MySA.com: Columnists

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

MySA.com: KENS 5: Education

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

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?

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.

Public policy in Texas–I’ve got mine « Texas Ed: Comments on Education from Texas

# the top 10% rule is may very well promote diversity at the tier schools but at what cost? A kid taking advanced classes in a harder school with better test scores may be rejected strictly because he/she is not in the top 10% where as some with a much lower gpa and worse test scores may be admitted because they did not attend a very competitive school. As i go to the most competitive public school in the state and find myself only in the to 14%, i am outraged to hear that i will most likely not make it, and someone who has not worked as hard as me will automatically make it because they went to a less competitive school, regardless of how much higher my marks and test scores are. The top 10% rule is reverse discrimination at its finest.

I can’t say that I’m impressed with the quality of education this students has received based on the comments. Let’s see, she (or he) is “outraged” because others who have not worked as had as she will automatically be admitted since they attended a less competitive school.

Let’s start with “worked as hard.” Apparently the student hasn’t realized that there are people, probably within her own school, that work just as hard and have an even lower class ranking. For all she knows, the people at the less competitive schools could be working twice as hard as she does to make the top 10 percent at their schools. So students should be admitted to UT based on how many hours of homework they do?

And on what basis do you judge a school competitive? Let me guess, the commenter skipped over the data showing that the SAT was not a predictor of college success. Probably because she and her classmates have already shelled out $1000 SAT tutoring.

Maybe the number of AP classes taken and passed? We’ll how do you account for the number of students who have cheated their way to their grades?

Everybody Does It / Academic cheating is at an all-time high. Can anything be done to stop it?

Everybody Does It Academic cheating is at an all-time high. Can anything be done to stop it?

Ultimately, the commenter missed the point. Why is there only one state school that everyone wants to get into? Why haven’t we created a system of top tier schools to meet the obvious demand in Texas? I guess the commenter missed this because it involves thinking beyond your own immediate needs and goals.

So just for your information, even the Ivy League schools admit people with lower SATs and gpas in the name of geographic and ethnic diversity. For some silly reason, they think it contributes to the over education experience.

Technorati Tags: top 10 percent, UT Austin, top 10%, competitive high schools, Texas

Leicht says Texas has widened access to its elite flagship schools so much that UT-Austin has been overwhelmed.

“The Texas problem is a big population, two flagship campuses, and far too few slots,” he says. “What the university system needs to do is figure out ways to make all of the campuses more appealing.

But that would require thinking beyond your own child’s immediate admissions to UT Austin. And in all likelihood, it would require the state to invest in other schools. Now you know why there’s so much focus on changing the top 10 percent rule, it’s easier than trying to get the money to improve the rest of the schools.

Technorati Tags: Texas, Top 10 percent, UT Austin

MySA.com: State Government

Higher education cuts included a $6 million veto for a San Antonio Life Sciences Institute. The University of Texas at San Antonio and the University of Texas Health Science Center had jointly asked for it, saying it would stimulate growth of the city’s biomedical and biotechnology industries and spur commercialization of research products.

UTSA and UTHSC officials couldn’t be reached for comment, but Perry said he doesn’t want to create more top research institutions before a new commission on higher education and global competitiveness drafts a long-term plan for efficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Texas A&M University-International in Laredo lost $5 million from Perry’s vetoes that had been earmarked for “student success” initiatives to expand doctoral degree programs in business and outreach in math and science.

There may or may not have been good reason to line item veto some of the “pork” in the higher education funding bills. However, Perry’s argument that he “doesn’t want to create more top research institutions” is absolutely mind boggling.

Excuse me, did he miss the entire Top 10% Rule controversy this past session? How there simply wasn’t enough room at UT Austin to accommodate all the students who were qualified to attend? How many of these students would rather go out of state rather than attend another college in Texas?

He wants to wait before creating another top research institution because we might create more than we need? And just out of curiosity, since he only cut $35.9 million out $123 million in higher education earmarks, what was so special about the $87 million he didn’t cut?

MySA.com: Metro | State

AUSTIN — In a surprise move, the Texas House shot down a bill Sunday night that would have limited automatic admissions at the University of Texas at Austin for students graduating in the top 10 percent of their class.

A cheer went up in the chamber with the final vote, 75-64, against adopting a compromise bill that would have let public universities cap admissions of high-ranking students at 50 percent.

Now maybe people can start thinking about what Texas can do to improve the quality of all it’s universities.

As for the brain drain argument, drain away. Maybe all of these people who leave the state will choose to live outside of Texas. Then as more graduates of Texas’ top universities look more like Texas as a whole, these graduates will lead the way to improve higher education opportunities for everyone, not just the children of wealthy parents in north Dallas and the Houston suburbs.

House and Senate negotiators have reached agreement on changes to a 10-year-old college-admission law.

Under Senate Bill 101, which still needs approval today from the full House and Senate, the University of Texas would no longer be required to accept all applicants who rank in the top 10 percent of their high school class. UT could limit such students to 60 percent of its freshmen from Texas. Such students made up 71 percent in fall 2006.

Agreement reached on top 10 percent law | Postcards from the Lege

UT President William Powers Jr. has spent considerable time testifying at legislative hearings and meeting with lawmakers this year in hopes of obtaining limits on the law. He’s argued that racial and ethnic diversity — a major purpose of the 1997 legislation — could be realized more effectively if UT has greater discretion in deciding whom to admit.

So now UT Austin will go out of it’s way to admit students like those below?

Elite Colleges Open New Door to Low-Income Youths – New York Times

Mr. Jack’s high grades and test scores — a respectable 1200 on the SAT — won him a full scholarship to the University of Florida. But the median score for his Amherst class was 1422, and he would have been excluded had the admissions office not considered his socioeconomic class, and the obstacles he had overcome.

“Tony Jack with his pure intelligence — had he been raised in Greenwich, he would have been a 1500 kid,” said Tom Parker, the dean of admission. “He would have been tutored by Kaplan or Princeton Review. He would have had The New Yorker magazine on the coffee table.”

Hardly likely. While Powers and the UT Alumni Association (I can’t believe they use my dues for this) were out bemoaning the lack of flexibility in selecting students under the top ten percent rule, Sen. Jane Nelson is promising her constituents that money will once again be a deciding factor in UT admissions.

Star-Telegram.com | 05/05/2007 | Senate approves limit on top 10% rule

Sen. Jane Nelson, R-Lewisville, said the rule hurts students with sterling credentials who graduate from Texas’ mega-high schools, where many students take Advanced Placement classes and boast high SAT scores. At the same time, students from smaller schools with less-competitive curricula make it into UT, said Nelson, adding that voting for the top 10 percent rule in 1996 was one of the worst votes she’s ever cast.

Whatever could I mean by that? After all, she’s talking about credentials, AP courses and high SATs. Such credentials, as Amherst seems to recognize, are more likely when the parents have the money to pay for the prep classes and to buy a house in well-to-do area. So while Powers talks about admitting students like Tony Jack, Nelson and Shapiro and friends make it clear this bill is really about making sure that those who can afford it, get to go to UT.

So much for improving our higher education system for everyone.

The easy, and definitely Texas style approach, is to get rid of the rule. For many, this makes perfect sense since so many applicants with better qualifications are being turned away from the state’s flagship institution. The supporters of this approach like to focus on qualifications. So lets talk qualifications.

First, don’t even bring up SAT scores. The SAT was suppose to be an indicator of college readiness, of the likelihood that those with higher scores were more likely to succeed at college than those with lower scores. UT’s own analysis shows this is not the case. I’ve already discussed this in previous posts so I won’t do so again here. If it’s not a qualification of potential college success, it’s nothing more than a placement test for college math at best.

How about the general quality of the high school program? People are being rejected even after passing several advanced placement exams and taking dual credit classes. Under the Top Ten Percent Rule, these kids are losing their positions to others who probably have lower gpas and never took any advanced placement classes. This is the crux of their argument, these students are more “qualified” than those who attend lesser schools.

There is a pathetic example of the “faulty logic” behind this argument at what I assume to be a UT student blog. The example uses gymnastics saying the Olympic Team will admit only the top ten percent of all gymnastic competitions so that they have the best, most diverse team. However, since the programs include the special Olympics, you obviously don’t get the best.

Hmmm, so some high schools are at the level of special Olympics compared to others? The problem is that the results do not support the “logic.” The “special Olympic” students are doing very well by all of UT’s own measures. So that must mean that these other students should be admitted because they would do even better than the ones who are already succeeding. And because they’re not being admitted to UT, they’re having to go to out of state, or even to Harvard instead. Not the type of argument to get the people protesting in the street.

What happens next is that those who want to eliminate the rule resort to the diversity argument. What about all those poets, musicians, or students who are working to support their families? The number of minority students admitted will ultimately top out under the top ten percent rule. So where’s the needed flexibility? This would be a much more convincing argument if the stats showed that UT was a beacon for diversity before the rule was implemented. Again, there are more minorities enrolled before the rule had been implemented and more students from a broader geographic region than before. What kind of diversity are we aiming for here?

To sum up, yes, people are being rejected who have more academic “qualifications” than some of those being accepted. So what? Name any competitive school in the nation where that isn’t the case.

I began by saying that focusing on the injustices of the top ten rule is a typical Texas policy response. Why? Because it puts a band-aide on the system without having to recognize the underlying issues of the problem. And that recognition would end up costing a lot more money than just getting rid of the rule.

All these people complaining about how students from less qualified high schools are being admitted don’t want to ask the question why are these schools less qualified? After all, aren’t they all public schools? Never mind, they paid good money to live in a Collin county school district and its up to other families to do the same.

All these people complaining about how students are being rejected by the state’s tier one university and having to go out of state aren’t asking why Texas has only two tier one schools. It doesn’t bother them that twice as much money is being spent on students at UT Austin than on those at UT San Antonio. What bothers them is that it isn’t being spent on their kids. They would rather pay extra to send their kids to an out of state school than invest money in improving Texas schools.

What theTop Ten Percent Rule has done is demonstrated the lack of accessible high quality (at least by reputation) education in Texas. It’s a classic example of the role of a legislature in creating and distributing opportunities–how much pie will Texas pay for and who gets it. Rather than figure out how to make more pies, the Texas legislature just wants to change who gets access to the existing pies.

Any policy that refused to address the basic causes of an issue will eventually fail. Unfortunately, since the effects of the failure won’t necessarily be felt in the next few classes of Texas college students, legislators and citizens are content to just focus on getting their fair share. It kind of makes you wonder about the quality of education they have received–probably from Texas.