I am going to try to do the impossible. Talk about AA and its impact on what’s happened at UT based on the evidence I know of and not get yelled at :). Pls assume I have made all needed caveats like there are always exceptions contrary and most importantly I could be wrong for sure! I offer my views up for no other reason than some may find them interesting. Oh and please dont judge spelling and grammar…I’m lazy not incapable.
Background - my (white - Italian American actually ) D was just rejected (capped) with 33 ACT, 11% rank in competitive private school, at least avg essays, all 5s on her 3AP courses thru jr year, etc. We are broken hearted. We know of many more like her. Crazy strong applicants (not auto-admitted) that were rejected. BTW both my wife and I didnt come from the trailerpark but pretty darn close to it. We went to no-name undergrads paid for w student loans then to UT McCombs on full merit-only based scholarships and it changed the financial course of our lives and I have a lot I owe UT.
I have access to a former admissions counselor at UT and have been reading of the multiple court cases relative to AA in the Texas public university system and the 2 latest voluminous reports each Texas U must provide to the State legislature (the most recent one is perhaps 5 years old).
Let’s put whether one believes in AA to the side. It is what it is and there are arguments on both sides.
The top 10% rule with 75% cap (adjusted to top 6% this year I believe) does not FULLY adjust the representation of different groups. Whites are significantly overrepresented (I guess though that include poor whites w/ lesser opps than my children too). Therefore UT (and I’m not going to even try to thread the needle on my wording the way UT has to given prior litigation), does take race into account even in selecting the remaining 25%, HOWEVER, even so, based on the most recent data I’ve seen (and you can find too) Whites had been dramatically overrepresented/Hispanics underrep in the residual 25%. …but here’s an interesting question - we are now I believe 2 years out from the US Supreme court ruling in UT’s favor in the Fisher case - and again there’s lots of wording about how it has to done - saying UT may use the 25% to further close the gap on representation. SO, query whether UT has stepped on the gas in trying to get to its optimal cross section of students. We will know if that played a role when the data becomes available.
Important note - we and my daughter knew going into high school she’d have to get the auto-admit to be certain to get in. She had more than enough ability but she didnt want it badly enough. So she goes to TAMU or somewhere else which isnt the end of the world and she learns an invaluable lesson about life.
I sincerely wish everyone the best. Right now this seems like it is the most important thing in the world to those who got in and those who didn’t but it’s just part of the journey.
@joe77055 Since it wasn’t stated in you post, nor have I seen it in this thread…yet, your mention of “AA” is Affirmative Action, not Automatic Admit. Just to be clear for everyone who haven’t been down this road with UT.
I’m OOS California and haven’t heard from UT yet. Applied to McCombs. Have friends that also applied for business, engineering and some other majors and they haven’t heard either
Are you saying that you think this year’s admission decisions potentially deviated from years past because of a newly strong weighing of race/ethnicity? That could be, and like you said, we won’t know until all the data is released.
But my guess is that that alone is not going to be responsible. They may have tweaked some of their equations, but I’m thinking that we’ll see a record number of applicants. Also they said they would only admit 17k this year (last year was over 19). I’m assuming they are trying to improve their rankings via adjusting the admission rate and yield rate.
In the end, all of these things may be true. Their long term strategy and vision and goals are probably based around selectivity, score ranges, and diversity (of many kinds) and how they balance the sometimes competing optimizations of those factors is something only a few people are privy to
If you look at the data that @joe77055 linked to the opposite conclusion has to be drawn. In fact the 5 years studied in the data showed that the Auto Admit function actually was balancing the white admission and hispanic as an example at around 30% each. So the non-auto-admit would NOT have to be used to adjust racial quotas as suggested. In fact, if you look at the pie chart for the non-auto-admits the percentage of white admission is much higher in the non-auto admit category.
Last year they started coming out around 6 p.m. and kept rolling through Feb. 1. I’m an auto-admit but I’m patiently waiting on my besties results. She applied to architecture which they delayed until the 27th last year :/. At least hoping for a decision on time.
Universities really need to revisit the admissions process again. With the start of the “common app” tools, students are applying to more and more schools, which creates a significant burden on all universities to go through thousands of applications. Some schools now want you to apply so their acceptance rate goes down and/or they play the yield game to reduce the risk of accepting so many who really prefer another university. I do not dare to think I know what the better answer is for this process, but it is too hard on the kids.
Please keep in mind that many parts of this process include a bit of luck and good fortune mixed in with some outstanding accomplishments by the students. A denial does not mean that the student is not good enough, it just means that it didn’t happen this time.
Best of luck to all - keep your heads high. I am rooting for you.