<p>so word around the street is that because of the high volume of in-state applicants that are in the top 10%, UT will soon establish a top 5% rule! is this true? because if it is, this is getting extremely ridiculous...</p>
<p>Well, at least that will leave more room for kids that go to competitive schools but get rejected simply b/c all the top 10% kids (many that aren't impressive) fill the spots.</p>
<p>There are several revisions floating around the Texas Senate. But the only problem is, there is an Senator that is continues to fight block them. It really makes no sense why colleges should be dumbed down because they are forced to admit students below par simply because they come from a poor(grade-wise) high school.</p>
<p>Can you imagine the stress and competition at some top high schools if it got pushed up to 5%? I'd hope ther'd be mass parent protest if there was any truth to cmuhopeful's rumor.</p>
<p>They should make it top 1%
If you're smart enough to be in the top 10% then you should be smart enough to get into UT without being a guaranteed admit
But top 1 percenters like me should be spared the stress ;]</p>
<p>Just kidding.
Not really.</p>
<p>No I can't imagine the stress. You know why, because the high schools have have to stress to be in the top 10% or top 5% are the ones with the smart students with good stats. Eliminating the top 10-5% would effectively rule out probably what would be the bulk of the top 10% admissions. Because those in the top 5% are going to be more likely not to go to UT. This means that they have to admit less students, leaving more room for the non-top 5%s. This allows for UT to actually start gravitating towards basing reviews on more than just class rank.</p>
<p>So in actuality, this will provide, those students who have succeeded through academics/extracurriculars and deserve to go to UT, a much better chance admission. Yes we will lose students from the schools who are in small towns, and what not, but I really don't like the fact that they don't have to earn admissions as much as someone in much tougher school does.</p>
<p>yall should read the book "The Overacheivers" the subjects of the book are extremely stressed</p>
<p>I'm at odds with the top 10% rule. One on hand I believe it is a good idea because it leaves a "safety net" for the overachievers that apply to ivy schools (if they don't get in they can always go to a state school); on the other hand I find that with the elimination of the rule it would make admissions fair and not allow someone from a less competitive high school an advantage in getting in </p>
<p>any comments?</p>
<p>meh at my school top 6% would be all those with perfect gpa.... so i guess the only thing that would change would be the panic from like percents 7-10</p>
<p>@ oxymoron2007</p>
<p>You say that getting rid of the top 10% rule would "make admissions fair and not allow someone from a less competitive high school an advantage in getting in " but what about the advantages that the students in the competitive high schools have like better teachers, better facilities, etc. Do you think it's "fair" to discriminate against kids who didn't have all of those opportunities because they happened to go to a less competitive high school?</p>
<p>
[quote]
Do you think it's "fair" to discriminate against kids who didn't have all of those opportunities because they happened to go to a less competitive high school?
[/quote]
Welcome to America...
Do YOU think its fair that people smarter and more capable are being turned down, because somebody else at a worst school didn't have an opportunity. Why don't we just add SAT points to everyone who goes to a crappy school, that way we can overlook our POS education system.</p>
<p>I agree that American schools need to be improved. It would be wonderful if we lived in a country where every public high school was excellent and every student in each school had brilliant teachers and all the resources they could possibly need to succeed, but that's not the way it is. Some high schools have better teachers, some high schools have better facilities, and some high schools don't have either. </p>
<p>High school students themselves usually don't have a lot of say in where they go to high school. It's usually mostly their parents' decision and is affected by where their parents can afford to send their kids to school. Can they afford a house in the Westlake district, to send their kid to a great private school, or are they stuck in a rural or inner city district where the schools are subpar? </p>
<p>College admissions should be based on future potential for success, and while past successes (GPA, SAT scores, etc) are indicators of future successes, they are not the only indicators and don't necessarily take in to account that Joe's teachers didn't teach him math well or that Susie's parents can afford to send her to an expensive SAT prep course. </p>
<p>The Top 10% law does hurt some qualified students who are good students but not quite in the top 10%, but repealing it and not using any type of affirmative action would hurt more people worse. Many of the students who are hurt by the top 10% law because they're good students with good SAT scores, just not top 10% will end up going to college, just not at UT or A&M. If you were to take it away though, most of the people that would be most hurt would be people from innercity or rural high schools that wouldn't have the back up options that others do and would be less likely to go to college at all. It's in society's best interest to have as many educated people as possible and I think that the top 10% law/affirmative action helps that happen.</p>
<p>i love the top ten % rule bc i won't have to stress about getting in McCombs or not because if i don't get in McCombs then i'm guaranteed in school and will later transfer</p>
<p>txinternational, i must respectfully disagree with you.</p>
<p>first of all, university of texas at austin is not a welfare system. if education at the elementary, middle, and high schools levels needs to be fixed, then it should be fixed there. there is no need during admissions for discrimination based on high school, gender, race, etc. </p>
<p>However, i must agree with txinternational that there must be some sort of additional consideration but ONLY based on economic or personal conditions, not geographical. I say this because it is understandable if a kid from a poor family or a kid with physical disabilities has to be under duress for a considerable amount time. thus, rather than placing an over-arching inflexible law, we should allow the admissions committee to holistically evaluate the candidates and establish who in fact has the most potential. however, in response to txinternational, the same may not apply with say, a certain township. No matter how downtrodden, every township has its rich and mighty and just because they were in the top 10% does not necessarily mean they underwent hard circumstances to get there.</p>
<p>and by the way, in response to that last paragraph. maybe the solution is not apply the 10% rule to ut and a&m but rather say utd, unt, similar colleges, so that the inner-city and rural kids can go to college but not interfere with the system of meritocracy in the best of our education system that is necessary for a functioning capitalistic system.</p>
<p>i really do empathize with those who have faced challenges all their lives. While many problems do exist in our primary and secondary school systems, to think with our heart rather than our head would be disastrous for everyone in the long run.</p>
<p>
[quote]
and by the way, in response to that last paragraph. maybe the solution is not apply the 10% rule to ut and a&m but rather say utd, unt, similar colleges, so that the inner-city and rural kids can go to college but not interfere with the system of meritocracy in the best of our education system that is necessary for a functioning capitalistic system.
[/quote]
What school would want to take the 10% rule, and what basis would you use to rank the schools. UTD has a smarter student population than UT, so shouldn't they be excluded from the top 10% rule instead of UT. No school will willingly accept the fact they are inferior so they should have inferior policies. I don't care if your University of Texas at Brownsville, no matter how bad of a school, no school wants to be blatantly called stupid by forcing them to use the top 10% rule, while UT and A&M dont.</p>
<p>Coincidentally, I was on campus yesterday and I read in the Daily Texan that a new bill is attempting to put a cap on those admitted into UT due to the Top 105 Rule.. apparently 71% of the 2006 Freshman class were admitted under this rule and the bill wants to limit that number closer to 30-50%.</p>