Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though UT Austin claim to admit top 6% of every school, average weighted GPA of their admits is 3.83 while Rice's 4.2. You do the math.

Wow. That’s a low weighted GPA. Certainly not at an elite school level.

Average not median.

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.

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.

Huh? Top 10 in a class of 200 or so at some terrible high school in a rural area near the Mexican border? You deserve it, based on merit. Will you then have to up your game and make up deficits at UT? Yes.

Anonymous wrote:Majority of UT admits don't qualify to apply to T20, being in top of your local school doesn't mean they are scoring high on SAT or AP or even taking many AP classes at all.

Just because you are accepted into UT as a top 6%, doesn’t mean you can get into the college or major of your liking. Some of thr 6%ers had to go undecided and try to transfer into their college/major of choice later. Some majors are not really open for additional students.

DC is at UT Austin for CS and in an honors program. Loves it and it has been great. I’ve become a big fan as well. DC has had challenging courses and learned a lot. DCs also had great and multiple internship opportunities. Austin is a tech hub - Tesla and Oracle HQed in Austin. BTW - DC also got into Michigan and Cornell for CS but decided to go UT.

Pros- they take many by HS credits. DC will finish in 3 years. Tuition - even OOS - is reasonable and he was able to become instate. Climate during the school year. It’s the south, and everyone is nice and welcoming.

Cons - it’s far from the DC area. Housing is not guaranteed, even freshman year. Apts are beautiful with rooftop pools, etc but expensive. Large campus.

For those who say UT Austin is second tier. Here’s the list from the UK Govt with “prestigious” universities. UT Austin is listed alongside Michigan, HYP, and Berkeley.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-potential-individual-visa-global-universities-list/high-potential-individual-visa-global-universities-list-2022

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even though UT Austin claim to admit top 6% of every school, average weighted GPA of their admits is 3.83 while Rice's 4.2. You do the math.

Wow. That’s a low weighted GPA. Certainly not at an elite school level.

UT does not report GPA in their CDS. Not sure where the 3.83 is coming from if it not in CDS.

Anonymous wrote:Majority of UT admits don't qualify to apply to T20, being in top of your local school doesn't mean they are scoring high on SAT or AP or even taking many AP classes at all.

In order to be in the top 6% you have to be taking multiple APs and making As in them, even in 'crappy' schools. Ask me how I know.

Anonymous wrote:Even though UT Austin claim to admit top 6% of every school, average weighted GPA of their admits is 3.83 while Rice's 4.2. You do the math.

Wow. That’s a low weighted GPA. Certainly not at an elite school level.

Even though UT Austin claim to admit top 6% of every school, average weighted GPA of their admits is 3.83 while Rice's 4.2. You do the math.

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn’t spend a dollar in the state of Texas.

I wouldn't spend a dollar on the Columbia campus. YMMV.

Majority of UT admits don't qualify to apply to T20, being in top of your local school doesn't mean they are scoring high on SAT or AP or even taking many AP classes at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I don't think there are many. https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/UT-Austin-admission-requirements#google_vignette

The thing a lot of people miss about the top 6% admissions stats are that test scores still matter for admission to specific majors. Getting admitted to UT doesn't guarantee any specific major and engineering/CS/B school are very competitive. So there are lots of kids who get admitted to UT Austin but attend a "directional" campus (or elsewhere) because they want a specific course of study. You do get some who will go in and take their chances with their major, but if you look at the message boards, the decision about admissions to Mccombs and CS/Engineering are the real break point.

Anonymous wrote:

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).

I don't think there are many. https://www.prepscholar.com/sat/s/colleges/UT-Austin-admission-requirements#google_vignette

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.

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.

If certain students receive extra time and other accommodations that aren't available to others, it's no longer a *standardized* test.

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.

Alert the suicide hotlines in Texas that they will be getting a flood of calls from residents who will be distraught over this a-hole not wanting to live there.

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.

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"

I should have prefaced my remarks by saying I agree with you