O/T President Bill Powers Out at UT???

[smupony94]

I had a ACT score of 32 and SAT of 1290 and was wait listed at UT because I went to a school where I was in the bottom 50 percentile. The top 14 grads in my class went Ivy

[Pony^]

President Powers to stay on until June 2015

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2014/07 ... -june-2015

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/10/us/de ... .html?_r=0

[East Coast Mustang]

For those more in the know than me-

How much does the top ten percent rule affect Texas' ranking? And will it be a significant detriment in the future? Seems to me like it's a huge hindrance on their ability to attract top-notch students to Austin when you can only take 10% of the kids from HP or St. Mark's each year but also have to take all of the top 10% from tumbleweed high schools all over the state. If we're being honest here, in the metrics that the US News ranking uses (namely SAT) the top 1/3 or top 40% at HP or St. Mark's are more qualified than the top 10% at many schools throughout the state.

IMO if the Texas Legislature didn't hamstring UT-Austin with the top ten percent rule, it could be the nation's premier public school. Only UC-Berkeley has a comparable in-state population base to draw from, but Berkeley isn't as central to major population centers in California as UT-Austin is here in Texas.

The 10% rule was/is necessary to ensure that minorities have a chance to gain admission without resorting to illegal affirmative action. In my opinion, if the state makes you go to a crappy school and you "win" by finishing at the top of your class, you deserve a shot at attending the flagship school.

To the rich kid from HP with stellar SAT's and a Top 25% (but not top 10%) ranking, I say tough luck. If you really wanted to go to UT, you should have done better in school.

I wasn't arguing whether it's fair or unfair to students throughout the state- just that it hurts UT-Austin's ability to recruit the best possible students based on the metrics used by the college rankings systems.

I believe that other top-notch public universities like UNC and (I think) UVA have rules in place where they have to take a certain percentage of in-state applicants every year, but they can pick and choose throughout the state the best candidates.

[East Coast Mustang]

I had a ACT score of 32 and SAT of 1290 and was wait listed at UT because I went to a school where I was in the bottom 50 percentile. The top 14 grads in my class went Ivy

Were you too busy getting mestengo'd in HS?

[Digetydog]

For those more in the know than me-

How much does the top ten percent rule affect Texas' ranking? And will it be a significant detriment in the future? Seems to me like it's a huge hindrance on their ability to attract top-notch students to Austin when you can only take 10% of the kids from HP or St. Mark's each year but also have to take all of the top 10% from tumbleweed high schools all over the state. If we're being honest here, in the metrics that the US News ranking uses (namely SAT) the top 1/3 or top 40% at HP or St. Mark's are more qualified than the top 10% at many schools throughout the state.

IMO if the Texas Legislature didn't hamstring UT-Austin with the top ten percent rule, it could be the nation's premier public school. Only UC-Berkeley has a comparable in-state population base to draw from, but Berkeley isn't as central to major population centers in California as UT-Austin is here in Texas.

The 10% rule was/is necessary to ensure that minorities have a chance to gain admission without resorting to illegal affirmative action. In my opinion, if the state makes you go to a crappy school and you "win" by finishing at the top of your class, you deserve a shot at attending the flagship school.

To the rich kid from HP with stellar SAT's and a Top 25% (but not top 10%) ranking, I say tough luck. If you really wanted to go to UT, you should have done better in school.

I wasn't arguing whether it's fair or unfair to students throughout the state- just that it hurts UT-Austin's ability to recruit the best possible students based on the metrics used by the college rankings systems.

I believe that other top-notch public universities like UNC and (I think) UVA have rules in place where they have to take a certain percentage of in-state applicants every year, but they can pick and choose throughout the state the best candidates.

I feel objective standards like the 10% rule are better than subjective standards for admissions. Allowed to "pick" applicants, schools often meet their diversity goals by picking affluent minorities because the "boost" rankings. Even in places where "affirmative action" has been banned, schools (ucla) have been caught cheating.

[East Coast Mustang]

Good point Digetydog- Affirmative action based on income level makes a lot more sense than AA based solely on race. I suppose that the ten percent rule, at least to some extent, accomplishes this.

[couch 'em]

I don't have a huge problem with the 10% concept, but it seems double silly to have it at the top state public school. Brings down the school, and if you are at a garbage district you probably are more prepared at a lower school than going to UT and flunking out

[Digetydog]

I don't have a huge problem with the 10% concept, but it seems double silly to have it at the top state public school. Brings down the school, and if you are at a garbage district you probably are more prepared at a lower school than going to UT and flunking out

Many of my friends from a great public school flunked out of TAMU/UT. Despite brains and a great public school education, they couldn't cut it.

I'll take the kid who makes the most of a [deleted] hand (first in his/her class in a bad school) over the mediocre kid at HP.

If we don't give people who work hard and do well in their school (crappy or good) a shot, we will not be able to convince them to work hard.

[tristatecoog]

Are many mediocre HP kids getting into UT?

[gostangs]

Many have been actually. Depends on the school within HP they apply to.

[Digetydog]

Are many mediocre HP kids getting into UT?

When I was a student (pre-10% rule), plenty of my HS classmates who were not in the Top 10% of our class ended up on the 40 Acres (or in College Station). If you had a good SAT score, a reasonable GPA, had not been convicted of a felony, you were getting into UT and/or A&M.

Frankly, it never dawned on me that I might not get in.

[Junior]

I had a ACT score of 32 and SAT of 1290 and was wait listed at UT because I went to a school where I was in the bottom 50 percentile. The top 14 grads in my class went Ivy

i think you were just the opposite of what everyone else claims to be.

you test really well, but are just not very smart normally.

[smupony94]

I had a ACT score of 32 and SAT of 1290 and was wait listed at UT because I went to a school where I was in the bottom 50 percentile. The top 14 grads in my class went Ivy

i think you were just the opposite of what everyone else claims to be.

you test really well, but are just not very smart normally.

Thanks [deleted]

[couch 'em]

A 1290 SAT is not going to be top 10% at most schools that aren't low performing. I don't think the rule is making that much difference but still seems it is in the state's best interest to have a public university pushing for the highest talent possible.

[East Coast Mustang]

I had a ACT score of 32 and SAT of 1290 and was wait listed at UT because I went to a school where I was in the bottom 50 percentile. The top 14 grads in my class went Ivy

i think you were just the opposite of what everyone else claims to be.

you test really well, but are just not very smart normally.

It's called partying too hard, Junior.

Put it this way- I've never met a dumb person who rocked the SAT