<p>We had discussion on this topic at a parent function recently here in town and I was amazed at how many of these Houston private school kids head to CU-Boulder, Arizona, Arizona State, and U of Utah (of all places). Many of these schools are abandoning rank which leaves 'em out in the cold here in Texas.</p>
<p>My kid just started at W&L last week and I believe every other student we met is from Houston!</p>
<p>
As a direct result of this law, [UT-Austin's] graduation rate over a SIX year period is about 40%, which is eroding that prestige factor.
I'm late to this thread but I'd like to offer a clarification for this information. UT-Austin's 6-year graduation rate through 2004 varies from 70-74%. Here's a link to data from the 1997-1998 cohorts (students who enrolled in 1997-1998 would provide 6-year data as of 2003-2004): <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/academic/oir/cds/04-05/CDS2004-2005.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.utexas.edu/academic/oir/cds/04-05/CDS2004-2005.pdf</a>. The graduation rate information is on PDF p. 5 of 36.</p>
<p>I agree that having more OOS students enhances the US News rankings for public institutions and probably enables them be more selective and diverse, but I also think a public institution has a duty to educate its taxpayer citizens. Perhaps the answer in a large state like Texas is to encourage each public college (2 year and 4 year) to offer specialized areas of study, e.g., a magnet approach that lets students choose a school that best meets their interests and goals.</p>
<p>UT-Austin is considered a fine school. It would help the school to attract some out of staters as the word would spread a little more. The problem a lot of stat unis have in prestige factor is that they are not on OOS kids' lists. Berkely and LA in the UC system an exception.</p>
<p>DRJ4 - </p>
<p>Yes, I clarified that the low graduation rate is for the UT system in subsequent posts...not sure if you saw them. See the previous posts which link the UT article about UT institutions having a lower than 52% graduation rate (UT-Austin implied as well) and 5 of 9 having a graduation rate of 37%. I actually didn't state that UT-Austin was below 40% (you added that), but I was very, very unclear in my original post and the implication was there. I hope I have corrected that! :-)</p>
<p>Also, re: the magnet approach. It seems like a good idea, but I don't know why UT-Austin would consent to give up programs to other campuses, and forfeit it's stature as measured against other nationally recognized universities. These universities all cater to the rankings and going specialized just lands you on the unranked page.</p>
<p>Again, when an admissions counselor opens an applicant's file and shuts it after looking at one parameter; not because they want to, but because the law forces them to, then something is wrong with the law.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
you will see how much money VA is putting in per student
[/QUOTE]
Just a note about those allocations per student numbers to clarify...</p>
<p>That number isn't one that the state legislature came up with when developing our funding. I believe that could have been our budget office's way of showing "how far" our state funding goes when divided by the number of students we serve and also show how other schools' funding looked when divided out the same way.</p>
<p>as an OOS student at UVa, I'm obviously going to be skewed with my opinion. </p>
<p>But at least the way I see it, the more OOS students, the better the school profile is. OOS students on average score better on tests, and did better in high school than instate students. OOS students give the school more money in tuition. OOS raise the selectivity of the school. Now, if you're of the opinion that a state school's first objective is to serve the state and second to be the best it can be thats fine. </p>
<p>But the way I see it, there are 18 4 year public schools in virginia. There is 1 flagship. All 18 should serve the state, however, the flagship's no. 1 objective should be to be the best it can be. if that means that you have to take more qualified students from OOS who pay more than the instate students do...so be it.</p>
<p>
I clearly showed my bias! Anytime someone says UT, I think UT-Austin. I am very sorry, IDMom.</p>
<p>DRJ4 - No it was my error. I was switching back and forth between info about UT-Austin and UT system in my original post and the post was misleading.</p>
<p>Interesting discussion on UT system. Son and daughter just finished at Austin. He had a 1600 on SAT and was 3rd in his class in public school. She was only in top 20% at a private school, with 1450 SAT's. Son <em>just</em> graduated after seven years. Daughter graduated with honors. Just goes to show that statistics don't always predict the whole story... </p>
<p>Egalitarian benefits of the top 10% program are, I think, good. Daughter got in under exception for good SAT's despite her class rank and I think this makes sense. </p>
<p>There is no "right" to go to UT-Austin and I think it's fine that basically anyone can go to another state school here. If one is in middle or even topo quarter or so of any high school class and has SAT's under current scale under 1800, I don't see why they should be upset that they "can't" go to Austin. They <em>can</em> go to a host of other schools in UT or A & M system and, if they do reasonably well, transfer into Austin if they wish. I also understand that some parents with financial wherewithal would rather see their child at a "lesser," albeit "flagship," state U in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, etc. than Stephen F. Austin, UT-Arlington, etc. Texas does suffer from having only one top flight private school (Rice) and no other (despite A & M's puffery) no other top level public. </p>
<p>I think UT-Austin should be much more aggressive about bringing in top students from out of state for all the reasons cited by earlier posters. In addition, UT-Austin would fare much better in ratings and public perception if it would do so.</p>
<p>Redcrim, my experience is similar to yours.</p>
<p>According to published statistics, for the last three years (2003-2005) 70% were automatic admits at UT, and 5% were out of state admits, leaving 25% of the slots for in-state, merit-reviewed applications.</p>
<p>Those 25% are easily obtainable by applicants with good grades from good schools, good scores, good EC's, good essays, good recs, but just sub-10% class ranks. </p>
<p>I have heard plenty of grumbling from families who couldn't get their kids into UT, but in every instance that I know the details of, those applicants were not very strong to start with. You know the type, nice kid, non-demanding ECs, average grades in non-AP classes at a school that has a full slate of AP available, average SAT scores. "Back in the day" any one like that could go to UT or second choice TAMU. There are many families where 4 generations have been Longhorns or Aggies, but this generation of slackers can't go and they are mad as He** about it.</p>
<p>A few more thoughts on UT(Austin) and Texas colleges and students, although I think some of these thoughts apply to any large public college:</p>
<p>Our son was not admitted to UT-Austin under the top-10% law because he came from a non-ranking high school, but I like the law. It helps bring true diversity to the campus by making it easier for kids to attend from rural and economically disadvantaged areas. In today's world, with instant communications and media, geographic diversity does not make as much difference as it once did. Granted, geographic diversity is good but 20% of UT-Austin's students are OOS or foreign. Twenty percent of 50,000 is 10,000 geographically diverse people (not to mention faculty and staff) roaming around campus. That's as much numerical diversity as any small LAC or elite Ivy.</p>
<p>The magnet idea is intended to say, in an oblique way, that other Texas colleges have to improve academically. Texas colleges overall don't measure up to California colleges, for instance, even though the populations of California and Texas are somewhat similar. No wonder many fine Texas students go OOS to college. I don't think every Texas college can afford to hire faculty and provide the resources that would enable them to equal the UC system, at least not in the short run. Many of these colleges would benefit from concentrating on specific programs that they could market as top quality to lure better students. Some already do this, in effect, but many fear being labeled as boutique colleges that aren't competitive with other "full-service" institutions. </p>
<p>UT-Austin and Texas A&M, and Rice as a private, have already transitioned into full-service institutions. To a certain extent, the UT system is helping its satellite schools by ramping up its distance education program, and I assume A&M might be doing the same. It also makes the product (a college education) more available by increasing the methods of delivery and allowing consumers to choose the delivery method that works for them. I think online college classes, delivered via the internet to local colleges or to our homes and businesses, is the future of college education - at least for general courses typically taken during the first 2 years.</p>
<p>Specifically for UT-Austin, while I generally like the top-10% law, I do think it's inevitable that it will have to cap auto-admits at some point (especially so long as the football team keeps winning). UT-Austin already does this in the more sought-after colleges like business, pharmacy, engineering, etc. In the long run, accepting the "cream of the crop" will do more to enhance UT-Austin's prestige than any amount of OOS students. As a UT-Austin fan, I would like to see UT get more prestige BUT ONLY if it actually provides a quality education to its students. I don't want UT-Austin to receive favorable rankings unless and until it deserves them.</p>
<p>But, the original goal of the top ten percent law was not to provide geographic diversity, rather as a remedy to outcome of the 1996 case Hopwood v. Texas which the Fifth Circuit basically said race preference could not be shown in the admissions process at public universities. The goal of the top ten percent law was to ensure that racial diversity at public universities in the state of Texas would not be undermined.</p>
<p>I am not opposed to the goal of the top ten percent law, or of AA in fact, but I don't think the top ten percent law accomplishes this goal. I remember reading a recent article that pointed out in the first few years after the law was adopted the percentages of minorities at UT-Austin, especially African Americans, dramatically declined. And at UT-Austin, the diversity levels are only now starting to approach pre-Hopwood levels. The ratio of Hispanic students to the total student body at UT-Austin (or A&M) is no where near the actual ratio of Hispanic college students to all college students in the state of Texas. So the question is the law doing what it purports to do? </p>
<p>Furthermore, the Supreme Court took the bite out of Hopwood by ruling that race could be considered in a case involving UMich law school admissions. This ruling effectively states racial diversity is a goal that serves us all and that if done properly, an applicant's race can be considered in the admission decision. So if this is the case, why do we need a top ten percent law? Any efforts to modify or repeal this law are stopped short after getting through the Texas House, mostly by Valley senators, who have managed to keep the issue off the Texas Senate floor.</p>
<p>It is fine to state that UT should be more aggressive in bringing in top students from out of state as redcrimblue mentioned in his post, but how do you do that at UT-Austin, when the entire class is filled primarily with top ten percenters? Do you throw out the high achieving nontop Texans in favor of these oos candidates? Even Faulkner himself said that this law was going to run UT-Austin over. What I read regarding UT-Austin's position on the matter is that they don't necessarily want the law repealed, but desperately want caps. Well that won't happen if they can't even get discussion of the matter out on the Senate floor.</p>
<p>As I mentioned in another post, I've had two conversations with UT Admissions about this law. In one conversation in May of 2006, I was told by UT Admissions they expected the Fall 2006 freshman class to consist of at least 76% top tens and that the number could exceed 78%. To me, that doesn't sound like the percentages are holding and it certainly doesn't bode well for any oos applicants.</p>
<p>IDMom06,</p>
<p>I'm not sure if we disagree or agree here, so let me try to be more clear.</p>
<p>I agree that the top-10% law was formulated in response to Hopwood, a decision BTW that I think is better reasoned than Grutter. In light of Grutter, however, UT-Austin resumed consideration of race and ethnicity in deciding who to admit. As a result, during the past 2 years, UT-Austin has worked to increase and has increased black enrollment. Hispanic enrollment has consistently grown, even without special consideration for racial/ethnic factors.</p>
<p>The benefits of the top-10% law from an AA perspective are two-fold: First, it levels the playing field for state-wide applicants regardless of socioeconomic status. In my view, colleges need to focus on enhancing access for various socioeconomic levels rather than solely on AA or geographic diversity. Second, under the top 10% law, AA candidates choose where they want to go. They may choose to attend a Texas 2 or 4-year college or to go OOS. Whenever possible, I think we are better off putting the decision in the hands of the consumer.</p>
<p>I understand UT-Austin wants caps and I agree with that decision. I'm not sure but it appears our only disagreement here (and it's a mild disagreement) concerns the value of OOS students. Frankly, I don't care about increasing UT-Austin's (or any Texas college's) geographic diversity. I think having OOS students is a false goal in today's mobile, accessible society. As long as our state population is growing at present rates and our young people are deciding to attend college in ever-increasing numbers, I have no problem with focusing Texas resources on making sure we educate as many as possible here at home.</p>
<p>"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>
<p>curmudgeon</p>
<p>You are so correct! In our tour of schools in the SE a year ago we learned that Texans are number 2 behind Georgians in applications to UGA and that Highland Park High School was the number one school of ALL schools for applicants to Furman in 2005.</p>
<p>Isn't that amazing eadad? I've been seeing it everywhere.</p>
<p>
LOL. What a difference a couple of U.S. News slots makes, huh? Last year UT was second tier along with TAMU, Baylor, SMU, and TCU. Now it's Rice and UT, alone at the top. Golly. And maybe Jeepers? What if ya'll "fall out" again next year? Will you still remember your "old" tier-mates?</p>
<p>A+M is considered by many in the state to be the superior school (and in some majors they probably are). In my area of Texas (@ the same distance from both) , it's not even considered a contest between the two and top local students chose A+M by a very wide margin. I'm sure other areas of the state are different. I have no dog in the fight as my kid disliked both equally. ;)</p>
<p>DRJ4 - Socioeconomic diversity is perhaps the beneficial side effect of the top ten percent law; but when it was adopted, the primary goal of the law was racial diversity. I don't like being promised pie and getting fed spinach. :-) And again, I don't view the law or our approach to increasing diversity or opportunity for the disadvantaged as yet successful. Texas is fast becoming a non-Anglo state, yet the premier universities are still overwhelmingly Anglo.</p>
<p>I would rather see case by case evaluation of all candidates including affirmative action candidates by admissions officers, than one parameter governing the decision making process. And there is no reason why admissions committees cannot achieve geographic and socioeconomic diversity in addition to racial diversity through AA and case by case holistic evaluation of each candidate. As is stands today, for 76% of the fall 2006 freshman class at UT-Austin, a computer program could have made the decision and generated the acceptance letter automatically without human eyes once being laid upon the application file. But if we HAVE to have a law that basically shows no confidence in the administration at public universities, I prefer the approach California takes to automatic admission as opposed to Texas. After guaranteeing admissions to the university system, let merit determine what campus a student attends based on holistic evaluation of each candidate. </p>
<p>Let me give an example of several individual and general scenarios that have occurred over and over again at my d's high school, which is considered a very high achieving school. These are directly are a consequence of this law:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Anglo senior, nat'l merit commended, summa cum laude but NOT top 10%, national and state level awards, athlete and team manager, student council officer, 24 hours AP credit. Parents pay upwards of $10K in school taxes, a portion of which was redistributed to socioeconomically disadvantaged school districts under the Texas Robin Hood law. (So it can't be said this candidate's family is not helping level the field already.) This senior was NOT granted fall admissions to UT-Austin.</p></li>
<li><p>Hispanic senior, editor of yearbook, district awards for art, very involved in Hispanic community both on and off campus, worked 25 hours a week, took honors classes, graduated top 15%. Always dreamed of attending UT-Austin and becoming a lawyer. Capped to UTSA, with no guarantee of transfer to UT-Austin. </p></li>
<li><p>Grade point system that gives no extra credit to AP and Honors classes; adopted under pressure from parents of the district in response to the top ten percent law out of fear their children would be pushed from the top ten percent by kids taking accelerated courseloads. Result, most kids avoid AP or Honors classes unless they intend to apply to out of state Ivys/highly selectives. A large portion of the top ten percent is composed of applicants without honors or AP courses under their belt.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>
But we are not California and we don't have a UC system with several top state schools with every school (I think) at least primarily eating out of the same trough. UT has it's own PUF trough!! And it's getting bigger every day ! How about this, I'll agree to push for an end to top 10% and we'll divide the assets of Texas state schools equally between all schools in Texas, or do you want to keep the money that props up UT and A+M artificially above TTU and the rest?</p>
<p>Re: A&M v. Texas</p>
<p>I actually do think A&M is a very good school academically, almost catching up to UT. In our area, most also consider A&M to be the 'be all end all' and it is the top choice school...though we couldn't get OUR d interested at all in the school despite the almost $60k in scholarship money. </p>
<p>Regarding Texans strong preferences between the schools, I think for many it has to do with conservatism vs. liberalism though. My ultra-conservative brother, who lives in Austin, sent his d to A&M and practically freaked that my d would even consider UT-Austin, or that we would allow it. But what can I say, we are just middle-of-the-road political Namby-Pambys I guess.</p>