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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.