<p>Powers is being alarmist, I think, but I'd support some kind of change to the law. I love that he plays the football card, lol.</p>
<p>UT</a> president warns of consequences to automatic-admission law</p>
<p>You'll see a reference in the comments sections to the UC system. Do the Californians on the board support the way the UCs do it?</p>
<p>This is Texas so whatever it takes to keep the football coaches happy is what will happen. </p>
<p>I do support a change to the law but I think it should be limited to 75% of the class, not 50%.</p>
<p>What about a compromise figure between 50%, which seems extreme, and 75%, which doesn't seem likely to make much of a difference. How about 2/3 - 1/3?</p>
<p>Go, Horns!</p>
<p>UT - eliminating football????!!!!! What an argument. Go Bill!</p>
<p>(BTW, Bill Powers was a visiting prof at my law school my first year. We all heart Bill Powers.)</p>
<p>I'd go with 60-40 or 65-35.</p>
<p>I thought he was working on a plan to make it the top 5% rather than 10%, which would help.</p>
<p>They wouldn't have to eliminate football. They could have a team with the best of the top 10% students.....Of course UT might not be winning championships that way.</p>
<p>California has three different paths for admission to the UCs. </p>
<p>University</a> of California - Admissions</p>
<p>Essentially 1) the top 4% from each high school, 2) Statewide qualification based on specified courses and test (e.g. GPA is computed based on 15 courses not everything, or 3) Testing alone. </p>
<p>NONE of these paths give you a sure thing admission to the UCs - each is simply a hurdle that establishes minimum criteria - and then everyone is evaluated based upon a comprehensive review of the application. </p>
<p>Are people happy with the result? In general I think so other than for UCLA or Berkeley. Those schools are so in demand as to make admissions as difficult as an Ivy. I do think that the common class requirements which make up your UC GPA is a good idea and one that other schools should copy.</p>
<p>I didn't see the UCs mentioned in the article but the UCs are targeting the top 12.5% of HS students in the state (not necessarily the top 12.5% from each HS) and generally guarantees admission to the top 4% of each HS although that guarantee isn't to the school of their choice, it's just to the UC system. </p>
<p>The California public U system is somwhat tiered with the UCs at the top end and then the CSUs with the CSUs generally being easier to be admitted to (but it varies somewhat with particular CSUs and UCs). IMO California doesn't have a single flagship campus like some other states. There are several highly ranked desirable campuses. For example, many students turn down UCB for UCLA and vice versa and UCLA actually gets more applicants than UCB (or any other college in the country I think).</p>
<p>When it comes to student choice, they can apply to particular schools but aren't guaranteed admission to any particular one. They might, for example, be in the top 4% of their HS class and be guaranteed admission, but be denied admission to UCLA/UCB/UCSD but offered admission to UCSB/UCD/UCR/etc.</p>
<p>The good news is that one can receive a fine education at schools other than UCLA/UCB/UCSD.</p>
<p>I don't see how one particular UT campus can have the capacity to accept the top 10% of grads from each HS ehen they overwhelming choose the single campus as appears to be the case. I can't see the one campus being able to expand continuously to take the demand since it'd end up so large as to be impractical. Maybe Texas needs to develop other campuses such that they'll become as desirable as the Austin campus. If they limit the access to the Austin campus then more top students might attend some of the other campuses.</p>
<p>"Most football players do not rank in the top 10 percent."</p>
<p>Shocking! :eek:</p>
<p>Changing the formulas that drive the automatic admission to the flagship schools is long overdue. It should be as drastic as lowering it to only the top 5% of graduating classes and subject the remaining students to additional standards such as SAT or ACT results. In addition, direct admission based solely on SAT/ACT should be added to level the field for all non-rankings schools in Texas --which often are the most selective in the State.</p>
<p>ucsd, the UC comments were in the reader feedback, not the story.</p>
<p>There is discussion of developing another flagship to take some of the pressure off UT (and A&M) and add some geographic diversity. The likeliest candidates are UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington and University of Houston. Texas Tech is too remote.</p>
<p>Another question: Does the state limit the number of OOSers who can go to Berkeley or UCLA?</p>
<p>Xiggi, interesting proposals, but I'd love to hear your always-thoughtful arguments responsive to those who'd say your plan would hurt the kids the Top 10% Rule is designed to help (URM, socioeconomially disadvantaged, first-gen, rural, etc.) and give another leg up to students from families with the money, knowledge and savvy to play the College Board's/college admissions cottage industry's games.</p>
<p>BTW, our family is in the latter category, our kids attend a non-ranking private and have high test scores, and I am chapped that UT is not a sure thing for them (if they want it). So, personally, your reform would make me happy. Yet I am not convinced it is the right thing for their former classmates from modest backgrounds attending a rural Texas high school who are, in truth, more than capable of being among the best and brightest at UT and are assured of that opportunity under the Top 10% Rule as it now exists or with some tweaking of the cap, but who would not stand a chance under your proposal.</p>
<p>UT Austin is a world class university. Let's quit the charade. Why not admit the best and brightest they can attract, irrespective of race, national origin, ethnicity or geography. Admittedly that leaves massive preferences for football and other sports but heck why engage in this endless form of gerrymandering social engineering?</p>
<p>for your reading pleasure, a thread with many posts on this general topic
<a href="http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/305746-texas-top-10-hs-admissions-challenged-again.html%5B/url%5D">http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/305746-texas-top-10-hs-admissions-challenged-again.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
BTW, our family is in the latter category, our kids attend a non-ranking private and have high test scores, and I am chapped that UT is not a sure thing for them (if they want it). So, personally, your reform would make me happy. Yet I am not convinced it is the right thing for their former classmates from modest backgrounds attending a rural Texas high school who are, in truth, more than capable of being among the best and brightest at UT and are assured of that opportunity under the Top 10% Rule as it now exists or with some tweaking of the cap, but who would not stand a chance under your proposal.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm where you are. I'm glad that none of my kids have their hearts set on UT. D16 is hugging the top 10%, but next year when her classmates take 6 APs and she stays in drill team (counts as two regular classes), she'll be left behind.</p>
<p>But I've read authors who say that students who are admitted to great schools under programs like top 10%, affirmative action, etc. just need to be* good enough*...They don't need to be at the top of the SAT heap to succeed at UT....they just need to be good enough to get in, and they will succeed.</p>
<p>TXartemis, I think rural kids, URM's, poor kids, etc, would still have a chance under Xiggi's plan. It would be a lower percentage, possibly top 5%. This would effect kids across all groups, just as the top 10% does. An ACT/SAT cutoff might eliminate more poor or minority students, but there would still be some type of percentage cutoff as well. I'm wondering what Xiggi or anyone else thinks the cutoff should be. According to ACT, in 2008, 2,774 Texas students scored 31 or higher on the ACT.</p>
<p>A&M uses top 25% and 1300 CR+M in its assured admit program. That seems reasonable. Doesn't mean others can't also get in ...</p>
<p>prefect, if 497,195 Texas students matriculated to 4-year public universities in 2007, and 2,774 of them scored 31+ on the ACT, you do the math and then come back and say it's a compelling favorable indicator.</p>
<p>Demographic</a> Change and Education - Texas Works</p>
<p>However, using the ACT isn't a very good measure, as Texas is solidly in the SAT camp. Here's an article that indicates Texas 2008 SAT scores were at (a low compared nationwide) average 993 for CR/MA. </p>
<p>Obviously, this discussion isn't focused on the "average." But if our state public education system isn't helping kids attain more competitive scores compared to their peers in other states, then whatever SAT bar is set in connection with an admission plan must necessarily take that factor into account, particularly considering its impact on your URMs, socioeconomically disadvantaged, rural, etc.</p>
<p>Looking for a moment at just Texas' urban areas, where the concentration of college-bound students is higher than in rural areas, do you appreciate how difficult it is to rank in the top 10%? missypie's example is on point.</p>
<p>Just playing devil's advocate--this is an interesting discussion with many valid arguments and relevant facts to take into consideration.</p>
<p>I had no idea the SAT avg was so low. Just goes to show how ds's competitive school has skewed my idea of "average." Sheesh. In that case, I amend A&M's assured admit program cutoff to something more like 1200.</p>
<p>My ds is even worse off than missypie's dd. He's barely in the top quarter of his class despite a CR+M of more than 1400. And to think he's likely not going to get into UT.</p>
<p>@YouDon'tSay: no, California does not limit the OOS acceptances, but they are held to a higher minimal standard, i.e., 3.4 vs. a 3.0. The UCs just don't recieve that many OOS apps (its expensive for OOS and financial aid is minimal).</p>
<p>Small correction to a couple of other posts: the UCs DO guarantee acceptance to any instate kid that meets the minimal eligibilty requirements, but not at the student's first (or second or third) choice campus. Those meeting the bare minimum requirements may be directed to Riverside and/or Merced.</p>
<p>As a California parent, I'm non-plussed about ELC, 4% program. It means little in the big picture bcos ELC status does not guarantee admission to the state flaghips (Cal and UCLA), and not even UCSD. It only guarantees admissions to the rest of the UCs, which the vast majority of (top 4%) kids would get into anyway. Moreover, ELC is not doing what it was designed to do: increase the diversity at the big two.</p>
<p>btw: UC came up with 4% cap after reviewing Texas' experience with a 10% cap. But again, it's apples and oranges: the Texas cap guarantees admission to the state flagship in Austin, whereas the the UC cap only guarantees admission to the UC campuses in Irvine, Santa Barbara and Davis.</p>