What is the point of UT's "modified" top10% rule 2011?

Colleges & Universities A-Z The University of Texas at Austin
21

<p>Yeah, top 10% at Plano was all above a 4.0 GPA. This is weighting with a 5.0 being max for an AP class, and a 4.5 being max for an honors-level class (very few honors above 10th grade, it’s all AP).</p>

<p>If you made mid-to-low B’s in every AP class you took, and took only AP during Jr and Sr years, you wouldn’t have made top 10%. With those grades, you probably would have made a 4 or 5 on all the AP tests you took, also. The course is extremely rigorous, and (darn near) everybody passes the AP tests, with like 80% of them getting a 4 or a 5.</p>

22

<p>How do you know if that kid in Sharpstown had the opportunity to thake APs? At my former high school (I love saying that) there was only AP biology, Spanish and Chemistry, and dual credit courses in US history, gov’t/economics, english, psych and sociology…and you weren’t allowed to take ANY of those courses until your junior year, how do you know that the kid from Sharpstown was able to take APs at all? This rule doesn’t punish the smart ones, it rewards the best in their respective schools for rising above and beyond their individual settings and making the most of their education.</p>

23

<p>mkose, I think that’s a really good way of putting it!</p>

24

<p>So you think the kid that “rose above his individual settings” is more deserving to go to UT than somebody else who is all-around better qualified? Most ivy-league and out of state schools would beg to differ, strongly.</p>

<p>If anything, having “less opportunity” and such sounds like some sort of affirmative action/socioeconomic hardship type of issue.</p>

<p>The student who took all those AP classes and has studied more things knows more and is better prepared to go to UT and excel. The kid who took no AP classes but still ranked highly in his smaller, less-funded school should go to community college for a year or two, catch up with the other student, and then transfer into UT.</p>

<p>I would propose we remove the 10% rule and base absolutely everything for admissions on merit. No race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, hardship, first-generation, blah blah, etc. But that will never happen.</p>

<p>[Btw, I did not get a 2400 on my SAT, I was not valedictorian, etc. Most people who argue for merit-only usually do so because they are already “the best” and are angry about losing a spot to affirmative action or something. This is not the case with me.]</p>

25

<p>Actually, I’m sure many schools would agree with me, they don’t ask that you take a certain minimum requirement to get in, they ask that you take the hardest courses that you are offered at your respective high school, and so you are telling me that just because i went to a school with little funding in a poor system that I should go to JC then transfer? What kind of BS is that? And as I have stated it has been documented and proven that these “under qualified” students as you call them do perform at UT, here’s a link in case you’d like to read </p>

<p>[Is</a> The “Top 10” Plan Unfair? - 60 Minutes - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/15/60minutes/main649704.shtml]Is”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/15/60minutes/main649704.shtml)</p>

<p>And how is having less opportunity an affimitive action issue? It’s all around us, there are students who for some reason have to go to really bad areas, and it may not be because of their parents not working, what about students who live in rural areas that have only one high school and all students rich and poor have to go there? Thats actually where more of the “under-qualified” students come from if anything (and that’s my experience, I just graduated from a poor community in rural southwest texas, and I used to live in Orange County, CA)
I believe that merit should be a factor, but there are sometimes when you have to look at their circumstances before you dole it out solely on merit because that provides no ability for people from disenfranchised areas to attend a school that they could get into had they been able to go to a “better school”.</p>

26

<p>Why don’t we follow the California systems? California is even more diverse than Texas and they still manage to have a good system without affirmative action. I mean look how many good colleges there are in California. They must be doing something right.</p>

<p>Or we need to have some kind of a law regulating that all high schools in Texas have a same grading systems etc…</p>

<p>Or we can have an automatic admission for top 10%ers only if they have a certain SAT/ACT scores.</p>

27

<p>There is a law making all public schools have the same grading system…it’s still not going to make the suburbanite’s complaints any different. They will simply claim that Johnny would have gotten higher grades than Jose and JaMarcus and JimBob did at their schools.</p>

<p>California has more good schools than we do for two reasons–1. They’ve had a larger population, and thus more demand, and 2. they pay exhorbitant tax rates to pay for them (and they’re still in debt).</p>

<p>Texas could not use California’s system because there aren’t enough attractive public schools to make the law worthwhile.</p>

<p>And again, the only purpose of the law is so that UT Austin has diversity. Using SAT scores in the criteria wouldn’t really work because students from low-income schools and rural schools and minority-majority schools tend to have lower SAT scores, so it would be counterproductive to have that policy in place. If they were going to do that, they may as well just remove the top ten percent protection altogether.</p>

28

<p>we are in an area where bunches awesome kids don’t get to go to ut. my kids don’t really want to go there, so it is not really an issue for me, but i still think it is unfair. i think it should be modified so that there is a top 10 component and a gpa or sat component. top kids from lesser schools should still be getting top grades to qualify for ut. if you are a top 10 kid at an easier school, then you should also have a first rate gpa.</p>

<p>every kid at in the top 10 at my kid’s school has at least a 4.33 GPA (on a 4.0 scale).</p>

<p>kids from crummy schools should have some kind of gpa cutoff.</p>

<p>and i also don’t think every top 10 kid needs to go to ut. i think the top 10 could also be modified so that with a top 10 and certain gpa or sat you are guaranteed ut. at another level, a&m and so on and so on.</p>

<p>i wonder what the gpa and sat/act scores are for the lowest members of the top 10%??</p>

<p>one more thing about ut and a&m … if you are OOS and you get 1000 in scholarship $$ money from the school (might be academic only … i am not sure) you get in state tuition rate. i think that STINKS!! it is cheaper for OOS kids to come to ut than it is for them to stay in their own states. and it certainly isn’t cheaper for texas students to go anywhere OOS without big scholarship $$.</p>

29

<p>The same grading system isn’t even a good point because you know that
4/5 = 80/100 = 3.2/4 so to say that if they had this or that type of basis to calculate GPA would be a fallacy in its own right because as you can see those numbers are all equal just based off of four different grading systems.</p>

<p>and a gpa cut off isn’t fair to those who don’t have the opportunity to take those AP classes, i took all the dual credit classes i could at my school, all the APs i could (except for chemistry) and my gpa wasn’t above a 4 on a 4 point scale (and i was ranked number 3/150)</p>

30

<p>“We’re Texas. What starts here changes Texas”</p>

31

<p>i didn’t say that every top 10er needed to have above a 4.0. i am just saying that they all do at my kid’s school.</p>

<p>top 10ers from lesser schools IMO should have a top gpa <strong>for their school</strong>. if the max you can get at your lesser school is a 4.0, then i would think you should be getting something like half As and half Bs in whatever classes are offered for a 3.5 or so. if you want top education ops, you should be making the most of the education ops you have at your high school.</p>

32

<p>Top ten percenters typically DO have a top GPA for their school. That’s why they’re ranked in the top ten percent of their class…</p>

<p>I don’t really understand your point. Most kids in the top ten percent ANYWHERE are getting all A’s or mostly A’s.</p>

<p>Arguing that someone goes to a “lesser school” is preposterous. What qualifies your school as better–the fact that its tax base is much larger? That simply comes drastically close to economic discrimination and consequently racial discrimination, which is the exact opposite of what the purpose of the top ten percent law is.</p>

33

<p>

</p>

<p>Agreed, any ranking by GPA for college admissions, if it is done at all, should be done WITHIN high schools where there is a level playing field.</p>

34

<p>it is not preposterous at all. part of the argument is that kids from some (poorer, rural, minority, whetever the case may be) schools don’t have the same opportunities as kids in rich schools. … </p>

<p>i believe the kid in the above article had 3.2 in her school. that is not really a top gpa in my opinion. it is a decent gpa but not really super. that is more Bs than As assuming there are no honors or AP classes at all. and in my opinion, someone who is more a B student than A student does not really “deserve” admission at ut over many other students who are certainly more qualified.</p>

35

<p>Hmm, kind of difficult to make that 4.3 in a 4.0 system. </p>

<p>Obviously those who are complaining haven’t bothered reading the bill. People, there is a cut off for SAT beginning fall 2011. </p>

<p>The Top 10% has been around since 1997 after Hopwood was deservedly struck down. Instead of complaining, trot yourselves down to the legislature and lobby for the rule to be changed. You all had the chance to advocate changes in this last legislative session. In fact, you have had 12 years to advocate change. If you didn’t fight for your beliefs, you don’t have the right to complain now.</p>

<p>It’s ironic so many, especially those from 5As, who were in the 11% were complaining the loudest. What, UT was going to admit someone in the 37% over them? I don’t think so. After all the teeth gnashing, stomping feet, and holding their breath until they turn blue, they now have a harder climb to get to UT’s new cut off of around 8%.</p>

<p>And that brings up another thing about those from large schools complaining about maintaining their Top 10% status. In a class of 1000 students, they are in competition with 100 students so it’s only a matter of aceing that next test to bump up those factions of percents. Contrast that with a small school with only 100 students in your class. You are #10 but at the last minute one student drops out or moves and now you’re in the 11%. In other words, students in larger schools have more personal control over their rank than in a small school where one’s chance at their dream college is more dependant upon other students’ decision of staying in school.</p>

36

<p>I’m not arguing against having a top 10% rule, but you can’t deny that the standards and expectations vary drastically from school to school. Having a smaller tax base doesn’t exactly prevent teachers from teaching tougher material (instead of doing TAKS prep all year) or simply assigning more work to anticipate tedious grind in college. </p>

<p>I went to a Plano high school for a while, and I was in the top 2%. I busted my ass working my way up there, and it was more often than not I went to sleep in the wee early hours of the morning. When I transferred out of Plano in 11th grade, I met a student from Allen (which is just as, if not more, wealthy than Plano), and she indicated that her workload never took her past 10 PM, with enough time in between for prime time programming. It’s personal experience, and it doesn’t hold much merit, but I’ve met more than my fair share of people from across Texas. </p>

<p>There ARE “lesser” schools, in that some districts simply have drastically lower standards than others. No offense to them, but tutoring at Denton High School felt like being blasted back to 6th grade, and I tutored there for two years.</p>

<p>Its not the students’ fault if they attend a school in a less affluent and/or less demanding district, but are you really going to fault those elitist, whiny, rich, white suburbanites for seeking higher education where it exists? /s</p>

<p>mkose, the link you sent proves nothing. Despite its attempted neutral tone, it actually leans towards abolishing the top 10% rule. Laura Torres, the girl that allegedly got in because of the top 10% rule, never even considered applying until the rule came into play. How the hell does she know she wouldn’t have gotten in without the rule, if she didn’t even try? Isn’t that the point of holistic review? (Granted, I have no idea if UT uses holistic review or not) Nevertheless, that top notch rank should at least get her shoe in the door. If UT, as the CBS article indicates, really “may use race - on a voluntary, limited basis,” then Torres and others like her still have a good chance. </p>

<p>Actually, they have a lousy chance without ANY top 10% rule in place, which is why the modified top 10% rule is almost perfect, in my opinion, although I still think they should scale back the 75% to something a little less, such as 60-70%. I am, of course, assuming, they’ll do tiered admission in addition to capping the number of automatically admitted students. By the time you get to the lowest ranks of the top 10%, their likelihood for success isn’t quite as stellar as, say, the top 5%. I’m speaking from personal experience again, but you don’t want to admit students, only for a bunch of them to drop out in a year or so. You can quote individual examples at me, but it still doesn’t wipe out the far more encompassing statistics. </p>

<p>This part is not really relevant, but I’d like to point out that you can’t eat your cake and have it too. Middle class students are already getting the short end of the financial stick. Too rich to qualify for financial aid, and too poor to cut a check. They’re the ones who graduate with crippling debt, whereas the poor students with equal job oppertunities due to an equal degree pay it all off within the first few years of finding a job, if not less. The middle class is denied financial independence for years to come, and now you want to deny them the school altogether? And don’t give me any ******** about merit based scholarships - that all went to the football players. </p>

<p>I wasn’t burned by the top 10% rule (even though I wasn’t in top 10%), but I know quite a few other hardworking, intelligent kids who have. </p>

<p>Speaking in a STRICTLY academic sense and without regards to socieoeconomic or racial profiles, the fringe of the top 10% in some districts are far more qualified and deserving to go to UT than the cr</p>

37

<p>Nunya–The SAT cutoff requirements that are part of the new 2011 law only pertain to those students who do not take their high school’s recommended graduation plan. Since most people who apply to UT have/are taking their high school’s recommended plan, the SAT rules do not apply to them.</p>

38

<p>well obviously you didn’t read the part about the stats showing that they didn’t just drop like flies that they actually did perform. and no, if people drop it hurts your percentage rank, and your numeric rank goes up it they were ahead of you, my friend was number 15 in a class of 150 in April, but because some dumb bimbo couldn’t pass her taks (for the 5th time) the number of people in the class went down to 149 and they don’t round up so the top ten percent was 14.9, meaning she was dropped from the top ten percent.</p>

39

<p>nunya - have you heard of a weighted gpa? that is how you get a 4.3 on a 4.0 scale. don’t be an idiot. if you hang around here at all, i am sure you know that.</p>

<p>a regular A is 4 points. an A in an AP class is 5 points. but the scale is still called a 4.0 scale.</p>

40

<p>Florida has an auto admission provision, somewhat like California’s, in that you are guaranteed a spot in a Public Uni, but not the Uni of your choice, so, just as we have the CAP program, and A&M has Blinn, UF has Santa Fe CC in Gainesville, same type program - auto acceptance after a year, with a certain gpa. </p>

<p>UF’s admssions are extremely stringent, much more so than UT’s, with many kids who are IN the top 10% with 1300+ test scores being turned away (just go peruse their threads from last spring and see the bloodbath). They strictly offer the limited number of spots to the best qualified - but they do so holistically because they have the option to turn away students. UT does not have that option. </p>

<p>The reason I bring Florida up, is that loneranger discounted the argument that we should be more like California because California has better public colleges, or a larger number of them. Florida, like Texas, has TWO flagship universities, that’s it - just like us.</p>

<p>Just as in Florida, where schools like UCF and USF have grown and become better institutions because of their guaranteed admission program, Texas Tech, UH, and the UT schools (San Antonio, Arlington, etc) have grown and become better too. And, people who are not deemed as qualified to attend the “Flagship Universities” are steered to those types schools, or to CC’s. </p>

<p>I think as Texans, residents should absolutely be guaranteed a spot in the Texas universitiy system, but NOT the school of their choice.</p>