just wanted to get an idea of what most people think of the law / rule.

I've always been against it myself. I think it punishes kids for living in a good area and going to a good high school. At the same time, a lot of the kids who flunk out of UT and A&M are the kids from really small high schools / towns who didn't really have any competition. Most other states don't have a law like this.

The Legislature does not meet until 2019, so we are stuck with it at least until then. Hard to tell people whose kids go to an inner city or rural school that it does not matter if you child is number 1 in their class they can't go to UT or A&M because their school did not have enough AP or IB classes.

We are a state school. Decisions like this are made by politicians, not university officials.

True. But beung No 1 at a poor performing school does not mean you are college ready.

At my highschool, probably a quarter or more took Calculus, physics and at least three years of foreign language. I believe there were two classes of Chem 2, one or two of Bio 2 and even a class of Chem 3.

Plenty of kids outside the top ten at my school (myself included) were far better prepared for the rigors of college than most inner city valedictorians.

But I scored well enough on the ACT and SAT to be an auto admit.

grapespda2525 said:

---

just wanted to get an idea of what most people think of the law / rule.

I've always been against it myself. I think it punishes kids for living in a good area and going to a good high school. At the same time, a lot of the kids who flunk out of UT and A&M are the kids from really small high schools / towns who didn't really have any competition. Most other states don't have a law like this.

---

Username should be sourgrapespda2525

I'd love to see where you pulled these stats from, I'm guessing thin air. Is the 10% rule really punishing students? I'd like to think families put in a lot of time into where they live and raise their kids, including where they go to school. The standards and benchmarks to get into A&M are pretty simple. If it's your goal, or your kid's goal to go to A&M, then make a plan to attain that goal. Don't blame some rule as to why your kid didn't get into A&M.

My point that every kid, every situation, every circumstance is and should be viewed independently. Grouping all small town kids together doesn't make any sense, grouping all kids that attend the same high school, doesn't make any sense.

I was 14 of 246, 1100 SAT. I flunked out of A&M after two years ago (I would have flunked out of any four year school with my study/school habits). I did eventually earned my graduate degree from A&M.

My situation is anecdotal. I graduated ranked 9 of 86 in a small, rural 2A high school. I later graduated SCL with an undergrad in Finance. The Top 10% rule really helped me out..

_lefraud_ said:

---

grapespda2525 said:

---

just wanted to get an idea of what most people think of the law / rule.

I've always been against it myself. I think it punishes kids for living in a good area and going to a good high school. At the same time, a lot of the kids who flunk out of UT and A&M are the kids from really small high schools / towns who didn't really have any competition. Most other states don't have a law like this.

---

Username should be sourgrapespda2525

I'd love to see where you pulled these stats from, I'm guessing thin air. Is the 10% rule really punishing students? I'd like to think families put in a lot of time into where they live and raise their kids, including where they go to school. The standards and benchmarks to get into A&M are pretty simple. If it's your goal, or your kid's goal to go to A&M, then make a plan to attain that goal. Don't blame some rule as to why your kid didn't get into A&M.

My point that every kid, every situation, every circumstance is and should be viewed independently. Grouping all small town kids together doesn't make any sense, grouping all kids that attend the same high school, doesn't make any sense.

I was 14 of 246, 1100 SAT. I flunked out of A&M after two years ago (I would have flunked out of any four year school with my study/school habits). I did eventually earned my graduate degree from A&M.

---

your post makes zero sense

1. you seem to be totally in favor of the top 10% rule and call someone that is against it "sour"

and yet you then state "lumping rural kids together makes no sense" and that "lumping kids together from the same HS does not make sense"

yet the 10% rule does exactly that it lumps kids in together based on their HS and their HS class ranking and it removes any chance to evaluate then "independently" as you say they should be by totally making the SAT or ACT irrelevant

the only thing that is relevant with the 10% rule is how you are as a member of the small group of students from your single high school and you are not evaluated at all outside of that singular group


that is the purpose of standardized test to match students against a broader group and against a baseline metric for that broader group

2. you give your high HS class ranking and your relatively unimpressive SAT score (an 1100 is not anything amazing and would not get you into A&M without the 10% rule) and then you go on to say you failed out of A&M because of bad study habits

so YOU are the exact type of student that the 10% rule is letting into A&M and then having fail out

because again lets make it clear your SAT score is not that great even under the much older scoring systems from as far back as the 1980s

so you either went to A&M back when A&M was a smaller university and easier to get into or if you were a 10% class rank admit you got into A&M because of being evaluated against a very small class of under 250 students which is the exact opposite of what you state should be done

3. everyone can TRY and make the argument that "some students do not test well" and of course there is the equally valid argument that life is a test and college is full of test and at some point you have to perform life is not about every snowflake having their own system of evaluation and set of metrics to evaluate them against that makes them look like a rock star when they really are a fast food worker

along with that there is the equally valid argument that while "some students do not test well" some high schools are not nearly as difficult as other high schools and some high school classes are not nearly as competitive to have that high class rank as others

so if you are going to criticize or discount standardized test which have been used for a very long time until we got into the "everyone gets a participation trophy" and "all you losers are really winners you are winners at being a loser" generation then you should be equally as accepting of the simple fact that many high schools are in no way comparable to other high schools often even in the same school district

which gets us back to the argument that universities should use a NUMBER OF FACTORS to evaluate students for admissions not a singular metric that compares students to dramatically different groups of students in quality, preparation, performance and size

4. there is plenty of discussion of the failure of the 10% rule to accomplish what it was desired to accomplish when it was started and there should be data out there that supports the fact that it is not a great rule

Texas fought hard to get out from under it and they were wise to do so and in the Fall of 2018 a student will have to be in the top 6% to get into Texas automatically

A&M under the failed "leadership" of john not so sharp declined to be moved out from under the rule because his idea is throw open the door and start a "good ags" degree factory and pretend that top students are leaving the State of Texas and specifically CHOOSING to go to other universities besides A&M even AFTER ADMISSION to A&M simply because A&M is not a large enough university for them

which is exactly the exact opposite of the truth as A&M grows ever larger they are driving top students away in DROVES and that is abundantly evident in both A&M class metrics and rankings

Quote:

---

argument that while "some students do not test well"

---

I'm at an age where my friends are starting to send their kids off to college. And what I'm noticing is the ones that "don't test well" just aren't that nearly as smart as their grades would lead you to believe. They aren't dumb but they or more accurately described as diligent then intelligent.

These kids work hard, do a lot of homework, do a lot of projects, but they're getting their good grades out of sheer determination and not out of innate ability.

I witnessed grade inflation throughout A&M, and I benefited by it. Generally, peers from larger high schools didn't seem to identify it...it seemed perfectly logical to them that ~70% of the class earned a B. From what I've gathered, these large high schools run the exact same with the competition of a major university, so a lot of resources are spent on external prep (regardless of it be for classwork or standardized testing) and parents and students pressuring teachers for a grade they didn't truly earn. These are not things I generally witnessed in a rural town.

Duncan Idaho said:

---

Quote:

---

argument that while "some students do not test well"

---

I'm at an age where my friends are starting to send their kids off to college. And what I'm noticing is the ones that "don't test well" just aren't that nearly as smart as their grades would lead you to believe. They aren't dumb but they or more accurately described as diligent then intelligent.

These kids work hard, do a lot of homework, do a lot of projects, but they're getting their good grades out of sheer determination and not out of innate ability.

---

I would tend to agree with this assessment, but the one thing is the kids that are willing to take endless notes, go to every study session, get on their homework the same night as the class instead of waiting a day or two and other "good" habits have a pretty good chance of still getting a degree especially in a degree program that is not all that difficult or even one that is moderately difficult

on the other hand there are the kids from high schools that are not competitive at all (the ones where the valedictorian would be struggling to be in the top 25% of a competitive high school) and the same excuse of "does not test well" is used for them

now the very very TOP students from those schools (the ones in the top 5% or higher) probably still have those same study habits and can earn a degree even at a top university

but the ones that are down in the 8% or 9% of that HS class AND that "do not test well" would probably be below the 50% mark of HS class at a competitive HS and they have very few study habits and will struggle much more in college especially a competitive one

the ones that are in that lower 10% and that DO test well probably have as good of a chance because when they get out of a terrible environment and have to push themselves they have the underlying intelligence if they can develop the study habits

either way with the data analytics available theses days there should be little difficulty to pinpoint the students that are only "benefiting" from the 10% rule by getting into a university they pretty much immediately fail out of

Yes, I benefited from the rule, and didn't take advantage, but know plenty of students that did. But being on a really good team doesn't make you a good player. Just like being on a bad team doesn't make you a bad player.

The rule definitely hurt me. I went to a small DFW area private. Got the red carpet rolled out by all the out of state schools like Arkansas, OU, Georgia, etc. We didn't rank because it was deemed that it would hurt more than help. I was able to get in the back door when the Galveston loop hole was still open. (I think they have stopped doing that, but I could be wrong). I really wanted to be at A&M so I made it happen. However, most of my piers decided it wasn't worth the trouble.

A&M's problem is two fold:

1) They miss on the exceptionally bright kids because it's almost unheard of that someone receives significant merit-based scholarship from the University (w/o regard for field of study, race, gender, etc.). However, there are dozens of well rated schools that will give near free rides to almost all of those kids.

2) They miss on the fairly bright kid (just outside the top 10%) from a good area that is well prepared and socialized to succeed in the university environment.

The result is that you get a few stubborn kids like me who try to get in through some back door (Galveston, Blinn Team, External Transfer) and a bunch of kids from big city suburbs that everyone has heard of (Katy, Cypress, Sugarland, Colleyville, Plano, Boerne, etc) that were in the top 10% but weren't in the top 1%.

"Texas fought hard to get out from under it and they were wise to do so and in the Fall of 2018 a student will have to be in the top 6% to get into Texas automatically"

Not true. Top 7% again for Fall 2018 and going to top 6% in Fall 2019.

I met an Aggie admissions counselor who said basically everyone outside of the large well-to-do high schools that wants to get in is able to. At a school like mine (Lufkin), not many outside the top 10% were going away to A&M anyway. My niece was top 5% and didn't think she could afford UT or A&M so she's going JUCO for nursing. Yes, let in another top 15% student with lots of money over my niece who has great study habits but doesn't see a pathway.

Bums me out. I got a 1430 on SAT, am out of state, but 43% at competitive school. Making it much harder for me to get in.

No need to bash Valedictorians from less competitive/poorer schools/districts to make yourself feel better because you/your darling could not be top 10 or have the ability to make academic admit. If that Valedictorian from a "lesser" school than "darling", had gone to darling's uber competitive, resource rich school, that Valedictorian could have very well still out performed darling. Don't be so sure Darling would be Valedictorian at the resource poor school. And if he/she was, would it be ok to bash him/her and say they didn't deserve it because other Darlings at uber competitive, resource rich schools who could have been so much higher in rank if only ____ and are just terrible test takers so cannot even make academic admit. Someone is getting an advantage over my Darling!!!

Not every top 10% who is admitted accepts the offer. These students also have other choices and will often follow the money to make attending less expensive.

Do a lot of smart kids not get into A&M? Absolutely. Does that mean A&M is missing out on having a lot of smart students? Not in the least. To say that the student body is not full of strong students because Darling and other non top 10%/academic admits didn't get accepted is laughable.

But if that is what brings you comfort.

catfan said:

---

I met an Aggie admissions counselor who said basically everyone outside of the large well-to-do high schools that wants to get in is able to. At a school like mine (Lufkin), not many outside the top 10% were going away to A&M anyway. My niece was top 5% and didn't think she could afford UT or A&M so she's going JUCO for nursing. Yes, let in another top 15% student with lots of money over my niece who has great study habits but doesn't see a pathway.

---

I was in the top 10% (#4) at a decent sized 3A school and can echo that not many outside the top 10% are going to larger schools. I'll just use the top 10 in my graduating class...of us, 2 went to A&M, 3 with to t.u., 1 went to Baylor, and the rest went to smaller schools like SHSU/SFA/Tarelton/etc.


As for your niece not thinking she could afford A&M, that's a sad reality for many. I spoke with one of my mom's co-worker's sons last year to help with finding scholarships for him to apply to (parents can't afford to send him and he's a first generation college student). Kid was top 10% in a 4A school but didn't think he could afford A&M or UT. He had a small scholarship offer from SHSU, but had been admitted to A&M, Southwestern, Trinity, and Austin College. I pulled up the tuition for both SHSU and A&M and tried to explain to him and his parents that A&M is a public school as well with pretty cheap tuition by being in-state and was comparable to SHSU, but it didn't stick. He's a freshman at SHSU because he still didn't think they could afford A&M. It's his choice, but I tried to explain how schools like A&M and Texas are valued over schools like SHSU/SFA/etc. I even tried to tell him that if he was choosing SHSU so he could commute, he should seriously go to UH. This is something that A&M needs to work on, IMO.