Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of Texas, no one even thinks or cares about UT Austin. Rice is the only school in Texas that is considered prestigious across the U.S.

But, again, Texas does not care what you think of it. You are not getting in. And they are not like UVA and Michigan, which are funded by exorbitant tuition paid by a (much higher) proportion of oos students.

Texans think far more highly of UT than Virginians think of UVA and rust belters think of Michigan. The UT system owns oil wells. Lots of them. It doesn’t need your tuition money — and Austin is already a boomtown without you moving there.

Everyone thinks their baby is cute.

Anonymous wrote:Outside of Texas, no one even thinks or cares about UT Austin. Rice is the only school in Texas that is considered prestigious across the U.S.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of Texas, no one even thinks or cares about UT Austin. Rice is the only school in Texas that is considered prestigious across the U.S.

But, again, Texas does not care what you think of it. You are not getting in. And they are not like UVA and Michigan, which are funded by exorbitant tuition paid by a (much higher) proportion of oos students.

Texans think far more highly of UT than Virginians think of UVA and rust belters think of Michigan. The UT system owns oil wells. Lots of them. It doesn’t need your tuition money — and Austin is already a boomtown without you moving there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of Texas, no one even thinks or cares about UT Austin. Rice is the only school in Texas that is considered prestigious across the U.S.

But, again, Texas does not care what you think of it. You are not getting in. And they are not like UVA and Michigan, which are funded by exorbitant tuition paid by a (much higher) proportion of oos students.

Texans think far more highly of UT than Virginians think of UVA and rust belters think of Michigan. The UT system owns oil wells. Lots of them. It doesn’t need your tuition money — and Austin is already a boomtown without you moving there.

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.

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.

And your "more fair" proposal would be?????

Your question is non-sensical — all 5 of them.

Anonymous wrote:

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:

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.

And your "more fair" proposal would be?????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Outside of Texas, no one even thinks or cares about UT Austin. Rice is the only school in Texas that is considered prestigious across the U.S.

But, again, Texas does not care what you think of it. You are not getting in. And they are not like UVA and Michigan, which are funded by exorbitant tuition paid by a (much higher) proportion of oos students.

Texans think far more highly of UT than Virginians think of UVA and rust belters think of Michigan. The UT system owns oil wells. Lots of them. It doesn’t need your tuition money — and Austin is already a boomtown without you moving there.

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.

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.

And your "more fair" proposal would be?????

Anonymous wrote:Outside of Texas, no one even thinks or cares about UT Austin. Rice is the only school in Texas that is considered prestigious across the U.S.

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.

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:

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

LOL. Hear hear!

Anonymous wrote:

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

As one of the fastest growing and most economically booming states in America, they won't miss your money, Dobbs dork.