My son is anxiously waiting to hear if he gets into A&M for the fall. He is hoping via any path at this point. He's a great, well rounded kid who is at one of the more competitive schools in the state. He's captain of XC and track, has a 4.3 GPA(which is just barely out of top half), 1200 on SAT, works part time and was active in scouts and a non-profit mental health org. We are starting to get the impression he might not get in at this point and are looking at other options.

He's been discussing a possible walkon spot at UTSA for track. Anyone have a child there or know anything about the school? We visited this weekend and really liked the campus and dorms. Would love some feedback!

He could join the Corps. I was in the band and knew several guys who joined so they could get in for a summer session to prove themselves. I get that most people don't want to put up with some of the BS but I loved it and it's helped me immensely. He sounds like a great kid and would probably do great if he gets in.

I've heard good things about UTSA from parents of kids that went there. Maybe your son could go the juco route for a year then transfer in possibly. As long as his major is not business or engineering he should be able to do it. Diploma still says TAMU! Good luck.

You have to be admitted to the university before you are allowed to sign up for the Corps. Joining the Corps is not a ticket into the university.

Taking a year at a JUCO and transferring in is a good idea.

I live in San Antonio and I know some professors at UTSA. Quite a few of my former students have attended UTSA, and their degrees seem to be serving them well.

UTSA used to be a commuter school, but the school has built new dorms and the area around the campus is filled with apartments that students use. UTSA is trying to become a Research One institution, so it is placing a lot of emphasis on graduate education and research, just as A&M does.

They have built a new track facility, which you probably saw.

Yes, the track facility was beautiful. Loved the campus.

Trying to decide if having a college experience with possible athletic walk on opportunity outweighs going to Blinn for a year. I could see him going to UTSA and wanting to stay long term. On the tour they stated many of things you mentioned regarding their goal to Teir 1 status. Also mentioned only 1/3 graduate from there as many transfer out. Their goal is to get people to stay.

OP - I'm a PhD student at UTSA (undergrad A&M, masters UH and now in the UT system). UTSA has improved leaps and bounds over the past several years and is devoting significant resources to improving research (i.e. achieving Tier 1 status).

In the short-term, UTSA/track would make the most sense as he'll likely love his college days. In the long-term, A&M is the way to go as it's an international/Tier 1 university.

And, this is a public forum, so I'll withhold detailed thoughts...but, hopefully my brief remarks are enough to shed light. Feel free to ask questions and I'll answer.

I'm sorry but if his gpa is a 4.3 there is no way he is outside the top 50% let alone the top like, 5%.

It's not just AP, it's the entire scoring metric. luckily that is something A&M standardized across the cohort.

Aggiemike96 said:

---

OP - I'm a PhD student at UTSA (undergrad A&M, masters UH and now in the UT system). UTSA has improved leaps and bounds over the past several years and is devoting significant resources to improving research (i.e. achieving Tier 1 status).

In the short-term, UTSA/track would make the most sense as he'll likely love his college days. In the long-term, A&M is the way to go as it's an international/Tier 1 university.

And, this is a public forum, so I'll withhold detailed thoughts...but, hopefully my brief remarks are enough to shed light. Feel free to ask questions and I'll answer.

---

actually UTSA has not "achieved" FAKE MADE UP "Tier 1" "status"

1. there is no such thing as "tier 1" it is just made up nonsense that less than top universities embarrassingly bestow upon themselves

2. the often abused and misused Carnegie CLASSIFICATIONS are not rankings and for the last several decades the Carnegie Foundation has done all they can to discourage and disavow and even limit the ability of less than top universities to try and abuse their CLASSIFICATIONS and use them as a "rank" or a basis of comparison of university quality

3, UTSA is actually CLASSIFIED by them as "research higher" which is not "research highest" with both being a very limited metric with next to nothing to do with overall university quality especially for undergrads

4. UTSA has taken the "tier 1" embarrassment to the next level by calling themselves "top tier" or by saying "tier 1" university on one page like the link below

http://www.utsa.edu/tierone/

BUT then when you go to "learn more" you learn they were "chosen" for the PATH to "tier 1" and then even worse they use the silly made up metrics that are NOT what the State of Texas called "tier 1" when they used that stupid term in the NRUF discussion....."tier 1" was AAU MEMBERSHIP.....those very LOW metrics listed for "tier 1" would not even get a university in the US Snooze top 200 much less sniff AAU statue

5. then there are the embarrassing "top tier" billboards (worse than the UH fake "tier 1" billboards) and the poorly named "top tier" capital campaign

while UTSA is improving and will continue to do so especially now that A&M-SA is open to take the "has pulse fogs mirror" students they are nowhere close to any "tier 1" fake, made up or otherwise by even the weakest and most BS of definitions and metrics

Yes there is. With AP classes you are on a 6.0 scale. You get an extra 10 points for each AP class. So if you make 95 in all AP classes those are really 105 and you have a 5.5.

I'm happy to share the transcript that shows his class rank and GPA.

It's called grade inflation. It's rampant across the state.

FacebookFriend said:

---

actually UTSA has not "achieved" FAKE MADE UP "Tier 1" "status"

1. there is no such thing as "tier 1" it is just made up nonsense that less than top universities embarrassingly bestow upon themselves

2. the often abused and misused Carnegie CLASSIFICATIONS are not rankings and for the last several decades the Carnegie Foundation has done all they can to discourage and disavow and even limit the ability of less than top universities to try and abuse their CLASSIFICATIONS and use them as a "rank" or a basis of comparison of university quality

3, UTSA is actually CLASSIFIED by them as "research higher" which is not "research highest" with both being a very limited metric with next to nothing to do with overall university quality especially for undergrads

4. UTSA has taken the "tier 1" embarrassment to the next level by calling themselves "top tier" or by saying "tier 1" university on one page like the link below

http://www.utsa.edu/tierone/

BUT then when you go to "learn more" you learn they were "chosen" for the PATH to "tier 1" and then even worse they use the silly made up metrics that are NOT what the State of Texas called "tier 1" when they used that stupid term in the NRUF discussion....."tier 1" was AAU MEMBERSHIP.....those very LOW metrics listed for "tier 1" would not even get a university in the US Snooze top 200 much less sniff AAU statue

5. then there are the embarrassing "top tier" billboards (worse than the UH fake "tier 1" billboards) and the poorly named "top tier" capital campaign

while UTSA is improving and will continue to do so especially now that A&M-SA is open to take the "has pulse fogs mirror" students they are nowhere close to any "tier 1" fake, made up or otherwise by even the weakest and most BS of definitions and metrics

---

Thank you. It is frustrating to see people buy into bad marketing.

FacebookFriend said:

---

Aggiemike96 said:

---

OP - I'm a PhD student at UTSA (undergrad A&M, masters UH and now in the UT system). UTSA has improved leaps and bounds over the past several years and is devoting significant resources to improving research (i.e. achieving Tier 1 status).

In the short-term, UTSA/track would make the most sense as he'll likely love his college days. In the long-term, A&M is the way to go as it's an international/Tier 1 university.

And, this is a public forum, so I'll withhold detailed thoughts...but, hopefully my brief remarks are enough to shed light. Feel free to ask questions and I'll answer.

---

actually UTSA has not "achieved" FAKE MADE UP "Tier 1" "status"

1. there is no such thing as "tier 1" it is just made up nonsense that less than top universities embarrassingly bestow upon themselves

2. the often abused and misused Carnegie CLASSIFICATIONS are not rankings and for the last several decades the Carnegie Foundation has done all they can to discourage and disavow and even limit the ability of less than top universities to try and abuse their CLASSIFICATIONS and use them as a "rank" or a basis of comparison of university quality

3, UTSA is actually CLASSIFIED by them as "research higher" which is not "research highest" with both being a very limited metric with next to nothing to do with overall university quality especially for undergrads

4. UTSA has taken the "tier 1" embarrassment to the next level by calling themselves "top tier" or by saying "tier 1" university on one page like the link below

http://www.utsa.edu/tierone/

BUT then when you go to "learn more" you learn they were "chosen" for the PATH to "tier 1" and then even worse they use the silly made up metrics that are NOT what the State of Texas called "tier 1" when they used that stupid term in the NRUF discussion....."tier 1" was AAU MEMBERSHIP.....those very LOW metrics listed for "tier 1" would not even get a university in the US Snooze top 200 much less sniff AAU statue

5. then there are the embarrassing "top tier" billboards (worse than the UH fake "tier 1" billboards) and the poorly named "top tier" capital campaign

while UTSA is improving and will continue to do so especially now that A&M-SA is open to take the "has pulse fogs mirror" students they are nowhere close to any "tier 1" fake, made up or otherwise by even the weakest and most BS of definitions and metrics

---

Did you used to post by the username "rod rod"?

He always started bizarre long-ranting posts about tier 1 classifications (crap no one cared about) and how texas tech was god's gift to the state.

He was an epic troll and no offense, you sound an awful lot like him.

ZoneClub said:

---

It's called grade inflation. It's rampant across the state.

---

It really is such a confusing system. In our state, it's a 7 point grading scale, so a 92, even in Gifted classes, was a B, at least until 2013, but my son's class was the last to have to endure it by not getting the extra points for Gifted and AP classes. The classes following his graduating class moved to 5 point, but are you saying it's 6 points in Texas? They changed it mid sophomore year for him, but his class wasn't grandfathered in.

Each district in Texas decides independently how and if it will weight grades for various courses.

Thanks!!

powerbelly51 said:

---

Myles and Myles of Texas said:

---

I'm sorry but if his gpa is a 4.3 there is no way he is outside the top 50% let alone the top like, 5%.

---

You must not be familiar with competitive high schools and how AP classes inflate gpa.

---

I attend one, so yes I'm familiar

agmom95 said:

---

Yes there is. With AP classes you are on a 6.0 scale. You get an extra 10 points for each AP class. So if you make 95 in all AP classes those are really 105 and you have a 5.5.

I'm happy to share the transcript that shows his class rank and GPA.

---

AP inflates grades versus non AP by 1.1x. So while that is close to a 10 point difference it's not quite there. A 95 is basically a 105 (104.5), so that's almost correct. No clue where you got the 6.0 scale from... Even if it was a 10 point difference then your max gpa would be a 110, which is a 4.4. If I'm confused or messing something up or missing something I'd appreciate your explanation.

Myles and Myles of Texas said:

---

agmom95 said:

---

Yes there is. With AP classes you are on a 6.0 scale. You get an extra 10 points for each AP class. So if you make 95 in all AP classes those are really 105 and you have a 5.5.

I'm happy to share the transcript that shows his class rank and GPA.

---

AP inflates grades versus non AP by 1.1x. So while that is close to a 10 point difference it's not quite there. A 95 is basically a 105 (104.5), so that's almost correct. No clue where you got the 6.0 scale from... Even if it was a 10 point difference then your max gpa would be a 110, which is a 4.4. If I'm confused or messing something up or missing something I'd appreciate your explanation.

---

That is how it works for YOU. Every district is different. A 4.3 at my hs was well outside the top 10%.

No it's how nearly every school in the state works according to my counselors. Even if the school/district adds 10 points for AP rather than a 1.1 multiplier then the scale wouldn't reach 6.0.... Numbers still have to make sense...

I don't know how that school gets to 6.0, but here is an example from Highland Park on a 5.0 that is different from your school.



It is pretty easy to see how a 4.3 won't even sniff the top 10% with the different scoring mechanisms in schools.

McKinney is out of 6.0

http://legacy.mckinneyisd.net/campuses/POLICY%20WO%20SCALE.pdf

Coppell is out of 6.0

http://www.coppellisd.com/cms/lib09/TX01000550/Centricity/Domain/2960/2014-2015%20CHS%209th%20Course%20Guide%207-22-14.pdf

Here is the information directly from our course catalog. As powerbelly51 mentions below, we are on a 6.0 like McKinney and Coppell. I apologize for the formatting. It shows the grade, grade point for modified, regular and AP scales. Athletics and Choir/Band are double blocked at our school and count as two classes, so that also affects the GPA. If you are taking all AP classes, those classes are on a 6.0 scale. The Athletics classes and non-AP are on Regular and the modified are for our Special Ed students.

Modified/Regular/AP
100 4.0 5.0 6.0
99 3.9 4.9 5.9
98 3.8 4.8 5.8
97 3.7 4.7 5.7
96 3.6 4.6 5.6
95 3.5 4.5 5.5
94 3.4 4.4 5.4
93 3.3 4.3 5.3
92 3.2 4.2 5.2
91 3.1 4.1 5.1
90 3.0 4.0 5.0
89 2.9 3.9 4.9
88 2.8 3.8 4.8
87 2.7 3.7 4.7
86 2.6 3.6 4.6
85 2.5 3.5 4.5
84 2.4 3.4 4.4
83 2.3 3.3 4.3
82 2.2 3.2 4.2
81 2.1 3.1 4.1
80 2.0 3.0 4.0


GPA Calculation Example:
(1) Look at the semester average for each course.
(2) Find that grade on the chart above.
(3) Determine whether the course is Modified
Content, Regular or Advanced and use the
appropriate grade point for that course.
(4) Total the grade points and divide by the
number of semester courses counted.
(5) This will give you the GPA.

Example:


Pre-AP/IB Sem 1 92 5.2
English I Sem 2 96 5.6
Pre-AP/IB Sem 1 86 4.6
Biology Sem 2 95 5.5
Human Sem 1 95 5.5
Geography Sem 2 89 4.9
Geometry Sem 1 88 3.8
Sem 2 94 4.4
Professional Sem 1 95 4.5
Comm Sem 2 95 4.5
BIM I Sem 1 92 4.2
Sem 2 89 3.9
Band Sem 1 99 4.9
Sem 2 100 5.0
Total Points: 66.5
GPA Credits: 14
GPA = Total Points 66.5 = 4.75 GPA


My senior son's GPA is 4.3 and he is in the 3rd Quartile. He has taken 2-3 AP classes a year.
My freshman son's GPA is a 4.6 and he is in the 2nd Quartile. He is taking 5 AP classes this year.

UTSA is a good school and is getting better. I am a faculty member at a different university and I would be proud and happy to send my child to UTSA.

PS AggieMike I don't know what year you are in the program but good luck on your upcoming job market!

FacebookFriend said:

---

Aggiemike96 said:

---

OP - I'm a PhD student at UTSA (undergrad A&M, masters UH and now in the UT system). UTSA has improved leaps and bounds over the past several years and is devoting significant resources to improving research (i.e. achieving Tier 1 status).

In the short-term, UTSA/track would make the most sense as he'll likely love his college days. In the long-term, A&M is the way to go as it's an international/Tier 1 university.

And, this is a public forum, so I'll withhold detailed thoughts...but, hopefully my brief remarks are enough to shed light. Feel free to ask questions and I'll answer.

---

actually UTSA has not "achieved" FAKE MADE UP "Tier 1" "status"

1. there is no such thing as "tier 1" it is just made up nonsense that less than top universities embarrassingly bestow upon themselves

2. the often abused and misused Carnegie CLASSIFICATIONS are not rankings and for the last several decades the Carnegie Foundation has done all they can to discourage and disavow and even limit the ability of less than top universities to try and abuse their CLASSIFICATIONS and use them as a "rank" or a basis of comparison of university quality

3, UTSA is actually CLASSIFIED by them as "research higher" which is not "research highest" with both being a very limited metric with next to nothing to do with overall university quality especially for undergrads

4. UTSA has taken the "tier 1" embarrassment to the next level by calling themselves "top tier" or by saying "tier 1" university on one page like the link below

http://www.utsa.edu/tierone/

BUT then when you go to "learn more" you learn they were "chosen" for the PATH to "tier 1" and then even worse they use the silly made up metrics that are NOT what the State of Texas called "tier 1" when they used that stupid term in the NRUF discussion....."tier 1" was AAU MEMBERSHIP.....those very LOW metrics listed for "tier 1" would not even get a university in the US Snooze top 200 much less sniff AAU statue

5. then there are the embarrassing "top tier" billboards (worse than the UH fake "tier 1" billboards) and the poorly named "top tier" capital campaign

while UTSA is improving and will continue to do so especially now that A&M-SA is open to take the "has pulse fogs mirror" students they are nowhere close to any "tier 1" fake, made up or otherwise by even the weakest and most BS of definitions and metrics

---

UTSA hasn't claimed to have achieved "Tier 1" though, as outlined by the source you provided. The closest they have said is "top tier" which you could definitely argue is implying this or a similar status. Much of your information about this "status" is correct, but it has become a common term tied to certain measurables in the state at least and is what UTSA is basing their efforts on (like the other universities also activiely pursuing it).

Good to know. Thanks for the reply.

He got into A&M through PSA at WTAMU, Texarkana, international, commerce and Kingsville.

Also got into Texas State, UTSA, U of Houston, A&M Corpus, and Sam.

Big decisions to make over the next couple of weeks.

The Dog Lord said:

---

FacebookFriend said:

---

Aggiemike96 said:

---

OP - I'm a PhD student at UTSA (undergrad A&M, masters UH and now in the UT system). UTSA has improved leaps and bounds over the past several years and is devoting significant resources to improving research (i.e. achieving Tier 1 status).

In the short-term, UTSA/track would make the most sense as he'll likely love his college days. In the long-term, A&M is the way to go as it's an international/Tier 1 university.

And, this is a public forum, so I'll withhold detailed thoughts...but, hopefully my brief remarks are enough to shed light. Feel free to ask questions and I'll answer.

---

actually UTSA has not "achieved" FAKE MADE UP "Tier 1" "status"

1. there is no such thing as "tier 1" it is just made up nonsense that less than top universities embarrassingly bestow upon themselves

2. the often abused and misused Carnegie CLASSIFICATIONS are not rankings and for the last several decades the Carnegie Foundation has done all they can to discourage and disavow and even limit the ability of less than top universities to try and abuse their CLASSIFICATIONS and use them as a "rank" or a basis of comparison of university quality

3, UTSA is actually CLASSIFIED by them as "research higher" which is not "research highest" with both being a very limited metric with next to nothing to do with overall university quality especially for undergrads

4. UTSA has taken the "tier 1" embarrassment to the next level by calling themselves "top tier" or by saying "tier 1" university on one page like the link below

http://www.utsa.edu/tierone/

BUT then when you go to "learn more" you learn they were "chosen" for the PATH to "tier 1" and then even worse they use the silly made up metrics that are NOT what the State of Texas called "tier 1" when they used that stupid term in the NRUF discussion....."tier 1" was AAU MEMBERSHIP.....those very LOW metrics listed for "tier 1" would not even get a university in the US Snooze top 200 much less sniff AAU statue

5. then there are the embarrassing "top tier" billboards (worse than the UH fake "tier 1" billboards) and the poorly named "top tier" capital campaign

while UTSA is improving and will continue to do so especially now that A&M-SA is open to take the "has pulse fogs mirror" students they are nowhere close to any "tier 1" fake, made up or otherwise by even the weakest and most BS of definitions and metrics

---

UTSA hasn't claimed to have achieved "Tier 1" though, as outlined by the source you provided. The closest they have said is "top tier" which you could definitely argue is implying this or a similar status. Much of your information about this "status" is correct, but it has become a common term tied to certain measurables in the state at least and is what UTSA is basing their efforts on (like the other universities also activiely pursuing it).

---

actually it is only a "common term" among universities that are making a very poor attempt to distance themselves from similar universities using U Phoenix type marketing campaigns and it is already coming back to haunt many of them

lets make some things clear here

1. "tier 1" as used by The State of Texas when they first counted "tier 1" universities in and outside of Texas consisted of universities that were AAU members

the report that started the NRUF/TRIP programs discussed using other metrics like US Snooze rankings, CMUP numbers and other things, but when they settled it and started counting "tier 1" universities in Texas and outside of Texas they counted AAU members and that was that

2. then the NRUF program/endowment started the way it worked (and still works) is that you meet a particular set of metrics and that qualifies you to participate in the NRUF endowment

the purpose of participating in the NRUF endowment was to THEN receive the additional funding from the NRUF endowment to help you reach AAU membership (which is HIGHLY UNLIKELY) and or to have similar metrics to AAU members

qualifying for participation in the NRUF endowment was NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OF FORM a signal or a determination of a university being "tier 1" in fact it was a clear sign that you had now qualified for additional funding to HELP YOU EVENTUALLY reach AAU like metrics

3. when the NRUF endowment program started it was stated that it would take $50 to $70 million dollars in additional funding PER PARTICIPATING UNIVERSITY ANNUALLY for each of them to move from gaining participation in the NRUF endowment to eventually having AAU like metrics

currently the endowment pays out $10 million annually to Tech and to UH so it is not even coming close to funding the lowest level of additional money to push a university to AAU like metrics

so there is no chance that a university can claim "tier 1" based on participation in the NRUF endowment because that was not a sign of "tier 1" and currently that endowment does not come close to paying the stated amount of money it would take to elevate a participant to AAU like metrics

4. the Carnegie Foundation as I have stated prior has for a decade or more (more like two) VERY CLEARLY AND EMPHATICALLY that their classifications are not rankings, they are not indications of university quality nor are they a basis of comparison for overall universities and they even clearly state the reasons they are not

so attempting to totally ignore the clear statement of an organization about the meaning of their classifications and to in tern use their classifications in the EXACT way they say not to is the height of academic and intellectual bankruptcy

5. the metrics like $100 million in annual research or Y dollars in federal research and 200 PhDs graduated and on and on that U Phoenix type university marketing departments are using for their self awarded "tier 1" are metrics that would not get most universities into the US Snooze top 200

those are not amazing metrics for a large research university they are very pedestrian and they would not come close to AAU metrics especially considering the AAU normalizes their metrics for faculty count ect

7. the universities in the AAU are not sitting still they are advancing as well so continuing to use metrics that were talked about 8 or 10 years ago (that were not close to AAU like metrics) to say "hit these and we are "tier 1" (when the State of Texas had "tier 1" as AAU membership) is all the more ignorant and intellectually bankrupt

8. the only universities out there talking about "tier 1" are universities with massive flaws in numerous areas that they have done little to rectify and they feel if they hand pick some metrics of their own choosing they believe they "excel at" (even when they are not massively impressive metrics) and then say "we hit our self chosen metrics and self awarded "tier 1" status we have arrived" somehow serious top students and top academics will believe them

they actual result has been that other universities have jumped on the band wagon and they have tweaked their self chosen metrics to best match the ones they feel they can meet and then they have also self awarded "tier 1 status"

and the result is that some universities that thought they were distancing from other universities now find themselves lumped right back in with the "tier 1" crowd and their made up, self chosen and self awarded "status" and no one with common sense ever bought into it in the first place

So glad my kids are beyond that high school non-sense.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'm sick of a lot of these kinds of things playing such an important role in people's minds (both within and outside of higher ed institutions). The same can be said for any ranking or classification system.

There are far greater issues in education, but I see the focus on these kinds of topics as another symptom of the overall problems with how our state and federal governments define things like quality and success.

Diggity said:

---

You've literally put more thought into this than any of the marketing departments for these schools.

---

there is a bit of truth to what you are actually saying, but unfortunately for you and more so for the universities that use this "tier 1" nonsense what you are trying to say is still wrong

many of these universities have put a great deal of time and effort into this branding and "tier 1" nonsense.....but unfortunately for them they did not actually put much thought into the long term consequences of putting a lot of time and effort into cheap marketing and the misuse and abuse of classifications

thus the time and effort they put into their "branding" resulted in a very short term benefit (if any real benefit) and the long term consequences of being grouped together with universities they wished to distance from as those universities use the same cheap tactics and misuse and abuse the same classifications

so you are correct putting a great deal of time and effort into something does not mean you actually put a great deal of thought into those efforts and generally that means you wasted a lot of time and effort