UT and top 10%

Parents Forum
21

<p>
[quote]
Does the state limit the number of OOSers who can go to Berkeley or UCLA?

[/quote]

Bluebayou beat me to a response but I was goint to say "I don't know". I assume there must be some kind of limit but if they truly don't get a significant number of OOS apps then maybe they don't. I would have thought that Cal and UCLA would have received a fairly significant number of OOS apps (including outside of the USA) and would have to limit them somewhat. It's interesting that when you walk around campus you hear many languages other than English being spoken and many of the students are clearly from another country (very thick accents, etc.).</p>

<p>Again, if UT can develop another campus or two to be attractive by placing some of the top profs there, focusing on particular majors, and admitting a significant number of top students there but perhaps not to UT-Austin (maybe top 10% but not top 3% for example), then the other campus might become more desirable and the top students will eventually desire that campus rather than the current top pick. This already happens with the UCs.</p>

<p>As BB stated, the top 4% only guarantees admission to the UC system but not a particular campus and not necessarily even to UCI, UCD, UCSB. The campuses that are willing to accept any ELC student can vary from year to year and I think it depends on the popularity of the particular campus for apps. It'll be interesting to see how it might revolve this year and next assuming that all of the UC campuses might have more applicants and commits than normal.</p>

22

<p>
[quote]
I assume there must be some kind of limit..

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Sound logical, but there is no official cap. Indeed, the UCoP is trying to figure out a way to recruit more OOS kids (who are full pay) to individual campuses, but that is a pipe dream, IMO.</p>

<p>Cal has the highest number of OOS matriculants at ~10%, which is nearly twice that of UCLA even tho the warmer-weather school recieves more OOS apps. </p>

<p>I, SD & SB have been the official "guarantee" campuses for at least the past four years....of course, it could change next year.</p>

23

<p>TXartemis,
Yes, I do realize how hard it is to rank in the top 10% at some high schools, especially since the ranking systems can vary greatly from school to school. For example, some schools will rank any student #1 who has a certain minimum GPA, resulting in 100 "#1's" while others will split hairs to come up with a strict ranking of each number. I threw out the number of 31 on ACT because that seems to be a number that many put out as the low end for being competitive for top schools. According to college board, the 75% tile for TX composite SAT is 1690. I'm just wondering if the top 10% was changed to top 5% (or lower), and a separate automatic admission track was added for SAT/ACT score was added, what would that score be? For example a student is automatically offered admission if they're in the top 4% OR if their SAT score is ____ OR their ACT score is _____. I don't know what that score would have to be to keep people happy.</p>

24

<p>one other thing that is different between TX & CA: the individual HS ranking is not used by UC. UC asks each instate HS to submit the grades of the top ~12 of its students, and then UC recalculates the submtted gpa's based solely on UC-approved academic (a-g) courses, with a bonus point for UC-approved honors & AP/IB. Thus, the UC figures out the top 4% according to its own standards, not the high schools'.</p>

25

<p>One other note - the student and his/her parents have to sign a waiver for the grades to be sent to the UC for this process. Don't forget to sign and send in or you kid will be excluded.</p>

26

<p>SCUALUM:</p>

<p>Since the UC recalculated GPA includes classes through the Jr year, should we be expecting the waiver form sometime in September, or before the summer break?</p>

27

<p>
[quote]
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.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Artemis, while the 10% rule has worked pretty well for Texas, time has come to weigh its impact on the overall admissions. I do not think there is anything magical about the 10% number and it should be represent a reasonable percentage based on other criteria. One of the reasons the program has survived without a major crisis is that many qualified students (by the 10% rule) do NOT end up attending the flagship schools in Austin in College Station. Unfortunately, many who decide to stay closer to home or attend a more "congenial" college do this because of fear of racial or economical discrimination. To state it simply, many students from the poorest and least competitive districts are minorities and, despite the 10% automatic admission, end up attending lower ranked and cheaper schools. Although I have not checked the recent numbers, I believe that a reduction from the 10% to a lower number (say 5, 6 or even 8%) would not end up hurting students from schools that do rarely use their full "quotas." </p>

<p>On the other hand, the many districts from wealthy suburbs or urban areas such as Highland Park in Dallas, would face rather drastic reductions if their bottom quartile of bottom half of the ten percent is eliminated. As we know, many of the top students from schools (top 1-3%) tend to seek admission at OOS schools or at the various Honor, or more competitive business and engineering porgrams at UT. The most vocal opponents of a reduction from the golden 10^ are families of students in the 7 to 12% range. Offering such students a second entry (loosely based on Texas A$M Top 25%/1300SAT) would work pretty well. Extending the same condition to the non-ranking schools would actually add some equity to a program that has been discriminatory to a number of highly slective high schools --for no good reasons! </p>

<p>To remain competitive, UT at Austin needs to have the lasso that suqeezes its throat loosened. The school needs to be able to use a more holistic approach and keep the door open for competitive OOS students, internationals, and students from non-ranking schools. Being able to CHOOSE students from pools below the 5% should help UT selectivity and having a secondary automatic admission based on SAT should NOT discriminate the students who believe to have earned the right to attend UT. All they'd have to do is be ranked higher OR earn a competitive score on the SAT (or even the PSAT/ACT if needed).</p>

<p>PS For my friend Bluebayou, I still would not like to see the percentage of top students being based on a state wide basis. It is important to maintain the percentage of top students on a school by school basis and avoiding any type of geographical segregation.</p>

28

<p>FindaPlace: every school does it differently. Our HS has a 'check-the-box' approval during Junior year registration/orientation in August. That way the GC doesn't have to chase down the forms in June.</p>

29

<p>I'm so "old" on here I have said probably way more on this issue than I need to say. But I can't help myself ...so I'll just play an "oldie".</p>

<p>(xig, and bb, and other veterans of past Texas 10% threads , y'all can skip this post. Nothing new here. ;)) </p>

<p>


</p>

30

<p>xiggi: Not sure if I understand your point. UC does not calculate the top HS graduates across the state.</p>

<p>UC has three admission processes: ELC (top 4%) which is UC's calculation of the individual high school class; test scores only (typically used by homeschoolers and OOS'ers who don't meet a-g requirements); and "statewide" eligibility which is a combination of gpa+test scores and the holistic review (aka "comprehensive review"). But the term "statewide" is a misnomer bcos the gpa, like "all politics", is local. </p>

<p>The University does not care what high schools do with their curriculum nor how many credits a student earns for marching band or drill team (neither count for UC admissions nor does health, PE or honors basket-weaving). Nor does UC use the high school's bonus-point system (if they have one). UC awards its own bonus points.</p>

<p>Only University-approved academic courses count for admission and are used by UC for ranking students at each HS. Essentially UC takes the list of the top students at the High School, strips off all of the non-academic grades, weights the grades based on UC-approved honors/AP/IB courses, and recalculates the weighted gpa for students at that high school; top 4% + ties equals ELC for that high school. This process is completed for each high school over the summer after Junior year. ELC letters are sent to the students in early September of senior year.</p>

<p>Every student is ranked on a school-by-school basis, so geographic segregation is not an issue. Even Podunk Hi gets a guarantee for the top 4% of its students.</p>

31

<p>Our school did the waiver form before the kids got out for summer - sometime in May as I recall.</p>

32

<p>^^ Yeah - the 4% is per HS so even those attending a HS with no AP classes, for example, get a guarantee. </p>

<p>Regarding the UT 10% rule - I wonder if many people game the system by trying to actually attend a HS that has students who would present less competition to them, i.e. a HS perhaps not in the 'top-ranked' category? </p>

<p>I also wonder how they handle those who attend a private HS (still use top 10%?) or who are home schooled. </p>

<p>Comparing the description for the way Texas handles it versus California, I think I prefer the California method - especially since it can scale more practically.</p>

33

<p>
[quote]
xiggi: Not sure if I understand your point. UC does not calculate the top HS graduates across the state.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Well, I thought that you had reported a change in the "old" system when you posted, "Thus, the UC figures out the top 4% according to its own standards, not the high schools'." However, it seems I simply misread your post. It's been a while since I read the rules, and trusted your post. :)</p>

34

<p>ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad, I know most homeschoolers assume they'll be thrown into the "post-10" throng, so many look elsewhere from the get-go.</p>

35

<p>If anyone from out of state is reading this, to futher explain what xiggi was saying: For many many years, all state schools charged the same tuition. A few years ago, the state legislature allowed them to "unbundle", so now some state schools (e.g. UT Austin) charge quite a bit more tuition than other state schools.</p>

36

<p>Prefect, you said, </p>

<p>"I'm just wondering if the top 10% was changed to top 5% (or lower), and a separate automatic admission track was added for SAT/ACT score was added, what would that score be? For example a student is automatically offered admission if they're in the top 4% OR if their SAT score is ____ OR their ACT score is _____. I don't know what that score would have to be to keep people happy."</p>

<p>Here's the most recent Top 10% report UT has issued: <a href="http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report11.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report11.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>At page 10, there is a grid breaking out SAT scores (and "concorded ACT scores," e.g., 1300=29, 1400=31/32) of the Top 10% enrolled freshman from 1998-2008. The mean has remained fairly constant, with the range from a low in 2008 of 1219 to a high in 1998 of 1243. The percentages at key break points have remained fairly constant as well. Roughly 35% of those students scored better than 1300; about 15% scored 1400+. </p>

<p>Since 2002, the non-Top 10% group's mean SAT has been higher than the Top 10% group, this year's class peaking at 1285. Interestingly, nearly 20% of the non-Top 10% who matriculated in 2008 scored better than 1400.</p>

<p>But from an actual performance standpoint, the Top 10%'ers have out-performed the holistic admits from Texas high schools any way you look at it. In fact, in the past two years--2006 and 2007--the higher test-scoring non-Top 10% group's mean GPA has fallen below the 3.0 mark. </p>

<p>Although stats can be manipulated to support almost any argument, my interpretation of these figures leads me to believe that (a) if a separate test score-driven admission track was employed, something in the 1300-1400 range would certainly seem appropriate, and (b) in the grand scheme of things, it sure seems hard to argue for too much tweaking of the Top 10% rule, as those kids seem to be consistently out-performing their non-Top 10% peers. </p>

<p>--> I'd like someone to point out the fallacies of my conclusion (b).</p>

37

<p>Xiggi, you said, </p>

<p>"Unfortunately, many who decide to stay closer to home or attend a more "congenial" college do this because of fear of racial or economical discrimination. To state it simply, many students from the poorest and least competitive districts are minorities and, despite the 10% automatic admission, end up attending lower ranked and cheaper schools."</p>

<p>I have been unable to locate stats re: where all the Top 10%'ers matriculate. If convenient, can you point me to a resource?</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

38

<p>Does anyone know if there is evidence if the Texas auto admit policy has put pressure on the high schools to upgrade their curriculum so that the top 10% are prepared to succeed at UT? </p>

<p>Admission to freshman year does not mean much if they don't survive into Sophmore year - just a wasted seat ( and a crushed soul of the student who flunked out.)</p>

<p>I started out at Texas Womens University, and the Texas kids were spectacularly poorly prepared. At UT, in the 1970s, the HS education of Texas kids was much better, but not up to Prep school standards. If UT is dealing with the same badly educated students I met at TWU, it won't be a world class institution for long.</p>

39

<p>
[quote]
Admission to freshman year does not mean much if they don't survive into Sophmore year - just a wasted seat ( and a crushed soul of the student who flunked out.)

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I wish I could point to data, but from what I've read, the top 10% admits are not washing out after freshman year. 4-6 years after the top 10% rule started, I exepcted to see all of these articles about how the kids who the rule was supposed to help weren't graduating. But I don't think that's the case. I think that they are succeeding, which means that the rule is accomplishing its goal. It means that my kids won't go to UT, but that the kid from the rural district that doesn't offer AP classes can go and will probably graduate.</p>

40

<p>TXArtemis, I have not studied the most recent data in a while. This said, I used to find a lot of information on the UT website. </p>

<p>Here's something that could help:</p>

<p>Admissions</a> Research: Texas Feeder Schools - UT Austin</p>

<p>The above links to Texas High Schools Feeding Graduates to the Freshman Class at
The University of Texas at Austin - Entering Summer/Fall 2008</p>

<p>and also (albeit dated)
Admissions</a> Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin</p>

<p>Also, you might want to poke around this site:</p>

<p>Admissions</a> Research: Top Ten Percent Reports - UT Austin</p>

<p>You'll find this information that is dated November and December 2008:<br>
Top Ten % Reports
Report 11 Now Available
This annual report provides demographics and an analysis of Texas high school graduates who enrolled as first-time freshmen since 1998. Part 2 is a report of persistence toward graduation of students in the same cohort and will be posted shortly.</p>