If your flagship had auto-admit for top 6%

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

Yes buts lots of those schools aren’t great.

[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.

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.

[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.

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?

[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?

+ 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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

The current situation in nova results in the same pressures, but without the guaranteed payoff

[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.

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?

[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?

Your response is not clear.. I'm advocating for the removal of non-profit status for EVERYONE (i.e. tax everyone the same)- colleges, churches, country clubs, whoever. Are you agreeing with me here? If so, end of discussion.

There's a poster who always responds to my post asking if my proposal only relates to colleges or to every other non-profit, assumes I only mean colleges and squacks on about how I can't be selective. Are you that poster? Confirm, and we can continue this conversation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Your response is not clear.. I'm advocating for the removal of non-profit status for EVERYONE (i.e. tax everyone the same)- colleges, churches, country clubs, whoever. Are you agreeing with me here? If so, end of discussion.

There's a poster who always responds to my post asking if my proposal only relates to colleges or to every other non-profit, assumes I only mean colleges and squacks on about how I can't be selective. Are you that poster? Confirm, and we can continue this conversation

YOU DO ONLY MEAN COLLEGES. Because that's all you post about demanding removal of tax-exempt status. Any you never mentioned any other non-profit until you were called on your meaningless BS. We don't need a long threadjack here about this topic, we just need your BS pointed out so it stops.

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[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 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.