UT Austin thoughts?

[Anonymous]

UT doesn’t care what you out-of-staters think of them as you peruse your rejection letters.

Texas is booming, the school has tons of oil field money, and it is loved by Texans, who have no desire to attend college in the northeast and go to the lowly Cornell’s of the world when they can go to UT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Because OP is a troll and he forgot which battle of the schools he was trying to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems like a good school.

Is it closer to Berkeley or Michigan level of schools?

Or closer to UF, UCSB, UCSD, UIUC?

Let's just say many of the Rice students are UT Austin rejects. UT Austin provides the same or better education at an affordable tuition. They couldn't get in to UT Austin, so they went to their fallback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:UT is in the same group as the second list of schools.

Berkeley/Michigan are in their own league.

ok lets be real

Cal is in its own league

UT-A has markedly narrowed if not closed the gap with Michigan

tbh UT-Austin is a better overall experience than Michigan

Let’s get real here.

First off,Wisconsin isn’t elite. Saying that the top three publics are Berkeley, Michigan, and UCLA. Texas won’t be at Michigans overall level until they get rid of their top 6% instate high school acceptance. In the meantime, they still have to pass UNC, UVA, UCD, UCSD, and Florida to get to that elite level. Saying that UT-Austin is a better experience than Michigan is completely subjective, particularly for those students who have absolutely no desire to live in Texas.

You are the only person in this thread who even mentioned wisconsin, you insane anti-Wisconsin troll.

I can almost gauarantee you the Wisconsin troll strayed this thread. You know how I know this? He/she already started a new thread, which by the way has already been blocked by the moderator comparing Texas to Wisconsin. I tried to copy and paste it, but it’s already been removed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

And anyone here should care about which schools are on your “radar” because…? UT-Austin has been a top public university for many years.

No one has to care lol. But OP is asking for opinions and I gave mine. UT is a top public but that doesn’t make it on the same level as Michigan. UT is far closer to mid-tier UCs and UIUC, UF.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agree with other posters than Cal is in its own league, with UCLA and Michigan close.

UT is a tough admit, but so are UCs. IMO the “elite level” is static. 10+ years in the future it will actually be easier to get into college as we see declining birth rates.

I don’t think UT is better or worse than UCSD, UCSB, UCI, UF, UIUC, UW-M. These schools will always be in the T25-T50 range with some slight movement year over year.

I know UT has strong engineering and business programs. But the other “tier 2” schools also have their own strong programs. TBH, UT has never really been on my radar until the last few years, so no it will never catch up to Berkeley or Michigan.

I’m sure Austin is awesome and is becoming more and more of an attractive city! But I have a slight bias for West Coast and Midwest schools Can’t pay me to move to TX.

And anyone here should care about which schools are on your “radar” because…? UT-Austin has been a top public university for many years.

No one has to care lol. But OP is asking for opinions and I gave mine. UT is a top public but that doesn’t make it on the same level as Michigan. UT is far closer to mid-tier UCs and UIUC, UF.

+1

It is absurd Michigan has RISEN to the level of Berkeley over the last 2 decades. Shows what work professional schools+ out of state admissions can do.

Nobody here has stated that Michigan is at the same level as Berkeley. UCLA has risen to Michigan’s level over the past two decades. Those are the three top publics in this country. Professional schools and top OOS students are definitely in the equation when ranking top schools. Very few schools are like the top three, with academic strengths across ALL disciplines. Schools that are overwhelmingly instate, with the exception of the UCs since the population of California is so huge, will have a large percentage of good, but not great, students. Texas is a prime example. That top 6% rule includes thousands of mediocre students from weaker high schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Oversight. It should be with UF and Wisco despite its impossible admissions from OOS. That is balanced by the fact that anyone from Texas can get in, even with a 900 SAT, if they finish in the top 6% of their hood/trailer park high school.

No one who gets a 900 on the SAT is finishing in the top 6% of their high school class...no matter how hood/trailer park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

The only elite schools on this list are in rows 1-2. UF, Wisconsin, UGA, UIUC, Purdue are not elite schools. UCs like Irvine should be in row 3-4.

No public universities--besides arguably Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan-- are "elite." They are public state schools. Some are great, others are just OK. Putting them in tiers or rows is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Oversight. It should be with UF and Wisco despite its impossible admissions from OOS. That is balanced by the fact that anyone from Texas can get in, even with a 900 SAT, if they finish in the top 6% of their hood/trailer park high school.

No one who gets a 900 on the SAT is finishing in the top 6% of their high school class...no matter how hood/trailer park.

It does seem low. However, there is no question that the top 6% rule allows students to matriculate to Texas that wouldn’t be admitted if they were based on merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

The only elite schools on this list are in rows 1-2. UF, Wisconsin, UGA, UIUC, Purdue are not elite schools. UCs like Irvine should be in row 3-4.

No public universities--besides arguably Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan-- are "elite." They are public state schools. Some are great, others are just OK. Putting them in tiers or rows is ridiculous.

In virtually every world ranking , those schools show up as top universities. Academically, all three are elite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Oversight. It should be with UF and Wisco despite its impossible admissions from OOS. That is balanced by the fact that anyone from Texas can get in, even with a 900 SAT, if they finish in the top 6% of their hood/trailer park high school.

No one who gets a 900 on the SAT is finishing in the top 6% of their high school class...no matter how hood/trailer park.

Ever been to Sunnyside or the Third Ward in Houston?

Where the hood, where the hood, where the hood at.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Oversight. It should be with UF and Wisco despite its impossible admissions from OOS. That is balanced by the fact that anyone from Texas can get in, even with a 900 SAT, if they finish in the top 6% of their hood/trailer park high school.

No one who gets a 900 on the SAT is finishing in the top 6% of their high school class...no matter how hood/trailer park.

Ever been to Sunnyside or the Third Ward in Houston?

Where the hood, where the hood, where the hood at.

Every Texas public high school is included. I’m not sure if those students even need to take a SAT/ACT test since it’s an auto admit based on GPAs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

The only elite schools on this list are in rows 1-2. UF, Wisconsin, UGA, UIUC, Purdue are not elite schools. UCs like Irvine should be in row 3-4.

No public universities--besides arguably Berkeley, UCLA and Michigan-- are "elite." They are public state schools. Some are great, others are just OK. Putting them in tiers or rows is ridiculous.

In virtually every world ranking , those schools show up as top universities. Academically, all three are elite.

That's why I said "besides Berkeley UCLA and Michigan"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Oversight. It should be with UF and Wisco despite its impossible admissions from OOS. That is balanced by the fact that anyone from Texas can get in, even with a 900 SAT, if they finish in the top 6% of their hood/trailer park high school.

No one who gets a 900 on the SAT is finishing in the top 6% of their high school class...no matter how hood/trailer park.

Ever been to Sunnyside or the Third Ward in Houston?

Where the hood, where the hood, where the hood at.

Every Texas public high school is included. I’m not sure if those students even need to take a SAT/ACT test since it’s an auto admit based on GPAs.

Yep. I'm sure there are plenty of kids UT Austin who scored less than 1000 on the SAT (or whatever the ACT equivalent is).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These are the Ters

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UT Austin, UNC, UVA, GTech, UCSB, UCSD




UF UGA Wisc, UCI, UCDavis,

UIUC

Close. More like:

Cal, UCLA, Mich
UNC, UVA, GTech
UF, Wisco
UGA, UIUC, Purdue

Notice all those other UC schools are absent. Just because U.S. News & Woke Reports ranks them highly now because of Pell Grant and first-gen data doesn't mean they're elite schools. Solid, yes, but not among the 10-12 best publics -- no way.

Why did you leave UT-Austin (the school this thread is actually about) off your list? It belongs somewhere in between your 2nd and 3rd groups of schools.

Oversight. It should be with UF and Wisco despite its impossible admissions from OOS. That is balanced by the fact that anyone from Texas can get in, even with a 900 SAT, if they finish in the top 6% of their hood/trailer park high school.

No one who gets a 900 on the SAT is finishing in the top 6% of their high school class...no matter how hood/trailer park.

Of course those students exist - and they have SN issues like dyslexia, anxiety disorders, ADHD, etc. so ask for accommodations. Many top 6% of class kids will test low. Everyone knows this - which is why the colleges were at one point trying to do away with accepting test scores across the board. This is also why accommodations for extra time on the SAT and GRE are accepted.

If the student with a low test scores gets a "bad" result then they then they should prep and retake and if still then "bad" apply to schools which are still test-optional.