This is from the Princeton Review. I think this answers for a fact which school has higher standards and which school has on average the smarter student. This is actually a fairly large difference.

UT
Average SAT: 1222
Average ACT: 26

A&M
Average SAT: 1178
Average ACT: 25

http://www.princetonreview.com/college/research/profiles/generalinfo.asp?listing=1023562<ID=1

[This message has been edited by ProWings (edited 9/8/2003 11:36a).]

[This message has been edited by ProWings (edited 9/8/2003 11:41a).]

I do not think this shows who has higher standards, but who goes there and their SAT and ACT scores. I think both are great schools with great degree programs.

Isn't this type of smack for the off season?

No, this smack is good all year.

and you still can't afford anything but ProWings....

quote:

---

No, this smack is good all year.

---

Well, maybe for incoming freshmen, I guess...

Well, it's a good thing I've found out now, eight years after graduation, that all sips are smarter than all Ags, and that my degree means squat.

I guess I've been wasting my time all these years.

Both are too low, and they and won't get any better until we get rid of the 10% rule. (Unless they scale up and dumb down the tests again)

[This message has been edited by Tom Hagen (edited 9/8/2003 11:54a).]

26 vs 25...oh no

I agree with getting rid of the 10% rule. How can a school control its enrollment if it automatically has to allow the top 10% to enter its school? Plus, the top 10% at one school can be totally different at another h.s..

http://news.mysanantonio.com/story.cfm?xla=saen&xlb=190&xlc=1051788

To read something else, this article talks about how the average SAT score is increasing and the average ACT has not over the past several years. If these guys cannot write tests that test reality consistently, there is something really wrong.

It seems however, the SAT is more of an East/West coast thing and the ACT is more middle America thing among highschoolers.

Aside from the 10% debate, I find this interesting.



[This message has been edited by mike073 (edited 9/8/2003 12:29p).]

Now that affirmative action is alive and well again, is there any chance the 10% may go away?

prowings: Am I smarter then most of the people at ut because I did better then that school's average? A high SAT score is correlated to having a high IQ. But correlation does not prove anything. If it is an IQ test, then why can Joe Somebody study for it and raise his/her score the next time they take it? You want to talk about a real test? How about the MCAT? Along the lines of med-school entrance crap...I have a question for you. What percent of Aggies who have a gpa at or over 3.7 get into at least one of the med-schools they apply to? The answer is 97%.

You spelled your name wrong.

quote:

---

Now that affirmative action is alive and well again, is there any chance the 10% may go away?

---

I know there is a group of Texas Exes that has some prominent Texans (including some Aggies that have joined the cause) that are trying to get the state legislature to do away with the 10% law saying only affirmative action or the 10% rule are needed, but not both. So far the University board of regents and presidents for UT and A&M both are fighting against this group. IMO, I think affirmative action based on socioeconomics is a better solution for the perceived problem than either the 10% rule or race based affirmative action.

For my kids to go to Texas in the future under the current system they better be extremely smart or I'm going to have to move to a neighborhood so they can go to a high school that isn't competitive in the least.

no way, I only had two options when I realized "steve" was taken, either to pay off the 5.3 million that the guy who registered "steve" wanted for it, or tack on another e. This way it is a silly misspelled version of "stevey", and I like that.

well...there is also an alternative to the 10% rule...

Make over a 1300 on your SAT...automatic acceptance to UT or A&M or any other public school in the great Country of Texas...**** we're still a state!

and for the non believers of that..my brother is now a sophomore at A&M and he made a 1350 on his SAT's...a special college counselor came to our school and told him he would be automatically accepted with a 1300+ and was only in the top 30% of his class...and he got accepted to UT engineering and A&M engineering...although he only applied to t.u. to see if he would make it...he chose A&M straight up...and he has since switched to get his business major at Texas A&M University...so for your children...1300 on ur SAT is what you should shoot for. I go to one of the toughest high schools in the state of Texas(Anderson High School in Austin), and there is no chance i'll be in the top 10%. But as I look forward to taking my first SAT this fall as a junior in high school...I hope I can get a 1300 or more.

[This message has been edited by Austin_Aggie15 (edited 9/8/2003 10:26p).]

I have no problem giving extra "points" to applicants who are poor. They live in neighborhoods which provide them with an inferior education, and they therefore do not score as highly on the all mighty SAT as do the kids that go to all these little private schools, and rich public schools.

Sorry Stevee, I don't completely understand. There are "poor" schools that spend the same or almost the same amount of money on school kids and yet lack the better scores. It matters where the money goes. I know one school district that spent over a million dollars which went to law suits and this is considered as money spent per kid. What about rural schools where there are less kids, therefore fewer teachers and fewer courses? The fact of the matter is the SAT depends a lot on the three R's. (Reading, 'Riting and 'Rithmetic). I do not rememeber any physics, calculus, trigonometry, chemistry, or any advanced courses taught at 'richer schools' being on the test. Maybe we need to concentrate on preparing kids on making better SAT scores like we are doing with TASS and TAKS test. Maybe we are too busy teaching them about crap that liberals are telling us that are important. The only thing I see as an advantage of a rich school is college prep courses, such as teaching you calculus or some advanced course that will prepare you for the University (almost said college) level. Incidently my daughter is presently taking the advanced English courses and she made a better grade on the English portion of the TAKS test than all of her friends who are taking advanced college prep courses. However, we cannot totally concentrate on the three R's. A well rounded education is more important than anything. I made a 1360 on my SAT, yet I was 'smart' during high school and said I would never need typing or Spanish. That is 75% or more of my job now. Doh! Had to edit this cuz' of my typing. Doh again!

[This message has been edited by spaceaggie1975 (edited 9/8/2003 11:28p).]

Two edits, and you still didn't get the hyperlink right. Are you one of those liberal arts losers that's pounds their chest over rankings, (primarily engineering and business) when you yourself have a degree in history?

Not totally true space aggie,
I sat next to a girl my freshman year from Pittsburg, PA who got a full ride because of her SAT score....she told me she took one class her Junior or Senior year (can't remember which) that was solely devoted to training students to do well on the SAT test. It was something definitely NOT offered in my little rural 3A Texas school.
PB

of course we are not teaching kids what they should be learning. A story broke a couple years ago where a school district was planning to stop mentioning THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE USA in classrooms. No idea what happened with that one, but the point is that crazy stuff happens in our public school system. What I mean by "poor schools" are those that recieve less money from property taxes because they are located in less wealthy areas.

Did you also know that Texas A&M has a higher percentage of their incoming freshmen in both the top 10% (automatic admission, no SAT required as we've discussed) and the top quarter of their graduating classes. Therefore, your scrubs in the top half of their class had damn sure better get a high SAT score!

Essentially, we have a higher percentage of high school scholars with higher rankings, while you have a bunch of idiots that got lucky on one test on a given day. An academic “hail mary,” if you will. This platform holds about as much water as your initial point, or lack thereof I should say.

Seriously, are you a history major? The two biggest sip chodes I know both through out academic statistics without adequate understanding of how to properly interpret them. They both happened to be history majors at tu also. You don’t appear very intelligent, and actually seem to be quite vulnerable to looking stupid early and often. That’s why I ask.

Back to the Ten Percent Rule. I read an article in the Chronicle about a woman who has sent her children to a private high school because she lives in the Bellaire School District and she doesn't think her kids could compete with the "Asians." The article also talked about "White Flight" where many parents were sending their kids to "lesser" schools because they felt they had a better chance to be in the top 10 percent. Does anyone else see the irony in this? Go to a bad high school to guarantee you get into a top notch university.

I heard that the admission via the 10% rule has increased from 45% to over 70%...obviously something is wrong....doesn't give the universities enough freedom.

That said...the SAT is a test of knowledge and not IQ, although there are obvious correlations to some extent. I went to a small rural school, got a sheet-arse education, and scored under these averages. (I scored over 1400 on the GMAT after college.) Why should some Highland Park High School student that took 3 SAT prep classes and scored a 1250 be admitted before some top 10% kid from a rural high school?

I wish they could do a study as to how these students are performing once they get to school and/or get out of school......that is what matters.

[This message has been edited by sotexas (edited 9/9/2003 12:15a).]

If you make over a 32 on your ACT you get in automatically from out of state.. (finish in the top 25% of your class or something.)

him are stoopider and us, yeah

So do we need to contact our legislators to tell them to rid us of the 10% rule?
It is so frustrating that some kid from podunk high with no competition can get in before someone from a highly competitive school.
By the time my son gets to Allen HS, it will be the biggest in the state with oodles of competition. I guess I should start prepping him for the SAT now (6th grade).

ts....why is making the top 6 in a class of 60 so much easier than making the top 60 in a class of 600???

that kid from the podunk school also hasn't had the benefit of the infrastructure at a "top" high school.

i think the top 10% rule is bunk and needs to be modified...but you guys that think these top 25% kids from "top" high schools can smoke some kid that was #5 in his class and didn't have the opportunity to take calc, physics, etc. are wrong. BFD if they can smoke them on the SAT...life isn't one big SAT test (i wish it were...i'd be retired by now).

[This message has been edited by sotexas (edited 9/9/2003 8:58a).]

quote:

---

prowings: Am I smarter then most of the people at ut because I did better then that school's average? A high SAT score is correlated to having a high IQ. But correlation does not prove anything. If it is an IQ test, then why can Joe Somebody study for it and raise his/her score the next time they take it? You want to talk about a real test? How about the MCAT? Along the lines of med-school entrance crap...I have a question for you. What percent of Aggies who have a gpa at or over 3.7 get into at least one of the med-schools they apply to? The answer is 97%.

---

geez, enough with the self promotion.

Sotex,

I don't necessarily feel that way. Top 10% is top 10%. I just think that there are a lot of kids in inner city schools or backwoods schools that may be good solid students, but would not be in the top 10% at a real competitive suburban school. That's what is not fair.
I'm sure there are some extremely bright students at the above mentioned schools. They would find a way to get in no matter what.
I remember reading an article in the DMN about a girl attending UTD. She was from one of the inner-city Dallas schools. She was either the valedictorian or salutatorian and she had something like a 3.2 gpa. You'd be lucky to make the to 30% in some schools with those grades.

longhornswin:

seeing as how you have 0 hours from tu, i don't see how your opinion is warranted here

the same can probably be said for pro wings

This only proves that homosexuals and pot smokers score marginally better on the SAT and ACT.

[This message has been edited by LoudestWHOOP! (edited 9/9/2003 9:36a).]

fullflask: If I knew how to make quotes and embolden words of my choice, I would be able to lay down a serious slab of counter smack, but instead I am forced to say something like this: you suck, I rule, Im the best you are the worst, etc.