Agree. Many people think suburbs mean competitive. If you want to really see competitive, check the National Merit Scholar Semifinalist lists. There are about 1500-1600 kids across the state that make it, so when you see the schools with the most, that's where you can see the truly competitive schools. Places like Plano West with 70-80 where 1 out of 15-20 kids is a NMS SF.

A&M cares about it's students if you let them. My kids are both students and I have been thoroughly impressed with their experiences with their professors and schools of emphasis. My daughter had to medically withdraw this semester and A&M was nothing but gracious, accommodating, and concerned. No hassle, no red tape. They care about the students a lot, the days of "if you leave there are 10 people to take your place attitude" is OVER.

Also, an A&M degree in Texas means significantly more than an Auburn degree, and even in Alabama. They "know" A&M there. I've spent a lot of time in Alabama. I really like it there but I'd never pick living there over Texas.

My daughter got a $125k scholarship to TCU, A&M was still cheaper. We could have gotten countless scholarships to Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Auburn. Think about the big picture. Look down at your right hand.

A&M is HUGE. It just doesn't feel personal to some people anymore. It's understandable.

I lived in Texas my entire life until I graduated from A&M. I've also lived in Alabama. It's a bit hard to say this but if I had to choose today, I'd go back to Alabama. Every time I visit Texas, I'm reminded how crowded, overgrown and HOT it is. Once you leave, you realize that there are other places where you can be happy.

I know many successful people who went to schools besides A&M. Your success in life really is more about you than about your degree.

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

We just got back from Auburn. We were warned that we would love it. We did. It's what I wish A&M still was. The culture was great. The people were warm, helpful, and at the same time, impressive.

The engineering school was modern and student-focused. Current engineering enrollment is ~6k. Total enrollment is less than 30k, which they told us is a cap they will not exceed. (No 25 in 25 or ETAM, much less total enrollment approaching 80k.)

Lots of focus on helping students succeed academically and thrive personally. The only downsides I see are the distance from home and the likelihood of my kid not coming back to Texas after graduation.

As we were leaving, my kid said "A&M cares about the university. Auburn cares about the students." That pretty much sums it up. It looks like we will be able to get enough scholarship money to make it the same price as A&M or a little less. If the money is anywhere close, it will be hard to turn Auburn down.

---

If your kid is interested in chemical engineering, I can almost guarantee there will be opportunities to come back to Texas.

But these are all the same reasons my son wants to go to Mississippi State (or even Auburn) over TAMU. We aren't from TX, so he didn't grow up thinking TAMU and/or UT were the best options, and for him TAMU is just too big. Since his dad and I both graduated from MSU, he has those ties, but I'd be just as happy if he wanted to go to Auburn.

The thing people don't realize about the Auburns, Alabamas, and Mississippi States of the world is ALL the big companies recruit there. In ChemE or mechanical engineering, if your kid wants a job with Chevron or XOM or Dow, it won't be a problem. I can't speak to the other engineering majors, but I have friends and former coworkers with degrees from most of the major SEC schools who work for major companies all over the world.

The big exception to this would be Ole Miss. In my 20+ year career, I've only worked with one Ole Miss engineering grad. I would not send my kid there for engineering.

TXTransplant said:

---

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

We just got back from Auburn. We were warned that we would love it. We did. It's what I wish A&M still was. The culture was great. The people were warm, helpful, and at the same time, impressive.

The engineering school was modern and student-focused. Current engineering enrollment is ~6k. Total enrollment is less than 30k, which they told us is a cap they will not exceed. (No 25 in 25 or ETAM, much less total enrollment approaching 80k.)

Lots of focus on helping students succeed academically and thrive personally. The only downsides I see are the distance from home and the likelihood of my kid not coming back to Texas after graduation.

As we were leaving, my kid said "A&M cares about the university. Auburn cares about the students." That pretty much sums it up. It looks like we will be able to get enough scholarship money to make it the same price as A&M or a little less. If the money is anywhere close, it will be hard to turn Auburn down.

---

If your kid is interested in chemical engineering, I can almost guarantee there will be opportunities to come back to Texas.

But these are all the same reasons my son wants to go to Mississippi State (or even Auburn) over TAMU. We aren't from TX, so he didn't grow up thinking TAMU and/or UT were the best options, and for him TAMU is just too big. Since his dad and I both graduated from MSU, he has those ties, but I'd be just as happy if he wanted to go to Auburn.

The thing people don't realize about the Auburns, Alabamas, and Mississippi States of the world is ALL the big companies recruit there. In ChemE or mechanical engineering, if your kid wants a job with Chevron or XOM or Dow, it won't be a problem. I can't speak to the other engineering majors, but I have friends and former coworkers with degrees from most of the major SEC schools who work for major companies all over the world.

The big exception to this would be Ole Miss. In my 20+ year career, I've only worked with one Ole Miss engineering grad. I would not send my kid there for engineering.

---

Thx Transplant.

My kid is looking at mechanical with a minor in electrical or the reverse.

My kid loved MS state also. More scholarship money is being offered by them then Auburn. A main concern with MS State was that the recruiting seemed much more regional than A&M or Auburn. Is that how you see it? Any info would be appreciated.

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

We just got back from Auburn. We were warned that we would love it. We did. It's what I wish A&M still was. The culture was great. The people were warm, helpful, and at the same time, impressive.

The engineering school was modern and student-focused. Current engineering enrollment is ~6k. Total enrollment is less than 30k, which they told us is a cap they will not exceed. (No 25 in 25 or ETAM, much less total enrollment approaching 80k.)

Lots of focus on helping students succeed academically and thrive personally. The only downsides I see are the distance from home and the likelihood of my kid not coming back to Texas after graduation.

As we were leaving, my kid said "A&M cares about the university. Auburn cares about the students." That pretty much sums it up. It looks like we will be able to get enough scholarship money to make it the same price as A&M or a little less. If the money is anywhere close, it will be hard to turn Auburn down.

---

If your kid is interested in chemical engineering, I can almost guarantee there will be opportunities to come back to Texas.

But these are all the same reasons my son wants to go to Mississippi State (or even Auburn) over TAMU. We aren't from TX, so he didn't grow up thinking TAMU and/or UT were the best options, and for him TAMU is just too big. Since his dad and I both graduated from MSU, he has those ties, but I'd be just as happy if he wanted to go to Auburn.

The thing people don't realize about the Auburns, Alabamas, and Mississippi States of the world is ALL the big companies recruit there. In ChemE or mechanical engineering, if your kid wants a job with Chevron or XOM or Dow, it won't be a problem. I can't speak to the other engineering majors, but I have friends and former coworkers with degrees from most of the major SEC schools who work for major companies all over the world.

The big exception to this would be Ole Miss. In my 20+ year career, I've only worked with one Ole Miss engineering grad. I would not send my kid there for engineering.

---

Thx Transplant.

My kid is looking at mechanical with a minor in electrical or the reverse.

My kid loved MS state also. More scholarship money is being offered by them then Auburn. A main concern with MS State was that the recruiting seemed much more regional than A&M or Auburn. Is that how you see it? Any info would be appreciated.

---

So, I'm going back 20-ish years, but here is my take - there are a lot of students at State who don't want to move away. So, you do get a lot of regional companies recruiting there, and a lot of people end up staying. There are also some majors like civil and electrical engineering where it's easy to find a job in the area/region.

But, like I said above, all the majors recruit there for mechanical and chemical engineers (some even hire civils). I have friends at XOM, Chevron, Dow, and Eastman, and prob more than I can't think of right now. Now, if your kid is interested in a company like Tesla or SpaceX, I have no idea what their chances to get hired there would be. But your kid isn't going to be stuck working for MSDEQ or DOT because there are no other options. Plenty of opportunities with space and defense companies in Huntsville, AL, too.

Many of the friends/colleagues that I graduated with are all on the advisory boards of the various departments, and they have always had a very loyal base of alumni who go back each fall during career days to recruit and interview.

Fun fact...the MSU Alumni Association in Houston is one of the biggest, even compared to the ones in MS. It used to be #2 behind the one in Jackson, MS (not sure if that's the current situation).

TXTransplant said:

---

Kudos to your son for realizing there is life outside of UT and TAMU. That's not a knock on either school. Texas is a big state with a lot of kids competing for a finite number of spots at those schools. Sometimes, I think these kids are brainwashed to believe anything other than UT or TAMU (unless it's an ivy league) is second-best. My kid has gotten a lot of negative comments from classmates about wanting to go to MSU.

Fact of the matter is, especially for engineering, just go to the school you like and/or that gives you the most money. Even if the opportunities at graduation aren't what you were expecting (hiring is always cyclical), that first job is just a foot in the door. Anyone can move around to different jobs, with different companies and by a few years after graduation, what matters is your experience, not the name of the school on the diploma.

I want my kid to be happy and enjoy college. I don't want him to be stressed out about what he's going to do if he doesn't get admitted to chemical engineering. My coworker's son is at TAMU. He hasn't even finished his first semester and has been stressed since day 1 about getting into aerospace eng. He's worried he will have to "settle" for his second choice.

If my son decides he doesn't like chemical engineering, I want him to have the freedom to switch to something else. Life is to short to be stuck in a major/career that you hate.

---

Excellent post!

redcrayon said:

---

Has anyone else noticed that almost everyone here claims their kid goes to/went to an "excellent large suburban high school?" It's time to realize that some of these schools are actually just average to above average and the vast majority of kids who graduate from there are the same. Going to large suburban high schools isn't special and doesn't guarantee that your kid is getting an education that much better than the kids at smaller high schools. And from the looks of it, grade inflation is rampant at these "competitive" high schools.

---

Strongly disagree, at least in relation to the better schools. A school being large doesn't mean it is high quality at all though. In Austin though if you are talking about Westlake, Westwood, Vandegrift, and Lake Travis though those schools are excellent and prepare kids to be successful for college starting in Middle School with ingrained study habits, scheduling and campuses that resemble colleges, and a highly competitive atmosphere to be successful academically. They all are schools populated with children of Engineers and Programmers and top professionals, many of which are Asian and put an extreme focus on academics. It's of course possible to go there and not succeed in college but it's extremely rare for anyone outside of the Top 50% from those schools that doesn't thrive.

I know a kid that was bottom 25% at Vandegrift that could only get into A&M CC and is graduating from College Station with a 3.9 in Biomedical Science on his way to Med School, that's a common story. Even the lower ranked kids thrive because they often have such a drop down in competition level in college.

Can kids from small schools succeed? Absolutely! Same with kids from mediocre big schools. Much of that is about the parents or just the kid having that burning competitiveness within them though. Going to a place like A&M is a much bigger culture shock for most and it's a lot to overcome. They aren't getting the same level of prep in High School though, it has to come from elsewhere.

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

We just got back from Auburn. We were warned that we would love it. We did. It's what I wish A&M still was. The culture was great. The people were warm, helpful, and at the same time, impressive.

The engineering school was modern and student-focused. Current engineering enrollment is ~6k. Total enrollment is less than 30k, which they told us is a cap they will not exceed. (No 25 in 25 or ETAM, much less total enrollment approaching 80k.)

Lots of focus on helping students succeed academically and thrive personally. The only downsides I see are the distance from home and the likelihood of my kid not coming back to Texas after graduation.

As we were leaving, my kid said "A&M cares about the university. Auburn cares about the students." That pretty much sums it up. It looks like we will be able to get enough scholarship money to make it the same price as A&M or a little less. If the money is anywhere close, it will be hard to turn Auburn down.

---

This is 100% same story we're going through regarding A&M/Auburn. We took a trip up there and loved it. People were nice an friendly, campus was nice, and you and were made to feel wanted by dept staff and advisors (who spoke English by the way). A&M's stupid slow play in regards to getting back to you is mind numbing. So much so that Auburn has risen to the top of my kids list on where to go for mechanical engineering. I told my wife that I don't blame the kid...it'd be my pick too if I were having to make the decision again.

bmet said:

---

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

We just got back from Auburn. We were warned that we would love it. We did. It's what I wish A&M still was. The culture was great. The people were warm, helpful, and at the same time, impressive.

The engineering school was modern and student-focused. Current engineering enrollment is ~6k. Total enrollment is less than 30k, which they told us is a cap they will not exceed. (No 25 in 25 or ETAM, much less total enrollment approaching 80k.)

Lots of focus on helping students succeed academically and thrive personally. The only downsides I see are the distance from home and the likelihood of my kid not coming back to Texas after graduation.

As we were leaving, my kid said "A&M cares about the university. Auburn cares about the students." That pretty much sums it up. It looks like we will be able to get enough scholarship money to make it the same price as A&M or a little less. If the money is anywhere close, it will be hard to turn Auburn down.

---

This is 100% same story we're going through regarding A&M/Auburn. We took a trip up there and loved it. People were nice an friendly, campus was nice, and you and were made to feel wanted by dept staff and advisors (who spoke English by the way). A&M's stupid slow play in regards to getting back to you is mind numbing. So much so that Auburn has risen to the top of my kids list on where to go for mechanical engineering. I told my wife that I don't blame the kid...it'd be my pick too if I were having to make the decision again.

---

My kid has been admitted both places. The fact that A&M has gotten back to us did not change the calculus. I think the top 10% rule has changed A&M so much. It feels more like a business transaction with my other kid who is at A&M now. Pay your money. Do the work. Get the degree.

I would not be surprised if this will impact donations to A&M in the future. For example, I would never give any money to the university where I attended grad school. It's a shame, really.

redcrayon said:

---

I'm aware that you strongly disagree but I think your view is terribly myopic.

---

I gave a lot of specifics as to why with examples. I mean I guess you can argue that it doesn't matter if you have been in a college prep environment where study habits are ingrained in Middle School. Doesn't matter if they have schedules and cadence that mirror a college environment with elective programs that offer . You can also argue that schools where the Top 25% typically have 15-30 hours or more of college credit through Dual Credit and AP programs doesn't matter. You could argue that having Counselors that are deeply experienced and understand how to get kids ready for college doesn't matter. You can argue that having a very high percentage of 2 parent households that both have college degrees (often Grad Degrees as well) doesn't matter.

I mean I guess that's "myopic" when compared to "I think those kids just have grade inflation" and "those schools aren't any better" as arguments.

In the end it is about the individual and that trumps everything. There is no guarantee of success or failure. Still if you are looking at the larger picture a kid who comes from a school that is from a school system that is focused on preparing them for college almost to an extreme vs a kid who doesn't the odds favor one over the other.

The amazing thing to me is how so many schools, including A&M, are far more interested in diversity numbers and "first gen" numbers over getting the most qualified kids to attend. Life isn't fair and acting like you can just make up for years of preparation and growing up with parents that emphasize and understand academics by just mixing the kids together in college expecting them to do equally well isn't logical. It's also a great argument for school choice programs which is a much better way to fix disparity than the current method of pretending like preparation doesn't matter.

This is a topic I've had deep interest in ever since I read "Preferential Policies" when I was at A&M decades ago. We do so many things that make no sense when it comes to education as a society.

What's myopic is that YOU define an early-life path that "has the highest likelihood" of success. Then that path (which somehow starts in large suburbia) is how A&M should accept students.

500,000ags said:

---

What's myopic is that YOU define an early-life path that "has the highest likelihood" of success. Then that path (which somehow starts in large suburbia) is how A&M should accept students.

---

No, I define it by who is most likely to graduate and be successful at A&M, especially in the more difficult majors such as STEM or Business. Texas has elite large HS's in our Suburbs. We also have elite private schools and charter schools. There are some excellent rural schools as well but as a whole the volume out of those top Suburban schools is a great asset that currently a large portion of them go OOS where schools are happy to give them large scholarships while A&M doesn't pursue them. So essentially as a State we are letting some of our best and brightest leave because we would rather have less academically qualified kids at A&M and Texas.

I also listed a number of reasons why those schools are so successful in churning out a large volume of successful college students. Hell at many of those schools it is common that you have kids that are National Merit Semi Finalists and sometimes a Finalist that is outside the Top 10%.

Arkansas, Oklahoma, and basically the entire SEC love our policy though, many of those states don't have a single HS that compares to the Top 20 of the "Large Suburban HS's" in Texas.

I mean if you can't tell that A&M scrapping the entire state for <15 large suburban high schools because of ingrained study habits learned in middle school is a bad idea, I am not quite sure what to say. Diversity initiatives are out of hand, but that creates such a narrow environment, and I am more than glad that is not the plan.

We do agree that A&M is letting too many top quartile students go OOS. I would love for them to make more capacity for FR admissions instead of relying on transfer students. Business and Engineering shouldn't be the only paths. IMO, A&M should be building out a stand-alone data and tech school for example.

aggie93 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

I'm aware that you strongly disagree but I think your view is terribly myopic.

---

I gave a lot of specifics as to why with examples. I mean I guess you can argue that it doesn't matter if you have been in a college prep environment where study habits are ingrained in Middle School. Doesn't matter if they have schedules and cadence that mirror a college environment with elective programs that offer . You can also argue that schools where the Top 25% typically have 15-30 hours or more of college credit through Dual Credit and AP programs doesn't matter. You could argue that having Counselors that are deeply experienced and understand how to get kids ready for college doesn't matter. You can argue that having a very high percentage of 2 parent households that both have college degrees (often Grad Degrees as well) doesn't matter.

I mean I guess that's "myopic" when compared to "I think those kids just have grade inflation" and "those schools aren't any better" as arguments.

In the end it is about the individual and that trumps everything. There is no guarantee of success or failure. Still if you are looking at the larger picture a kid who comes from a school that is from a school system that is focused on preparing them for college almost to an extreme vs a kid who doesn't the odds favor one over the other.

The amazing thing to me is how so many schools, including A&M, are far more interested in diversity numbers and "first gen" numbers over getting the most qualified kids to attend. Life isn't fair and acting like you can just make up for years of preparation and growing up with parents that emphasize and understand academics by just mixing the kids together in college expecting them to do equally well isn't logical. It's also a great argument for school choice programs which is a much better way to fix disparity than the current method of pretending like preparation doesn't matter.

This is a topic I've had deep interest in ever since I read "Preferential Policies" when I was at A&M decades ago. We do so many things that make no sense when it comes to education as a society.

---

Wouldn't increasing the number of first gen students also increase the odds of them marrying another college grad and then widening the pool of the first group you referenced? You can't make up for years of preparation but you can in a sense breed them for the future.

Wtf

First-gen students go to college for the same reason as other kids, not to find a marrying partner. They go to get an education, get productive jobs, and move up the economic ladder.

Obviously. That wasn't the point I was trying to make though. By going to college, that eventually moves them into the pool of families that 93 is talking about. Dual degree, two parent homes that understand the rigor of education and what it takes to succeed. Unrelated to the topic, I also know plenty of guys and girls who went to school to find partners of similar of socioeconomic backgrounds.

500,000ags said:

---

I mean if you can't tell that A&M scrapping the entire state for <15 large suburban high schools because of ingrained study habits learned in middle school is a bad idea, I am not quite sure what to say. Diversity initiatives are out of hand, but that creates such a narrow environment, and I am more than glad that is not the plan.

We do agree that A&M is letting too many top quartile students go OOS. I would love for them to make more capacity for FR admissions instead of relying on transfer students. Business and Engineering shouldn't be the only paths. IMO, A&M should be building out a stand-alone data and tech school for example.

---

I'm arguing for equal qualifications. The Top 7-10% (which is what this thread is about) is extremely unequal when looking at the Top 25 large Pubic HS's than say, the Bottom 200. I am all for kids from any school getting an opportunity to get into A&M but they should be equally academically qualified. SAT/ACT scores is one measure. College/AP credit is another. GPA. That's how every other public school outside of Texas and A&M evaluates students. Is Class Rank irrelevant? No, it has value but it does not have the supreme value that is placed upon it.

Obviously I am also arguing as to the value of those quality HS's and I think they are a great asset to our State, that's why every other state tries to hard to poach as many of those kids as they can. They don't care about class rank.

AxelFoley85 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

I'm aware that you strongly disagree but I think your view is terribly myopic.

---

I gave a lot of specifics as to why with examples. I mean I guess you can argue that it doesn't matter if you have been in a college prep environment where study habits are ingrained in Middle School. Doesn't matter if they have schedules and cadence that mirror a college environment with elective programs that offer . You can also argue that schools where the Top 25% typically have 15-30 hours or more of college credit through Dual Credit and AP programs doesn't matter. You could argue that having Counselors that are deeply experienced and understand how to get kids ready for college doesn't matter. You can argue that having a very high percentage of 2 parent households that both have college degrees (often Grad Degrees as well) doesn't matter.

I mean I guess that's "myopic" when compared to "I think those kids just have grade inflation" and "those schools aren't any better" as arguments.

In the end it is about the individual and that trumps everything. There is no guarantee of success or failure. Still if you are looking at the larger picture a kid who comes from a school that is from a school system that is focused on preparing them for college almost to an extreme vs a kid who doesn't the odds favor one over the other.

The amazing thing to me is how so many schools, including A&M, are far more interested in diversity numbers and "first gen" numbers over getting the most qualified kids to attend. Life isn't fair and acting like you can just make up for years of preparation and growing up with parents that emphasize and understand academics by just mixing the kids together in college expecting them to do equally well isn't logical. It's also a great argument for school choice programs which is a much better way to fix disparity than the current method of pretending like preparation doesn't matter.

This is a topic I've had deep interest in ever since I read "Preferential Policies" when I was at A&M decades ago. We do so many things that make no sense when it comes to education as a society.

---

Wouldn't increasing the number of first gen students also increase the odds of them marrying another college grad and then widening the pool of the first group you referenced? You can't make up for years of preparation but you can in a sense breed them for the future.

---

First Gen students are great, I married one! My wife was 2nd in her class in her small HS class in West Texas. Even though she was very bright she had to work extremely hard to adjust. She didn't even know how GPA worked in college. She got her footing and graduated in Marketing and has done very well, she's smarter than me. She made it off her own determination and grit though, her path was a difficult one. Many others don't swim when thrown in the deep end like that.

The other issue is that most First Gen students are more likely to do well at a school that is less rigorous unless they are the exception or that is less intimidating than a school with 70k students that's often far from home. It's just common sense. If they are qualified and are able to show they can compete then that's awesome but most importantly they should be where they are most likely to be successful and graduate.

aggie93 said:

---

AxelFoley85 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

I'm aware that you strongly disagree but I think your view is terribly myopic.

---

I gave a lot of specifics as to why with examples. I mean I guess you can argue that it doesn't matter if you have been in a college prep environment where study habits are ingrained in Middle School. Doesn't matter if they have schedules and cadence that mirror a college environment with elective programs that offer . You can also argue that schools where the Top 25% typically have 15-30 hours or more of college credit through Dual Credit and AP programs doesn't matter. You could argue that having Counselors that are deeply experienced and understand how to get kids ready for college doesn't matter. You can argue that having a very high percentage of 2 parent households that both have college degrees (often Grad Degrees as well) doesn't matter.

I mean I guess that's "myopic" when compared to "I think those kids just have grade inflation" and "those schools aren't any better" as arguments.

In the end it is about the individual and that trumps everything. There is no guarantee of success or failure. Still if you are looking at the larger picture a kid who comes from a school that is from a school system that is focused on preparing them for college almost to an extreme vs a kid who doesn't the odds favor one over the other.

The amazing thing to me is how so many schools, including A&M, are far more interested in diversity numbers and "first gen" numbers over getting the most qualified kids to attend. Life isn't fair and acting like you can just make up for years of preparation and growing up with parents that emphasize and understand academics by just mixing the kids together in college expecting them to do equally well isn't logical. It's also a great argument for school choice programs which is a much better way to fix disparity than the current method of pretending like preparation doesn't matter.

This is a topic I've had deep interest in ever since I read "Preferential Policies" when I was at A&M decades ago. We do so many things that make no sense when it comes to education as a society.

---

Wouldn't increasing the number of first gen students also increase the odds of them marrying another college grad and then widening the pool of the first group you referenced? You can't make up for years of preparation but you can in a sense breed them for the future.

---

First Gen students are great, I married one! My wife was 2nd in her class in her small HS class in West Texas. Even though she was very bright she had to work extremely hard to adjust. She didn't even know how GPA worked in college. She got her footing and graduated in Marketing and has done very well, she's smarter than me. She made it off her own determination and grit though, her path was a difficult one. Many others don't swim when thrown in the deep end like that.

The other issue is that most First Gen students are more likely to do well at a school that is less rigorous unless they are the exception or that is less intimidating than a school with 70k students that's often far from home. It's just common sense. If they are qualified and are able to show they can compete then that's awesome but most importantly they should be where they are most likely to be successful and graduate.

---

Dinesh D'Souza pointed this out over thirty years ago in his book Illiberal Education. If you admit a kid to a school they are not qualified to attend, they will likely struggle at best. For example, a kid who makes 780 on the math portion of the SAT could thrive at Texas A&M but be below average in math skills at MIT and therefore struggle against the really tough competition there.

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

AxelFoley85 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

I'm aware that you strongly disagree but I think your view is terribly myopic.

---

I gave a lot of specifics as to why with examples. I mean I guess you can argue that it doesn't matter if you have been in a college prep environment where study habits are ingrained in Middle School. Doesn't matter if they have schedules and cadence that mirror a college environment with elective programs that offer . You can also argue that schools where the Top 25% typically have 15-30 hours or more of college credit through Dual Credit and AP programs doesn't matter. You could argue that having Counselors that are deeply experienced and understand how to get kids ready for college doesn't matter. You can argue that having a very high percentage of 2 parent households that both have college degrees (often Grad Degrees as well) doesn't matter.

I mean I guess that's "myopic" when compared to "I think those kids just have grade inflation" and "those schools aren't any better" as arguments.

In the end it is about the individual and that trumps everything. There is no guarantee of success or failure. Still if you are looking at the larger picture a kid who comes from a school that is from a school system that is focused on preparing them for college almost to an extreme vs a kid who doesn't the odds favor one over the other.

The amazing thing to me is how so many schools, including A&M, are far more interested in diversity numbers and "first gen" numbers over getting the most qualified kids to attend. Life isn't fair and acting like you can just make up for years of preparation and growing up with parents that emphasize and understand academics by just mixing the kids together in college expecting them to do equally well isn't logical. It's also a great argument for school choice programs which is a much better way to fix disparity than the current method of pretending like preparation doesn't matter.

This is a topic I've had deep interest in ever since I read "Preferential Policies" when I was at A&M decades ago. We do so many things that make no sense when it comes to education as a society.

---

Wouldn't increasing the number of first gen students also increase the odds of them marrying another college grad and then widening the pool of the first group you referenced? You can't make up for years of preparation but you can in a sense breed them for the future.

---

First Gen students are great, I married one! My wife was 2nd in her class in her small HS class in West Texas. Even though she was very bright she had to work extremely hard to adjust. She didn't even know how GPA worked in college. She got her footing and graduated in Marketing and has done very well, she's smarter than me. She made it off her own determination and grit though, her path was a difficult one. Many others don't swim when thrown in the deep end like that.

The other issue is that most First Gen students are more likely to do well at a school that is less rigorous unless they are the exception or that is less intimidating than a school with 70k students that's often far from home. It's just common sense. If they are qualified and are able to show they can compete then that's awesome but most importantly they should be where they are most likely to be successful and graduate.

---

Dinesh D'Souza pointed this out over thirty years ago in his book Illiberal Education. If you admit a kid to a school they are not qualified to attend, they will likely struggle at best. For example, a kid who makes 780 on the math portion of the SAT could thrive at Texas A&M but be below average in math skills at MIT and therefore struggle against the really tough competition there.

---

I would think a kid with a 780 Math score would probably do ok at MIT as well, that's 20 points from a perfect score? That said I think I understand your point and fully agree with it.

For me it was Thomas Sowell's "Preferential Policies" that I studied in school also around 30 years ago. He did extensive research at Vanderbilt specifically on kids that got in based on Affirmative Action policies when they weren't academically qualified and showed how they were far more likely to drop out or change into a "soft" major and typically had much lower grades. In the end math is math and most kids can't overcome the academic preparedness disparity.

Unfortunately since then what many of those schools, especially the prestigious private schools, have done is to find ways to get those kids graduated in whatever degree they needed to. Many have ridiculous graduation rates well above 90%. They just don't fail students. It was already starting to happen th en. I remember I was looking at Law School and was in the Pre-Law society at A&M and they had an admissions person from UT Law there. They talked about how they liked Aggies because they don't have grade inflation. She also told a story about how they had a Stanford Grad that applied and they were about to accept who had a 2.9 GPA. Then they researched and he was in the BOTTOM 2% of his class.

Its Texas Aggies, dammit said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

AxelFoley85 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

I'm aware that you strongly disagree but I think your view is terribly myopic.

---

I gave a lot of specifics as to why with examples. I mean I guess you can argue that it doesn't matter if you have been in a college prep environment where study habits are ingrained in Middle School. Doesn't matter if they have schedules and cadence that mirror a college environment with elective programs that offer . You can also argue that schools where the Top 25% typically have 15-30 hours or more of college credit through Dual Credit and AP programs doesn't matter. You could argue that having Counselors that are deeply experienced and understand how to get kids ready for college doesn't matter. You can argue that having a very high percentage of 2 parent households that both have college degrees (often Grad Degrees as well) doesn't matter.

I mean I guess that's "myopic" when compared to "I think those kids just have grade inflation" and "those schools aren't any better" as arguments.

In the end it is about the individual and that trumps everything. There is no guarantee of success or failure. Still if you are looking at the larger picture a kid who comes from a school that is from a school system that is focused on preparing them for college almost to an extreme vs a kid who doesn't the odds favor one over the other.

The amazing thing to me is how so many schools, including A&M, are far more interested in diversity numbers and "first gen" numbers over getting the most qualified kids to attend. Life isn't fair and acting like you can just make up for years of preparation and growing up with parents that emphasize and understand academics by just mixing the kids together in college expecting them to do equally well isn't logical. It's also a great argument for school choice programs which is a much better way to fix disparity than the current method of pretending like preparation doesn't matter.

This is a topic I've had deep interest in ever since I read "Preferential Policies" when I was at A&M decades ago. We do so many things that make no sense when it comes to education as a society.

---

Wouldn't increasing the number of first gen students also increase the odds of them marrying another college grad and then widening the pool of the first group you referenced? You can't make up for years of preparation but you can in a sense breed them for the future.

---

First Gen students are great, I married one! My wife was 2nd in her class in her small HS class in West Texas. Even though she was very bright she had to work extremely hard to adjust. She didn't even know how GPA worked in college. She got her footing and graduated in Marketing and has done very well, she's smarter than me. She made it off her own determination and grit though, her path was a difficult one. Many others don't swim when thrown in the deep end like that.

The other issue is that most First Gen students are more likely to do well at a school that is less rigorous unless they are the exception or that is less intimidating than a school with 70k students that's often far from home. It's just common sense. If they are qualified and are able to show they can compete then that's awesome but most importantly they should be where they are most likely to be successful and graduate.

---

Dinesh D'Souza pointed this out over thirty years ago in his book Illiberal Education. If you admit a kid to a school they are not qualified to attend, they will likely struggle at best. For example, a kid who makes 780 on the math portion of the SAT could thrive at Texas A&M but be below average in math skills at MIT and therefore struggle against the really tough competition there.

---

Sowell addresses the issue extremely well from about 2 minutes to about 7 minutes of this video. The statistics he recites are staggering and the logic is spot on. He later also brings up another point of how these problems get worse because inevitably you have a minority kid who was a top student at their HS who then goes to a college that is above their academic qualifications and struggles. Suddenly they go from making all As to making C's and D's or failing. Then there is a huge movement on that campus that is telling that kid the reason for it isn't because of academics but rather because of racism. Since they cannot point to a direct cause of racism they say it is "systemic racism". BTW this video is from about the same time that the Top 10% rule and

Sowell is always interesting because he was one of the very few Black men to get into and graduate from Harvard in the '50s before the Civil Rights Act and Affirmative Action of any kind. He also has an interesting life story as someone who came from the South but moved to Harlem and was truly self made. Simply an amazing human with some incredible perspective and intelligence.

redcrayon said:

---

A&M is HUGE. It just doesn't feel personal to some people anymore. It's understandable.

I lived in Texas my entire life until I graduated from A&M. I've also lived in Alabama. It's a bit hard to say this but if I had to choose today, I'd go back to Alabama. Every time I visit Texas, I'm reminded how crowded, overgrown and HOT it is. Once you leave, you realize that there are other places where you can be happy.

I know many successful people who went to schools besides A&M. Your success in life really is more about you than about your degree.

---

My son is class of 24. He is in the corps. Has been the best thing in the world. Going down there so much to see him, the school is HUGE. I can't imagine him doing it without the corps. It's damn tough to just go down there and make your own scene, friends, etc, on your own. Obviously a lot do it but it's easy to get swallowed up.

My daughter will be class of 28 and frankly I don't care where she goes. If she goes to TAMU great but its so big that it's not what it was. Probably 20K too many students. Getting on and off campus is a nightmare (another reason the corps is so good, you get to live on campus). CS is not set up to handle that many people.

Got a letter from Auburn yesterday. Offer for $15k/year in scholarship money, based solely on ACT and GPA. It's only a fraction of the $40+k/year tuition, but considering TAMU offered nothing, I think it's pretty good. This one offer would put the cost in-line with TAMU (I'm sure that's no coincidence), and he should be eligible to earn more.

I found it interesting to read a lot of this thread. I live in Georgia and have a junior in high school. In Georgia, we have the lottery-funded Hope and Zell Miller scholarships that make it incredibly inexpensive for kids to attend state schools. Our problem is that there are only really two decent state schools - UGA and Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech is incredibly tough to get into, is very nerdy and engineering heavy, and is seated right in the middle of Atlanta, in one of its worst parts. Not exactly what I think of when I think of going to college (same for my son).

At least in Texas you have some predictability as to who gets into A&M and UT. In Georgia, there are NO guidelines as to admissions standards. UGA tries to take kids from all across the state, and create a diverse class in other ways. Given that, I have heard all kinds of horror stories of Caucasian and Asian kids from Atlanta suburbs who have tremendous scores and great grades in rigorous high schools who do not get into UGA or Ga Tech. It's really awful. And just as some other posters have mentioned, the surrounding schools (for us, it us Bama, Auburn, South Carolina, and Tennessee mainly) get a ton of talented kids from the suburbs of Atlanta year after year. It's more than a little sad that the state takes 6% of my income every year, and my child can graduate near the top of his class and have great test scores and not even be guaranteed admission to ANY state school, much less the two flagship schools.

Kool said:

---

I found it interesting to read a lot of this thread. I live in Georgia and have a junior in high school. In Georgia, we have the lottery-funded Hope and Zell Miller scholarships that make it incredibly inexpensive for kids to attend state schools. Our problem is that there are only really two decent state schools - UGA and Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech is incredibly tough to get into, is very nerdy and engineering heavy, and is seated right in the middle of Atlanta, in one of its worst parts. Not exactly what I think of when I think of going to college (same for my son).

At least in Texas you have some predictability as to who gets into A&M and UT. In Georgia, there are NO guidelines as to admissions standards. UGA tries to take kids from all across the state, and create a diverse class in other ways. Given that, I have heard all kinds of horror stories of Caucasian and Asian kids from Atlanta suburbs who have tremendous scores and great grades in rigorous high schools who do not get into UGA or Ga Tech. It's really awful. And just as some other posters have mentioned, the surrounding schools (for us, it us Bama, Auburn, South Carolina, and Tennessee mainly) get a ton of talented kids from the suburbs of Atlanta year after year. It's more than a little sad that the state takes 6% of my income every year, and my child can graduate near the top of his class and have great test scores and not even be guaranteed admission to ANY state school, much less the two flagship schools.

---

There isn't a perfect system. There are lots of smart kids at Texas schools that get shut out of A&M and Texas because they go to a competive HS and/or don't play the GPA game. Even the kids that are gauranteed admits at the University arent given any gaurantees when it comes to what College/Major they can get into. At least you know they will look at more than one data point for your kid.

For the record my kid is Caucasian and got into UGA and her class ranking was lackluster.

Another Doug said:

---

Kool said:

---

I found it interesting to read a lot of this thread. I live in Georgia and have a junior in high school. In Georgia, we have the lottery-funded Hope and Zell Miller scholarships that make it incredibly inexpensive for kids to attend state schools. Our problem is that there are only really two decent state schools - UGA and Georgia Tech. Georgia Tech is incredibly tough to get into, is very nerdy and engineering heavy, and is seated right in the middle of Atlanta, in one of its worst parts. Not exactly what I think of when I think of going to college (same for my son).

At least in Texas you have some predictability as to who gets into A&M and UT. In Georgia, there are NO guidelines as to admissions standards. UGA tries to take kids from all across the state, and create a diverse class in other ways. Given that, I have heard all kinds of horror stories of Caucasian and Asian kids from Atlanta suburbs who have tremendous scores and great grades in rigorous high schools who do not get into UGA or Ga Tech. It's really awful. And just as some other posters have mentioned, the surrounding schools (for us, it us Bama, Auburn, South Carolina, and Tennessee mainly) get a ton of talented kids from the suburbs of Atlanta year after year. It's more than a little sad that the state takes 6% of my income every year, and my child can graduate near the top of his class and have great test scores and not even be guaranteed admission to ANY state school, much less the two flagship schools.

---

There isn't a perfect system. There are lots of smart kids at Texas schools that get shut out of A&M and Texas because they go to a competive HS and/or don't play the GPA game. Even the kids that are gauranteed admits at the University arent given any gaurantees when it comes to what College/Major they can get into. At least you know they will look at more than one data point for your kid.

For the record my kid is Caucasian and got into UGA and her class ranking was lackluster.

---

Yes, it is a crapshoot at UGA, which is what I really don't like. And UGA is pretty much the only thing the majority if these GA kids (not including my son) seem to want. It isn't like Texas where there are multiple good options to choose from. The old way of having a class rank matched with standardized testing (the higher the class rank, the lower the standardized testing threshold and vice versa) system seemed more "fair" to me.

It's time for another flagship school. Strip a third of the PUF from tu, flip them off when they cry, and give it to tceh.

TAMU may be growing at the rate of Texas in general but it is still too much, too fast. Place is a zoo now. It's honestly kinda gross. I am glad I left when I did. The school I fell in love with just 20 years ago is not the one I just graduated from in May. Not 100% bad of course but also not 100% good either. More bad than good By a very large margin.

GoAgs92 said:

---

I've noticed a trend among my friends, if their kid cannot get into A&M or UT via auto admit, they end up at OU, Ark, Ole Miss.

Mostly OU...I was stunned by how many are going up there.

The auto admit rules in TX are basically making good students pick between second tier TX schools or the top tier school in a neighboring state OU, Arky, etc....

With decent scores and grades the OOS school cost the same as in state in TX. Which is more prestigious, good social life, and networking OU or North Texas/Tech/Texas State etc? seems like a no brainer to me.

---

When my son graduated out of the top 10%, so he began looking out of state. He got into A&M , but ultimately chose Oklahoma State for construction engineering. With scholarships, it was actually going to be cheaper.

Most people on this thread kids did get into A&M they just got offered more at other schools