<p>45 -> 52nd ranked. At this pace, we'll be 80th in 5 years time, 115th in 10 years.</p>
<p>Bring back the top 10% law!</p>
<p>45 -> 52nd ranked. At this pace, we'll be 80th in 5 years time, 115th in 10 years.</p>
<p>Bring back the top 10% law!</p>
<p>What do you mean? The top 10% law is still in place. Getting rid of that law will increase the rank of the university.</p>
<p>kldat1 is correct. The X% rule is driving some excellent students to other universities and diluting the academic quality of the undergraduate student body. Of course, ANY admission approach that promotes ‘diversity’ will have a similar effect. The hard part is finding an acceptable balance. (At UT, Blacks compose about 5%, Hispanics around 24-25%,and Asians 18%. In the population of the state, Blacks are about 10%, Hispanics 37-38%, and Asians about 0.7% – yep, less than 1 %. I bet few readers expected that result. I’ll leave this topic alone for now.)</p>
<p>All that said, university rankings are to be taken with numerous grains of salt. They are ALL biased in some manner, and many are completely arbitrary on par with, say the Miss America Pageant. ARWU has UT #27, Forbes #66, US News #52, Washington Monthly #19. In a beauty contest, it’s ALL in the eye of the beholder.</p>
<p>For big schools like Texas, it may be more informative to look FAR beyond places like US News. The NSF has UT #28 and A&M #23 on the basis of 2011 research $$, with UT up a few spots from 2009 and A&M down a few. UT gets more federal $, A&M more state & local $ (more money for Ag research perhaps?). Overall, Hopkins is #1, Michigan #2, and Stanford #9. This is just one alternative measure. (It’s hard for a small school like, say, Princeton to crack the top 10 on an NSF funding list. So, this list has its own bias.)</p>
<p>According to Texas Education Agency data the Texas school population in 2012</p>
<p>African American 12.8%
Hispanic 50.8%
White 30.5%
Asian 3.6%
American Indian 0.4%
Pacific Islander 0.1%
2 or more races 1.7%</p>
<p>Also,
Economically disadvantaged 60.4%</p>
<p>Ya Ya – Thanks for the school population data. It illustrates, not surprisingly, that the state’s minority population percentages are greater in the school system than in the overall population. </p>
<p>In sum, UT under-represents the Black & Hispanic populations and over-represents the Asian population and possibly over-represents the White population as well (UT’s numbers match the overall population numbers for Whites, but are materially higher than the student population numbers Ya Ya provides). </p>
<p>While I don’t think ‘race’ should matter in 2013, whenever large deviations from population averages exist, big political problems tend to follow. The original X% rule came into being as an approach to comply with the elimination of racial discrimination (and reverse racial discrimination) in admission decisions while still having a method that produced a minority population at UT not massively out of line with population figures. I’m OK with an X% rule as long as minimums are imposed on ACT/SAT scores. (A&M does a form of this along with a tradeoff between Rank and Test Score for automatic admission and I think it’s a good move on their part.) </p>
<p>The economically disadvantaged number is quite high. Even if that figured is biased very high, it gives insight into why UT eliminated all merit based aid in favor putting those extra dollars into economically based aid.</p>
<p>I found one more alternative ranking measure from The Center for Measuring University Performance (mup.asu.edu/research2010.pdf). It’s along the lines of the NSF one I cited earlier. On this list, UT comes in at #15, A&M #30, Princeton #19. The usual suspects top the list: Columbia, MIT, Stanford, Penn, Harvard, … </p>
<p>It’s hard to dislike being #15.</p>
<p>Cancelling UT-SHAPE this year doesn’t help.</p>
<p>From what I’ve read, it looks like just a 1-year decision and that a new version of it is coming. </p>
<p>“In the coming year, UT Austin will be refining its expedited “degree-in-three” program that enables students to be prepared for any professional school program. Students may already enroll in degree-in-three, and that program will be aided by a new degree plan being instituted in the College of Natural Sciences that will allow students to incorporate new competencies for professional school preparation.”</p>
<p>Why they needed a one year break is something I do not know. </p>
<p>I am a BIG fan of the degree-in-three program and see it (and even more streamlined versions of it) as the wave of the future in many majors:</p>
<p>"The Expedited Degree Plan is very simple. To qualify, have a minimum amount of AP, IB or college credit before enrolling in the College of Natural Sciences.</p>
<p>Take courses over three summers, beginning the summer before freshman year, and follow the prescribed plan during three full academic years.</p>
<p>Thats it. You graduate in three with a degree in one of six different fieldsincluding chemistry, biochemistry, microbiology and geneticsand jet forward to medical school, a Ph.D. program, law school, a job in industry, a congressional internship, or a year in a distant, exotic land."</p>
<p>I also don’t know correlation between UT-SHAPE(kind of BSMD) and the degree-in three program. The UT-SHAPE should be related to pre-med program (regular path) at UT.</p>
<p>I also think it has to do with the slipping athletic program at UT. UT athletics used to bring in a crap load of money to UT, thus able to fund different programs within the university and attract more students/faculty. A&M is going to beat us , for sure, in the coming years if the regents dont get there act together.</p>
<p>You guys, this isn’t UT’s fault, it’s just the DUMB USNews rankings. Keep in mind that USNews is a for-profit entity, so they have to change the rankings to generate buzz.</p>
<p>Look at UW and PSU, who also changed drastically.</p>
<p>Univ of Washington 42 > 52</p>
<p>Penn State 45 > 37</p>
<p>Lol at the top 10% being the reason the school is declining. If anything the school is getting better because it’s harder to get into schools like WashU</p>
<p>Korsgaard – The top X% rule is resulting in a lower quality student body at UT when judged on the basis of standardized test scores and realized freshman year GPA. Test score and high school rank are the two best statistical predictors of freshman year GPA. It is why UT uses these variables in their predictive GPA formulas as part of the holistic admission process.</p>
<p>According to data published by UT, the 2012 freshman class had 8-9% of the auto admits with ACT scores of 23 or lower (3 section SAT scores of 1490 or lower). Some 1-2% of the auto admits (152 in total) had an ACT score of 19 or lower (3 section SAT of 1190 or lower). An ACT of 23 for the class of 2012 mapped to the 68th percentile. An ACT of 19 mapped to the 47th percentile.</p>
<p>UT also publishes data on freshman GPA vs ACT/SAT score. The students in the above mentioned ACT/SAT score buckets have freshman year GPAs far below the average. </p>
<p>Were all admission decisions done on a holistic basis, many of these students would not be admitted.</p>
<p>Moreover, every student auto admitted that would not have made it under a holistic process displaces a more qualified student (or even a better qualified student in an ‘under-represented’ category …). </p>
<p>I get what the legislature is trying to accomplish by imposing this on UT, but the current method is flawed: a non-trivial minimum ACT or SAT score should be required for automatic admission. The data has spoken regarding the predictive accuracy of the standardized test score. </p>
<p>Those not meeting this higher minimum would go into the holistic review process, and some may still get accepted.</p>
<p>The current method only requires the student to meet the most basic ‘college ready’ requirement: the ACT people place it at an 18 in English and a 22 in Math. This has forced UT to request relief in two other forms: (1) a cap on the number of auto admits at 75% and (2) raising the threshold from the original top 10% to the current level of top 7%. A minimum test score for auto admits of ACT = 28 or SAT = 1800 would put 1/4 - 1/3 of the auto admit students into holistic review. Perhaps this cutoff is a tad too high, but the data UT publicly provides is lumped to ‘buckets’ (ACT <15, 15-19, 20-23, 24-27, …).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The college of engineering at A&M spent $282 million on research vs UT’s $186 million according to USN&WR 2014 Best Grad Schools ranking. Also, A&M spent $900k/ faculty member on research vs. UT’s $619k. So, perhaps it isn’t just Ag research. </p>
<p>Separately, we also noticed that A&M had 123 NM Scholars vs. UT’s 57.</p>
<p>Former-And yet still there is a significant increase in applicants with 2000+ SAT scores and students who actually attend the university. UT’s ranking is still high internationally and on Forbes. It’s just US news LOL</p>
<p>UT has only 57 NMFs. Although UT doesn’t offer NMF scholarship, 57 sounds too small. My D’s school has 50 NMSF this year. (FYI, some of them are not qualified for auto-admission.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The article I read, suggested decline in enrollment at UT and increase at A&M:</p>
<p>[Texas</a> A&M University enrollment passes University of Texas’ for first time - Local News - The Eagle](<a href=“http://m.theeagle.com/news/local/article_09bc5fd8-2d6e-5066-85de-53c60ca353f4.html?mode=jqm]Texas”>http://m.theeagle.com/news/local/article_09bc5fd8-2d6e-5066-85de-53c60ca353f4.html?mode=jqm)</p>
<p>“This total is larger than The University of Texas at Austin, which reported an enrollment of 52,076 last week. Texas A&M’s campus enrollment increased by 6.9 percent, up from 50,227 last fall, whereas UT-Austin enrollment decreased by 0.2 percent.”</p>
<p>Declining in enrollment may be ok since there are too many students anyway. But declining in funding research/academic area may be a problem. Having medical school may be an excuse but not sure for worthiness.</p>
<p>Kors – Yes, the quality of the overall applicant pool is trending higher. I’ve noted that in other posts. I’ve also expressed my opinion in other posts that the US News number more closely resembles a beauty contest and that other metrics are better for evaluating UT’s status.</p>
<p>The comment I disagreed with was “Lol at the top 10% being the reason the school is declining”. HB 588 (the top X% law) is diluting the brand by letting in students who would likely not make it into to the university due to low test scores. Since each on of these students in displacing a more qualified applicant (using UT’s own expected GPA formulas that factors in both class rank and test scores), HB 588 is diluting the brand.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The brand is only as valuable as the weakest link in the chain.The hole in the leaky bucket is CAP which guarantees every rejected TX student admission by earning a 3.2 at a less competitive university such as UTA. In the end UT Austin is just another state university.</p>
<p>What about A&M allowing top 10% instead of 7% and allowing academic admits? Plus Blinn team and Gateway.</p>