grades got you right in to UT(top 10%, it's a joke..)</p>
<p>Exactly the inequities I've been known to whine about on CC. At our high school it has created a layer of gamers who leave quite unprepared for college, but they have also knocked out other qualified applicants in the process. </p>
<p>We also have this issue: Over the course of the year upwards of 250 seniors drop out or get reclassified, which changes our top 10% by 20 people in January. But they've already applied to UT or A & M before the massive cut.</p>
<p>I have also heard things like up at Austin Westlake you might have 35 kids with a perfect 4.0. Number 36 (with the 2nd rank) with a 3.999999 is now out of the top 10%.</p>
<p>Texas residents - does the top 10% rule basically fill the class at UT & A&M? What proportion of students who actually have UT as a first choice are bumped out by this policy? Are the kids that are bumped at the top of the class, or is it more the suburban kids that are top 11-20% in the class, for whom UT might typically be a first choice. I know a kid who is out of state at A&M, so I know some other students get admitted.
This sounds like the kind of lame brain idea they would get in Alabama, although it would increase diversity of all kinds, but bad for the suburban kids. It is that same old problem - when the major inequities are not at the colleges' level, but in the elementary and high schools, how can you fairly correct them by manipulating university admissions - you can't it will never be fair until students have better opportunities when they are 12 years old, not at 17.</p>
<p>I should point out this bill was in response to another bill that would eliminate the top 10% altogether.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what A&M does, but UT reserves the first 75% of their entering class for the top 10% and is selective on the remaining 25%, at least that's what they said about this year. It's becoming common for them to route students who aren't in the top 10% to feeder schools and admit them after a year or so if their grades are acceptable. </p>
<p>It's an interesting problem. In our district, it's essentially not possible to be in the top 10% if you aren't taking AP courses; straight A's aren't enough anymore. At the same time, I hear rumors that the schools, UT and A&M in particular, generally aren't happy with the program because they feel it forces them to take less qualified students in an unplanned sort of way. They can't put together more balanced classes the way they would like. </p>
<p>I agree something needs to be done, whether requiring a college bound curriculum similar to what's being suggested or reducing the number to 5% or even 4% as California has.</p>
<p>hubbellgardner, my son's school doesn't rank either, but apparently the advisors have done a good job educating UT on their program. Roughly half their kids get attend UT (while the rest go to some pretty impressive schools). I admit it was probably easier for them since they're a public, state funded program. I can't help but wonder if the non-ranking thing is the only issue at your school. UT hates to be used as a safety.</p>
<p>Jeb Bush did this in Florida a few years ago......since my kids are in private I don't know how it works but now that I"m reading about Texas, think I'll go find out......</p>
<p>Strick11, your point is well-taken. At my school, as with most private prep schools, going to a large public university is not the priority or interest of the vast majority of the students, and UT and A&M would have been used as "safeties". Ranking is not used for the usual reasons-you can't really compare the class rank of someone in a class of 100 students where the average SAT is around 1300, has taken 5+ AP courses with a GPA of 3.5 to someone who goes to a public high school with a class of 800, with GPA's above 4.0+ , with limited courses etc.. apples to oranges. UT admissions recognizes the difference, but is hemmed in by the Texas law, whereas private college and universities can readily recognize the true caliber of the students regardless of the 'class rank'</p>
<p>Although I do not have a dog that chooses to be in this fight I think an important part of the legislative intent behind the rule is misunderstood. This is not about building a great freshman class or the best freshman class at our two great big giant large massive flagship uni's. It is designed to be a carrot. A tangible reward with defined criteria.The legislature said-I don't care what school you go to and what programs they have-if you will suck it up and deal with gang violence, underpaid teachers, poorly staffed counselors offices, and zippo community and parental support you will have a spot in our finest universities as a reward for your efforts. </p>
<p>No one said or assumed the students would be equal or the freshman class the best available in terms of scholarship or potential, or no one with a brain anyway . The legislators decided rightly or wrongly that students in under-represented schools needed a tangible, understandable carrot to keep them motivated to excel at their high schools, mostly urban and rural- and voila! The carrot. Maybe their assumption was Harvard wantin' San Antonio prep kids and Westlake 3.99's had someplace else to go. Just a thought.</p>
<p>Seems to me that the Texas plan is working, which is why all the complaints!</p>
<p>But if the suburban parents are unhappy, there are simple solutions. Get rid of all district funding for the next three generations, and let the state provide double the amount of funding per student to schools at the "historically challenged" schools, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't do that forever: just three generations should be enough time to level the playing field.</p>
<p>I know there are some different views of why we have the program here in Texas, but the simplest is that the court threw out affirmative action several years back and the legislature was looking for an alternative that wouldn't provoke a firestorm. It was hard to argue against the idea then. Everyone knew that there was economic segregation in the state. Requiring Universities to accept students from all school districts should tend to promote diversity. Even the most hardened opponent of affirmative action would not oppose admitting students based on merit, and the 10% rule seemed to provide that.</p>
<p>The question now is whether it's working. I've heard that minority representation still isn't what was hoped at the top state schools. UT wants to go back to some form of affirmative action and will be taking race into consideration for the first time in years based on the Michigan court case. Translated for mini: It ain't working. For either side of the argument.</p>
<p>The new rules also coincided with demographics. We know the number of college age kids is growing and will continue to grow for some time. The flagship state schools are worried about overcrowding and looking for ways to manage the problem while continuing to do the things that make the our finest universities (eh, curmudgeon? ;)). UT and A&M seem more overcrowed every day. </p>
<p>If you're not aware, since they are required to accept students, but not necessarily into the programs the students want, UT has responded to overcrowding by keeping popular, prestious majors highly selective and forcing less prepared students into other majors. In effect we're creating a university within the university. If this intended to provide equity, consider the impact of redirecting college bound students to the degrees that don't automatically translate into good jobs. College is good, but what do you do with a BA in English (a reference to a recent Broadway musical)?</p>
<p>It's an interesting experiement that I think needs some fine tuning. Requiring certain college prep is a good idea regardless. We're doing no one a favor if they get to attend but aren't really prepared. Figuring out how to balance admissions across the state school system might help, too. Of course, I'm hoping they'll resolve education funding inequities so that students are more likely to get a Westlake kind of education at any high school in the state. Hate it when we try to fix the symptoms rather than the bigger problem.</p>
<p>Strick,your first paragraph is spot on. I went to school with one of the architects of the original plan. That's the way it was sold to the legislators with a substantial rural constituency (who wouldn't have bought the AA argument as quickly, if at all) .</p>
<p>And I agree wholeheartedly that we need to work feverishly to save the vaunted postion of the finest universities in our state.Gig'em Horns.:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I'm a Texas Tech grad, curmudgeon. Smile when you say that :D</p>
<p>Actually, much of the economic growth in Austin over the last 25 years comes from the reputation has been working hard to build. I remember when everyone graduating from UT wished they could stay in Austin, but there were no jobs. They've worked hard to change that.</p>
<p>Isn't that the point? A degree from the right school is supposed to open doors? It would be a shame to give all those kids you describe a chance to go to a great university but in doing so, tear down the reputation of the university. What good do you do them then?</p>
<p>Smile Strick? Heck, I was giggling. My kid wouldn't go to either UT or A+M on a bet. And BTW, DW is a TTechU Grad ,1978.</p>
<p>One thing I have noticed as a fall-out to this situation is that Tech, Houston, Texas State, UNT, and SFA among others are trying to lure those same top 10% with a few substantial scholarships. Why not consider substantially increasing public funding for top 10% scholarships at those schools, maybe even something akin to free tuition? That'll clear some space.</p>
<p>I'm rather shocked at the minimum requirement for admission to a school that considers itself a peer with the other top state schools. </p>
<p>What do kids do that matriculate with only two years of math? Does the UT remdiate, i.e., then provide, two more years of high-school level math, so kids can actually beging to take college level courses in math and sciences? If not, they are precluded from 40+% of all the courses offered....What does that do to graduation times, costs to taxpayers?</p>
<p>For those interested, UC's 4% ELC plan is calculated on weighted grades in Soph and Junior years, in UC's 'a-g' courses, i.e, academic core + VAPA, so kids taking UC-approved honors and AP courses have an advantage at their local HS. But, achieving 4% status does not guarantee a kid a slot in Berkeley or UCLA, just admission to a UC campus somewhere (Merced?), but nearly every other campus (besides the top 2) accept all the ELC kids in their surrounding 'hood.</p>
<p>My son, 1/2 Hispanic, is a "victim" of the top 10% rule as he goes to one of the top couple public schools in the state. Several years ago they led the country in absolute terms in NMF with 70 something, which was roughly 10% of the class. </p>
<p>DS is almost for sure a NMF and was uninterested in grades his first two years. Is basically just in the top 20%. We're sweating it. We knew the game. The school he was zoned to was a joke, but we played the testing game and got him into the non-zone school he attends. We feel privileged enough that I still don't feel like we are victims. The 10% rule has had some good effects, especially with respect to helping economically disadvantaged students get into UT. The 10% rule also allowed UT to hold almost steady in diversity despite the outlawing of any affirmative action, till the recent S. Ct. case, which is first effecting this year's class.</p>
<p>A friend who was not as good of a student did close to zero homework ever and made the top 10% by going to that school. The kid will be at a real disadvantage never having studied even once for two hours at a time , I would be willing to bet.</p>
<p>One downside of the rule is that the roughly 50% Latinos and Blacks at son's very compeitive school are also victimized by the certian aspects of the 10% rule as many more of them would be in the top 10% at the other disastrously inferior highschools that abound in Houston Independent Schoo District.</p>