Archive for the ‘Top Ten Percent Rule’ Category
Doing the math
April 15th, 2008
As a homeschooler, I know that money isn’t everything in education but it as Jaime Castillo points out, it certainly helps.
The 10-campus UC system, which is considered by some as the nation’s best collection of public research institutions, has five medical centers, three national laboratories, and Berkley and UCLA.
The UT System includes nine universities and six health science institutions. It has an annual operating budget of $10.7 billion.
With fewer campuses to feed, the annual budget in the California system is $18 billion.
You do the math.
How long do you think it will take the people of Texas to realize that sometimes, government spending is actually an investment? Even if UT Austin didn’t have to use the top ten percent rule, sooner or later, simply because of population growth in the suburbs of Dallas and Houston, the school would run out of space for all those who want to be admitted. What would the parents have done then?
Let me guess, if gpas are the same, preference would be given to applicants who attended the public school that spent more money per pupil. That should get them what they want and justify their higher home prices. If nothing else, I bet none of them would be blaming themselves for not demanding that their legislators increase state support for higher education.
From www.CollegeResults.org
Six year graduation rates for undergraduates
Technorati Tags: Texas, top 10 percent rule, top 10 %, higher education spending
It had to come from an educrat
April 14th, 2008
With the Top 10 % Rule, obviously more people are paying attention to how schools rank the students.
Catherine takes mostly AP courses, and under the district’s system those courses earn more points than regular classes. But for three years of soccer, she earned no points at all.
North East adopted its rank point system in 2003 because district officials said under the GPA-based system, students could make it to the top of their class simply by doing well in basic courses. They wanted the top-ranked students to be those who were most prepared for college, so they devised a system intended to encourage students to challenge themselves.
I’m astounded at this incredibly bizarre system. Apparently, the district thought it was better for students to accumulate points for the various classes rather than do a weighted average for gpa. I can see where they might go down this path. Theoretically, a senior could just take one AP class and no other classes and have a higher weighted gpa than someone who took six AP classes as a senior. But by giving absolutely no points for certain classes, the student who takes PE, Art, and Theater Arts (I’m just guessing at what might be no point classes here) is no better off point wise than the student who didn’t take any classes. Who came up with that system?
Did anyone stop to think which system, a weighted GPA system or an accumulated point system had more “non-deserving” students in the top ten percent? Given the importance of class rank, would it have been that difficult for the district to apply the various systems to past classes to see who it would sort out?
Apparently, it was so obvious to some decision makers that a weighted gpa would be more unfair than a point system that there was no question of which way to go. I just wonder how many other school districts in Texas thought it was obvious to use such system?
Technorati Tags: Class rankings, calculating class rank, Texas, gpa
What do you expect, look at the example
April 3rd, 2008
UT Austin President Bill Power’s letter to alumni:
Dear Friends,
Many of you have told me that you are concerned about the Top 10% Law and its effect on admissions at UT Austin. We’re concluding the admissions cycle here on the 40 Acres, and I’d like to share some figures with you.
We received 29,626 applications for the fall 2008 freshman class. Our target enrollment for that class is 7,200. We have already admitted more than 9,100 Texas applicants who graduated in the top 10% of their high school class. Those figures clearly demonstrate the problem we face.
Of course, not all the Top 10% admitted students will attend UT. But we estimate that 81-85% of our freshmen from Texas high schools will be automatically admitted under the Top 10% Law, and it could reach 100% within the next two years. After all, last year’s figure was 71%, so we’ve experienced a substantial increase in only 12 months.
The law penalizes many well-rounded students. Furthermore, we are unable to admit many students with extraordinary skills in music, art, mathematics, or leadership because we are required to select so many students according to a sole criterion, class rank. When our children come to us and ask for advice, we properly tell them to do well in school, but also to be well rounded by getting involved in their community. Then when they want to come to UT, they find out only one thing matters. That’s a terrible message to send to our young people.
In addition, only one in four of our top 10% students is Hispanic or African American. We are running out of room to recruit minority students who, for example, are in the 15th percentile and who have other indices of leadership. We can do a better job diversifying our class if we have more flexibility. When the Top 10% Law was originally passed, about 41% of our Texas students came in under it. All we are asking is to return to that original model.
In testimony before the Legislature on many occasions, I have stated that if we granted automatic admission to half the freshman class and considered all admissions criteria for the other half, we could accomplish the goals of the Top 10% Law while building a diverse and well-rounded student body. In my travels across Texas, I will continue to try to educate the people of our state and our elected representatives about the effects of the Top 10% Law on educational opportunities at The University of Texas at Austin. I hope you will join me.
I would be much more open to his message of woe if he would also address why minority enrollment went up after the top 10 percent law was implemented. Or why the applicant pool expanded dramatically. Or why UT Austin is the only choice of state schools for so many of these poor, well rounded students who now can’t get in. Or why it’s okay to tell the students in the top 10% that they can’t get in because UT needs more well-rounded students when all the evidence indicates that the university did a lousy job of recruiting well-rounded students outside of 60 or so high schools before the law.
Until the state is willing to invest in more Tier 1 universities, there are only going to be a limited number of “desirable” spots at Texas state schools. And while Powers travels across Texas to deliver his message, maybe he should consider asking for more support for other public schools to take some of the pressure off of Texas. Given that most alumni and parents of potential UT Austin students are only concerned with “I’ve got mine”, I guess he is only following the majority. But wouldn’t you expect the president of the state’s “premier” university to lead?
Maybe we need more “Tier 1″ universities…
April 2nd, 2008
Top 10 rule limits UT-Austin, says school president | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
On Wednesday and in testimony before a House panel a day earlier, Powers said the university could attract a more diverse student body if it was not forced by the state, under a decade-old law, to accept every student with a high class rank.
I’m still amazed that the man wasn’t struck by lightening during his testimony. As the article points out:
Top 10 rule limits UT-Austin, says school president | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
Limiting the law has been a tough sell for Powers, particularly in long-neglected areas of the state. UT-Austin’s minority enrollment is higher now than at any time since the law was passed.
As I’ve posted here before, UT Austin’s own statistics show that “top 10 percent students have higher grade point averages, higher retention rates and higher graduation rates than those not in the top 10 percent.” In other words, class rank is a better predictor of college performance than the SAT. Doing well on the SAT simply means you do well on the SAT. Everyone seems to want a more “objective” standard than class rank because everyone knows that you can take less difficult classes and get better grades. Or you could live in a district that doesn’t offer the same quality of courses. Fine, what’s your “objective” standard and it can’t be the SAT because it’s meaningless in terms of predicting student success although it may do pretty well in predicting income.
Students have commented that it’s not fair that they have gone out of their way to challenge themselves and now have a lower class rank than those who took the easier courses. So what should they do, not take more difficult courses? First, life’s not fair. There are people with perfect SAT scores who will not get into their first choice schools. Second, ask any college admission councilor which is better, straight A’s or AP classes and they’ll tell you both.
Finally, if this was only about race and “affirmative action” the law would have been overturned years ago. The problem is that rural schools are benefiting as well. For some odd reason, UT had been drawing students from a limited number of feeder schools–could they be in the Dallas and Houston area? Now, the students are coming from all over the state, including those inferior rural schools and their legislators plan on keeping it that way.
The real solution is to invest in other state schools in Texas but the state couldn’t even come up with the $1,500 to give to any top 10 percent student who went to some other school than UT or A&M. As for investing in other public institutions of higher education, forget it. The same people complaining to their legislators about the “unfairness” of the top ten percent rule, would vote them out of office for raising taxes for education.
