Get Schooled

By Ernest

March 5, 2009 10:17 AM | Link to this

I took a look at the rules and regulations for the Talented 20 program in Florida. It seems fairly comprehensive and attempts to close any holes that could come up. It looks as the the college/university has final say so, thus giving them flexibility to reject applicants they feel may not succeed at that school. The program does not guarantee admission to the college/university of the student’s choice, just one of the member schools. This includes the two year colleges also.

I see the goal of this to both reduce barriers for some students to attend college while also attempting to keep the best and brightest in the state. When you combine this with HOPE and the new rule that allows the transfer of college credits between state schools, Georgia is making higher education more accessible. This looks like something worthy of consideration.

By jim d

March 5, 2009 10:28 AM | Link to this

Ernest,

Honestly, there are only so many seats available. If this fills the seats and yet leaves some students out, look for legal action to follow when you have students with a 3.0 average bumping a kid from a school that has an student GPA of 3.2 or higher.

I forsee some issues down the road with this one.

By jim d

March 5, 2009 10:38 AM | Link to this

ernest correct me if i’m wrong, but the wording leaves a little to be desired. It appears to me that the legislatures clear intent is to provide for students that don’t generally score well enough to gain admittance into some of our state colleges.

to provide that certain students who apply for admission to member institutions of the University System of Georgia as freshmen and who graduate from certain public or private high schools in this state with a grade point average in the top 10 percent of such student’s graduating class shall be automatically admitted;

What this means to me is that kids not in the top 10% at schools like gwinnetts math and science charter could be bumped by a student that has a lower GPA but still qualifies in the top 10% of their school.

This one just smells bad!

By jim d

March 5, 2009 10:56 AM | Link to this

Our colleges are successful partially because they are allowed to be selective in their admittance policies, remove that ability and be prepared to see the quality of higher education lessoned, forcing some of our brightest, most promising, students to seek college educational opportunities outside of Georgia. Never to return.

Leave us not forget that even if it doesn’t look like poop, and it doesn’t smell like poop—— if it’s coming out of a baby’s rear end or our legislature - IT’S POOP! …

By V for Vendetta

March 5, 2009 11:02 AM | Link to this

I have a much better idea:

I propose a bill that will guarantee employment for all high school and college graduates who know how to breathe and eat food. Too harsh? OK, let’s just limit it to those who know how to breathe. OK, let’s throw out the word “limit” and open it up to ANY human who knows how to breathe. Is that better? Does that include everyone? We don’t want to leave anyone out. Heaven forbid we leave ANYONE out. We have to make sure that it is the most egalitarian proposal possible; it can’t exclude anyone because to exclude people is wrong. What isn’t in the best interest for everyone can’t be in the best interest of the individual, can it? Of course not! So let’s review:

• Everyone must have the same opportunities all of the time. Ability is irrelevant.

• No one should ever feel bad about anything.

• The government should make all of our decisions for us—including whether or not we can purchase certain goods on certain days.

• When in doubt, print more money.

• When in doubt, God did it. He has your back.

• If something is perceived as unfair by even one person, then we must start over and work until EVERYONE is happy.

• Individual thought is worthless; only the collective matters.

• Trust in everyone but yourself.

• Reason and logic are overrated; faith works much better.

By Ernest

March 5, 2009 11:03 AM | Link to this

All fair questions JimD! In fairness my comments were based more on what I read about Florida’s program. As Laura indicated, that program has not been as controversial and ‘seems’ to realistically provide a pathway with rules. Hopefully our legislators won’t try to reinvent the wheel but look at tried and true programs then ‘tweak’ them accordingly for our situation. I need to read the language for our proposed program however I still support the overall concept.

As I understood, though a certain percentage was guaranteed admission, students still had to meet a minimum criteria. I interpreted that to mean that the student in the 11% at school A could still get priority at UGA over the student in the 9% at School B.

By jim d

March 5, 2009 11:20 AM | Link to this

ernest,

Why in heavens name would you support such a Marxist program? Are you an Obama groupy?

You don’t really subscribe to the Marxist theory of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” do you?

By flipper

March 5, 2009 12:34 PM | Link to this

Bravo Vendetta… we are becoming a country of whiny 2-year-old bedwetters.

By DB

March 5, 2009 1:47 PM | Link to this

I really don’t see the point. Let’s face it, the top 10% of kids generally get in wherever they want, anyway - so what problem, exactly, is this bill solving? Would this mean that kids at magnet schools would be at a disadvantage — where you collect the talented kids in a particular area? What I do foresee is that kids would avoid AP and honors classes in order to solidify their top 10%

I think this is trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.

By jim d

March 5, 2009 1:57 PM | Link to this

DB,

Wow we rarely agree!

This is not only an attempt to solve a non-existant problem, but an attempt to cause problems.

By jim d

March 5, 2009 2:08 PM | Link to this

here’s a helluva thought.

Would this bills passage mean that the top 10% of the kids at schools like the G.I.V.E Center in Gwinnett County would be guaranteed a seat in one of Georgia’s colleges??

seems rather a wasted seat to me.

By Reality

March 5, 2009 3:39 PM | Link to this

I totally disagree with this in priciple. The State should not force colleges to “force” them to take any student.

What about certain high schools with tremendous grade inflation? What about certain high schools in areas with low performing students? Colleges will be “forced” to accept them even though they may have a 900 on the SAT?

By lyncoln

March 5, 2009 4:00 PM | Link to this

Wow, I just read the text of the bill and I’m convinced it’s horrible as currently written.

The current proposal requires the school to accept a student that was top 10%, graduated within 2 years prior, was a resident of GA for the past few years, and has a college prep diploma.

After the student is accepted the school may then require the student to attend summer or other remedial classes as determined by the school.

The school cannot refuse a student as being unprepared/unqualified. They must accept the student and then provide for remedial help to get the student up to speed.

And we thought different public schools were overcrowded before, this will explode the student populations for many schools (at least for the first year while some students struggle to keep HOPE and not fail out). This bill needs a major overhaul before it reach a state that would be reasonable to pass into law.

By jim d

March 5, 2009 4:02 PM | Link to this

Damn——-Looks like i agree with almost everyone on this issue.

How wierd is that?

By DB

March 5, 2009 4:11 PM | Link to this

Gee, jim d, if we’re agreeing, then maybe I need to rethink this?! JK!!

No, in this case, I think we can ALL agree: Dumb idea.

By jim d

March 5, 2009 4:27 PM | Link to this

DB,

Or perhaps I should reconsider since I’m generally the contrarian on these blogs————————-NAW, it’s still dumb legislation. ;-)

By chuck allison

March 5, 2009 6:37 PM | Link to this

This bill is stupid. If you can’t score high enough to get into college, we will guarantee you a spot anyway. If you can’t pay your mortgage, the government will give you a bail out. If you can’t get a job, we will just extend your benefits.

If you want to lie in bed, we will come and cut your grass for you. Don’t worry. Just let us know if you need anything else.

By Coop

March 5, 2009 6:44 PM | Link to this

V, You have been on a tear the last few days…love it!

By Because It Matters

March 5, 2009 6:53 PM | Link to this

The time for exclusive admittance policies has passed. The United States cannot keep up with China, India, and other countries who make education a high priority, unless we begin policies that educate more, not less people.

We need to fix the middle and high schools so that students can begin focusing on careers earlier in life. Schools and the curriculum are old and boring. Schools must learn to capture the attention of students. Past generation just went through the motions, the present generation is likely to drop out, or barely make it.

In the 21 Century, college and education is going to be a lifelong process. The idea that we take a few young people, educate them and then survive as a country is a prescription for becoming a banana republic, with a advantaged class, and the poor.

Yes ind some way to recognize those top performers, yes incentivize performance, but recognize at the end of the process, we need to educate each kid better, and encourage adults to return to school to finish, or retrain, or reorient.

By lynn d

March 5, 2009 7:27 PM | Link to this

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/03/05//0305topten.html

Isn’t working so well in Texas so of course we would copy it.

Keep in mind all you Bulldog fans that the President of the University says the 10 percent rule is threatening athletics.

By zoe

March 5, 2009 7:29 PM | Link to this

There was an article I read about the Texas top 10% law that said that students were actually transferring from my competitive schools to ones that were considered easier. Also, Texas is apparently trying to amend their law. I find it interesting that Georgia would be so interested in trying to emulate a program that its creators have apparently decided needs fixing.

If Georgia does go this route, AP and IB need to all be curved, not just B grades and below. As it currently stands, the .5 curve added to AP and IB grades doesn’t count for an A grade so a 4.0 in an AP class is just a 4.0, but a 3.0 in an AP class is curved to a 3.5, how fair is that?

By catlady

March 5, 2009 7:29 PM | Link to this

The devil is in the details. Would this rely on only GPA? On a sliding GPA and SAT? I have seen this increase minority representation temporarily (its usual goal), only to have the students drop out. Like the marginal HOPE student, a dropout is a waste of taxpayer money.

Is it a worthy way to reach an access goal? Why not improve the less demanding high schools so that a top 10% student at one school might be roughly equal to a top 10% student somewhere else.

Also, at my local high school, that 20% means at most 40 kids would be “guaranteed” to be accepted somewhere. Well, most 2 year schools take all comers anyway now.

If we want to give everyone an equal chance, shouldn’t we be putting effort into improving K-12?

Our former Chancellor, Stephen Portch, tried to set up a tier program like the University of California/Cal State system.

By George P. Burdell

March 5, 2009 8:46 PM | Link to this

As long as we have good schools and bad schools we will have have a large separation between the rich and the poor.

By AlreadySheared

March 5, 2009 9:05 PM | Link to this

This sounds like a good bill. We cannot afford to exclude our best and brightest from our flagship universities, and not everyone’s parents can afford to live in a neighborhood with high-performing high schools.

Example: Suppose you must choose to admit either Bill or Fred to Georgia Tech. Both have 3.9 GPAs. Bill scored 1250 on his SATs, Fred scored 1200. Is it Bill hands down?

Suppose Bill is the only child of 2 married college graduates who care deeply about his education and future success, and that he has been afforded every opportunity for growth and enrichment. 1250 puts Bill in the upper third of his top-notch suburban high school.

Furthermore, suppose Fred is one of 4 children of a single, high school dropout mother, resides in a drug-infested trailer park, and has never left his home county, much less the state. He finishes his homework by porchlight, because the other 3 kids need to go to bed before he’s done. An SAT score of 1200 makes Fred kind of a freak in his podunk, rural school.

So really, in recruiting the best and the brightest, Bill’s your guy? Not Fred? Fred didn’t quite measure up, tough luck, bleep him?

REALLY?!

By Mishap

March 5, 2009 9:13 PM | Link to this

In my metro area HS, I wasn’t in the top 10% at graduation due to some serious slacking my senior year and taking 4 out of the total 8 AP’s I took that year. I spent my 1st year in GT before transferring to an Ivy League. The valedictorian in contrast chose the easiest classes offered in order to maximize grade inflation and last I heard she went to a mediocre out of state school for a non-technical major. Beyond having exceptional ability to grade grub, she wasn’t that capable a student and was caught cheating off me on several occasions. I don’t think she even had the SAT to get into GT.

Effectively I wouldn’t have a spot at GT simply b/c of the crowding out effect caused by the 10%’ers taking all the space regardless of other merit…high math/science scores etc. By removing the school’s ability to select students, the top several schools would instead be crippled by a flood of 10% of the entire state’s schools piling in. This instead causes a distinct reversion of the increase in quality that HOPE has created. HOPE lowered the cost bar of staying in state which drove up competition, causing GT, UGA and many other schools to drastically improve the quality of their students. I recall when I was in 7th grade, I had a significantly higher SAT than the avg UGA freshman. Amazing how much 15yrs or so of subsidized tuition can improve a school.

Legislators should instead focus on how to better foster the GA colleges to retain talent after graduation. Many of the top students graduating from solid GA colleges are lured away to other states which reduces the effectiveness of such large investments in local schools. GA should have their own research triangle instead of pandering to relatively low paying manufacturing jobs. Well educated, highly paid people tend to have well educated kids who feed back into the system.

By Tony

March 5, 2009 9:48 PM | Link to this

It is very unfortunate that our legislature plays games like this with its citizens. There should be no guarantees about admission to college for anyone. Students should earn their spots on the college rosters. We already give away too many seats to athletes who can’t even make more than 800 on SATs. The colleges should be able to admit the candidates they deem to be most appropriate for their programs.

By None

March 5, 2009 9:54 PM | Link to this

This program has really caused problems in TX. Grade inflation means that WAY too many people are qualifying for free tuition and automatic admission. Kids on the borderline or who might have specific skills (but not be so good at everything) have no chance of being accepted since all of the spots are taken by these guaranteed admissions.

By D-W00D Student

March 5, 2009 10:46 PM | Link to this

This is a horrible idea. My school doesn’t rank, and school’s shouldn’t in the first place. Top 30% at Chamblee, Dunwoody, or Wesleyan is better than the Top 10% at Towers, Jonesboro, or South Atlanta.

By AlreadySheared

March 5, 2009 11:38 PM | Link to this

So, Bill, err I mean D-W00D Student,

Hit a little too close to home, did I? Maybe there’s someone at South Atlanta who would eat your lunch if he/she got the chance to work against some real competition.

By DB

March 6, 2009 12:49 AM | Link to this

@Already Sheared: I don’t know what schools you’re familiar with, but frankly, a 1250 on the SAT would not be a top 10% score in most schools I am familiar with. And, really, with grade inflation, a 3.9 is a great score, but several years ago, the top 10% at my son’s school had an average GPA of 3.94 — which, I think, was fairly well validated by the number of AP Scholars with Distinction in that group (kids who score a 4 or 5 on five or more AP exams). At many private schools and many high-achieving public schools, a 1250 would be just average — probably the mean score of 40th-60th percentile students. If someone is getting a 3.9 in a realistic academic environment, an expected score is 1400 or above, easily. At that level, you have kids who are taking the SAT for the third time just for fun, to see how close they can come to a 1600 (or 2400, as it’s measured these days). The STAR students are scoring 1580s and above, depending on the school. Interestingly enough, the STAR student has to have a) the highest SAT from the spring Junior year exam, and b) be in the top 10% (which means that they’ve had instances of kids who were top scorers and not even in the top 10%.)

In your scenario, Fred, with a 3.9 and a 1200 GPA, would definitely get into college somewhere — it’s not a question of him not qualifying for any college. Underprivileged and with a low-scoring FAFSA, he’d probably qualify for numerous grants and waivers.

By V for Vendetta

March 6, 2009 8:10 AM | Link to this

AlreadySheared, you’re absolutely right. It’s not fair to someone who lives in a poorly performing school district. Because of this, we should reserve at least 50% of UGA’s incoming freshmen spots for kids who live in undesirable school districts.

Let me be blunt in response to your scenario you proposed yesterday. You asked, “So really, in recruiting the best and the brightest, Bill’s your guy? Not Fred? Fred didn’t quite measure up, tough luck, bleep him?”

In a word—yes.

There are a number of problems with your misguided example. First, Fred’s performance at the top of his class at his “podunk” school means nothing when compared to the top high schools in the state. Fred could transfer to one of those schools, but he would find a severe drop in his GPA if he did so. You could argue that the SAT and ACT would be arbiters of achievement, giving a more accurate picture of ability level, but there are problems with that line of thinking as well. Second, no one ever said that poor podunk Fred couldn’t go to college. If his scores were indeed that competitive, Fred should have no trouble being accepted to a state school. Achievement does not translate to automatic acceptance into UGA or GT—nor should it. Let the schools decide who to let it; it should be their right to do so. Third, and the real crux of the matter, is the fact that this type of socialistic control is unacceptable. As I’ve said previously, we already have enough socialism in the public school system; we don’t need more government control.

AlreadySheared, maybe this topic his a little too close to home for yourself. D-WOOD Student was absolutely righ in his/her assessment of school performance: The schools he/she mentioned are FAR more rigorous institutions than the schools on the south side of Atlanta. You can’t point to whatever reason you like, but the proof is in the performance. If you want to freely dispense sympathy to every unfortunate person you meet, start a soup kitchen. Leave the running of the real world to those of us with backbones.

By V for Vendetta

March 6, 2009 8:25 AM | Link to this

lol, I’m tired. sorry about the typos everyone.

By jim d

March 6, 2009 8:39 AM | Link to this

V,

have a rough night? lol

By AlreadySheared

March 6, 2009 9:16 AM | Link to this

V,

I never used the word “fair” - fair has nothing to do with it. My original comment was We cannot afford to exclude our best and brightest from our flagship universities.

The issue here is hypothesis testing. The task at hand is, or should be, to determine in advance who will succeed at our flagship universities and who will fail. IF we had some set of measurements we could take to predict this with 100% accuracy, then the whole discussion of HOW to figure out WHO to let in would be rendered moot - we’d use the 100% accurate test. To do otherwise would be wasting precious seats on kids who could never graduate - not “fair” to students who would succeed, or for that matter to the fore-ordained failures.

You want to confer advantage on your kids so that they can be successful - me too. So we make sure they go to good schools, work with them and their teachers when they have trouble, get any other outside help they may need - this is all good.

At the college level, this degree of parental involvement will end, or at least it should.
Don’t try to pretend that, when you’re comparing Bill and Fred’s 1250 and 1200 above, you’re comparing apples to apples, because we both know you’re not.

At my kids’ elementary school, the “gifted” criteria indicate that gifted students should be at or above the 95th percentile intelligence - and yet approximately one third of the students are “gifted” (to parry any ad hominem attacks in advance, both of my kids are among the “gifted”). REALLY - 33% of the kids are in the top 5%? I find this to be statistically wildly unlikely.

Similarly, you assert that at some schools 30% of the kids can succeed at UGA or ma Tech, and at other schools it’s 0%, or .1%? I contend that

1) the test that you’re currently using needs some refinement - this is not a likely distribution of innate ability, and

2) you, sir, with your focus on test scores that we know are skewed by socio-economic status and academic environment in addition to student achievement and potential, are the one who is hung up on being “fair”.

Once again, as a society, we cannot afford to exclude our best and brightest from our flagship universities. We need all the talent we can get - even talent that has been obscured by lousy parenting and rotten schools.

If being in the top 10% of a high school class is the too high a number to be a good predictor of success, I’m guessing that there is a right number - 8%, 5%, 3%? We owe it to ourselves, and our economic competitiveness as a nation to figure out the right number, and use it accordingly.

By AlreadySheared

March 6, 2009 10:21 AM | Link to this

Aww, no response to my rational and thoughtful argument from the blustering blowhards on this blog?

Far be it from me to have the last word. After clicking the link on the proposed changes in Texas, let’s hear from Sen. Royce West, D-Dallas on whether “top 10%” is a good predictor of success in college:

“West also pointed out that top 10 percent students have higher GPAs their first year of college than non-top 10 percent students, according to a higher education study.”

By V for Vendetta

March 6, 2009 10:49 AM | Link to this

AlreadySheared, I’m not ignoring the enormous impact that bad parenting, low socioeconomic status, and cultural differences have on the education of a child.

I’m just saying I don’t care.

A have should never have to apologize for being a have. Similarly, being a have not does not give you some type of inalienable right or mortgage on the abilities or opportunities of the haves. If a student is born into such an environment and is as obviously smart as the examples that you’ve constructed, then he/she should make every effort available to them to succeed in spite of their surroundings. Every student—and child, for that matter—is born into a unique situation. We cannot control the situation nor can we somehow atone for it post facto. It is not society’s job to level the playing field, to create egalitarian opportunities for all at the expense of anyone.

A student should be accountable to himself or herself. They should not need charity or handouts from everyone else nor should everyone else be required to provide them. If they are awarded some type of aid in the form of a scholarship or grant, it should be inrecognition of their virtues—not in pity of their “need.” I have a real problem recognizing the top ten percent of ALL schools in the same way. The schools in this state are NOT equal; schools never will be; schools SHOULDN’T be. I’ve seen plenty of kids pull themselves up by their bootstraps and succeed. I’ve also seen many silver spoon kids spectacularly fail. Both did so of their own volition.

Your “rational and thoughtful” response was anything but. Perhaps it was thoughtful since you seem to be letting your feelings and emotions dictate your analysis; however, that contradicts the word “rational.”

By AlreadySheared

March 6, 2009 11:07 AM | Link to this

V,

Stop 1) listening to the voices in your head and therefore 2) talking past my argument to refute things I didn’t say.

Top 10% or top 5% or whatever in one’s class IS an accomplishment. A decade-plus of experience in Texas shows a positive correlation between high class rank and success in college - apparently even stronger than SAT scores.

So WHO is getting emotional here?

By V for Vendetta

March 6, 2009 11:27 AM | Link to this

AlreadySheared, emotional? Hardly. You might want to check the ‘net. There seems to be an equal number of articles and sources supporting and bemoaning Texas’s plan.

Let me distill this down for you: Being top 10% in a class does not make you deserving of anything except respect. It doesn’t prove anything, and it’s measure is not equal across the schools in this state. Therefore, it should NOT be used as an arbiter of college acceptance. Is that clear enough?

By AlreadySheared

March 6, 2009 1:14 PM | Link to this

V,

So, if a statistic “doesn’t prove anything, and it’s measure is not equal across the schools in this state”, then ” it should NOT be used as an arbiter of college acceptance”?

I think we’re both very clear that GRADES are also a “measure is not equal across the schools in this state” - does that mean that they also “should NOT be used as an arbiter of college acceptance”?

I’ll reiterate my previous reasoning since you seem to have confused it with “fairness” or justice or “a have [apologizing] for being a have” or “a have not [gaining] some type of inalienable right ” - NONE of which is what I have written.

The issue here is hypothesis testing: using the available statistics that best predict success in college. If class standing is reliable predictor of college success (apparently MORE reliable than the other measures that Texas uses to admit students), it should be used to help determine admissions.

In the spirit of compromise, I propose we start with the top 1% from each Georgia high school. Admit the top 1% ANYWHERE they want to go, and track their performance to see how they do. Over time, increase the top X% as needed to ensure that our most capable students have the opportunity to develop at the highest possible level.

By V for Vendetta

March 6, 2009 1:53 PM | Link to this

AlreadySheared, you’re right: class standing is a predictor of success in college. However, you can’t honestly say that the top 1%, or 5%, or 10% of a class at Brookwood high school in Gwinnett is even remotely comparable to Jonesboro high school in Clayton. The top 1% at Jonesboro would struggle to place within the top 20% at schools like Brookwood, Lassiter, and Northview.

So, ultimately, it DOES become an issue of charity to say that the top X% at ANY school gain automatic acceptance into the college of their choice—which is precisely why I’m opposed to it.

By jim d

March 6, 2009 2:07 PM | Link to this

V,

You obviously don’t understand the socialistic view point.

You need to back up and buy a ticket on the Obama Express. (do not pass go, do not collect $200 until you adjust yor attitude)

By AlreadySheared

March 6, 2009 2:30 PM | Link to this

V! We are extremely close to agreement!

Just as teachers are MUCH more interested in what students know at the end of a class than at the beginning, I am MUCH more interested in comparing 1%Jonesboro to 20%Brookwood at the END of their college educations than at the beginning.

I think the reason 1%J lags 20%B has much to do with the calibre of instruction and greater peer competition 20%B has experienced during high school, rather than any intrinsic lack of ability on the part of 1%J.

I think it’s likely that after 4 years of better instruction and tougher competition, 1%J might end up with better grades than 20%B. I would LOVE to see how the top 1% of graduates from every high school in the start END UP after 4 years of a first class college education, wouldn’t you?

If it turns out that the top 1% from lousy schools (i.e., their standardized test scores don’t measure up) end up outperforming the average UGA or Tech student admitted under current standards, what would that tell you?

By AlreadySheared

March 6, 2009 2:36 PM | Link to this

jim d,

You obviously wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a Type I and Type II error if they walked up and bit you on the bottom.

This discussion has nothing to do with socialism, and everything to do with statistics.

By Ernest

March 6, 2009 2:40 PM | Link to this

I wanted to jump back in as the exchange between AlreadySheared and V has become quite interesting. I’ll say again, if Georgia created a program similar to Florida’s Talented 20 with transparent guidelines in place, I could support it. I see this as creating a large pool of candidates for admissions to one of our public colleges/universities. It eliminates any preferences for race, color, national origin, or sex. It allows schools to focus on each candidate’s academic ability. It should not guarantee the candidate will get into the school of their choice but one of the public colleges/universities in the state. I don’t see this as ‘excluding’ candidates from ‘high achieving’ schools. I see it as providing opportunities to more students overall while attempting to keep our best and brightest in the state.

Maybe I’m being naive (I’ve been told that several times) but couldn’t this also make our K-12 schools more competitive and subsequently stronger? HOPE is provided for ANYONE that achieves a 3.0 GPA. This program could provide a set percentage REGARDLESS of GPA. I interpret that as creating a spirited competition to be in that designated percentage. Factor in SAT/ACT scores with this and you really could have a better measure of possible future success.

They say the greatest predictors of academic success are the student’s socioeconomic status and education level of their mother. President Obama indicated in his address to Congress that 85% of jobs will require education beyond a HS diploma. Could this be seen as an attempt to ensure Georgia develops an educated workforce that can compete in the global workplace?

By ScienceTeacher671

March 6, 2009 5:51 PM | Link to this

This looks like a solution in search of a problem…how many students in the top 10% of their class are denied admission to Georgia colleges?

By DB

March 8, 2009 12:31 PM | Link to this

@V and Already Sheared, I’ve been enjoying your reasonably civilized debate regarding class rankings, etc. But I made a comment earlier and ScienceTeacher671 reitereated: The top 10% of almost any school pretty much goes wherever they want, anyway. They aren’t being denied anything. Damn the HOPE and full speed ahead: many of them flee Georgia for the Ivy League, UVa, UNC, Duke, Vanderbilt, MIT, Northwestern, Berkeley, etc. Guaranteeing them admission to a Georgia school isn’t the problem — they HAVE admission pretty much wherever they want. HOPE might encourage them to stay, but in the long run, outside of perhaps UGA or GT, HOPE isn’t going to coax a Top10 into going to a school like Fort Valley State University, now, are they? Most of those schools I mentioned earlier throw money at talented students, too, to overcome the lure of HOPE.