Any TAMU administrators want to explain this?

http://forums.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=2480567&forum_id=16

The thread you linked does a decent job of explaining the situation.

Desirable school = lots of applications
Most of the kids are top 10% = lots of admitted kids.

Not really a mystery.

70% of the incoming classes are auto admits- either top 10% of their graduating class or top 10% SAT/ACT scores plus top quarter. Class of 2018 has 14276 auto-admits. The real selectivity to look at is the competition for the review candidates: only 2800 received a full admission out of 17000+. That's a 16% acceptance rate for review. I'd call that selective!

The percent admitted doesn't mean a whole lot other than the optics of it, the profile of those that accepted the offer and attended does.

The majority of students accepted at A&M are not top 10%, so the top 10% rule has nothing to do with it.

The question is, why is A&M accepting so many non-top 10%ers and so many applicants with sub 1200 SAT scores??

A 67% acceptance rate is unacceptable and unheard of at most colleges, nevermind so called "world class" universities.

Over 50% of admits are not in the top 10% and the average SAT score is in the 1100's. The idea that TAMU has so many great applicants that 70% of them should be admitted is FALSE...They're admiited to generate revenue for the university.

Look at UT...they have more applicants than TAMU and admit 20% less, which is why they are in reality a tier above TAMU academically, which Sharp and the TAMU regents are happy with.

Sharp and the regents want TAMU to be a big, cheap diploma mill SEC school (LSU et al).

The smart and well to do will go to UT.

Per class of 18 admission stats, among those offered full admission: 63% are top 10%, 20% are academic admits, and the rest are review applicants who typically have SAT/ACT scores higher than the top 10% average. The average SAT for 2013 enrollments from students in the second quarter of their class is 40 points higher than the first quarter admissions. A&M is tougher to get in to than ever. For enrolling so many fish, the average SAT is still higher than a decade ago.

As for the tu comparison:
For the class of 2016 tu had 42% in top 5%, 72% in top 10%, and 87% in top 20%
For the class of 2016 A&M had 35% in top 5%, 65% in top 10%, and 85% in top 20%.

Interestingly, 33% of tu's non-auto admits report income of $200K or more, so maybe the "well to do" attend there.

Opinions abound, but the data hardly paints a picture of tu superiority.

The 67% acceptance rate the rag quotes includes the PSA admits. Including those students in the "acceptance rate" is a good example of why the mainstream misleadia has lost so much respect.

The majority of the PSA admits will not make it to campus...ever. But their parents can say they have hope IF they go to a system school like Corpus, Kingsville, etc for a year and meet all the requirements to then ACTUALLY REALLY get into A&M. So the article counts students as admits that really aren't admits by most schools definitions. And that category of people is a lot of people.

quote:

---

The 67% acceptance rate the rag quotes includes the PSA admits.

---

Except it doesn't.

Love all the athletic improvements but hate to see the academic side take a back seat. Really hope this is something the regents take another look at. Not sure who has the most influence in this decision, but hope they read TexAgs!

Texas has all the smart Asians. Not so many at A&M

It seems you have never taken a stroll down the Ho Chi Minh Trail.

quote:

---

@AggieOutfitters: PRES HUSSEY: 54,500 expected students this fall. First freshman class with > 10k, 25% are first generation college student, 25% Hispanic

---

Yet A&M grads make more $$$ on average than sips. Winning at life > manipulated rankings

quote:

---

sub 1200 SAT scores

---

Doesn't the SAT go to 2400 now?

I believe that is with the writing section excluded.

At least I hope...

Two words: Blinn Team


Blinn Team admits count as accepted students, as they are technically part of Texas A&M University. I've been told our admission rate is approximately 50% when excluding Blinn Team admits. In addition, Texas A&M Qatar and Galveston admits do NOT count as accepted students, so they don't factor in our abnormally high acceptance rate.




[This message has been edited by Icelandic Ag (edited 7/3/2014 3:11p).]

Our actual full acceptance rate, excluding provisional programs like PSA, Blinn Team and Gateway, is 48%.

So of the students who received full admission to Texas A&M at College Station, ~64% were in the top 10% of their Texas HS graduating class, and another 20% were top quarter/1300 SAT. Only 16% of the full admits fell outside that criteria, and that includes athletes, legacies, and kids whose parents buy their way in.

These numbers are trending up, I think I remember that top 10% admits were only ~45% when I started school in 2006.

I'm wary of the classes getting bigger and bigger, but so far it doesn't seem to mean they're letting in people with worse stats. It looks like we're simply getting way more applications due to the growth of the state, the success of our athletics program and the exposure it brings us, and probably more people eschewing private schools due to the economy and the value for money.

Numbers would trend up even more if we'd keep our acceptance rate ~50%.

And the thought that our students are becoming more elite is a myth. Look up the average SAT scores. Not sure about this class, but we have actually been trending downward.

2012 verbal mean = 580
2012 math mean = 617

2011 verbal mean = 586
2011 math mean = 621

2010 verbal mean = 587
2010 math mean = 623

Given that we have more applications, we had a great chance at improving our academics. Instead we simply accepted more. From 16,130 accepted in 2010 to over 20k in 2013.



[This message has been edited by SEC Ags (edited 7/8/2014 2:09p).]

SEC Ags:

http://forums.texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=2230552&page=17&forum_id=17

quote:

---

the average SAT for the students admitted was 1240 (Math+Critical Reading)

---

Far from admitting just anyone with a pulse, the qualifications of this latest influx of students jumped to the highest ever.

Top 10% is auto admit and does not use sat scores.
IMO there should be a base line score

quote:

---

IMO there should be a base line score

---

There is, it's 1500 out of 2400

quote:

---

Far from admitting just anyone with a pulse, the qualifications of this latest influx of students jumped to the highest ever.

---

If that is what TAMU ends up publishing on their site, I'll be encouraged.

Still does not change the numbers I posted, which clearly shows we decreased in scores from 2010-2012.

It also does not change the fact that if we would stop admitting 65-70% of our students (extremely high) we'd have even more impressive scores. We lost ground the past few years. Seems we made some up this year.

If we'd become more selective we could continue pushing those scores up.

I'm not sure how important that acceptance rate really is. It seems like students basically self select, and only apply to colleges they have a decent chance to get accepted to.

I've been watching this thread for a couple of weeks now trying to decide if and when I should post. My main issue is an internal battle between my TAMU employee self and my 3rd-generation Aggie self. Here are my thoughts, for what they're worth:

1. Why is it embarrassing to accept so many students? TAMU is here to serve the state of Texas and with our growing population is it wrong of us to admit more qualified students each year? Accepting more students doesn't necessarily mean we are accepting students of lower caliber. Our retention rate is still over 90%, the highest in Texas (and one of the highest in the USA). That tells me 2 things: our students are successful academically and they love it here and want to come back to finish their degrees at TAMU.

2. It seems that many of you are basing your statements of competitiveness solely on test scores. Test scores are only one component of our admission process. While they can be a good indicator of how a student will perform at TAMU, I don't think it's right to pinpoint that one criteria. There are many students who are admitted with test scores less than 1200 SAT or 27 ACT and they are still very successful here at TAMU.

3. I think we could go back and forth about statistics, admission criteria, etc. However, to me the bottom line is this:

Is TAMU successfully creating/molding/shaping productive members of society?

I believe the answer to be a resounding YES! The Aggie Network is as powerful as ever. Employers from all over the world still seek to hire Aggies above graduates from almost any other institution in the USA. In short, it's a great time to be an Aggie, whether current or former student.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now. Have a great weekend everyone!

Jon Buchanan '99
Assistant Director of Admissions
Aggieland Prospective Student Center
jon.buchanan at tamu dot edu

Tel. 979.458.0950
http://texags.com/main/forum.reply.asp?topic_id=2230552&forum_id=17

[This message has been edited by TAMUAdmissions (edited 7/18/2014 8:13a).]

quote:

---

1. Why is it embarrassing to accept so many students? TAMU is here to serve the state of Texas and with our growing population is it wrong of us to admit more qualified students each year? Accepting more students doesn't necessarily mean we are accepting students of lower caliber. Our retention rate is still over 90%, the highest in Texas (and one of the highest in the USA). That tells me 2 things: our students are successful academically and they love it here and want to come back to finish their degrees at TAMU.

---

I do not know if I would use the word embarrassing, but it is certainly discouraging to see us squander an opportunity to become that much better. Not sure I agree with the 'serve' the state of Texas comment. There are other universities in Texas. I would encourage the school to look at the way California does things. Why not look at it as a way to improve the school to elite public school status instead of trying to bring in as many as may be able to make it in TAMU? Allow North Texas, Tech, Houston etc to accept some of the guys we reject and get better themselves. TAMU's mission statement is such:

quote:

---

Texas A&M University is dedicated to the discovery, development, communication, and application of knowledge in a wide range of academic and professional fields. Its mission of providing the highest quality undergraduate and graduate programs is inseparable from its mission of developing new understandings through research and creativity. It prepares students to assume roles in leadership, responsibility, and service to society. Texas A&M assumes as its historic trust the maintenance of freedom of inquiry and an intellectual environment nurturing the human mind and spirit. It welcomes and seeks to serve persons of all racial, ethnic, and geographic groups, women and men alike, as it addresses the needs of an increasingly diverse population and a global economy. In the twenty-first century, Texas A&M University seeks to assume a place of preeminence among public universities while respecting its history and traditions.

---

Mission is providing the highest quality programs. That should come first.

Accepting more students each year from 2010-2012 results (from TAMU's own page) points to TAMU accepting students of lower caliber. And again, I will say that if you would keep the school at a more constant level - instead of going the route of dynamic growth (are we hiring enough faculty with this growth by the way? Or will classes just continue to grow?) you will find even better students. What was a qualified student in TAMU in 1950 would probably not be qualified today. It is a moving target. Make that target higher.

quote:

---

2. It seems that many of you are basing your statements of competitiveness solely on test scores. Test scores are only one component of our admission process. While they can be a good indicator of how a student will perform at TAMU, I don't think it's right to pinpoint that one criteria. There are many students who are admitted with test scores less than 1200 SAT or 27 ACT and they are still very successful here at TAMU.

---

Test scores are extremely important. Yes, they are 'only' one component, but when looking at a candidate, when all you have to judge them is a sheet of paper, it should probably be the biggest component.

quote:

---

3. I think we could go back and forth about statistics, admission criteria, etc. However, to me the bottom line is this:

Is TAMU successfully creating/molding/shaping productive members of society?

---

Yes, we are. For that I am proud. But what will be the result of the - in my opinion - insane engineering initiative? Instead of saying 'we have a goal of admitting students with this criteria' we are merely saying 'we are going to grow to x number.' Any school can do that. That is not impressive. As an academic institution, your goal should be to admit the best and brightest that you can. By simply adding numbers to bring in more Aggies, the school is going against offering the 'highest quality education' outlined in the mission statement.

To me the bottom line is: Is TAMU becoming the best academic institution that it can?

To me, that answer is no. We are growing at a tremendous pace. I think if we kept things more stable we could maybe push the SAT scores to 1300, instead of decreasing scores for 3 years before we apparently bumped them up again this year. Or whatever other criteria you want to use. If we would stay at a certain number of students, we could pick the best, and reject some of the fringe ones we are accepting today. Thereby making the school better.

Whatever various people may think of the rankings, we have been dropping. And it is very obvious to me as to why. I'd drop us as well. We were on the doorstep of top 10 public institution. Not any longer.

Thank you for posting. Very much appreciated reading your thoughts on the matter.

SEC Ags --

Thanks for your comments as well. This is probably semantics, but I guess it depends on how you define 'best'. I don't define 'best' based on rankings because I feel they are arbitrary and there's no truly reliable ranking system. When thinking about higher education, I define 'best' by the return I get on my investment. In my opinion, both personally and professionally, that's what sets TAMU apart from our counterparts in Texas and around the USA.

And I really don't think you want us (and by us I mean TAMU and the state of Texas in general) to be like California. They are having a very difficult time serving their own students. We see students from California every day that come to TAMU, get a high-quality education and pay NON-RESIDENT tuition here and still have less debt than if they stayed in their home state. Here's just one example of what's happening:

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/from-master-plan-to-no-plan-the-slow-death-of-public-higher-education

Instead of speaking in generalities like "California sucks", he is pointing out that California has a top notch university system. Nobody is talking about state budget issues (Cal's problem), but rather having elite institutions. This conversation is about admissions, not funding and cost of admission.

It is good for the Texas economy to have truly elite public schools, tu and TAMU are obviously the only schools positioned for such status. The Techs, UH, and Texas States of the world can serve the rest.




[This message has been edited by Saul Goodman (edited 7/18/2014 6:33p).]

I posted this in the 25x25 thread as well, but I'll repeat it here.

I'm disappointed by people who judge a school by it's acceptance rate. College, especially public college, should not be judged by who it keeps out. College should be about letting in as many people as physically and economically possible and educating them, weeding them out, or finding them a better alternative along the way. Colleges should be judged by the QUALITY of their graduates, rather than the quality of their admissions.

Anybody who wants to make an effort and try to succeed in college and make themselves better should be afforded that opportunity. It disgusts me that anybody, especially Aggies, would be the kind to turn up their nose and flaunt how many people get turned away at their door. That to me wreaks of tu elitism and austinite snobbery. You should be ashamed. Aggies are BETTER than that.

There are A LOT of quality kids in Texas.

A LOT of those quality kids want to come to TAMU.

We aren't lowering the standard, we're taking more people who MEET the standard.

Enough with this quantity =/= quality nonsense.

Quality quantity is still quality.

My son graduated in the Top 10 overall at a very competitive Katy, TX HS. He was accepted to Berkeley (not paying $55K/yr. for an undergrad prep. degree) and t.u. Most of the top 7% of the class wanted to go to t.u. over A&M because it was "more selective", many were Asian and they have an affinity for selectivity over all else and feel Austin's urban setting is a better "fit". Many of my son's friend's were Asian and he followed them to t.u. (son loves the Hill Country where we are from, and the eclectic music scene). He told me a joke that goes around, "what does UT and A&M Students have in common? They both applied to UT."

Specific breakdown of his Top 10: Rice (2), Cornell (1), Princeton (1), t.u. (6)--and not all Asian, and TAMU (0). Number 11 was U. of Chicago.

What is very clear, the very top of the top 10% are disproportially going to t.u. over A&M, at least at his and two other very competitive Katy HS.

I would be very curious to see what percent of t.u's students are Top 1%, Top 5%, and Top 10% and compare that with a similar breakdown at TAMU. Does A&M publish that comparison? I would think that it is public record.

SEC Ags reply is spot-on.

Especially comments regarding goals of 'x number of engineering graduates'. Better to maintain high standards.

Kids in HS these days are SO focused on the ratings and while that is frustrating it is also reality. Denying reality is not helpful.

Daughter graduated from competitive high school in Central Texas. 50% of the graduating class enrolled at either A&M or UT. NONE of the top ten at either though (Harvard/Stanford/Princeton/Northwestern etc.)