If your flagship had auto-admit for top 6%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a state school hopes to be a great academic institution, it cannot take state residents only or set arbitrary cutoffs without attention to actual ability. Doing either greatly limits the pool of high-achieving applicants and saddles the university with expensive mandates to bring poorly performing kids up to speed or boot them out. The much better approach is what Virginia does: offer a variety of public schools focused on different studies and for students of different abilities and let them compete for which school fits them. By definition, not everyone will go to UVA, or W&M, or VATech, and that is Ok.

This year, everyone wants to complain about UVA and VATech admissions because this was a very unpredictable admissions cycle, and now, many yearn for a quality education at a good price. But, if students and parents really valued these institutions, they would have committed to them upfront. I have little sympathy for the folks who played the field and now rant that UVA and VATech didn’t hold a position for them. Truly the epitome of privileged thinking.

UT Austin seems to be doing just fine

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was really shocked coming from the DMV to the Midwest and finding out all kids who had at least a 3.0 in high school got auto admitted to all the universities in the state. Not only that, but they had massive tuition scholarships for kids with a 3.5 and up. It seemed so much more civilized than the crazy competitive atmosphere of Maryland and Virginia public universities.

Yes buts lots of those schools aren’t great.

What states are we talking about here?

Minnesota, Wisconsin, UIUC are all top schools. I don't think they have guaranteed admissions for 3.0+ GPA though, that would be ridiculous. They do tend to have lower GPA and SAT requirements than UMD for freshman despite being peer schools.

Think North Dakota, but not North Dakota.

It's not about the quality of the schools, but our rights as taxpayers. We subsidize public education with our tax dollars. Why shouldn't our kids have #1 priority to go to places like UVa? why do we accept admissions offices turning a right into a privilege?

Is it Nebraska? The high schools in Omaha (haven’t researched anywhere else) have dual enrollment with the University of Nebraska system and kids get college credit for Bs and above, and they’re included on their transcript once they enroll. Obviously DE is a much more popular thing there than it is here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've heard that the auto admit rule in Texas can result in tremendous pressure on kids to be in the top 6%. Plus all sorts of gaming the system to get there. Hopefully someone with more experience will chime in. But there are definitely downsides.

More pressure than they are under in DMV? Kids are racing around to get a 4.8, superlative test scores, ECs, teacher recs, show schools demonstrated interest. It's a pressure cooker for all of them. 6% is a much kinder way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was really shocked coming from the DMV to the Midwest and finding out all kids who had at least a 3.0 in high school got auto admitted to all the universities in the state. Not only that, but they had massive tuition scholarships for kids with a 3.5 and up. It seemed so much more civilized than the crazy competitive atmosphere of Maryland and Virginia public universities.

Yes buts lots of those schools aren’t great.

What states are we talking about here?

Minnesota, Wisconsin, UIUC are all top schools. I don't think they have guaranteed admissions for 3.0+ GPA though, that would be ridiculous. They do tend to have lower GPA and SAT requirements than UMD for freshman despite being peer schools.

Think North Dakota, but not North Dakota.

It's not about the quality of the schools, but our rights as taxpayers. We subsidize public education with our tax dollars. Why shouldn't our kids have #1 priority to go to places like UVa? why do we accept admissions offices turning a right into a privilege?

+ 1. We subsidize "non-profit" Private schools (e.g. the Ivies) as well, yet put up with their secretive selection processes. Why not tax them all? For the benefit of the poster that shows up asking "what about other non-profits like churches and hospitals (imagine a whiny Karen voice here) - yes, tax everyone.

Thanks for saving me the work! Can you provide me to your other posts in other forums that insist we tax churches and country clubs? Oh, you can't? Because there are none? Because you are full of shit?

NP - golf clubs are taxed. https://www.thegolfbusiness.co.uk/2017/11/taxation-in-golf-your-questions-answered/

[Anonymous]

So is higher education a right or a reward based upon merit. I am seeing both ideas expressed here.

And for those saying it is a "right," where does Texas' approach leave the other 94% of graduates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was really shocked coming from the DMV to the Midwest and finding out all kids who had at least a 3.0 in high school got auto admitted to all the universities in the state. Not only that, but they had massive tuition scholarships for kids with a 3.5 and up. It seemed so much more civilized than the crazy competitive atmosphere of Maryland and Virginia public universities.

Yes buts lots of those schools aren’t great.

What states are we talking about here?

Minnesota, Wisconsin, UIUC are all top schools. I don't think they have guaranteed admissions for 3.0+ GPA though, that would be ridiculous. They do tend to have lower GPA and SAT requirements than UMD for freshman despite being peer schools.

Think North Dakota, but not North Dakota.

It's not about the quality of the schools, but our rights as taxpayers. We subsidize public education with our tax dollars. Why shouldn't our kids have #1 priority to go to places like UVa? why do we accept admissions offices turning a right into a privilege?

+ 1. We subsidize "non-profit" Private schools (e.g. the Ivies) as well, yet put up with their secretive selection processes. Why not tax them all? For the benefit of the poster that shows up asking "what about other non-profits like churches and hospitals (imagine a whiny Karen voice here) - yes, tax everyone.

Thanks for saving me the work! Can you provide me to your other posts in other forums that insist we tax churches and country clubs? Oh, you can't? Because there are none? Because you are full of shit?

Does the US government provide billions of dollars in subsidies for churches and country clubs, which the churches and country clubs then use to boost their own reputation?

No? So you are full of shit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So is higher education a right or a reward based upon merit. I am seeing both ideas expressed here.

And for those saying it is a "right," where does Texas' approach leave the other 94% of graduates?

The top 6% is for UT admit. Students who are not in the top 6% can still get admitted holistically. The others in the top 10% have automatic admission to Texas A&M, Texas Tech, etc. definitely definitely results in more admissions for those in less competitive hs. That’s what the podcast was about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I've heard that the auto admit rule in Texas can result in tremendous pressure on kids to be in the top 6%. Plus all sorts of gaming the system to get there. Hopefully someone with more experience will chime in. But there are definitely downsides.

I’m sorry are you saying this doesn’t happen in other situations?

At least in this case those who don’t have the resources and support and go to crappy high schools have a chance to move up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If a state school hopes to be a great academic institution, it cannot take state residents only or set arbitrary cutoffs without attention to actual ability. Doing either greatly limits the pool of high-achieving applicants and saddles the university with expensive mandates to bring poorly performing kids up to speed or boot them out. The much better approach is what Virginia does: offer a variety of public schools focused on different studies and for students of different abilities and let them compete for which school fits them. By definition, not everyone will go to UVA, or W&M, or VATech, and that is Ok.

This year, everyone wants to complain about UVA and VATech admissions because this was a very unpredictable admissions cycle, and now, many yearn for a quality education at a good price. But, if students and parents really valued these institutions, they would have committed to them upfront. I have little sympathy for the folks who played the field and now rant that UVA and VATech didn’t hold a position for them. Truly the epitome of privileged thinking.

UT Austin is a great academic institution. This rule gives people a chance who otherwise wouldn’t wouldn’t be admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've heard that the auto admit rule in Texas can result in tremendous pressure on kids to be in the top 6%. Plus all sorts of gaming the system to get there. Hopefully someone with more experience will chime in. But there are definitely downsides.

I have family in TX. They have friends who have switched school districts and bought in areas zoned to more low income, minority students so that their child has a better chance of being in the top X% of the class. It's absurd.

And isn’t that a good thing? More involved parents make schools better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was really shocked coming from the DMV to the Midwest and finding out all kids who had at least a 3.0 in high school got auto admitted to all the universities in the state. Not only that, but they had massive tuition scholarships for kids with a 3.5 and up. It seemed so much more civilized than the crazy competitive atmosphere of Maryland and Virginia public universities.

Yes buts lots of those schools aren’t great.

What states are we talking about here?

Minnesota, Wisconsin, UIUC are all top schools. I don't think they have guaranteed admissions for 3.0+ GPA though, that would be ridiculous. They do tend to have lower GPA and SAT requirements than UMD for freshman despite being peer schools.

Iowa is one state that does this:
https://www.iowaregents.edu/institutions/higher-education-links/regent-admission-index

Honestly, I am considering staying in a Midwestern state (not Iowa), just so my kids can go to the easy admission, beautiful state university that everyone loves here. I drove myself crazy trying to get into a competitive college. It's not worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Texas has auto admit to state U's if a grad is in top 10% of their class. UT is auto-admit for top 6%. SATs, EC, etc are only factors in getting into their desired program as freshmen.

Would this help your kids in college admissions or have no impact?

This American Life had a piece on it this weekend, specifically about students who would otherwise not get in due to low test scores and coming from low-performing high schools.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-been-cancelled

But some of those kids who get in this way get trapped outside the major they reallly want. Better off at the lower ranked school where they can study what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was really shocked coming from the DMV to the Midwest and finding out all kids who had at least a 3.0 in high school got auto admitted to all the universities in the state. Not only that, but they had massive tuition scholarships for kids with a 3.5 and up. It seemed so much more civilized than the crazy competitive atmosphere of Maryland and Virginia public universities.

Yes buts lots of those schools aren’t great.

What states are we talking about here?

Minnesota, Wisconsin, UIUC are all top schools. I don't think they have guaranteed admissions for 3.0+ GPA though, that would be ridiculous. They do tend to have lower GPA and SAT requirements than UMD for freshman despite being peer schools.

Iowa is one state that does this:
https://www.iowaregents.edu/institutions/higher-education-links/regent-admission-index

Honestly, I am considering staying in a Midwestern state (not Iowa), just so my kids can go to the easy admission, beautiful state university that everyone loves here. I drove myself crazy trying to get into a competitive college. It's not worth it.

Part of the UMN charter is a commitment to MN students, so they cannot buy their way to better test scores through selling half the spots to easterners with money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If a state school hopes to be a great academic institution, it cannot take state residents only or set arbitrary cutoffs without attention to actual ability. Doing either greatly limits the pool of high-achieving applicants and saddles the university with expensive mandates to bring poorly performing kids up to speed or boot them out. The much better approach is what Virginia does: offer a variety of public schools focused on different studies and for students of different abilities and let them compete for which school fits them. By definition, not everyone will go to UVA, or W&M, or VATech, and that is Ok.

This year, everyone wants to complain about UVA and VATech admissions because this was a very unpredictable admissions cycle, and now, many yearn for a quality education at a good price. But, if students and parents really valued these institutions, they would have committed to them upfront. I have little sympathy for the folks who played the field and now rant that UVA and VATech didn’t hold a position for them. Truly the epitome of privileged thinking.

UT Austin is a great academic institution. This rule gives people a chance who otherwise wouldn’t wouldn’t be admitted.

I don't understand what you are trying to say? Highly qualified TJ and other students applied ED/EA to VT and UVA and got passed over for first-generation kids. How does your sentence comport with that? These are students that in a normal year have superb credentials that according to SCHEV should have been shoo-ins for Virginia Tech. And they did apply early. What are you trying to say about "VaTech didn't hold a position for them". UVA and VT never hold a position for anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was really shocked coming from the DMV to the Midwest and finding out all kids who had at least a 3.0 in high school got auto admitted to all the universities in the state. Not only that, but they had massive tuition scholarships for kids with a 3.5 and up. It seemed so much more civilized than the crazy competitive atmosphere of Maryland and Virginia public universities.

Yes buts lots of those schools aren’t great.

What states are we talking about here?

Minnesota, Wisconsin, UIUC are all top schools. I don't think they have guaranteed admissions for 3.0+ GPA though, that would be ridiculous. They do tend to have lower GPA and SAT requirements than UMD for freshman despite being peer schools.

Think North Dakota, but not North Dakota.

It's not about the quality of the schools, but our rights as taxpayers. We subsidize public education with our tax dollars. Why shouldn't our kids have #1 priority to go to places like UVa? why do we accept admissions offices turning a right into a privilege?

+ 1. We subsidize "non-profit" Private schools (e.g. the Ivies) as well, yet put up with their secretive selection processes. Why not tax them all? For the benefit of the poster that shows up asking "what about other non-profits like churches and hospitals (imagine a whiny Karen voice here) - yes, tax everyone.

I was actually hearing your post in a whiny Karen voice. Have some self awareness.