Non top 10%

<p>a 1500 is good enough to get you into a Decent/Good school in Texas and plenty of other states, now when its an ivy get your 2100 but if it aint IVY and you got a 2100 ur at the wrong school</p>

<p>UT AND A&M do not have more seats than baylor in their freshman class, over half of their seats are filled through top 10, so that leaves what around 3500-4000? seats? correct me if im wrong? btw im talking about the seats left over for UT</p>

<p>and for most schools in Texas a 1500 is good enough, if 50% of the people that take the SAT get a 1500 it obviously isnt a bad score</p>

<p>pierrechn - I will say that the folks on CC who stress out because they have a 760 and not an 800 in a given area are wacky, but if you think an individual score of 500 is “good” - I repeat - you are delusional.</p>

<p>A score of 500 in any given area is okay, but it’s not good.</p>

<p>its good enough to get you in School, i think that the SAT is better for states that dont have a top 10 rule, since in Texas Top 10 is essentially what gets you in, but then again i think every state should have a similar rule</p>

<p>The 2100 might be a bit extreme. So should we say 1900ish?</p>

<p>Lol, talk about needing sensitivity training. </p>

<p>pierrechn- a 1500 overall score is very average. To get colleges like UT and A&M’s attention you would need a 1900, or better. UT’s standards are obviously higher than A&M’s, but that does not necessarily make it a better school. </p>

<p>I got accepted to the best journalism school in the country, and the oldest in the world on a 1710 SAT. </p>

<p>It is a fact that SAT’s are not everything. My problem with Texas schooling is that they put too much pressure on standardized testing. In my opinion tests do not reflect the amount of intelligence and potential a person has.</p>

<p>@yea probably for UT and A&M mainly because of the Top 10 rule, just imagine what their means would be like without it? every student would probably have a decent shot if they were well rounded with decent scores</p>

<p>i agree with you they worry to much about the TAKS test which is not hard at all compared to the SAT, i just wonder why some kids at my school cant pass it/ i mean if they cant pass that then they surely wont do to well on the SAT</p>

<p>but i do think a test can measure intelligence to a certain degree, but then again alot of people just flat out dont try their best to make a great scores</p>

<p>@Xcellerator: I’m sorry, do you attend my school? I am just one student, who happened not to do well on my SAT’s.
And really is there a such thing as a competitive PUBLIC high school?, maybe one that is magnet, and there are also ones that have no incentive at all. But in general, they are all about the same.
Also, chances are, if you attend A&M, of course you are going to say Baylor is not selective. Which I disagree.</p>

<p>There is such thing as a competitive public high school.</p>

<p>i have some stats for yall. Baylor is not very selective at all. Just so everyone knows. I have friends who got a 21 on the ACT and got into Baylor. And i have friends who got waitlisted at A&M with 27s. so Baylor isnt that selective.</p>

<p>pinktye03 - the reason I say baylor isn’t a selective school is: Everyone I know who applied to Baylor has been accepted, within 3 days… I have never heard of anyone being rejected admission to Baylor.</p>

<p>Lots of kids outside of top 10% at my son’s hs found out over spring break that they got in. Most were either just inside or just out of the top 1/4. His best friend was about 30%, but decent scores - got in undeclared.</p>

<p>They are from a competitive public highschool, a historical “feeder” type to A&M and UT, where out of the 469 kids, usually around 200 get accepted to either A&M or UT or both, and many kids use them as safeties. So, yes, there are competitive PUBLIC highschools. They are schools that send a ton of kids and the kids do well, they are prepared for, and capable of, the rigor of college work, and the admissions people know this.</p>

<p>Oh, and I get why you were saying PUBLICs are “all about the same” and if it’s good, must be magnet, etc, but in areas where both parents are college educated and expect excellence from both their children and from the schools they attend, you are going to have “competitive” public highschools.</p>

<p>aggieengineer, you must not get out much. ;)</p>

<p>Actually I do, I am a state ranked tennis player, travel all around Texas for it, go out with friends every weekend, have a gf of nearly 2 years etc etc. So pleassee, if you want to say that about me go right ahead, but you don’t know me.</p>

<p>Their are plenty great public highschools throughout the country, but people spend thousands of dollars on private schools so they need 2 be better</p>

<p>Just because private schools cost money doesn’t necessarily mean they are better.</p>

<p>@Grcxxx well then why do people like to send their kids to private schooL? and im just assuming you get what you pay for</p>

<p>There are some really good public schools that just happen to be located in rich areas, where only the wealthy can afford to live, and those schools are traditionally very good. A prime example would be Highland Park High School.</p>

<p>@STV yea HP is a pretty good school, yea most of the schools in decent areas usually are good. Townview is a good school, its not really in a good area though, Booker T, Duncanville,Plano HS(east and west) and probably the other ones that are further out their like Frisco</p>

<p>pierrechn - you DO get what you pay for. But sometimes, what people want to pay for isn’t necessarily related to better academics. </p>

<p>FYI - I went to a private school - and a very good one. But not all of them are academically strong.</p>

<p>I can attest to Plano HS (all 3). They have some tough competition. HP is also notorious in that regard. Allen and Frisco are also pretty solid but not even close to those others I mentioned.</p>