Those are great points. One thing to remember in addition to what you said is that the reason most of those schools are "competitive" is because of the grade inflation that goes on in such schools. If everyone has a 4.5 GPA, it sure as hell is going to be competitive. I have a friend who went to Stratford High and said that they had 10 valedictorians. TEN!!! Work hard in high school and you have it made. If not, go to another college for a year, work hard, and you have it made. If you can't do that, you won't work hard at UT, either.
To be honest I think my year was the last year I wouldve gotten in, they had the summer deal where u could go for summer and be admitted in fall, but I got in right away. I did decent on my SAT's, 1300, and just think I was smart and applied only to liberal arts because I knew i couldnt get into the business school. I did transfer in after a year and eventually graduated from the PPA program. It sucks kids that want to go there now cant. I dont think Bellaire kids are any smarter/better than most other high schools but at the same time the 10% rule is a joke. I think having bellaire on my resume might have helped a little?
i've got a while to think about it...my son is only 6. but it's all very different than it was when i was getting ready to go to college.
I think I deserved it since I was zoned there yes....if you want your kids to go there move so you are zoned. Personally I think schools are a joke, and what not. Spare me the lower quality speech, and what they have to go through. I think if any student works hard, they should have the RIGHT to attend the University of Texas. If its too hard for them they will just fail out anyways and someone else can try
Amen. It pisses me off to hear people say "I got rejected by UT but got into SMU [or whatever]." Boo hoo. You think a kid at Wheatley has the same opportunity? The haters can kiss my Texas Ex ass.
I think the 10% rule puts parents in somewhat of a quandry. I have a daughter and we moved to a better school district precisely because the education received is of a higher quality than others. At the same time that means that the competition for top 10% is much higher. People often talk about this rule in context of not punishing those who go to lesser districts, but the reverse also applies - you can end up punishing kids in better districts who had to work a lot harder in a more competitive environment.
I disagree entirely. There are people who simply can't afford to move. 60% of the students at Jones High School are below the poverty line. They simply can't afford to move. Also, there are other factors. Many times, there are travel issues with jobs and other things. Not everyone is as privileged as you are. I'll give you the "lower quality speech" because its absolutely true. In urban areas across the country, school systems are corrupt, inefficient, and downright pathetic. I'll give an example that I put out a lot when it comes to school inequality. In urban Kansas city, I knew a guy who went to a school were only 20% of the kids actually graduate. The administration is so corrupt that there is a 1 to 1 ratio between teachers and students. Teacher pay is non-existant and the environment is so bad that kids have been shot on school premesis. After-school and extra-curriculur programs outside of athletics don't exist and while there is money for new classrooms, that money has been spent by a school board and administration more concerned with giving jobs to friends than supporting the interests in students. The highest level of math there is the 7th grade pre-algebra we did. Textbooks in history still mention the USSR as a present day entity in some cases. And most importantly, in a school like that it's impossible to compete with students in better schools and the incentive to learn and gain knowledge is non-existant in a school were the administrators couldn't give a damn about you. The first step to combating the inequality of schools is to acknowledge that inequality in the first place and recognize that many of us are priveleged to get the opportunity to go to such great schools and be exposed to other students and teachers that care about you. Many kids today don't get that opportunity and rather than just discounting their experiences with a few non-responsive points like you did, you can acknowledge that we never went through anything close to that and that the kids who make it out really did persevere through hardships that we never ever had to deal with.
I think the top 10% rule is good in theory, but in practice, it just kind of burns you out before you even get to the "real world"/ college level. I was top 5% at Clements and got good SAT scores and all that and went to UT. But I was so tired of doing the whole academia thing that I spent the first 2 years at UT just partying and letting loose, not giving a f*ck. There has to be a better way to implement the idea that just getting into college isn't going to be the end all be all...
Again, what did YOU do to deserve to go to the top high school in Houston. Not your parents, you. Unless you went to Bellaire based on some kind of academic achievement, you basically won the educational lottery by being born to parents who could afford to live in the Bellaire zone. That's called entitlement, you did nothing to deserve this opportunity.
I don't see it as punishing kids in better districts. Kids in better districts will have more opportunities by virtue of being in better districts. UT is a state university and should represent the state not the better districts.
Absolutely I think that on average Madison graduates are less intelligent than Bellaire graduates. Absolutely doing better on standardized testing is a direct reflection of intelligence. What do you think the point of standardized testing is? Are you being serious?
Agreed, the people we're talking about here who might get "screwed", let's say the back half of the top quartile, are not out of options. however they're also clearly not the best of the best either, or else they'd be up at the tip top with da cream o da crop. Perhaps they shoudl have worked harder, I mean top 10% is not easy, but it's not like getting into Harvard-kind-of-tough, 10% of students do it each year. If somebody has to get shut out of the top spots, I'd rather it be the folks with other options, that's an optimal outcome for me.
Standardized testing doesn't prove anything. It proves that the system was better served to teaching to a test. Ever wonder why kids who take SAT prep classes generally do better than those who didn't take them? It might have something to do with the fact that they had access to training and tutoring that other's didn't have. What I loved about the American educational system is that our intelligence wasn't reduced to a random number on an arbitrary test. College admissions look at all sorts of factors ranging from grades, tests, teacher recommendations, extra-curriculars, etc.. We do that because tests don't prove a damn thing. Why do you think the University of California system ditched the SAT. Because it's a test that doesn't prove anything. All it proves is that certain people studied a little harder to memorize the definitions of words that they'll never use. I got a 1500+ score on the SAT but that honestly means very little to me other than the fact that I spent a lot of time memorizing word lists and taking practice tests and going to tutoring sessions.
I'm not sure why a kid in a better district has less of a right to go to UT than one from a worse district. As I said earlier, one in a better district more than likely has to work a lot harder in a more competitive environment. The factors that make a district 'better' also make it more difficult to be in the top 10%.
It doesn't prove anything? Nice absolute statement, incredibly false btw. The tests reflect intelligence level. You can factor in the effect of a prep course, doesn't change anything. The raw score may not be completely accurate as an indicator, but so what? You take a kid that got a 1600, he's going to be an intelligent kid. If he took a class, okay factor that in. Maybe he's on par with kids that got a 1500 without taking a class. It's still reflective of intelligence. I love people who try to downplay the importance of these tests because it's PC to say that they don't matter. "Oh, the tests are biased." (rolleyes)
And these same factors gives the "better district" kid a better chance to get into virtually every other school in the country but for UT - they also allow the better district kid to have a better shot at the "at-large slots" at UT. Just because the top 10% get in doesn't mean they go; many of the kids from the better district/schools will take their wares to elite private schools, etc.
