<p>I know for my majors that Texas is ranked high. It's 6th in architecture by desingintelligence magazine, and 13th engineering by USNEWS. But on a national level, its ranked 47th?!?!?! I wonder why? I would've thought it would be around 25-30.</p>
<p>ANyone got ideas?</p>
<p>it is not very selective in a general sense</p>
<p>Part of it is probably due to the top 10% rule.
I know that only like 20 people in the top 10% of my school are actually smart hahah</p>
<p>It has everything to do with the top 10% rule. If you're not accepted into your first or second choice major/school, then you're either put into Liberal Arts or Natural Sciences. Same thing goes for if you're not in the top 10% and/or out-of-state. Plus, think about it - UT is the largest school in the nation (52,000). It's pretty hard for a school that large to maintain a super high ranking like most of the Ivies. Sure, UT is full of gifted people, but there are many who aren't Ivy caliber. But just keep this in mind, UT has been referred to on numerous occasions as the "Public Ivy." Look at McCombs - it's a top 5 B-school in the country, and engineering and architecture are rated close as well. And individual programs within the university are some of the top in the country. So, UT is basically one of the best schools in the country overall.</p>
<p>And, I'm one of those people who absolutely despises rankings. I think they are extremely biased and have no real relevance to the majority of the population. Plus, unless something drastic happens, a school wont move very much in rankings from year to year. So I see McCombs when I look at UT (I was accepted and am attending in Fall 2007). But that's just the way I look at it - it seems more reasonable to me.</p>
<p>^I think BS to UT said it all. =)</p>
<p>As a Californian, I feel that as long as the top 10% rule is in effect, it will guarantee Texas a relatively low ranking. U of T SHOULD be comparable to OUR flagship universities (UCLA and Berkley) based on resources and potential student pool. However, very few students in the top 10% will gain entry to those universities in California. Unfortunately, Texas is more interested in social engineering than merit. California took care of a similar situation by eliminating racial preferences via the ballot box (Proposition 209). The 10% rule is a transparent effort to guarantee certain minorites admission over more capable students.</p>
<p>How on earth does the 10% rule have anything to do with race? You have to be in the top 10% for the rule to apply - not a particular race and in the top 10%. It is quite the opposite of admissions based on racial preference.</p>
<p>Think about the poor impoverished schools in the cities where minorities dominate. Without the 10% rule, these kids will have a less than stellar chance of going to UT because of these conditions. Thus, since these areas are minority filled, some kind of racial preference is implicitly evident.</p>
<p>What is interesting though is that the 10% rule really hasn't affected the percentage of minorities attending UT and TAM. Both schools have pretty substantial campaigns on to recruit quality minority candidates. IMO, the 10% rule really helps out rural white students rather than minorities.</p>
<p>What do you think?</p>
<p>The STATED intent of the top 10% rule was to maintain a level of minority admits into U of T. It was a direct reaction to the Hopwood decision which discouraged racial preferences. This was a backdoor way of continuing to admit lessor qualifieds minorities.</p>
<p>What it does is eliminate EVERY other qualification other than class standing. An individual taking a less than rigorous academic load, with low test scores and zero academic awards would be admitted over another individual taking ALL AP courses with PERFECT SAT's and a National Merit scholarship award but a lower class standing in a more rigorous academic setting. The reason that this favors "minorites" (it is not PC to specify blacks and hispanics) is that minority high schools are less acaedmically rigorous and its students less capable. Thus it is much easier to place in the top 10%. </p>
<p>It also eliminates ALL other measusres that minorities routinely do poorly on ... such as standardized tests, math/science achievement, and academic awards that are selected from the entire student population.</p>
<p>As relates to the fact that it might also admit lessor qualified whites from rural areas, I feel that this is EQUALLY unjust. Being from a rural area should not be a qualification for admission into a university. </p>
<p>I believe that if the if by virtue of hardwork and ability green dwarfs from Dallas would fill up 80% of the student body.... so be it! let academic achievement, ability, and hard work prevail (otherwise known as MERIT)... then let the chips fall where they may.</p>
<p>I agree that the stated intent was to maintain a level of minority admits (way to circumvent Hopwood), but my point was that the percentage of minority students has not statistically changed much. Perhaps most minority kids are not applying to UT or A&M because of the culture there, cost, or distance from home (just supposition). And, interestingly (according to a recent article in the Houston Chronicle), some large percentage of kids at Texas and A&M come from the traditional suburban feeder schools in Dallas and Houston. I wish I could remember the exact percentage, but suffice it to say, I was suprised, having believed the nightmare stories of "noone getting in anymore."</p>
<p>To add some personal perspective, my older son, who is now a sophomore, was in the 33rd percentile at an extremely competitive private prep school in Houston, he (along with 22 other kids that graduated with him, plus 37 commended in a class of 200) was a NMF, with over a 1500 SAT (800 vbl), he was a "green dwarf" (lol) as you put it. He was eventually accepted at UT in March of 2005, as was just about every kid from his school who applied to Texas. I wrote letters of recommendation for a number of girls last year (2006) who were not top 10% kids but were also eventually accepted. I saw their stats, they had high test scores and great EC's. I don't know what set them apart form all of the other dwarfs, perhaps it was that UT admissions recognized the quality of their highschool. But, the chips did fall in their favor and they were awarded a spot based on MERIT. </p>
<p>I am no fan of the top 10% rule, don't get me wrong. Just offering my opinion.</p>
<p>Blinc, I found that article and started a new thread with it. It is interesting in that it points out that the traditional "feeder" type schools are still sending many students to Texas and A&M.</p>
<p>I have a question-- Is it harder for a minority who isn't in top 10 to get into UT?
Top ten at my school is four students. I'd advocate and say that 2 of the students who are in that 4 isn't bright.</p>
<p>Being a minority gives you a slight advantage. But, and I hate to say this, not being in the top 10% will hurt you. You will need to have an outstanding application and some killer recommendations and test scores. I don't agree with the top 10% rule, but there's nothing any of us can do about it this year, although UT is trying to get the legislation changed.</p>
<p>By the way, are you in-state or out-of-state?</p>
<p>I'm a big proponent of merit-based decision making for admission to the best colleges. However, a public university also has other goals. Providing a quality education to disadvantaged students with academic potential from all parts of the state could be a reasonable goal for a state university such as UT. Naturally, students with the advantage of having college-educated parents with disposable income and attending top Texas high schools will be able to show many achievements and high test scores, etc. They will look better on paper than some who are simply in the top 10% and have fewer of the other distinguishing attributes. The problem that I have with the 10% rule is that it doesn't seem to significantly accomplish the goal of helping disadvantaged students. As the Houston Chronicle article stated, even with the 10% rule, a large percentage of UT students tend to come from a concentrated number of suburban feeder schools in Dallas and Houston.</p>
<p>I don't NECESSARILY disagree with you that State Universities have an obligation to provide an advantage to QUALIFIED disadvantaged students. However, this is NOT what affirmative action does. It provides a preference SOLEY based on color/ethnicity .... NOT disadvantage. White/Asian students that are disadvantaged are excluded for this leg up.... while wealthy advantaged minorities are not. </p>
<p>How affirmative action works (and this is verifiable) is that the UNqualified child of a wealthy black attorney (who most likely received AA) is given preference over the very qualified white son of an Appalachian coal miner. And the fact is undisputable that the overwhelming majority of minorities at exclusive universities would be deemed wholey unqualified if he/she were an impoverished white.</p>
<p>Who said anything about Affirmative Action? Top 10% rule does not take into consideration URM status.</p>
<p>BS to Ut--thanks--I'm in-state.</p>
<p>Also, I'm an african american male applying to Nursing and I'll have 66 hours from HCC.</p>
<p>Anytime. Feel free to message me if you need anything else.</p>
<p>The 10% rule is ALL about affirmative action thru the backdoor. The ONLY reason for its creation was to allow the INCREASED admission of minorities from heavily minority public schools that would OTHERWISE NOT QUALIFY WHEN EVALUATED AGAINST THE TOTAL STUDENT POPULATION APPLYING.</p>
<p>In the long run, this rule will force the university to offer a less rigorous academic experience, as it must dumb down its courses to facillitate those lessor able students. This will proportionally affect its rankings in the various departments..... and the MOST qualified students will start looking elsewhere in order to avoid the demise of U of Texas academics. This is already occurring. While McCombs will still be allowed to be selective, its overall repuation will to some degree be linked to the reputation of the school as a whole. Same with engineering. Liberal arts will eventually crash. </p>
<p>One cannot be a prestigious university when it admits students with a general ed HS diploma and SAT scores under 800 on a 1600 basis.... and math classes that go NO higher than pre-algebra.</p>