<p>I still assert that the fact that kids in the top 10% graduate more often than those not in the top 10% proves exactly nothing about accomplishment and academic skills.</p>
<p>Consider. A kid in the middle 50% class rank at TJ in Fairfax County, VA, has SAT scores of 1480 (approx. the median at TJ). A kid in the 7th percentile at an inner city, Houston high school has SAT scores of 1080. You would assert, based on generalized data, that the kids with the 1080 is more likely to do graduate than the kid with the 1480 because the kid with the 1080 finished higher in his class. I would disagree.</p>
<p>The figures from UT have validity only if they are disaggregated to reveal that Top 10% kids at high schools with average to weak SAT scores do better than to 20% kids at high schools with higher-than-average SAT scores. Until the numbers are broken out that way, they are pretty much useless for these purposes.</p>
<p>Sorry Jack but that's the fact. Maybe NC with its small OOS enrollment is not one that makes a big profit but Michigan does, Wisconsin does, Colorado does, Indiana does, Virginia does. It may be just on operations side of the budget but that's what pays the daily bills and new buildings are a luxury some can have and others don't. I know lately UW has paid most of the new building costs out of donations and such with the state paying maybe a third at most. The new SOB--donations, the new art museum-donated, the new bio research center 50-50 but the state has yet to fund its share.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Do you know how Notre Dame or Carnegie Mellon compare to UVA, UNC-CH, or UMich in professor salaries?
[/QUOTE]
35% of the "Faculty Resources" score on the US News ranking (20% of the overall ranking, only peer assessment score holds more weight) is faculty compensation. Looking at those scores might give you a general idea.</p>
<p>When one looks at the in-state tuitions of the New England States - 5 of the highest in the country - maybe it is understandable why so many kids in NE look south - the full cost of OOS attendence in NC is about the same as an in-state cost of attendence in NE.</p>
<p>In NC all 16 state schools have the restriction - set by the state - of having ~~18% of out-of-staters. I also find it interesting that every student in NC is subsidized - it is right on the bill LOL - - this year that subsidy is over $9,000 per student. Some of that subsidy is thanks to the tobacco and cotton industries - not all - but a portion........</p>
<p>So yes - NC does seem to have their act together alot more than the NE states do financially - NE could learn a few things. Sure makes NC state schools alot more attractive - and does add diversity as well.</p>
<p>To IdMom, and other Texans - you will probably flame me for this, and I don't half blame you, if I lived in Tx and my kid went to a competitive high school where he worked his butt off, had strong GPA and SAT, but didn't quite make the top 10%, I'd be steamed, too. It is a law that needs tweaking. BUT the flipside is that a kid who works hard to get top 10% at an underperforming school in the center of HOuston or on the Rio Grande border maybe just the kid that you want to get a leg up into UT or A&M - maybe there would be no room for the kid if the system was more purely merit based??
I don't understand how the legislature can get by without modifying the law so that it isn't always expanding - don't they have to take everyone in the top 10%?? Everything is bigger in TX ;).</p>
<p>Yes, every NC student is subsidized by the taxpayers (by more than $9,000 per year, I believe). And, if I understand Dean J's information correctly, the NC taxpayers subsidize each OOS student by over $3,600 per year as well.</p>
<p>Wow. So much for using the state flagship as your safety. Down here, we take it for granted, because if you have the stats and you live here, you're in. I can see the arguments for and against selective in-state admissions, but on an emotional level, it must make the application process harder on the kids knowing they have to compete for places at the state U. too.</p>
<p>Well, I think the solution to the Texas issue would be a hybrid system like we have in California, where admission is guaranteed either by top 4% standing or by attainment of a least a 3.0 weighted GPA with a fairly minimal level of test scores. (basically a 470 on each SAT plus 2 SAT II's will do it - and the test score requisites go down as GPA goes up). That is coupled with a guarantee that students can enter the system, not a particular campus. </p>
<p>After reading this thread, it makes me very grateful for the Calif. system of UCs / CSU's / community colleges where admissions standards are very clear. I do feel that in-state publics have an obligation to serve their state residents first ... even though I came to California initially as an out of stater enrolling at a UC, and even though it worked somewhat to my son's disadvantage when he wanted to transfer back into the system after attending a private college out of state. But the bottom line is that California residents have very clear standards as to which level of college they can expect to attend, and while some kids may be disappointed at ending up at UC Irvine rather than UCLA, all the campuses are highly regarded. The top 4% ranking does give kids an edge as to choice of campus, but it is not a guarantee. </p>
<p>There are a LOT of problems with the UC's (overcrowding, underfunding, etc.) and I am very much aware of them -- so my comments are not meant as a celebration of our state schools..... but the point is, in California we do have an entitlement and the standards are very clear as to the scope of that entitlement. My kids both chose to attend private colleges initially, though my son is now completing his education at a CSU ... but this was a choice.</p>
<p>Anecdotally, I know many kids who got into UT from Texas public high schools who were NOT top ten percent. YMMV - but around here, it doesn't seem that strong students out of top ten percent are getting bumped.</p>
<p>I'm not sure how William and Mary spends the money...buildings, payroll. All I know is that an instate student pays $8490 tuition per year and out of state pays $25,048 tuition per year. You can't tell me that those extra dollars from about 33 per cent of the student population don't make a difference. Of course, it is our choice to attend and therefore pay. But it's not ludicrous or offensive to say we subsidy or enhance in some way the operations of the college. It's just plain economics.</p>
<p>bluejay:<br>
Since I'm the one who used the terms "ludicrous" and "offensive," I'll comment on your post. As has been stated earlier, the VA publics take very little money from the state of VA (less than 10%?). Still, if you look at DeanJ's post #35 on this thread, you will see how much money VA is putting in per student, which is $9,939, according to his chart. And if the in-state student pays $8490, that comes up to around $18,500. You could assume, then, that this is the actual cost to educate a student at W&M, but that might be simplistic. I <em>suspect</em> it's actually more than that. My guess is, your $25,000 you pay in tuition is actually closer to what it costs to educate each student at W&M, though I obviously don't know that for sure. Perhaps someone else does. So I think you are probably paying your actual costs, leaving little to help support the in-state students. </p>
<p>And while I (still) do not believe that out-of-state student tuition allows for lower tuition for in-state students, my post where I use the term "ludicrous" and "offensive" was specifically about NC public universities. And, again, looking pack at DeanJ's post #35, you will see why I feel that way. Also, unlike the state of VA, the publics in NC receive 40% state funding.</p>
<p>bluejay:
Just wanted to add to my post above--I realize DeanJ's post about money per student that each state puts in may not be <em>all</em> about tuition remission. Still, it's a guideline-- of sorts. I expect you could find what the actual costs are of educating a student at W&M, though, and then you would know how much, if anything, is left over for your support of the in-state students. :) *It's quite possible both you and the in-state student are paying far less in tuition than it costs to educate you.</p>
<p>Again, I wouldn't mind offering a guarantee to the hardworking kid from the Rio Grande Valley (where I was born and raised) if that kid was a top ten percenter...and demonstrated through essay, SAT scores, coursework and recommendations that he/she would be capable of handling freshman year at the most rigorous state universities in Texas. But, if all that kid accomplished was getting into the top ten percent of a low performing school with a low B average in coursework that was not strenuous, and SATs and essays revealed deficiencies, then the deal should be off.</p>
<p>Since UT-Austin and A&M and every other state university must accept every top ten percenter who applies, they are not allowed the make this distinction.</p>
<p>And as Calmom points out, like California, there are many, many state universities in Texas. There is a place for all top ten percenters, but without caps and SOME selectivity in the process, the prestige factor of UT-Austin and Texas A&M will erode. And UT and TAMU have big systems and should be free to divert top ten percenters to other campuses, as they do nontops. </p>
<p>One of the reasons UNC-CH has been 'crowned a New Ivy' is selectivity and prestige. I would just like to see a state university in my home state become as highly regarded. And I would like some degree of fairplay brought back into the admissions process in our state.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but without caps and SOME selectivity in the process, the prestige factor of UT-Austin and Texas A&M will erode.
[/quote]
And the eroding of the prestige factor would be bad because ...why again exactly? </p>
<p>Wouldn't the other schools Tech, Houston, UNT, Texas State, Sam, Lamar, Angelo, SFA benefit from a little of the prestige, too? What buisness is it of the taxpayers of Texas to prop up one school over another?</p>
<p>^This a legitimate point and imho, spillover is probably one of few positives of the law....that is if the spillover is content to remain in-state at a public institution. You'd be surprised how many are not.</p>
<p>btw curmudgeon....I've spent the better part of my taxpaying life here in the suburbs of Houston propping up other school districts under the old Robin Hood law. I'm used to propping things up. :-)</p>
[/quote]
Maybe not that surprised. Take a look some time at how often Texas is the second (or third) most cited homestate (behind the state where the school is located). It happens a bunch. (Like at Rhodes.)</p>
<p>The HC dean at Ole Miss told me that Ole Miss gets a great many kids from DFW, especially Highland and University Park.</p>