Oh, don’t get me wrong, I agree with that – and with how it is whinish for her to be making such great dole about not making it into UT. Just pointing out there are case-by-case considerations to be made, and this one case is not necessarily universal.
When I went to Georgia Tech, state law reserved a percentage (75% IIRC) of freshman seats for state residents. The result was that a lot of the in-state students washed out because they didn’t have the background to hack the shcool, while we out of state students tended to be the alpha nerds. By the time you reached the graduating class, the make up of the class had shifted dramatically.
I think it’s reasonable for a state run school to prefer in-state students, since their parents pay the taxes that keep the doors open. Tuition, after all, only covers a portion of overhead. On the other hand, letting in students who can’t hack the curriculum just runs up overhead for the first couple years while lowering the graduation rate. I would say a better way to achieve the goal is to weigh residence along with other factors. If two students are otherwise equal, the in-state student is first in line.
Well, no one cares, I’m sure. But it’s my field and it’s so rare I get a chance, any chance, to apply it on the boards, I had to say something. But I’d wager the average American doesn’t give a hoot whether its 2,500 or 25,000.
To be honest, I don’t see how the policy cited in the OP is any less logical than basic admissions on GPA or percentage. The natural propensity where GPA/grades are used as a standard of admission is to inflate the average grade, so it’s no more accurate than just allowing the top 10% in. Statistically speaking, I am extremely skeptical that one method is any “fairer” than the other.
In fact, it strikes me as being potentially MORE logical to based acceptance on being in the top ten, since that would eliminate the value of grade inflation. I mean, if a 3.9 GPA isn’t in the top 10%, just how frickin’ easy is that school grading kids?
The question is, then, whether the top 10% of graduates fill up the available slots, or whether there is sufficient additional room for kids below the 10% in their schools but who are still legitimately fine students that just happened to be in a graduating class that was particularly outstanding.
Different issue, actually. Texas doesn’t say “State universities have to take the top ten percent from TX high schools, and then fill the rest of the class however they want.” I believe most state schools are still operating under some restraint about residency, just like Georgia Tech does, unrelated to any “percentage plan” related to high schools. Texas only has a 7% nonresident population (although I don’t think it’s a regulation but rather their funding model that is the cause).
This does, of course, have the exact result you mention–out of state admissions is more competitive, and at the top publics the nonresident students tend to be, on average, a notch above the resident students. That’s true at all the nationally-ranked publics: UNC, VA, Berkeley, Michigan, etc.
Yeah, but the point people are trying to make is that this 3.9 girl shouldn’t have to go to some second-rate school like Southwest Texas or UT-Tyler while some inferior student from Podunk High gets into the better school just by virtue of being a big turd in a small bowl.
Let’s face it, if the 3.5 student was really as good of a student, yet in an academically inferior high school, shouldn’t they have had AT LEAST as high of a GPA as the 3.9 student?
Personally, I don’t think that the admissions criteria for an institution of higher learning should have anything to do with social engineering or any other crap like that. They should admit the best and brightest that they can get. Period. And taking a student with a 3.5 from a small school over a 3.9 from a big school isn’t doing that, unless other metrics are involved.
Well, many public institutions do worry about access. And there is an expectation by the public, and by the legislators (who decide the appropriations going to those schools) that there ought to be a place at the state’s flagship university for a bright, hardworking kid from the sticks. Even if his school didn’t offer calculus and AP Chemistry. “Social Engineering” isn’t “crap” to these people. It’s providing an important state resource–the best higher education the state provides–to families at all invome levels and socioeconomic class whose sons and daughters prove themselves.
Frankly, an awful lot of private institutions buy into this, too, even without the state funding and such.
No, of course not. If the 3.5 student is as good (i.e. has the same academic ability) as the 3.9 student but comes from an educationally-deprived environment, you expect her GPA to be lower. What, you think GPA is a measure of academic ability, not attainment, as is unaffected by the quality of teaching, resources, etc, available to a student?
[QUOTE=pepperlandgirl]
Is it University of California or California State? I remember when I was applying to schools I knew I could fall back on the State schools without problem, but I wasn’t quite so complacent about the UC schools…
It’s the University of California and it’s top 10% of high school students but due to budget cuts it is much more competitive than that. I am currently a senior in the UC system but my cousin just applied to colleges last year and he had the same stats I had, except his SAT score was a bit higher and he only got into UCR. He is now in private college paying almost 20 grand a year for it… ouch!
No, there are many factors that play into GPA.
In schools where there are no advanced placement courses, the highest grade in any class is a 4.0, where in schools that offer advanced placement some courses may offer a 5.0. That 3.5 could represent the same number of A’s and B’s as the 3.9.
You beat me to it, Lee, but just to back you up, the highest GPA in my older daughter’s class is about 4.67. The school has a really good honors and AP program, and those grades are “weighted”, so a 3.9, while good, really might not be that different from a 3.5 in a school that didn’t weight grades. I’m not sure how I feel about the admission policy, but I don’t think we have enough information here to decide if it’s unfair to this particular student. Did the show mention anything about what kind of classes she took? The fact that it was an academically competitive school doesn’t say anything about what she did there.
However, just to nitpick your earlier post, there is nothing in the OP that says it was a private school. It might just have been a public school in a better area.
This is what I got from the 60 minutes story also. IIRC they said Texas was now 35% hispanic and 11% black. The rule seems to be working to ensure that the minority of today is prepared with the proper leadership to be the majority of tomorrow. Also, removing the rule still does not ensure that everyone who wants to go to UT gets their wish. There is no way to conclude that the girl in the story would have gotten in otherwise.
How did it become that diversity only means racial diversity? Remember The Paperchase? The protagonist was a diversity admission from a farm. I remember the episode where he realized that.
Y’know… that’s a good point. Come to think of it, I do want the rural boys and gals to come to the Big U. and get exposed to a broad educational experience side by side with a cross section of society.
The other side of it is important too–privileged suburban kids need that same exposure to a cross-section of society. The argument is that it is an educationally richer environment for everyone (not just the people who have been denied the great opportunities in the past) when the student body is diverse in terms of religion, ethnicity, family background, etc.
I completely agree with that one. If I have any major complaint against my new neighbors here in small-town America it’s that they lack a certain wider-world view. We all speak english but it appears not to be the same language sometimes.
On the subject at hand, however, the simple fact is that access to higher education will ALWAYS be rationed for the better schools through one system or another. The sooner that’s faced up to and the concept of ‘complete fairness’ is tossed as unacheivable the happier I’ll be.
I approve of the Texas program because it does spread it around. And using GPA is as good as any other. And it’s not like the kids that don’t get those admissions are precluded from attending state schools. They’re just not guaranteed admission.