If your flagship had auto-admit for top 6%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto admit for top 6% of class with a minimum ACT of 32 or SAT of 1400.

What does this mean? The point is that the SAT and ACT are inherently discriminatory. There are studies that show that those who perform lower are still able to handle the work when they are admitted. Their graduation rate is a little lower but that is often due to lack of family support or other issues.

Expensive test prep is not the source of advantage on these tests. Studies show that expensive classes make about a 10 point difference and private tutoring makes no difference? That suggests these tests measure something real.

Research also shows that high school grades are the single best predictor of college outcomes, but that GPA and test scores together are the best two-variable predictor of academic outcomes. Again, test scores appear to measure something real and unique.

The argument over these tests is not about whether they measure something, but what do they measure. These tests are essentially IQ tests. IQ is not raw brain power OR accumulated knowledge; it’s both. Essentially, IQ measures how well one can operate in a cultural environment. So, back to the bias of college entrance tests. The notion is that underprivileged students are just as capable - i.e raw brain power - as privileged students, but they lack good environmental opportunities. For example, they don’t attend quality schools. Thus, the idea is that if underprivileged kids were exposed to great opportunities, they too could score and perform well. Ok, that’s all well and good. But here’s the rub: how is a selective college supposed to makeup for years of poor academic preparation while maintaining standards for kids who already achieve at the college’s standards?

Studying for a math test will not improve your score. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want UVA to take more instate students? Make it larger!

UVA is pathetic, it's one of the smallest flagstate schools in the nation compared to the number of HS students.

I don't know why VA residents tolerate it.

incoming... UVA booster claiming VA tEch and UVA are basically 1 university.

Dean J has suggested that UVA is not the state’s flagship university. I don’t think VA, per se, claims to have one. VA has a variety of institutions. Everyone can find a place. No need to centralize everything at one school. In California, the UC system is considered the flagship.

Historically, UVA and William and Mary have been considered the most selective options in Virginia. Combined, they have about 23,500 undergraduates, with about 2/3rds of that total, or about 15,500 in state. UNC Chapel Hill would be comparable for the State of North Carolina. It has 19,117 undergraduates, with 82%, or 15,675, coming from in-state. Since NC has about 23% more people than Virginia, you can't say Virginia has a very different model or comparatively few slots. UT Austin has 40,000 undergraduates but a state population 3.4X as large as Virginia. It actually has fewer spots there on a per capita basis than Virginia.

This is correct. There are plenty of seats for Virginia students of all stripes at Virginia colleges.

I would add that expanding the seats at UVA (and VT and W&M) probably will have a ripple effect. VT recently increasing enrollment recently and part of the impact appears to have been a decline in enrollment at schools like JMU and VCU. Since the state has invested significantly in those schools, and overall state enrollment is not growing (and has declined significantly at the community college level), this wouldn't make any sense.

If you look at combined enrollment at UVA, W&M, VT School of Engineering, and Honors programs at other schools, there are a significant number of seats for good students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto admit for top 6% of class with a minimum ACT of 32 or SAT of 1400.

What does this mean? The point is that the SAT and ACT are inherently discriminatory. There are studies that show that those who perform lower are still able to handle the work when they are admitted. Their graduation rate is a little lower but that is often due to lack of family support or other issues.

Expensive test prep is not the source of advantage on these tests. Studies show that expensive classes make about a 10 point difference and private tutoring makes no difference? That suggests these tests measure something real.

Research also shows that high school grades are the single best predictor of college outcomes, but that GPA and test scores together are the best two-variable predictor of academic outcomes. Again, test scores appear to measure something real and unique.

The argument over these tests is not about whether they measure something, but what do they measure. These tests are essentially IQ tests. IQ is not raw brain power OR accumulated knowledge; it’s both. Essentially, IQ measures how well one can operate in a cultural environment. So, back to the bias of college entrance tests. The notion is that underprivileged students are just as capable - i.e raw brain power - as privileged students, but they lack good environmental opportunities. For example, they don’t attend quality schools. Thus, the idea is that if underprivileged kids were exposed to great opportunities, they too could score and perform well. Ok, that’s all well and good. But here’s the rub: how is a selective college supposed to makeup for years of poor academic preparation while maintaining standards for kids who already achieve at the college’s standards?

Studying for a math test will not improve your score. Got it.

Perhaps, the argument was too subtle for you. The difference these tests measure is long-term educational impacts. I understand the snark: you’ve probably known some kid who studied for the test and got a good score. But, consider this: if two kids studied for a math test, but one had never seen the problems before and needed to learn them for the first time, but the other kid had seen all the problems before and only needed a memory refresh, who do you think would score better? Again, there is a fundamental educational difference between these two students that can’t be overcome with test prep, which tends to refresh or fine-tune existing skills vs teach new, real learning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want UVA to take more instate students? Make it larger!

UVA is pathetic, it's one of the smallest flagstate schools in the nation compared to the number of HS students.

I don't know why VA residents tolerate it.

incoming... UVA booster claiming VA tEch and UVA are basically 1 university.

Dean J has suggested that UVA is not the state’s flagship university. I don’t think VA, per se, claims to have one. VA has a variety of institutions. Everyone can find a place. No need to centralize everything at one school. In California, the UC system is considered the flagship.

Historically, UVA and William and Mary have been considered the most selective options in Virginia. Combined, they have about 23,500 undergraduates, with about 2/3rds of that total, or about 15,500 in state. UNC Chapel Hill would be comparable for the State of North Carolina. It has 19,117 undergraduates, with 82%, or 15,675, coming from in-state. Since NC has about 23% more people than Virginia, you can't say Virginia has a very different model or comparatively few slots. UT Austin has 40,000 undergraduates but a state population 3.4X as large as Virginia. It actually has fewer spots there on a per capita basis than Virginia.

This is correct. There are plenty of seats for Virginia students of all stripes at Virginia colleges.

I would add that expanding the seats at UVA (and VT and W&M) probably will have a ripple effect. VT recently increasing enrollment recently and part of the impact appears to have been a decline in enrollment at schools like JMU and VCU. Since the state has invested significantly in those schools, and overall state enrollment is not growing (and has declined significantly at the community college level), this wouldn't make any sense.

If you look at combined enrollment at UVA, W&M, VT School of Engineering, and Honors programs at other schools, there are a significant number of seats for good students.

Also, UVA has been gradually expanding its class size. In 1991, 2,539 kids enrolled. In 2006, 3,091 did so. This year (2020), 3,785 enrolled. So, over 30 years, UVA has expanded its class size by 1,246 students, or about 50%. Given that four classes are on campus any given year, and that’s 5,000 more undergraduate kids on campus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto admit for top 6% of class with a minimum ACT of 32 or SAT of 1400.

What does this mean? The point is that the SAT and ACT are inherently discriminatory. There are studies that show that those who perform lower are still able to handle the work when they are admitted. Their graduation rate is a little lower but that is often due to lack of family support or other issues.

Expensive test prep is not the source of advantage on these tests. Studies show that expensive classes make about a 10 point difference and private tutoring makes no difference? That suggests these tests measure something real.

Research also shows that high school grades are the single best predictor of college outcomes, but that GPA and test scores together are the best two-variable predictor of academic outcomes. Again, test scores appear to measure something real and unique.

The argument over these tests is not about whether they measure something, but what do they measure. These tests are essentially IQ tests. IQ is not raw brain power OR accumulated knowledge; it’s both. Essentially, IQ measures how well one can operate in a cultural environment. So, back to the bias of college entrance tests. The notion is that underprivileged students are just as capable - i.e raw brain power - as privileged students, but they lack good environmental opportunities. For example, they don’t attend quality schools. Thus, the idea is that if underprivileged kids were exposed to great opportunities, they too could score and perform well. Ok, that’s all well and good. But here’s the rub: how is a selective college supposed to makeup for years of poor academic preparation while maintaining standards for kids who already achieve at the college’s standards?

Ok, so change the criteria? Auto admit for top 6% of class with a minimum household income of $150,000 OR attend a school with no more than 1/3 of the student body on FARMS? Because that's essentially what your argument comes down to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto admit for top 6% of class with a minimum ACT of 32 or SAT of 1400.

What does this mean? The point is that the SAT and ACT are inherently discriminatory. There are studies that show that those who perform lower are still able to handle the work when they are admitted. Their graduation rate is a little lower but that is often due to lack of family support or other issues.

Expensive test prep is not the source of advantage on these tests. Studies show that expensive classes make about a 10 point difference and private tutoring makes no difference? That suggests these tests measure something real.

Research also shows that high school grades are the single best predictor of college outcomes, but that GPA and test scores together are the best two-variable predictor of academic outcomes. Again, test scores appear to measure something real and unique.

The argument over these tests is not about whether they measure something, but what do they measure. These tests are essentially IQ tests. IQ is not raw brain power OR accumulated knowledge; it’s both. Essentially, IQ measures how well one can operate in a cultural environment. So, back to the bias of college entrance tests. The notion is that underprivileged students are just as capable - i.e raw brain power - as privileged students, but they lack good environmental opportunities. For example, they don’t attend quality schools. Thus, the idea is that if underprivileged kids were exposed to great opportunities, they too could score and perform well. Ok, that’s all well and good. But here’s the rub: how is a selective college supposed to makeup for years of poor academic preparation while maintaining standards for kids who already achieve at the college’s standards?

Ok, so change the criteria? Auto admit for top 6% of class with a minimum household income of $150,000 OR attend a school with no more than 1/3 of the student body on FARMS? Because that's essentially what your argument comes down to.

It’s not that they can’t be admitted. No auto admit. And this criteria would be applied only to the most rigorous state schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want UVA to take more instate students? Make it larger!

UVA is pathetic, it's one of the smallest flagstate schools in the nation compared to the number of HS students.

I don't know why VA residents tolerate it.

incoming... UVA booster claiming VA tEch and UVA are basically 1 university.

Dean J has suggested that UVA is not the state’s flagship university. I don’t think VA, per se, claims to have one. VA has a variety of institutions. Everyone can find a place. No need to centralize everything at one school. In California, the UC system is considered the flagship.

Historically, UVA and William and Mary have been considered the most selective options in Virginia. Combined, they have about 23,500 undergraduates, with about 2/3rds of that total, or about 15,500 in state. UNC Chapel Hill would be comparable for the State of North Carolina. It has 19,117 undergraduates, with 82%, or 15,675, coming from in-state. Since NC has about 23% more people than Virginia, you can't say Virginia has a very different model or comparatively few slots. UT Austin has 40,000 undergraduates but a state population 3.4X as large as Virginia. It actually has fewer spots there on a per capita basis than Virginia.

This is correct. There are plenty of seats for Virginia students of all stripes at Virginia colleges.

I would add that expanding the seats at UVA (and VT and W&M) probably will have a ripple effect. VT recently increasing enrollment recently and part of the impact appears to have been a decline in enrollment at schools like JMU and VCU. Since the state has invested significantly in those schools, and overall state enrollment is not growing (and has declined significantly at the community college level), this wouldn't make any sense.

If you look at combined enrollment at UVA, W&M, VT School of Engineering, and Honors programs at other schools, there are a significant number of seats for good students.

Also, UVA has been gradually expanding its class size. In 1991, 2,539 kids enrolled. In 2006, 3,091 did so. This year (2020), 3,785 enrolled. So, over 30 years, UVA has expanded its class size by 1,246 students, or about 50%. Given that four classes are on campus any given year, and that’s 5,000 more undergraduate kids on campus.

Still too small for the flagship university in Virginia. But I get it. NOVA parents like that it’s small so they can brag to others how hard it is to get in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m from Texas and a UT grad (2014). The rule used to be the top 10% but the state dropped it be more competitive. The main issue is that the top 6% vary widely by school/ district. For example, I went to a large Dallas high school that had 1400 seniors in my graduating class, the top 6% all had a GPA well over 4.5 (weighted). If you didn’t take the max number of APs and opt out of certain electives that had a lower value you would never make it to the top 6%. However, my suite mate freshman year was from the Rio Grande Valley and went to a high school where being in the top 6% meant a GPA of 3.2 or above. That means some students may have to work a lot harder, but that is true everywhere.

I think this also causes these top Texas schools to be safeties for many high ranking students and then there are less admits from lower ranked students in the class since spots were “full” for that school/ district.

I will say GPAs and rankings are nuts. Our top two students were locked in a bitter lawsuit over one thousandths of a decimal point.

I live in TX. This makes it really tough for kids in private schools to be admitted. It seems fewer well qualified kids even apply to UT. It also means there is a large population at UT that aren’t well prepared for college and struggle to stay in. I don’t know what the answer is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You want UVA to take more instate students? Make it larger!

UVA is pathetic, it's one of the smallest flagstate schools in the nation compared to the number of HS students.

I don't know why VA residents tolerate it.

incoming... UVA booster claiming VA tEch and UVA are basically 1 university.

Dean J has suggested that UVA is not the state’s flagship university. I don’t think VA, per se, claims to have one. VA has a variety of institutions. Everyone can find a place. No need to centralize everything at one school. In California, the UC system is considered the flagship.

Historically, UVA and William and Mary have been considered the most selective options in Virginia. Combined, they have about 23,500 undergraduates, with about 2/3rds of that total, or about 15,500 in state. UNC Chapel Hill would be comparable for the State of North Carolina. It has 19,117 undergraduates, with 82%, or 15,675, coming from in-state. Since NC has about 23% more people than Virginia, you can't say Virginia has a very different model or comparatively few slots. UT Austin has 40,000 undergraduates but a state population 3.4X as large as Virginia. It actually has fewer spots there on a per capita basis than Virginia.

This is correct. There are plenty of seats for Virginia students of all stripes at Virginia colleges.

I would add that expanding the seats at UVA (and VT and W&M) probably will have a ripple effect. VT recently increasing enrollment recently and part of the impact appears to have been a decline in enrollment at schools like JMU and VCU. Since the state has invested significantly in those schools, and overall state enrollment is not growing (and has declined significantly at the community college level), this wouldn't make any sense.

If you look at combined enrollment at UVA, W&M, VT School of Engineering, and Honors programs at other schools, there are a significant number of seats for good students.

Also, UVA has been gradually expanding its class size. In 1991, 2,539 kids enrolled. In 2006, 3,091 did so. This year (2020), 3,785 enrolled. So, over 30 years, UVA has expanded its class size by 1,246 students, or about 50%. Given that four classes are on campus any given year, and that’s 5,000 more undergraduate kids on campus.

Still too small for the flagship university in Virginia. But I get it. NOVA parents like that it’s small so they can brag to others how hard it is to get in.

What is your angle in this? Virginia has more than enough seats across its public colleges. You want a higher percentage to be at UVA for what reason?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m from Texas and a UT grad (2014). The rule used to be the top 10% but the state dropped it be more competitive. The main issue is that the top 6% vary widely by school/ district. For example, I went to a large Dallas high school that had 1400 seniors in my graduating class, the top 6% all had a GPA well over 4.5 (weighted). If you didn’t take the max number of APs and opt out of certain electives that had a lower value you would never make it to the top 6%. However, my suite mate freshman year was from the Rio Grande Valley and went to a high school where being in the top 6% meant a GPA of 3.2 or above. That means some students may have to work a lot harder, but that is true everywhere.

I think this also causes these top Texas schools to be safeties for many high ranking students and then there are less admits from lower ranked students in the class since spots were “full” for that school/ district.

I will say GPAs and rankings are nuts. Our top two students were locked in a bitter lawsuit over one thousandths of a decimal point.

I live in TX. This makes it really tough for kids in private schools to be admitted. It seems fewer well qualified kids even apply to UT. It also means there is a large population at UT that aren’t well prepared for college and struggle to stay in. I don’t know what the answer is.

One answer is that UT has developed programs to help those kids succeed. They work very well and the result is that many lesser privileged kids get a fantastic education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m from Texas and a UT grad (2014). The rule used to be the top 10% but the state dropped it be more competitive. The main issue is that the top 6% vary widely by school/ district. For example, I went to a large Dallas high school that had 1400 seniors in my graduating class, the top 6% all had a GPA well over 4.5 (weighted). If you didn’t take the max number of APs and opt out of certain electives that had a lower value you would never make it to the top 6%. However, my suite mate freshman year was from the Rio Grande Valley and went to a high school where being in the top 6% meant a GPA of 3.2 or above. That means some students may have to work a lot harder, but that is true everywhere.

I think this also causes these top Texas schools to be safeties for many high ranking students and then there are less admits from lower ranked students in the class since spots were “full” for that school/ district.

I will say GPAs and rankings are nuts. Our top two students were locked in a bitter lawsuit over one thousandths of a decimal point.

I live in TX. This makes it really tough for kids in private schools to be admitted. It seems fewer well qualified kids even apply to UT. It also means there is a large population at UT that aren’t well prepared for college and struggle to stay in. I don’t know what the answer is.

what are the stats that back this up?

[Anonymous]

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.

Does being in the top 6% get you scholarship money in TEXAS?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m from Texas and a UT grad (2014). The rule used to be the top 10% but the state dropped it be more competitive. The main issue is that the top 6% vary widely by school/ district. For example, I went to a large Dallas high school that had 1400 seniors in my graduating class, the top 6% all had a GPA well over 4.5 (weighted). If you didn’t take the max number of APs and opt out of certain electives that had a lower value you would never make it to the top 6%. However, my suite mate freshman year was from the Rio Grande Valley and went to a high school where being in the top 6% meant a GPA of 3.2 or above. That means some students may have to work a lot harder, but that is true everywhere.

I think this also causes these top Texas schools to be safeties for many high ranking students and then there are less admits from lower ranked students in the class since spots were “full” for that school/ district.

I will say GPAs and rankings are nuts. Our top two students were locked in a bitter lawsuit over one thousandths of a decimal point.

it's the fault of the state if they allow to districts to offer massively dissimilar educations. I actually like that a very conservative state is pretending that all districts are equal for the purpose of college admission rather than punishing kids who live in substandard school districts

I also saw that this led to more than a few anxious white parents transferring to a lower ranked school district for the guaranteed college admission. There are all sorts of ways to game the system!

That may not be a bad thing, assuming the kid doesn’t just transfer senior year. Higher achieving students may help raise the bar at the school for the other students. It may give them critical mass for certain academic clubs or AP classes that they did not have before. The danger is that the white parents try to take over (great podcast called Nice White Parents talks about this).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto admit for top 6% of class with a minimum ACT of 32 or SAT of 1400.

What does this mean? The point is that the SAT and ACT are inherently discriminatory. There are studies that show that those who perform lower are still able to handle the work when they are admitted. Their graduation rate is a little lower but that is often due to lack of family support or other issues.

Expensive test prep is not the source of advantage on these tests. Studies show that expensive classes make about a 10 point difference and private tutoring makes no difference? That suggests these tests measure something real.

Research also shows that high school grades are the single best predictor of college outcomes, but that GPA and test scores together are the best two-variable predictor of academic outcomes. Again, test scores appear to measure something real and unique.

The argument over these tests is not about whether they measure something, but what do they measure. These tests are essentially IQ tests. IQ is not raw brain power OR accumulated knowledge; it’s both. Essentially, IQ measures how well one can operate in a cultural environment. So, back to the bias of college entrance tests. The notion is that underprivileged students are just as capable - i.e raw brain power - as privileged students, but they lack good environmental opportunities. For example, they don’t attend quality schools. Thus, the idea is that if underprivileged kids were exposed to great opportunities, they too could score and perform well. Ok, that’s all well and good. But here’s the rub: how is a selective college supposed to makeup for years of poor academic preparation while maintaining standards for kids who already achieve at the college’s standards?

Studying for a math test will not improve your score. Got it.

I’d be super interested in seeing the studies that the poster above references. I find all of this fascinating. For sure IQ tests measure exposure and prior education. I remember my 8 year old coming out and telling me specifically how they had asked her the capital of Greece. That’s not brain power, but exposure. I see how that would bias a kid who had not grown up in an environment where such things were discussed or did not have access (or interest) to read about Greece at 8 (maybe that kid’s interest was dinosaurs or something else). The kid is not less intelligent, just less exposed.

[Anonymous]

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.

Does being in the top 6% get you scholarship money in TEXAS?

Not at UT Austin. It just makes you eligible for admission based on class rank.