I agree, it's definitely not perfect but we must do something. You should only have to suffer so much for your parents' inability to provide a comfortable life.
I had a 5.9 gpa out of 6.0, but if you took upper level courses and got an A you got a 7.0 . P.E. and all that couldn't be taken upper level, so I think the maximum was like 6.7. I got a 1310 on my SAT (out of 1600) and a 31 on my ACT . . .But I wasn't in the top 10%. I remember I was pretty bummed at the time, because I felt like I was qualified. Some of y'all might have a different perspective. I got into all of my other schools and ended up going to TAMU, which I now love. I'm feeling pretty successful a year out of college right now, so no hard feelings. It sucks that people can't always get into their top choice, but its not the end of the world. If you're motivated and have a good head on your shoulders, you're going to be okay. That being said, I do think the top 10% rule is a little bogus, and I liked the suggestion of top 10% of your class + top 10% of the SAT. Not a bad idea.
doesn't the top 10% rule give all kids the same standard at the end of the process? And a GPA-based system wouldn't work because that would guarantee unlimited numbers of kids spots at any given university. And I think earlier in the thread you said some things along the lines of "work hard and succeed," "a good GPA is a good GPA," and "kids shouldn't get in on a lame technicality." wouldn't those be arguments for the top 10% rule? and without the rule wouldn't kids from poorer schools get disqualified on the lame technicality that their school sucks? i know the 10% rule isn't perfect, but to me it kinda seems like the bar is "winning" your high school. If you reach the top of your playing field, you've earned a shot at the next level. as far as a university's obligations go, it probably depends on the university as to whether or not it has an obligation to educate a diverse array of students. UH's mission statement says that "The mission of the University of Houston is to discover and disseminate knowledge through the education of a diverse population of traditional and non-traditional students" UT's mission statement is "to achieve excellence in the interrelated areas of undergraduate education, graduate education, research, and public service." while I haven't looked at UH and UT's actual charters, I think the differences in the mission statements do a decent job of getting at the differences in the goals of the two schools.
well i don't think anything produces diversity as well as it should except a quota system with income taken into account. but that doesn't seem practicable for political and legal reasons. so this is as good as it gets. i'm not a fan at all, but i don't think any practical alternative is really there. when the school is funded primarily through public money, it damn sure does have an obligation to educate a fairly representative student body. and i think most higher educations feel that way. secondly, i think most people feel diversity is a compelling interest in education. this is especially so, since everyone isn't given a fair and equal access to k-12 schools. belair and memorial are not the same as hastings and elsik.
I agree with you here. Look at the mission statements of UH and UT that The Drake just posted and one can see a distinct difference in the cultures of the universities. Being who I am (a liberal who comes from an academic family, but who's father got the first college degree in his family, as far as anyone knows, and went on to become a department chair for 30 years at a major Houston university), I prefer the way UH looks at things. I just strongly disagree that the 10% rule works, at least the way it is being used.
A university is meant for higher learning. Students have to be capable of going through the curriculum. It's definitely not easy, and therefore the students should be qualified. That's where the top 10% rule falls apart. It admits underqualified students based on a technicality without evaluating the academic merits of its acceptants. These underqualified students fail out and waste valuable resources while displacing those that are more capable of completing their higher education. So with the top 10% rule, you do admit those from poorer schools. But are they really qualified? Can they handle the rigor of college? The intense curriculum that they were most likely not prepared for? I highly doubt it. On the other hand, the kids from poor schools can still get admitted if they prove themselves academically. They can still have good achievements, do well on SATs and other qualifying exams. Let the qualified students in. No freebies or handouts.
Top 10 percent means they are an achievers regardless of circumstance. There are very few top 10 percenters that aren't qualified to go to UT. The graduation rates have gone up since the rule has been in effect. Should a student be penalized for living in a rural area that doesn't offer any AP courses? Should only upper middle class white and asian kids be the only ones accepted to UT?
I agree there needs to be something but its not fair that someone lives in Center, Texas where they take classes from teachers that should not even be teaching they get automatically accepted. Which has been the case for many of my relatives. Where as I attended Kingwood HS and took English classes that make my college level intro English classes look like a joke, and I cant get into UT, A&M and other schools because its competitive as hell just to stay in the top 150 of my class. Much less top 95 or so which was top 10% when I graduated. One can breeze through school up in Center, Texas and just because they attend class every day they get accepted and the other has to devote a large portion of there time outside of school to stay competitive in the top 10%.
you know what I mean... the TTPR is just a work around for AA. its a silly standard meant to basically shoe-horn kids in from underdeveloped areas. rather than fixing those schools and giving them a fighting chance, we're using an arbitrary "catch all" at the end to increase "diversity" and "representation". it's a lazy, inadequate fix.
It seems there are many view points criticizing the 10% rule and they actually conflict with one another. This argument says it's not diverse enough ... that you should admit more blacks. This arguments asks for better qualified students ... which requires less blacks. I don't see how they can satisfy both?
If you really look at the statistics though ... http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report12.pdf Page 6, 2009: 46% (of the total) White applied, 51% admitted 7% Black applied, 5% admitted 15% Asian applied, 18% admitted 21% Hispanic applied, 21% admitted Page 7, 2009: Non top 10%: White (65%), Black (4%), Asian (19%), Hispanics (10%) It seems: 1) More Hispanic applied, hence more admitted. 2) Few Blacks applied so fewer admitted. 3) Qualification does matter. There are a lot more stats from this website including SAT, GPA, graduation rate .... http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research
These two paragraphs are almost in direct conflict with each other. You say poor kids can get in if they prove themselves academically, but then when they finish in the top 10% of their class you say it's not good enough. I guess everything could be SAT-based, but then that introduces socio/economic bias into the picture.
There's a reason the admissions process for virtually every kind of school on every level is holistic and not completely numbers driven. Even a kid from a crappy school, from a crappy home, with overall crappy grades, has a chance at admission to places if they show promise with performance that is relatively good for their circumstances and they improve their resume through other "soft" factors.
ALIEF!!! students at hastings and elsik are not totally unqualified. i have several classmates who are now doing fine in their respective professions. ill have to admit that the quality of students in the top 10% isnt the same as that of the top notch high schools. maybe more comprable to the 5-20% range. you also have to realize that not getting into ut is not the end of the world. and if you really have your heart set on ut, then take a year at utsa and transfer into ut. its only 1 year. the world is not going to end...
I understand the idea of a holistic admissions process. The post I quoted just confused me because the poster said the top 10% rule was admitting unqualified kids, but then said those same kids could get it if they did well academically. I took academically to mean just in the classroom/grades-wise.
It is admitting unqualified kids. There is no reason to have an arbitrary cut off. What makes someone in the top 10% worthy of automatic admission and someone in the top 11% not? The top 10% kicks the holistic process in the nuts and throws out all notions of merit outside of class rank. It's silly and it's dumb.
I'm not saying I agree with it. I'm saying that post I quoted (from Duncan McDonuts, I think) confused me.
I tend to remember admissions got cut off or severly strict while I went there b/c I think the campus got full. Not sure if it was just rumor or truth though. The 10% rule was in place when I was applying though. I think it's a good rule to have for your university. Being in the top 10% of your graduating HS class can't be that hard. Even with the cap in place, there is plenty of weeding out in the courses.
