<p>curmudgeon -</p>
<p>Let's get rid of the law first and then I'll talk about redistribution of funds...lol!</p>
<p>(Actually, I'll accept caps and not being strong-armed by legislators from one geographic area of the Texas as a good start.)</p>
<p>LOL. Always the contrarian , I am considered a liberal in Texas (only an associate John Birch member ;)) and I root for the Ag's. I like the tradition, what can I say? D wouldn't set foot on either campus to look (although she has socialized at A+M). I am a huge fan of Plan II , though.</p>
<p>My d did set foot on A&M for the summer nat'l scholars thing and even admitted she liked the health science center and college of medicine a lot. For her it was about 'gettin' out of dodge'. Too many of her classmates attending A&M and she was afraid of the 'thirteenth year high school' phenomenon. She's all on her own in Chapel Hill with no regrets.</p>
<p>Plan II is excellent...tried like heck to get my d to apply, but she said she didn't have the top 2% rank and wasn't going to embarrass herself. As it turns out she got in to COLA Honors which took fewer applicants. So a lesson on what happens when you don't try. Plan II might have been the one thing to keep her home. </p>
<p>Ah well...we are paying more, but still have that feeling that it all worked out for the best.</p>
<p>
[quote]
For her it was about 'gettin' out of dodge
[/quote]
Ditto with mine.</p>
<p>this thread has gone off on a tangent, but just for the record, and as a Vermont parent:</p>
<p>Resident tuition, boar & fees-$21,330
Non-resident-$36,542</p>
<p>We sent our daughter to another state's public U as a non-resident and it is costing us $500 LESS, plus they're giving her $2k scholarship which is thinly veiled to cover travel.</p>
<p>UVM is priced as high as many private colleges. Once your family hits a certain financial threshhold and will foot the entire bill, it makes sense to send your child out of state, particularly since UVM's non honor college undergrad experience is mediocre. Let's face it, UVM has a party reputation rivaled in New Enland by only UNH, another mediocre U. In New England, with our large numbers of excellent private colleges and universities, the publics simply cannot compete for the best and brightest and the classroom experience has suffered as a result. </p>
<p>On the financial side, the state of Vermont does not adequately support its university. This is due to a lack of wealth not tax rates because our residents don't make much money. We are taxed to the hilt in every area imaginable, but the tax base is just not there. The cost for a resident undergrad is one of the highest in the country while the income of the average family falls 25th or 26th out of the 50 states.</p>
<p>The high percentage of OOS students is primarily due to low population. There are just not many VT grads in any given year. So I don't bemoan the large OOS population. There is a BIG problem with UVM turning away the VT residents who are willing to go there and pay the equivilant of non-res tuitions at many other states. Perhaps the guidance counselors need to educate our VT students about the other state universities that would be thrilled to have them apply!</p>
<p>Okay, BaseballMom, you have a good point: This thread isn't about Texas. Nevertheless, I think our discussion of Texas colleges is representative of the larger issue. </p>
<p>As I read the OP article, it is a concern that OOS students at large public universities take slots that might/should go to in-state students. That is an issue we face in Texas because the available slots at quality colleges apparently has not kept up with the demand from in-state students qualified to attend those programs. Historically, I think that Texans who wanted a quality education were willing to go OOS and some preferred (and still prefer) to attend an Ivy or other elite college even when there was adequate space at colleges like UT, A&M, Rice, TCU and SMU for those who wanted to stay in-state. </p>
<p>In the last decade, there has been an explosion of students who want a college education, especially among Texas Hispanics. Thus, Texas has become an even larger exporter of college students. From a societal standpoint, Texas has several choices: </p>
<ol>
<li><p>Build or fund more quality colleges (an expensive and inefficient solution unless you believe each state should be self-sufficient when it comes to college education); </p></li>
<li><p>Hand-pick students you want to retain in Texas, depending on their relative merit (essentially, IDMom's solution); or</p></li>
<li><p>Adopt a system that is neutral as possible, and I submit the top 10% law is an example of a more neutral system (almost everyone knows at least one legacy who wanted a slot at UT-Austin but was denied because it's harder to finess a system like the top 10% law). Clearly the top 10% law can result in inequities, but that can be said of any system. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Finally, since we are divulging our college allegiances, I cheer for UT-Austin, A&M, and any Texas college, and I would be proud to send our son to any US college he wanted to attend. I like them all except that school in Norman and, if pressed, I will even admit that it has many fine people and a plethora of NMFs.</p>
<p>"(almost everyone knows at least one legacy who wanted a slot at UT-Austin but was denied because it's harder to finess a system like the top 10% law)"</p>
<p>I wouldn't consider it an inequity for a legacy to be denied a spot at UT-Austin, if that legacy were not qualified. But to see highly qualified students, who are not legacies, some of whom are even minorities, denied admissions to their first choice school, merely because of where they live and go to school and NO OTHER reason. Well, that is an inequity indeed. </p>
<p>My d's h.s. school is in desperate need of diversity. I know of Hispanic students who moved into our district and our h.s. attendance boundary because their parents wanted their children to have a safe place to get a quality education. Boy, how they must regret that move. They didn't realize how our district and parents game the system to beat the top ten percent law. They just didn't know how to play the game that entails getting state required on level credits taken in junior high so they don't enter into the rank computation, avoiding APs or Honors classes in favor of less strenuous curriculum that receive the same weight as APs, etc.... Despite not playing the game, these kids ended up with respectable ranks, in the top quarter,..... and capped by UT-Austin. They would be in Austin right now if they had just stayed put at their old inner city schools. </p>
<p>I wouldn't say the top ten percent law is neutral at all. It inhibits diversity at the high school level, leads to manipulation of the system, forces quality kids to out of state schools...and it isn't the answer to the original problem which is achieving racial diversity at the university level.</p>
<p>IDMom,</p>
<p>I understand you don't like the 10% law and that you have many good reasons for not liking it. I also agree that the top 10% law is not completely neutral - no system is or could be - and I sympathize with your desire to personalize the admissions process. But such a process is also subject to manipulation and the secret standards of an admissions committee. At least with the top 10% law, the rules are open, obvious and easier for the average person to understand.</p>
<p>Further, since I don't subscribe to the stand-alone goal of promoting racial diversity (although I do support socioeconomic diversity, which assists many racial and ethnic minorities), I don't share your concern that the top 10% law is not as effective at recruiting URMs to UT-Austin. But whether I agree or not is irrelevant because, after Grutter, UT-Austin reinstituted an admissions process that targets, recruits, and personally assesses each URM applicant.</p>
<p>Finally, I need clarification regarding your concern that qualified applicants are being turned down. Is your concern that qualified OOS applicants are rejected, qualified in-state students who aren't in the top 10%, or both? If you are focusing on the in-state students, I understand and sympathize with that concern. In my earlier example, I mentioned legacies who are rejected by UT-Austin and I erroneously left the impression that their sole qualification was being a legacy. The kids I have in mind were well qualified to attend and succeed at UT-Austin. I have no doubt they would have been in the top 10% of our public high schools had they attended those schools instead of the non-ranking high schools from which they graduated. Is it fair that they were denied admission to UT-Austin? It didn't seem fair at the time and I wish it hadn't happened, especially since one was our son's best friend. I do understand this dilemma.</p>
<p>Yes, let's get this thread back on track. UT is just as expensive as Vermont now, @$21,000 per year for in-state.</p>
<p>ldmom, this is the source of your dissatisfaction:
[quote]
- Grade point system that gives no extra credit to AP and Honors classes; ... 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.
[/quote]
In my kid's school, grading on a 100 point scale, AP classes get 8 bonus points and pre-AP and Honors classes get 5 bonus points. The top 3% have averages over 100. Doing well in the hardest classes available is the way to rank well. Dogging it in non-AP classes is the sure way to SFA. The kids even have names for the easy classes, slackanomics, slackquatic science, physlacks, slackchology, etc. Keeping the smart kids in the harness all the time leads to higher SATs, and no time to get into trouble in the well-known ways bored kids everywhere turn to. Our kids who don't make the 10% cut still have very impressive records. Our 10-20%-ers have darn-good grades in the hardest classes available. Compare this to the merit-reviewed apps from your high school, which show darn-good grades in the easiest classes available (slackanomics), and it is easy to see why your merit-reviewed kids are getting left behind and why you are so mad about it. Your local school board should be turned out for this fiasco. They are gaming the system, and losing the game.</p>
<p>Agree with DT123. It is the school board policy that needs to change. I believe Sooviet's daughter helped institute a similar change in her school district. Our school district used percentage grades (i.e. 97%) in classes and weights honors and AP. To be in top ten percent you have to have taken mostly honors and/or AP - and the rankings are finely delineated by using percentage rather than letter grades. (No 14 students all claiming Val status due to have all "A"s.) I would be pushing for a weighted grading system in the school district if I was in your shoes! :)</p>
<p>Perhaps this thread has been "hijacked" by Texans, but I for one am very pleased to read such reasoned discourse on a topic so often clouded by one's self interest. When discussing "entitlements," let's not forget that same ill-placed sense on behalf of the scions of UT and A & M grads who are, to paraphrase one poster, the sons and daughters of middle and upper middle class families who are fair to middling students with moderate interests and accomplishments. Such students have many places to go for college; it is no birthright to head to Austin. I am pleased that the poster was called on the notion that children are avoiding AP or honors classes if they want to go to UT or A & M. That seems a canard akin to "everyone has one" or "everyone is doing it" when seeking designer clothes or to stay out til 2:00 am. In other words, an excuse for not diligently challenging oneself in high school. </p>
<p>I think the 10% rule should be applied rigorously, with SAT exceptions that would assist the student who falls outside of that parameter at a school with a disproportionate number of able students also to gain admission. What a great leveller it is, where finally a student at an inner city Dallas or Houston school, or from the Valley, or from some small West Texas town, can have an opportunity up to that point denied him or her to attend the state's flagship university. The other kids will do just fine. For those students who can target the 10% rule to gain entrance to a new academic world, it can make all the difference.</p>
<p>This thread has been interesting if, for no other reason, its focus on principles-based decision-making. The problem with principles is that, once one uncovers differences in core principles in discussion, there is usually no place to go from there. Unless both parties enter into the sorts of arguments common in the Agora, such as “what is justice?” or “what is truth?,” the chances of obtaining any useful learning from further exploration are slim.</p>
<p>So, I’d like to introduce a new element, if I may, by suggesting we take a closer look at a public university’s function in society; that is, what is the public university supposed to do in return for public monetary assistance?</p>
<p>I can think of these reasons for the public university to exist:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Increase the value of human capital in the state, thereby increasing productivity (output over input).</p></li>
<li><p>Increase the value of human capital in the state, thereby attracting more and better jobs to the state, increasing tax revenues that can be used for the common good (return on investment).</p></li>
<li><p>Retain the most talented state residents by providing a superior value education, thereby continuing to improve human capital in the state.</p></li>
<li><p>Attract the most talented out-of-state residents by providing a superior value education, thereby continuing to improve human capital in the state.</p></li>
<li><p>Improve technology in key state industries and/or agriculture by researching and disseminating information that will improve productivity.</p></li>
<li><p>Improve technologies and knowledge, and disseminate those technologies and knowledge in areas that improve the lives of state residents (medicine, law, education, the sciences, etc.)</p></li>
<li><p>Improve knowledge of the arts to improve enjoyment of life for state residents.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Perhaps there are more reasons, and others can add to them, but these are the reasons that I could think of off the top of my head.</p>
<p>So, when it comes to how one should treat out-of-state applicants, the issue (using the criteria above) becomes, “How does the state’s approach help or hinder these criteria?”</p>
<p>The first thing I discovered when started to apply the criteria is that what is right for one state may not be right for another. The issue appears to be entirely situational. For instance, if one reads the Vermont posters on this board, it would appear that the University of Vermont is the only state supported four-year institution in the state, so the need to develop local human capital might override the need to attract and retain it.</p>
<p>To approach this issue of variability based on a state’s situation, I decided that it would be useful to construct the “perfect” university system that would meet all of these criteria, and then explore how other state systems differ and why that might be.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the “perfect” system (based on the above criteria, please note) would have these characteristics:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Any reasonably workable in-state university system should meet criteria 1 and 2, improving human capital in the state. This is not a hard thing to do, and most (if not all) states probably do it reasonably well.</p></li>
<li><p>A medium-sized flagship university that restricts admissions so that it becomes very selective. This selectivity, coupled with low, in-state tuition and relatively low out-of-state tuition, would provide a very high-value offering. It would tend to retain very talented in-state students and attract very talented out-of-state students. A university like this one should probably admit around 40% from out of state, so long as the out-of-state students have credentials that are stronger than those of in-state applicants. This university should help meet all criteria.</p></li>
<li><p>A large, well-respected technical university to appeal to second-tier talent from both in and out of state. This university might admit 30% from out of state. This university should help meet criteria 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 and, to a lesser degree, 3 and 4.</p></li>
<li><p>A number of smaller, somewhat specialized four-year universities to educate average or below average talent. These universities would probably not draw well from out of state, so in-state enrollment might be 80% to 90%. These universities should help meet criteria 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7.</p></li>
<li><p>A community college system to train people in lower-level technical skills with two-year degrees, and provide a launching platform into four-year degrees for late bloomers. Helps meet criteria 1 and 2.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>If one looks at current state systems, the ones closest to “perfect” that I can think of are:</p>
<p>Virginia
California
Michigan
North Carolina</p>
<p>Other states come close, among them:</p>
<p>Texas
Florida
Georgia
Washington
Illinois
New York</p>
<p>But what about those systems that aren’t close to this model? Why are they different, and should they be different? Here are some alternate models I can think of, and why they may make sense for a particular state.</p>
<p>Massachusetts: Talent attracted and retained by fabulous system of private schools. No need or even demand (perhaps) for top level public school.</p>
<p>Delaware, Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and other small states: Surrounded by other states with top privates and/or new top publics. Small population makes above model impractical. Fairly easy to attract talent from nearby states. </p>
<p>Mountain/Plains states such as Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, New Mexico, etc.: Simply don’t have the funds/population to build the above model.</p>
<p>Colorado, Oregon, Hawaii and others: Talent comes there for the quality of life. No need to attract and retain talent at the college level.</p>
<p>Those are just some thoughts. I’m interested in others’ additions, subtractions, etc</p>
<p>UUmmm - Texas - several options for state students at state U's - Vermont - <strong>1</strong> option! Unless of course you think you may want to attend 1 of the 4 small state colleges.</p>
<p>Doesn't compare in Many ways - big state vs small state - bigger population vs small population and on and on</p>
<p>"I think the 10% rule should be applied rigorously, with SAT exceptions that would assist the student who falls outside of that parameter at a school with a disproportionate number of able students also to gain admission." redcrimblue</p>
<p>And I actually think this IS happening at UT-Austin...but by law, only with the spots available after the top ten percenters have been admitted. What do you do when there are virtually no spots left? This year (hopefully I am remembering these numbers correctly...I'll try to be conservative since I have filed the actual data away in boxes months ago), UT-Austin received about 18,000 applications and accepted about 9000. If 76%, or about 6800, of the 9000 were top tens, that means about there were over 10,000 applicants were competing for about 2000 remaining spots. Those are the spots available to nontops and highly qualified oos. You also have to fit the AA evaluation of minority candidates allowed by the UMich decision in that very small number as well. It's easy to see why highly qualified kids, including minorities, who are not top ten percent can fall through the cracks. And it becomes worrisome when it is clear that the percentages are not holding or leveling off at UT-Austin, which is clearly the best, most affordable school available to Texans. A&M hasn't felt the pinch yet; but if caps aren't instituted, that day may well come for them too. Btw...A&M has an auto admit rule for kids in the top 20% who meet certain SAT standards. But those admits do not trump the top ten auto-admits.</p>
<p>Furthermore, why SHOULD a highly qualified student adjust their expectations and goals and accept a tier three school (we have plenty of those here in Texas), especially when they have done everything to earn the tier one school EXCEPT get up and move to a low performing school district. Try getting into UT-Law or Baylor College of Medicine from Texas State, Sam or Stephen F. Austin....it's pretty darned difficult.</p>
<p>btw...To answer DRJs question about my concerns. I am concerned that highly qualified nontops are being capped, that there will be no room for highly qualified oos candidates and that the State of Texas endorses an admissions policy that is not holistic in nature. I am concerned that the top ten percent law has been in effect for almost ten years, yet the racial diversity of the best universities is not materially different than it was before the law was adopted. I'm am concerned about the gaming and manipulation that occurs at the high school level as a result of the law. I am concerned when a handful of Texas lawmakers hold a committee hostage and won't even allow discussion of the law on the floor of the Senate (This is the same group that leaves the State to prevent a vote when they know they won't get their way.). </p>
<p>Re: our district. There is light at the end of the tunnel I HOPE. We have a new superintendent and I have heard through the teacher grapevine, the district will start adding a half point for APs beginning with the class of 2011. But I'm worried because there has been no public or official discussion as of yet, that I know of. Those kids will enter high school next year (2007) and you would think that there would be discussion on the floor at school board meetings. Maybe they are trying to be strategic about timing, so as not to raise the ire of the parents of athletes (who, as I understand it, were primarily responsible for the abolishment of AP/Honors weighting in our district years ago). It really does stink, because every school district that borders ours weights APs and Honors...some as much as a full point for AP and half point for Honors/Pre-AP. And it's sad to see little 6th and 7th graders in summer school taking required on-level high school credits like PE, Speech, etc....so that they can keep these on-levels out of their GPA computation.</p>
<p>Tarhunt, I would include New Jersey in your "Massachusetts category." Relatively little demand to create an elite public university. Although at least 1 small public college is well regarding. Many NJ high schoolers head elsewhere and don't look back.</p>
<p>LakeWashington:</p>
<p>Are there a lot of elite private schools in NJ? I'm sure there are some, but I couldn't think of one off the top of my head. Also, I would say that Rutgers is a pretty good school.</p>
<p>I think NJ benefits from being between Philly and NYC, so attracting talent probably isn't that big a deal for them. So, in that sense, I agree with you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Are there a lot of elite private schools in NJ? I'm sure there are some, but I couldn't think of one off the top of my head.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>(Pssst. Tarhunt. Princeton.)</p>
<p>cumudgeon:</p>
<p>LOL! Of course Princeton, but when comparing NJ to Mass., are the number of elite private schools comparable?</p>
<p>I guess that would depend on one's definition of elite . Imo no, the numbers of elite private schools in NJ is not at all comparable to the number in Mass.</p>
<p>c:</p>
<p>Yeah. That's my thought, too. So I don't think the situation in NJ matches up well with the situation in Mass. But there are some similarities.</p>