<p>@cromette, did your friend who missed the percentage cuttoff even apply to UT?</p>
<p>After thinking about this some more, I can see how some reasonably strong students could miss out on UT. </p>
<p>If the top 8% auto-admit rule delivers roughly 75% of the class, then UT will have generally covered its need for high-achieving academic types (along with a few fairly weak but serious students, of course). But for that remaining 25%, UT needs to account for all the other factors that they’re looking for - athletes, various diversity factors, nonacademic achievements, a few out-of-staters, etc. Things could get tight.</p>
<p>But not so tight that many “10 AP, 2220+ SAT, 3.8UW GPA” kids could be missing out. Obviously, it’s hard for such students to even fall outside the top 8%, except at a very few specialty schools, and they’re still likely shoo-ins. But with only 25% of the class up for selection, many of the non-auto students will need to bring something else to the table, whether it’s desirable demographics or nonacademic achievements.</p>
<p>I guess if you want UT, you had better make sure you’re top 8%.</p>
<p>From this chart, it looks like you’d need to have some pretty bad luck to miss at 2070+, 3.5+: [UT</a> Austin - GPA and Test Scores Needed for Admission](<a href=“http://collegeapps.about.com/od/GPA-SAT-ACT-Graphs/ss/ut-austin-admission-gpa-sat-act.htm]UT”>UT Austin: Acceptance Rate, SAT/ACT Scores, GPA)</p>
<p>What is UT’s yield rate for students admitted via the percentage plan?</p>
<p>Yield looks to be 50 percent or so, based on common data set. 16000 accepted, 8000 enroll. Texas A and M has a slightly lower yield, 45 percent. Texas A and M shows the data for the top 10 percent (they have stuck with 10 percent) The yield for top 10 is 50 percent.</p>
<p>UT was top 10 percent until just a couple of years ago. The President of UT used the football card to get the legislature to change it to 8 percent by arguing that he wouldn’t have room for football players at the rate the state was growing. So they lowered it to 8 percent.</p>
<p>Of course JC40 makes a valid point, being at a hyper competitive high school does impact your chances at admissions, due to the % top class rule. The fewer slots available (due to being filled by the % top class rule), the lower your chances of being admitted. There is no magic bullet when it comes to admissions.</p>
<p>@MisterK, please note the following that was under the chart, you linked:
“Realize, however, that hidden beneath the blue and green on the graph is a lot of red – some students with excellent transcripts and strong standardized test results still get rejected from the University of Texas.”</p>
<p>How do URM perform at UT?</p>
<p>[College</a> Navigator - The University of Texas at Austin](<a href=“College Navigator - The University of Texas at Austin”>College Navigator - The University of Texas at Austin)</p>
<p>Lets look at 6th year Graduation Rates:</p>
<p>AT UT
Black/African American 66%
Hispanic/Latino 72%
Asian 84%
White 84%</p>
<p>At UF (choosing Florida since it’s another Flagship that’s highly selective)
Black/African American 77% (+11% over UT)
Hispanic/Latino 83% (+11% over UT)
Asian 83% (-1% over UT)
White 85% (+1% over UT)</p>
<p>Enrollment
UT UF</p>
<p>Black/African American 5% 9%
Hispanic/Latino 20% 17%
Asian 18% 8%
White 50% 59%</p>
<p>UF using holistic admissions (and it’s nobodies “safe” school, based on the many stories of kids with great stats being rejected; no magic bullets).</p>
<p>Clearly URM’s at UF out perform those at UT. Complaints that some students may not be prepared for UT’s rigor seems valid. </p>
<p>Also note that a “holistic” method can also support reaching an URM goal, but the % top class method does a better job of meeting SES diversity goals. UF tries to meet it’s SES goals by supplying need based FA (at the cost of giving very little merit based aid).</p>
<p>In the elite Texas high schools, the kid outside the x% can be disadvantaged. Depending on class size and competition from other top schools in that area of the state, there may be a limit to how many outside X% can be admitted. Holistic may not serve him in the way it serves other groups. And, there will be many who fall outside X, but had their hopes pinned on UTA. </p>
<p>The problem is, anytime holistic is applied, imo, it’s about the kid’s potential- a look forward, not back. What does he add, what could he contribute, what could he gain. </p>
<p>I think that, if you look at modern US history, there is a trend to offer safety nets and opportunities, going back roughly 100 years. One that says, each of us is part of a whole, that needs to support itself. Like it or not. Much of our outlay goes to supporting this whole, in many ways. AA is meant to move generations up, slowly work toward some equity. Is it perfect? No. But is it the actual problem? I don’t think so. The problem is we have segments of society far behind others, in respects that slow down their chance to move up. AA tries to break a cycle that says, born low, stay low.</p>
<p>Calling it racist is too simple. Focusing on a few kids we know or hear of is bringing the problem down to an individual level. It’s a societal problem. And, saying there is enough diverse representation now feels self-serving. Of course we want our kids to get the right opportunities. But what about “them?” What about the larger context, that we are each part of?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What a self-righteous message. One can have doubts about the qualifications about the people who have received preferences (whether racial, legacy, geographic, or athletic) without being a “hater”. It is hateful to attribute bad motives to other based on conjecture.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The critics of AA define equity as equal treatment, not equal results.</p>
<p>Minority graduation differences between UT and UF may have to do with finances and not rigor. UT’s tuition is 50% more expensive. I have been in this situation. I just could not afford the college tuition after a couple of years.</p>
<p>But is UT 50% more expensive than UF for kids who receive FA?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UTA has a pretty strong community college transfer system. Why is the dream over?</p>
<p>According to Collegeboard.org, UT meets 78% of financial need while UF meets 74% of financial need. Both universities meet need equally. Therefore, UT is still 50% more expensive.</p>
<p>Then doesn’t that make UT cheaper for a FA recipient?</p>
<p>The critics of AA define equity as equal treatment, not equal results.</p>
<p>And the proponents see it as opportunity. Not perfection, not something to be immediately proven by stats, including grad rates. A slow moving process that should capture people who otherwise were not in the secure positions that better ensure their success. Each generation that moves a step ahead altering the circumstances that mired others.</p>
<p>Not equal results. Not equal “treatment.” Because there are not equal starting points. Like it or not, we are part of a whole.</p>
<p>Although the lawsuit is based mainly on race, the holistic process is supposed to cover students in JC40’s post who have excellent accomplishments but don’t meet the percentage rule. I would be surprised if someone with 10 APs and 2240 score get rejected by UT but the lawsuit has had a chilling effect on UT this year to take any kind of chances.</p>
<p>During 2012 admission cycle, anyone who met the rule was admitted right away and anyone who had great credentials also got admitted early on. In 2013 cycle, they put a clamp on all admissions and even the auto admit students had to wait a while to find out.</p>
<p>@lookingforward,</p>
<p>That is what the percentage plans addresses: leveling the playing field for low SES kids, particularly poor URMs. </p>
<p>But the lawyer for UT argued that UT needs to use racial preferences for holistic admits, to ensure representation of high SES URMs-- to have “diversity within diversity”. </p>
<p>I wonder if “diversity within diversity” is terminology that UT uses, or if this lawyer made that up on the fly.</p>
<p>I can’t imagine a lawyer making something up on the fly in an argument before the Supreme Court. Lawyers prepare for months for these arguments.</p>
<p>"But the lawyer for UT argued that UT needs to use racial preferences for holistic admits, to ensure representation of high SES URMs-- to have “diversity within diversity”. "</p>
<p>He can’t go around saying qualified African americans are not applying and we can’t admit those who apply because they don’t meet the rule and so we are using this loophole.</p>
<p>GMTplus7,</p>
<p>No. How did you figure UT to be cheaper?</p>