or they could have sent her to another easier school by either moving or going to private school. Or maybe SHE could have worked hard and been successful enough so that she made the cut - which she didn't, and her test scores indicate that she's not prodigy level smart either.
By the way, let my piggy back on the "if your school has kids with 4.5 GPA's that aren't in the top 10% it's grade inflation" argument. Ridiculous on your school's part. One thing I do think is a little troubling is schools that have IB programs that grant an extra GPA point to their IB students. This really discriminates against the kids in that school who didn't have parents smart enough, or come from a middle school that had a counselor smart enough, etc. to sign up for IB. I remember some really, really sharp kids at my high school who were magnet students who ended up at U of H because our high school had a bunch of kids in IB who got to finish in the top 10% thanks to their extra GPA point.
That's what happened to me. I was barely outside the top 10% but I had a much higher GPA than one of my friends who went to a poor school and was ranked #2 in their class. I thought it was really unfair, but I still got accepted into many schools and received many scholarships.
And you believe that the 1-2% difference if race is dropped entirely will significantly affect the diversity? What about the grad students who are > 30% international? Increased diversity is not a real argument.
Whites are scarcely hurt by racism, and it's nowhere near the systemic bias that it is for non-whites. It certainly isn't enough of a problem to make large scale changes. But if a white is somehow hurt by race then it certainly isn't right.
Come back to me with this argument in say 100 years when hopefully the effects of segregation won't be as harmful as they are today. Unfairly obtained advantages...
This is true. It's so wrong. I went to Austin Hight School (Fort Bend) and I don't know if they've changed the way the GPA's work, but it was terribly biased towards Honors students back when it first opened (a decade ago). You can take Honors classes which gives you the a 6.0 for an A, 5.0 for a B, 4.0 for a C. You can take Advanced classes which gives you 5.0 for an A, 4.0 for a B, and so on. And then there's the regular classes (I think it was called Academic) where it's 4.0 for an A. This made it really difficult for students even just in Advanced classes to make it in the top 10%. If I remember correctly, I pretty much made half A's and B's my entire time there (80% Honoros classes....some things you can't do Honors on like Music and Sports stuff) and ended up at the 6th percentile. Again, the system is just messed up.
The person you were quoting was discussing magnet schools. Did everyone that the 10% was based on have equal chance to take advanced classes? If so I think the scale seems close to fair. Calculus is much harder to get A than Home Ec.
Yeah the school I'm referring to was different. Out of a class of nearly 400 students, maybe there were 50-60 students who were in the IB program. (I don't know the numbers to be honest) A lot of them were notorious cheaters and some were dumber than thumb tacks. That said, they made a B and it was as good as the rest of the school's A. I understand they are "allegedly" taking harder classes, but it just seems screwy that this group of mostly white kids with wealthy parents who knew what the heck IB was and therefore got them into it when they made it to high school are able to perform worse in their classes and get a higher GPA than the rest.
I came in from Alief middle schools and was already in the GT programs there. I think anyone can take Advanced classes, but iirc you had to be qualified in from middle school to take the Honors classes. I don't think you understand the system (or at least how it used to be). It wasn't a choice between a Algebra and Home Ec. It was a choice among Honors Algebra, Advanced Algebra, and Academic Algebra. And the weed out system was already in place from the middle school years. If you weren't seen as gifted in middle school, then you wouldn't be in the Honors classes in high school. Now, maybe there was a way for someone who started out in Academic to end up in Honors...but I just don't remember anyone ever doing that. Anyone else here went to AHS or any other Fort Bend high school? Do y'all remember this system? Is it still the same or modified some? Edit: So I guess what I'm trying to get at is pretty much anyone who was in mostly Honors classes was in the top 10% of the school. I think Senior year, there were 650 students or so in our class and I'm pretty sure the entire top 10% was mainly made up of Honors students. I know the Honors classes are harder. I had friends who dropped down to have extra time to spend on various things and told me the Academic classes were terrible. Still, I find the system messed up in the sense that they sort of determine your class ranking area pretty much in middle school. If you weren't gifted then, the Fort Bend (of 10 years ago) says you're not going to be in the top 10%.
Middle class does not equal rich. If you take a middle to upped middle class family and equate them as being rich, then there is little hope in talking to you rationally.
Just what I expected. No response. Attack my argument not my choice of words. Why should this girl be accepted to UT? Hey guys, I'm not rational cause I called her a "rich white girl." Lets ignore the fact she has advantages regardless of what class or race she is in by living in Sugar Land and attending FB Austin.
Not that it matters, but the terms you used to describe those families do in fact describe them in terms of wealth. Middle class and upper middle class.
Its my belief that advantages are advantages and if they meet xyz requirements then admit her. Race should have nothing to do with it. Money might. I'm sorry if you don't understand that rich people have it easier. Ok so what does this mean? Well it means that if she can use her "rich" advantages and do better in school then it is a better deal for the tax payers who sub. her tuition. I am also speaking in a general sense and don;t care the details of this girl.
It is just ironic that there is so much of a hissy fit defense of a girl who got denied admission despite being below the median at UT in all metrics, and doesn't have other distinguishing characteristics (D1 athlete, art/music skills assessed as part of admissions, evidence for picking themselves out of a bad environment, some other skill like speaking multiple languages). Further, if you are saying race is impacting only 1-2% of the total student body, its seems a relatively insignificant factor. Why bother digging in your heels on it? Race is still a profoundly influencing factor in American society (police profiling, criminal sentencing discrepancies for the same crimes, disparities in education and health)--and you are complaining that being of an underrepresented minority (URM) being like a 1% factor in admissions? Is this even equivalent to legacy based admissions, which itself would bring a bias (and not that long ago, what about 1950—when my parents went there—only Whites were admitted)? I am all in favor of doing what we can to promote diversity without racial factors, because it can stigmatize URMs and is such a sore spot for many (we all look for x external reason for why we didn’t get this job or scholarship or admission). For example, using to the degree possible socioeconomic factors (parent income and education), geographic diversity (like the 10% rule), and credit for knowing multiple languages, etc, in admissions moreso than race is a good thing. That said a University should surely be permitted to recognize an African American from poor area and a broken home in Houston or a Navajo from a displaced community in Arizona who scored 1 point lower on a standardized test than a non-URM from a upper-middle to upper class background ultimately might have more potential, and also potentially contribute to the campus environment in unique ways, and thus they be free to select them over the 1 point higher scorer. As an aside, but very important to keep in mind, let us also remember the SAT only predicts college success to about 10%. It may be the best single metric we have to predict college success, but it is still pretty bad at that job. The bottom line, using everything we know (SAT, GPA, experts, letter eval, etc), about 75% of success in college is unpredictable—due to factors not included on an application. With admissions we saying more about who to invest in (and being just in our society about the approach) than we are about whether the admitted or denied are ultimately going to be successfull, because we really don't know that part very well.
I think you misinterpreted what I was saying. They're not international students, these are kids that were born and raised in the United States. North Africans are supposed to be Caucasian, but for technicality purposes they are being told by high school counselors and even the college board to identify themselves as African Americans if they would like. I don't know what you mean by this is a lie, I know this for a fact because many of my own friends have taken advantage of the situation.
That much be Reagan at Austin Cause Reagan at Houston . . . . at least when I was there had the SWAS[Magnet Program] and most of the people in it were pretty smart Rocket River THOSE FIGHTING BULLDOGS!!!
