Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

[Bevo1970]

This thread was originally submitted by member = Lancehorn
This post was made just before going to the new 2015 platform. Post as normal after it if you wish.

Lancehorn
(1000+ posts)
02/12/15 04:51 PM
Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

As a UT alum and a father of a daughter who will be attending next fall, both who entered based upon academic achievement as opposed to political nepotism, I am sickened and ashamed of President Powers. I had taken a wait and see attitude with all of the accusations earlier on, but it is apparent now that our administration has been doing political favors for kids based upon who their mommies and daddies are as opposed to their own merit. There are kids who deserved to go to UT and were left out because spots were reserved for political legacies it appears. If it is proven true, then I am okay with Powers and others not only being forced out (Powers apparently knew this was coming anyway) but also prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law with any regards to fraud and public monies. This is a Public State University, not a private institution. The best available students should be accepted based upon merit, not bloodline or Crony symbiotic favors for votes. This cheapens our degrees.

Some people will want to excuse this because nobody wants to see our University in a poor light, but to do so is akin to Aggy quietly turning their head with Sherrill or The Chicago Mayor championing cheating in Little League.

This is serious because it undermines the whole purpose of the University and in my opinion is worse than what was going on with UNC athletics etc. it is pretty obvious now that there is truth to the reports and that it has taken place.


Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/12/15 05:57 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Hornfans discussuon on Powers 6 months ago

Some alumni have been aware of who Powers is and what he stands for (corruption and mismanagement) for a long time. Others let their hatred of Rick Perry blind them to the truth that both Perry and Powers are bad. The enemy of our enemy was not our friend.

Powers should have been fired a long time ago, but the report details that some of the regents were in on the corruption with him. Im glad to see many UT alumni have had their eyes opened today.

Never blindly support someone. It's not enough that an aggy like rick perry is against him or her. Find out who that someone is, then decide.

Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/12/15 05:59 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Rereading the thread from 6 months ago... IvanDiabloHorn deserves some love.

Also just occurred to me how sad it is that so many UT Alumni quickly sided with non Texan, Cal and Harvard educated Bill Powers over UT ALUM Wallace Hall.

Crockett
(2500+ posts)
02/12/15 09:20 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I've taken a deeper look at things and agree now getting Powers out of the way was not a bad idea. I have a lot more respect for Wallace Hall than I used to.

Assuming the worst about Perry has generally only failed me because I lacked enough imagination. However, Hall is independent, courageous and has the best interests of UT at heart.


theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 01:02 AM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

On the face of it, I agree. However, my guess is that you can trace this problem back way before Powers and is likely something that happens at other state universities as well.

Since every year the same equivalent thing occurs due to federal law, this does not bother me one bit. I believe it was a total of 73 students during his tenure. Eliminate the built in bias which is provided by federal law, and then I have a problem with this behavior.

pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/13/15 04:25 AM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
UT System Chancellor Bill McRaven said Thursday afternoon that he'd read the report a half-dozen times and that he'd be taking no disciplinary action against Powers or any other university officials. He said there was no willful misconduct and no criminal activity occurred.

"I came in. I looked at the report. I read the report. I made my decision solely on the words that are in the report," McRaven said.




The Link

You really should not claim "fraud" or "criminal activity" without reading the actual report and knowing what you are talking about. I bet you voted for Perry more than once. You are certainly his target demographic.

 

[Bevo1970]

Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 09:55 AM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
Others let their hatred of Rick Perry blind them to the truth that both Perry and Powers are bad. The enemy of our enemy was not our friend….

Never blindly support someone. It's not enough that an aggy like rick perry is against him or her. Find out who that someone is, then decide.





Then later on in this thread, someone in response to a poster who was upset about institutional policies that favor the rich and powerful over the poor and powerless:

In reply to:
I bet you voted for Perry more than once. You are certainly his target demographic.





So you are against Rick Perry, but for our republican legislature getting their unqualified, republican offspring into UT at the expense of poor and middle class kids of diverse backgrounds?


pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/13/15 11:20 AM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Did you read the report?

Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 12:05 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Yes. Perry's wrongdoing with respect to wanting to make Texas a community college is a separate wrongdoing from Powers, the Regents and the Legislature's wrongdoing in using their influence to admit unqualified kids. The biggest wrongdoing by Powers was the same as Nixon's and Clinton's. They did not tell the truth, misled and covered up. (To avoid derailing the thread, obviously, not all of those coverups were covering up events of the same level of importance.)

We do not know the total extent in this case because documents were destroyed. Powers was not forthcoming because he knew what he was doing was not right. His biggest supporters in the legislature were the ones he helped. The reason no action is being taken against him is that the cronyism extends to those that have the power to take action (the regents and legislature). When someone like Powers is against transparency at a public institution like UT, something is wrong. If you are not doing something wrong, you would not be against open records at a public institution much less from A REGENT! (It is ludicrous to me that a president could deny a regent open records. That is like a city manager denying city records to the city council.)

I look forward to new, better leadership at UT going forward. I would like to see leadership that is honest and open, especially in admissions. I would like to see leadership that focuses on funding professors, TAs, research, etc and cuts all the waste that goes to excessive and overpaid administrative jobs. Unfortunately, this will probably not occur (if it does) until most of Perry's regents are gone. Hopefully, Abbott will be up for the job of improving the UT system. I do not know if he will be, but he is not Rick Perry so that is a start.

The sad part is that Powers successfully used his ideological war on higher education with Perry (who was clearly wrong on the issue) to con Texas alumni into thinking that his corruption and mismanagement were part of that war when they were clearly separate issues. Unfortunately, many Texas Alumni are still defending him because they either directly benefited from Powers or are still buying into the con.

IvanDiabloHorn
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 12:52 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I read the entire report.

Powers and Brazzil need to be terminated today. Cigarroa was right when he gave Powers one week to either quit or be fired. There should be no law professor position available for Powers at UT Law. Shameful. I would opine Cigarroa was over ruled and probably why he resigned.
Cigarroa might be the right candidate for president of UT.


The fact that special admissions hold lists were shredded after admissions were granted should be enough to terminate everyone involved. Doesn't matter if others did it in the past, it involved destroying admissions records.
Probably why the head of admissions bailed about that time for a lesser job at Michigan.

pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/13/15 02:14 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I guess it is a good thing McRaven outranks and reads better than either of your then (BTW I am 99.9999% certain you are both lying about reading the report).

IvanDiabloHorn
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 02:59 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I read the entire report and will reply with almost the same
retort: I am 99.999% percent sure you did not read the entire report or you would be incensed enough to boot Powers today. Purposely destroying records to cover up wrong doing will get you fired 99.99999% of the time.
Not being forthright with your boss will usually get you canned also. What is even more egregious is denial of admission to students in favor of political cronyism with an abuse of power over admission administrators by Powers.
The lower number of application holds scrutinized was a small percent of actual application holds that are known.
Since the application hold records were destroyed, the report numbers are only what the investigators could find. If an application was held and then all records of the hold were destroyed followed the applicant being granted admission, HOW WOULD ANYONE KNOW ?

 

[Bevo1970]

pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/13/15 03:04 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

You are lying about what was done. Why do this?

The records were routinely shredded.

Why are you lying about what happened?

pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/13/15 03:11 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

The primary reason I know both of you have not read the actual report is because you keep parroting false claims.

How about a fun question. Should McRaven be fired because he actually read the report and concluded the opposite of you two hacks?

IvanDiabloHorn
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 03:19 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Not lying about anything. Read the report. They were shredded after being used for cronyism admission and abuse of power by Powers. Application hold records being shredded routinely is definitely closing an admissions paper trail. There is no record of the notes on the hold cards that determined admission, especially over an applicant denied admission that had no political or legacy influence.
That's like Nixon saying he shredded his tapes routinely, but don't worry, there was nothing taped worth hearing.

IvanDiabloHorn
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 03:27 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I would opine MCRaven is probably going along with the decision that was made prior to assuming his position regarding Powers leaving in June and teaching law.

I would also opine MCRaven would have came to same decision Cigarroa did when Powers was given the option to resign or be terminated.

I find it interesting that anyone reading the report would have any support for Powers.

pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/13/15 03:30 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

You continue to lie about what was actually done. I wonder why this is?

Do you have any bias that you care to disclose?


n64ra
(500+ posts)
02/13/15 04:06 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Is there a link to the full report? All I see is quotes in the Texas Tribune article such a this one:

"While it is impossible to conclude with absolute certainty from a review of the data and selected files alone that any one particular applicant benefited from undue influence or pressure exerted on the admissions process, it is readily apparent that certain applicants are admitted at the instigation of the president over the assessment of the admissions office," the report states.

And Powers and his chief of staff, Nancy Brazzil, "misled" a previous inquiry into outside influence on admissions by answering specific questions but making "material omissions," the new report found.

The part sounds bad:
it is readily apparent that certain applicants are admitted at the instigation of the president over the assessment of the admissions office

 

[Bevo1970]

Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 04:13 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I not only read the report, but I actually copied excerpts out of the report and formatted them in preparation for debate. I was expecting something better than "you are lying about reading the report."

This weak, simplistic argument strategy is poor for the following reasons:
1. The person using it has no knowledge of whether or not someone else read the report.
2. It is factually inaccurate as I did, indeed, read the report.
3. Fails to actually address the merits of the debate.
I can only logically conclude that the pro powers position is so weak, this is all they have.

The disturbing thing about pro powers individuals, is they can never tell anything substantive about why Powers is a good president. All they have is "I do not like Rick Perry" which tells me nothing about Powers. I would love to know, what individually about Bill Powers, makes him so endearing.

I have based my opinion on the following finding from the report. I would like to note there are additional findings that support my position, but I got tired of formatting last night.
From Page 3:

In reply to:


However, based on a review of the 77 letters of recommendation (pertaining to 16 law school applicants and 61 undergraduate applicants) that were sent directly to or that copied President Powers outside the standard process, the report concluded that admissions decisions were likely impacted in some cases by the letters of recommendation. In particular, the admission rates for applicants to whom the letters applied were significantly higher than for the rest of the applicant populations. The report found that the disparities in admission rates could not reasonably be explained by factors of individual merit, such as grades, test scores, and other holistic considerations.





Page 12-13

In reply to:


When an inquiry or recommendation concerning a candidate for admission is forwarded to the President’s Office from a “friend of the university” or other “person of influence” – which may include a public official, a member of the Board of Regents or UT-System official, an important alumnus or alumna, a major donor, a faculty member or other UT-Austin official – a long-standing practice has been to place a “hold” on that candidate’s application. The purpose of a hold is to indicate that a negative decision may not become final until the party which placed the hold is notified.

Since 2009, certain hold designations have been entered on UT-Austin’s mainframe computer with the designation of “ Q,” “ L,” or “ B.” A designation of “Q hold” indicates the ap plication is being monitored by the President’s Office.

Q-hold volumes have escalated considerably over the past several years. Under President Powers, Q holds have totaled as many as 300 applicants of interest per year. The majority of holds appear to be based on requests from Texas legislators and members of the Board of Regents, while others are instigated by requests from the Chancellor’s Office, donors and alumni.





Page 13

In reply to:


The existence of holds combined with end-of-cycle meetings between the Admissions Office and the President’s Office, during which final decisions are made on all hold candidates not already admitted, has caused increasing levels of tension between the Admissions Office and the President’s Office. In recent years, President Powers, acting through his Chief of Staff , has at times made holistic determinations that differed from that of the Admissions Office. Consequently, it appears that a select handful of applicants each year are admitted over the objection of the Admissions Office. The President’s Office has acknowledged to Kroll that this has occurred, but insists that decisions are always made with the “best interests of the university” in mind.





(Just like Oliver North or the Plumbers at Watergate had the best interests of America in mind.)

In reply to:


Because written records or notes of meetings and discussions between the President’s Office and Admissions are not maintained and are typically shredded, it is not known in particular cases why some applicants with sub-par academic credentials were placed on a hold list and eventually admitted. Rarely was it discussed why particular applicants needed to be admitted, or what, if any, connections the applicants had with persons of influence. But President Powers acknowledged to Kroll th at “relational factors” do occasionally play an important role in determinations to admit some applicants who might not have otherwise been admitted.

Over a six-year period, applicants on whom a hold of any type was placed were admitted 72% of the time, compared to an overall admission rate of approximately 40%. Texas residents accounted for 82% of all applicants placed on a hold list. Email correspondence reviewed by Kroll further confirmed that a relationship with university officials has on occasion provided applicants a competitive boost in the admissions process.

 

[Bevo1970]

Page 14

In reply to:


Several other important constituents are at least partially complicit for this ad-hoc system of special admissions. For example, the Board of Regents sends approximately 50 to 70 names of applicants to the President’s Office each year. Similarly, many names are placed on a hold list as a result of requests from the Chancellor’s Office, the UT -System Office of Government Relations, major donors and alumni. In most years, there are certain legislators and Regents whose names are noted more than others. It would appear that these other bodies send inquiries concerning student applicants to the President’s Office with the expectation that such applicants be closely monitored by that office.

Kroll notes that the existence of holds and watch lists, and the end-of-cycle meetings between the President’s Office and the Admissions Office, were not disclosed or specifically addressed by President Powers and his Chief of Staff during an internal Admissions Inquiry previously conducted by the UT-System. Although President Powers and his Chief of Staff appear to have answered the specific questions asked of them with technical precision, it appears that by their material omissions they misled the inquiry. At minimum, each failed to speak with the candor and forthrightness expected of people in their respective positions of trust and leadership





Page 38

In reply to:


One concern with admitting less-qualified applicants simply because they are connected to persons of influence is that it becomes a sort of “affirmative action for the advantaged.” As one former high –level university official said, “Admissions are an allocation of opportunities. You don’t mess with that.” One Regent indicated that, even if it violates no specific rule or policy, “It has always been wrong to ever allocate admission slots to a state institution on anything other than merit.” A ccording to another Regent, when UT-Austin publicly advertises certain procedures and standards and then fails to comply with those standards, it is essentially “defrauding the public.” Yet another Regent opined that “it is bad public policy to have anything other than a clean admissions process” and that holistic admissions “are generally thought to encompass merit-based considerations that cannot be measured as easily as grades and test scores.” According to this Regent, there is a “very clear expectation that influence is not a factor in admissions” and that “merit and diversity are the only legitimate considerations.”





Page 39

In reply to:


In June 2014, a former high-level Admissions official informed then Chancellor Cigarroa and General Counsel Sharphorn that concerns of outside pressure and influence on the Admissions Office are “real and probably worse” than imagined. He said that there was frequent pressure placed on the Admissions Office by the President’s Office to admit certain applicants, particularly those connected to influential people who the president had an interest in. This occurred under past presidents, according to the former official, but became particularly acute under President Powers.





Page 40

In reply to:


The added involvement and pressure from the President’s Office coincided with Powers becoming president and moving such things as football ticket distribution and other functions to the jurisdiction of the president (it had previously been handled by the Office of the Vice President for Legal Affairs at UT Austin). There are instances in which applicants do not succeed in the standard admissions process and the President’s Office will request, and in some cases direct, that certain files be reviewed again.

In most instances, when pressure to admit a questionable applicant is placed on Admissions by the President’s Office, it is usually in the form of, “Can you please look carefully at this applicant and see if there is some way to admit the person?”





Page 43

In reply to:


For the past several years, the Directors of Admission have provided some push back to the President’s Office on the desired admissions of certain applicants. The Directors of Admission saw it as their job to defend the Admissions Office evaluations and to ensure consistency in and integrity of the admissions process. In some instances, when the Admissions Directors stood their ground, Nancy Brazzil would ask, “Do we need to talk to Bill [Powers]?” In a few cases, a Director said yes. Then, sometime after the meeting, the President’s Office called the Admissions Office and said, “Nancy talked to Bill and we have to do this.”

Efforts were made to minimize paper trails and written lists during this end-of-cycle process. At one meeting, the administrative assistants tried not keeping any notes, but this proved difficult, so they took notes and later shredded them. One administrative assistant usually brought to these meetings a stack of index cards that were subsequently destroyed.





Page 61

In reply to:


In four cases, given the low grades and test scores of the applicants, as well as in most instances a mediocre holistic review evaluation (as indicated by the PAI), it appears likely that political connections had at least some influence on the decisions to admit these applicants. Two applicants with close ties to state legislators had very low high school grades (GPA range of 1.8 to 2.2) combined with SAT scores in the 800s (combined math and verbal). Neither of these candidates had any other obvious holistic attributes, other than positive letters of recommendation referencing the applicants’ ties to the legislators. The other two applicants in this pool had slightly higher grades and test scores, although still well below the mean for UT-Austin, but the files were replete with references to the applicant’s legislative connections and family ties and no other obvious holistic attributes (although one applicant had a high PAI score).




Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 04:19 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I don't not know why McRaven made the decision he did, but here are some possible reasons:

1.

In reply to:
I would opine McRaven is probably going along with the decision that was made prior to assuming his position regarding Powers leaving in June and teaching law.





2. A majority of the Perry regents have NEVER been in favor of ousting Powers. If they were, he would have been ousted. A reason the majority may never have been in favor, is that Regents were benefiting from Powers' influence in admissions as detailed in the Kroll Report. McRaven could not oust Powers without a majority he clearly does not have at this point in time. Without a majority, there is not much he can do.

3. He truly does not believe the findings against Powers are that egregious.

If it is #3, I am concerned about the new chancellor.

 

[Bevo1970]

IvanDiabloHorn
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 04:19 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

'The admissions office and the president’s office held routine “end-of-cycle” meetings to make final decisions on candidates not already admitted. Those involved in the meetings made efforts to minimize the paper trail – including shredding notes. “One administrative assistant usually brought to these meetings a stack of index cards that were subsequently destroyed,”



theiioftx
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 04:20 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Would all of our football players be admitted under these admission rules or do we make exceptions because of the millions brought in by the program?

BTW I am not pro or anti Powers. I really doubt this is an unusual occurrence at any University.

Crockett
(2500+ posts)
02/13/15 04:25 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

The linked Tribune story did also say that no students were displaced by the special admittance ... the ones who received the special places were simply added to the numbers of the incoming class.




Bevo Incognito
(1000+ Posts)
02/13/15 04:28 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
The linked Tribune story did also say that no students were displaced by the special admittance ... the ones who received the special places were simply added to the numbers of the incoming class.






Which is why what Powers did does not bother me in the least.
Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 04:32 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
In reply to:
The linked Tribune story did also say that no students were displaced by the special admittance ... the ones who received the special places were simply added to the numbers of the incoming class.




Which is why what Powers did does not bother me in the least.





Why would it? It did not affect you. I am sure that very qualified applicants that just missed the cut were bothered they were not "specially added." I am sure the parents and grandparents of applicants are bothered. I am sure that properly admitted students, who were unable to get into a certain class that was full because spots had been taken by students who were not properly admitted, were bothered. The above is compounded by the fact that Powers has cut classes, professors and TAs while expanding administrative jobs.

Yes, we are generally not bothered by injustices that do not personally affect us.
Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 04:53 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

The University of Texas is a public institution. It should provide a world class education to the best and brightest of this state. It should provide this education to as many of the best and brightest that it possibly can without sacrificing being a first rate institution.

UT's job is to provide for the best and the brightest. UT's job is not to provide for the well-connected and rich. Luckily, our state has private institutions that provide opportunities and education for the well-connected and rich that do not happen to be the best and brightest. These institutions include Baylor, SMU, TCU, Austin College, Trinity (San Antonio), Southwestern, etc. I would go as far as to say unqualified rich kids would probably do better in those environments than UT.

I am passionate about this issue because UT provided a road for me, a middle class kid, to achieve better things. It provided opportunities for my family before me who were poor to make it into the middle class. Most Texans are not well-connected or rich. They care that the road is open for them or their children to obtain a world class education if they are smart and work hard in high school. For the well connected or rich, if their kids are not qualified to get into UT, they can still obtain a quality education at a private institution. That is not the case for everyone and that is why this matters.

What Powers has done that people love him so much that they do not care about this corruption... I do not know.

pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/13/15 06:03 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

You guys care to disclose your biases?

My only bias is that I graduated from the University of Texas School of Law and got in without any help. I had Powers as a professor and thought he was ok (probably below average IMO but I had some really good professors like Ernie Smith and Charles Alan Wright). I think Powers was an excellent Dean although this was after my time. He was also a very good President and successfully fought off Sandefer and Perry.

The rest of your garbage is refuted by the report. I am impressed by the quote mining efforts though.

Why would I want to engage you losers any more than this? Do I think I am going to convince you clowns of anything? Powers is gone and the Perry/Sandefer/Hall faction lost despite the enormous toll their witch hunt took on the school (these 71 individuals over 5 years is the culmination of numerous false claims and years of effort - impressive). You guys should be proud to want to stand with them. I am perfectly happy to stand with Powers and McRaven.

pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/13/15 06:07 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

The linked Tribune article contains a link to the entire report. The report is a little over 100 pages long.

accuratehorn
(10,000+ posts)
02/13/15 06:59 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

According to the AAS story this morning, the firm hired to investigate this matter found 73 students admitted over five years that had less than the required academic standards. They may not all have been admitted for political reasons, but even if they all were, that is not a big number. And the article mentioned this goes on at pretty much all state schools.
I don't excuse the practice, but let's look at the reality of the situation.
The regents and the legislature, and a few large donors come to the president of the university and want their legacy admitted. These people hold the purse strings to the university, as well as the power to fire the university president.
Now, you are the president...what would you do? Incidentally, Regent Hall was mentioned as one who was involved in all this.
On one hand, this is the nature of politics at a state school. On the other hand, I don't like it, and wish it did not go on at UT.
However, to suggest this common practice at state schools, private schools (probably worse), businesses, the army, the real world at every turn...is a bit disingenuous.
It certainly is nothing like the academic scandal at North Carolina, or various corrupt football programs, and the like.
It doesn't come close to the damage regent Hall and ex-governor Perry have done to the academic standing of The University of Texas.
There is apparently nothing illegal or fraudulent about this policy, btw.
With the legislature cutting back the percentage of UT's operating funding each session, there is more and more pressure on the administration to acquire private funding.
If you were president of a state school, I'll be willing to bet you would have to hold your nose and admit a few legacies from influential donors and powerful politicians in your state.
As Bob Dylan said, "Look out kid, they keep it all hid."

 

[Bevo1970]

Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/13/15 07:25 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
You guys care to disclose your biases?






I attended both UT undergrad and UT Law myself. I got in on my own merits as well. I did not have Powers for torts, but instead had Anderson. Maybe Powers taught you to call your peers "losers," but Anderson did not teach us that.

I am not sure how you define bias.

Ive have watched what Powers has done as president and do not think he has done a great job. I can only speak from what I have seen with my direct involvement with UT. Here are the reasons:

1. General mismanagement: Powers has cut classes, programs, professors, TAs and research while expanding the numbers and salaries of administrators. Administration should be cut before professors or courses. Just about every administrative department has far more employees than they need. The cutting of various foreign languages, while creating new administrative departments (around 2010) was ridiculous.

2. Corruption (see kroll report)

3. Switching to the plus-minus system for undergraduates. The plus-minus system for undergraduates does not include A+s and has lowered GPAs on average for UT students. Having a lower GPA hurts UT students when applying for graduate schools or jobs (in fields that care about GPAs). Most (if not all) schools in this state do not have plus-minus in undergrad. The students UT competes against will, on average, have higher GPAs. This puts UT students at a disadvanatge. I do not see why we would switch to a policy that disadvantages our students.

3. His emphasis on and advocacy for expanding the UT system, money going to the UT system schools instead of UT-Austin and opening a medical school in Austin. In the long run, this has the potential to lead to less money for UT. That money is better spent on keeping UT world class (aka not cutting academic programs and research) than haveing a bunch of 3rd rate UT system schools instead and letting UT drop to second rate. There is obviously a need for more world class schools in this state. The better strategy would be to focus on improves the flagship schools of each system (A&M, Tech, U of H) then trying to do it all within the UT system.

4. Powers continual raising of tuition at the School of Law. Tuition at the law school is currently $33,162 per year for in-state students. According to the current dean, UT law needs only $18,000 per year from its students. Everything over $18,000 goes to the UT system. It is perfectly understandable to that UT law students should pay higher tuition, some of which goes to the UT system. $15,000 or more for the UT system seems a bit excessive. What is worse is that UT law students that need financial aid, as graduate students, do not get the same low interest rates as undergrad students do from the federal government. It is kind of crazy that he was the dean of the law school, yet has continuously advocated charging law students (his people) more and more. This brings me to my next point...

5. Powers supports and successfully advocated to the legislature, the taking of tuition money from some students and giving it to others. If this was coming from just rich students to poor students, the policy could be defended. The problem is, tuition is taken from students who pay for their tuition in loans, and is given to other students so they do not have to take loans. This makes no sense. Money is being taken from the poor that cannot afford UT tuition (they have to take out loans) and given to different poor. This is not a race based program or anything like that. This is just a program where some poor students get to go to college tuition free at the expense of other poor students. Those poor students who do not get this program get to pay interest on the tuition they donated to the tuition-free students.

6. His poor administration of undergraduate scholarships. Powers has a policy of directing undergraduate scholarships to out of state students because "they pay so much in tuition" (that is the exact quote given to me by a UT administrator explaining why I had to direct scholarship $ to out of state students over more qualified instate students.) Often, the money will go to less qualified, out of state, white males as opposed to more qualified in state students. Giving scholarship money to less qualified kids (especially white males) just because they are from out of state is a terrible policy and defeats the whole point of having out of state tuition!

7. Wasting money litigating the Fisher case when we apparently cannot afford to keep numerous academic programs. If UT was doing okay financially, litigate away. However, when Powers cuts academic programs and sends email after email about how UT is in desperate need of money because the legislature is cutting funding, maybe do not spend a bunch of money on litigating that case. UT already has a strong affirmative action policy that I fully support. It is called the top 10% plan. It is one of the most successful affirmative action plans in the country

8. Lowering auto admission to UT from top 10% to top 8% so he can get in more sons and daughters of "people of influence" and "friends of the university." He also used this to get in more out of state students.

9. His opposition to transparency and the people of the state of Texas. UT is a public school, not a private school. UT MUST be open with its records (excluding employee medical records, etc.). Powers opposition to that is wrong. It is even more wrong when it involves denying a regent access to public records. The fact of the matter is the president of UT answers to the regents and the legislature. NO president has the right to tell the regents, the legislature and ultimately the people of Texas to butt out. Yes, there was a problem with the way Perry handled his job of picking regents. The solution is to either advocate the removal of Perry or for amendment of the Texas constitution to take that power away from the governor. The proper move is not to declare you should not have to answer to your own bosses (the people of Texas), as Powers did. It would be equally ridiculous for a city manager to declare he did not answer to the city council. I think Perry was wrong, but I do not think that two wrongs make a right. Powers needed to stand up to Perry, but not in a manner that undermines the people of the state of Texas.

There is other stuff (some trivial, some not), but I tire of making this list.
accuratehorn
(10,000+ posts)
02/14/15 09:35 AM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Nothing will come of this.
You know why nothing will come of this? Because the regents and the legislators are the ones who pressure the president of UT, and not just Powers, many others over the years, to admit their favorite son students to the university. They are just as involved, if not more so, than any UT administration officials.
Maybe this public revelation will force new policies on UT which will end the behind the scenes pressure to admit legacy students going forward, which would be a positive result.
I wouldn't count on the practice ending, though. The politicians want their perks.

Mr. Deez
(2500+ posts)
02/14/15 02:06 PM

Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I don't have much of an ax to grind here. I didn't go to UT, didn't go to UT law, and don't particularly care about UT or its football program. I think the practice of legislators and public officials using their offices to get people into public universities is a disgrace and should be criminal. We're talking about public institutions, where everyone should be treated equally and rewarded based solely on merit. When that doesn't happen, it's a gross injustice and should outrage people.

However, two points. First, Bill Powers may have done wrong, but this is no vindication of Rick Perry, who has sold his office to the highest bidder since the day he had the ability to do so. He's one of the biggest crooks in politics. Compared to Perry, Powers is a friggin' choirboy.

Second, why the shitstorm now? Powers obviously played the game, but he didn't create the game. In fact, without going into detail, I've seen the game played, and that happened long before Bill Powers was president of UT. It's a very old, disgusting, and sleazy game that no one game a damn about until now.

If Powers should be in trouble, that's fine. However, we need to keep in mind that there are a lot of bad apples who have done the same thing, and a much better result would be for the laws to be rewritten to make merit the sole factor in admitting a student. We should start by criminalizing any public official bypassing or attempting to bypass the normal admissions process or attempting to secure preferential treatment for any applicant. That is NEVER appropriate.

 

[Bevo1970]

Mr. Deez
(2500+ posts)
02/14/15 02:13 PM

Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
The linked Tribune story did also say that no students were displaced by the special admittance ... the ones who received the special places were simply added to the numbers of the incoming class.





"Simply added?" Surely you see what a crock of BS that is and why it doesn't justify or mitigate the sleaziness of anything.
Mr. Deez
(2500+ posts)
02/14/15 02:19 PM

Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
UT already has a strong affirmative action policy that I fully support. It is called the top 10% plan. It is one of the most successful affirmative action plans in the country





The Top Ten Percent plan basically turned academic merit on its head. UT and A&M (at least at the College Station campus) wanted it "reformed" because it made every academic qualification (grades, SAT, etc.) besides class rank irrelevant for over 80 percent of its seats. It wasn't a success. It was a joke.
Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/14/15 03:05 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
The rest of your garbage is refuted by the report.





No it did not. Simply saying it did, does not make it so.

In reply to:
The Top Ten Percent plan basically turned academic merit on its head. UT and A&M (at least at the College Station campus) wanted it "reformed" because it made every academic qualification (grades, SAT, etc.) besides class rank irrelevant for over 80 percent of its seats. It wasn't a success. It was a joke.





Top ten percent is the right idea and needs to be reformed. There needs to be an SAT/ACT qualifier. There needs to be standardization among all the texas high schools. Without the top 10 percent, you leave ALL of the admissions to the discretion of Bill Powers. The top 10 percent rule is a discussion of its own, which would be best saved for another thread.
Mr. Deez
(2500+ posts)
02/15/15 04:53 AM

Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
Top ten percent is the right idea and needs to be reformed. There needs to be an SAT/ACT qualifier. There needs to be standardization among all the texas high schools. Without the top 10 percent, you leave ALL of the admissions to the discretion of Bill Powers. The top 10 percent rule is a discussion of its own, which would be best saved for another thread.





The Top Ten Percent Rule has nothing to do with taking discretion away from Bill Powers or people like him. It has to do with coming up with a proxy for race, which used to be illegal for admissions boards to consider. UT was OK with it when the alternative was making academic merit the primary consideration in admitting students, which they thought would lead to an almost exclusively white and Asian student body, which looks very bad in the PC higher ed world. However, once they were permitted to admit students based on race again, they didn't like the Rule, because it tied their hands on over 80 percent of their open seats.

The reform that's needed is to guarantee admission of the top ten percent to a Texas public university, not to any public university the student chooses.
pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/15/15 05:47 AM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

Or even better have numerous top universities in Texas so UT is one of 8 good choices

pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/15/15 05:51 AM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

This is a good thread discussing the issue.

The Link

Mr. Deez
(2500+ posts)
02/15/15 07:25 AM

Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
Or even better have numerous top universities in Texas so UT is one of 8 good choices





We should have more, and it's pathetic that we don't. However, some university will always be at the top, and in Texas, that's going to be UT. If you're guaranteed admission to the one of your choice, you're going to choose the best one if possible. That wouldn't make the problem go away.
pasotex
(5000+ posts)
02/15/15 07:33 AM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

it would diminish it though

UC, UCLA, UCI, and UCSD are all close

 

[Bevo1970]

Mr. Deez
(2500+ posts)
02/15/15 09:31 AM

Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud



In reply to:
it would diminish it though

UC, UCLA, UCI, and UCSD are all close





Their system is often cited as one to emulate and for good reason. They have several reputable universities, while Texas really only has one. (Yes, the Aggies think Texas has two.) We don't need as many as California has, but we should be closer to their numbers than to our current numbers.

However, back when I was involved with the Top Ten Percent Rule, California didn't give students a choice of any university just because they were in the top ten percent. (Admittedly I don't know what they do now.) They guaranteed admission to a public university, not to any public university. Accordingly, if your grades and SAT were mediocre but you happened to be in the top ten percent of your class because your classmates spent more time smoking dope than studying or going to school, you might end up at Cal State Stanislaus rather than UCLA or Cal. (And of course, it is illegal in California to consider race, gender, or ethnicity in public employment, public education, and government contracting.)
Htown77
(1000+ posts)
02/15/15 03:32 PM
Re: Powers is looking guilty of admissions fraud

I am not against having multiple top universities, but it has to be financially viable. Like I said earlier, I think it is better to focus on improving the top system schools, rather than trying to do it all within the UT system. A&M, Tech and U of H have too much political clout to let the money necessary to have multiple top universities all go to the UT system at their expense. It just will not work on the political end of it. Trying to do this all within the UT system will not lead to multiple top schools, but instead, leave UT second rate and improve the other schools to third rate. Powers advocating for attempting this within the UT system just does not work within this state as it did in California.

I agree with Mr. Deez that we do not need as many top universities as California, but we do need more. Maybe 3-4 public ones? (Remember, we have good private schools as well.)

Maybe the top ten percent just guaranteeing you admission to a public university or a group of the top public universities would not be a bad reform. I still like the top 10% plan as at least an initial qualifier giving everyone who did the best in their situation a shot at a top university no matter if they came from a rich high school, poor high school, urban high school, suburban high school, rural high school, etc. Obviously, with any new system, there needs to be reform once problems emerge. Everyone is pretty unanimous that there needs to be reform. I just do not think it should be scrapped all together. The most basic reform would be an SAT/ACT qualifier. I might date myself here as I have not kept up with changes to those tests in quite awhile. I would say make the qualifier a 1000 on the 1600 SAT scale. Others I have met want 1100 and 1200. I personally think that would be too disadvantageous to kids from poorer backgrounds, rural or urban, that do not have access to SAT preparation. UT admits a small, but significant number of top 10% kids that score below a 1000 SAT. I think any high school student who is smart should be able to get at least a 1000 regardless of background. My biggest concern is the top 10 protects smart kids from poor school districts that do not have great teachers or resources. I do not want to see smart urban and rural kids get shut out just because they were in a poor school district. I do not trust the current administration to do this since UT argued in the Fisher case for admitting less qualified african-american/hispanic students from better school districts over more qualified african-american/hispanic students from poorer school districts.

I personally was never aware SAT courses existed until I got to UT. I remember discussing with a "rich" C student from Dallas SATs and he talked about all the SAT courses he took. I was shocked such a thing existed or that anyone needed them as it was not a difficult test. One reason I prefer the top 10% is you just have to do the best against your peers. It does not give an advantage to the rich kid from Dallas who can spend money on test preparation courses and inflate his score over the better qualified rural kid from Poteet or the better qualified urban kid from San Antonio who cannot do that.

Anyway, my other reform would be standardization among criteria for top 10% in every school district and private school. (I am an advocate for greater state control of education over local school district control in general.) Like having adequate funding for multiple top tier universities in this state, that reform is unfortunately unrealistic at this point in time.

One final note, the top 10 percent plan does protect against more out of state students. I can only testify to my personal experience within UT (though Powers has mentioned this occasionally, including in some of his emails to everyone), but he wants more out of state students and less instate students. That would be fine if UT was not in such demand instate. Too many smart Texans are ending up at A&M now instead of UT where they belong. It is up to each state to provide higher education for its citizens. We need to serve Texans first. The demand among qualified Texans is just too high right now. If we ever obtain multiple top tier public institutions in this state, then I am sure there will be room for plenty of well qualified out of state students. This just is not the case right now.

 

[Htown77]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...11b6de-b3c2-11e4-886b-c22184f27c35_story.html
(sorry, not sure how to do links on the new site yet)

The Washington Post Editorial Board decided to weigh in on the Kroll Report. They did not feel Powers was vindicated.

 

[pasotex]

73 out of 58,000. Scandalous!

 

[Mr. Deez]

73 out of 58,000. Scandalous!

Paso, even if you don't think Powers should get shitcanned, you should have a problem with politicians pulling strings to let their unqualified buddies get into UT and should have a problem with Powers being complicit in the practice. Yes, it has been going on for years, and as I indicated, I don't understand why there's so much outrage about it now. However, that doesn't make it right or fair, especially to the qualified applicants whose applications were rejected because there weren't enough spaces for everybody.

 

[pasotex]

The report indicates that no applicant was excluded because of these additions. They were added after the class was selected so no other more "qualified" applicant was excluded. We are talking about 73 people over a 5 year period or something like this. It is nothing. It is ridiculously minimal. It is about the same number of football players we let in over this time frame. The students all had to pass classes to obtain a degree. I bet every selective school does the same thing probably most on far larger scales.

My view on admissions is holistic. After the top 7%, you take your chances. Do I think rich donors or legislators should matter? Yes. They damn sure do matter for funding for UT.

I guess my view is also colored by my daughter. Her registrar screwed up her transcript and she was something like top 12% in her class (she really was top 3% because they did not count the boost her IB classes gave her). She got into UT. She ultimately choose to attend a private college where she had a significant scholarship. Now how did she get in to UT? It damn sure was not because of a letter from me or anyone else (because this did not happen). She got in because she was a student in an IB program at least I would bet this is why.

I don't view being the offspring of a rich donor or close friend of a legislator as being all that different. The students after the top 7% should be a mix.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The report indicates that no applicant was excluded because of these additions. They were added after the class was selected so no other more "qualified" applicant was excluded.

Come on, Dude. You'd never buy that kind of rationale from a legal opponent. Qualified applicants get turned down all the time, because of a lack of space. That's understandable and to be expected, and in fact, that's part of the canned rejection letter. (I know because I've received it.) However, if it was possible to make these "additions," then that means that there was space available for at least some of these applicants, and they in fact were excluded.

We are talking about 73 people over a 5 year period or something like this. It is nothing. It is ridiculously minimal. It is about the same number of football players we let in over this time frame. The students all had to pass classes to obtain a degree. I bet every selective school does the same thing probably most on far larger scales.

Yes, it is minimal and does happen at probably every school, but an injustice against against or in favor of one person is too many. If there was proof that just one student was excluded from UT because he was black, I doubt you'd just dismiss it because it was only one kid. And if you follow other posts I've made on this issue, you know I have a problem with academically unqualified football players getting into UT or any school. (Unlike most on the Right, I'm consistent on that.)

My view on admissions is holistic. After the top 7%, you take your chances. Do I think rich donors or legislators should matter? Yes. They damn sure do matter for funding for UT.

For someone who claims to hold populist views, this is pretty elitist. So you can either work your *** off and be a good student and get into UT, or your daddy can be a large contributor to the Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Article III (has oversight on UT's funding) and get into UT. Not very egalitarian. Furthermore, it's inconsistent with your call for a holistic admissions process. For most students, their entire file is considered. For these insiders, one factor is enough to get them in. That's not holistic.

Yes, this may matter for the funding of UT, but that's blatantly unethical. I don't understand why you don't see it, and if you do see, why you don't care. To be clear, I put about 90 percent of the blame for this on the Legislature, not UT. UT should have to justify its funding requests on the merits, but it shouldn't have to lick anybody's balls.

I don't view being t he offspring of a rich donor or close friend of a legislator as being all that different. The students after the top 7% should be a mix.

A mix is fine to a point, but when the ultimate decision is based on an arbitrary factor (such as whom you know or who your daddy is), that's where we should draw the line.

 

[IvanDiabloHorn]

I do not understand why the focus is only on the lowest 73. Just because?

I looked at the matrix, and if my math is not wrong, from 2009 to 2014 a total of 893 of Power's holds were admitted. 51 of which were top 10 % and would have been admitted anyway, so the total without the top 10% was 842 in six years.

The report shows the average entering freshman classes at Texas had a 3.340 GPA and a 1282 SAT score.

Looking at the report's 2009-2014 matrix on GPA / SAT scores, there were 234 of Powers "holds" that were admitted that had both less that 3.2 gpa and 1200 sat scores. There were an additional 229 Powers "holds" that were admitted that had both between 3.2- 3.5 gpa and between 1200-1300 Sat score. Not sure how many of the 229 would have been below the incoming freshman class gpa/SAT average, but probably quite a few.

842 of Powers "holds" were admitted, not 73. That is 140 spots per year and 140 per year is a significant number.

We don't even really know how many were admitted in this manner, 842 is what Kroll could find from people who destroyed admission records and were not forthright.

 

[Htown77]

Looking at the report's 2009-2014 matrix on GPA / SAT scores, there were 234 of Powers "holds" that were admitted that had both less that 3.2 gpa and 1200 sat scores. There were an additional 229 Powers "holds" that were admitted that had both between 3.2- 3.5 gpa and between 1200-1300 Sat score. Not sure how many of the 229 would have been below the incoming freshman class gpa/SAT average, but probably quite a few.

842 of Powers "holds" were admitted, not 73. That is 140 spots per year and 140 per year is a significant number.

We don't even really know how many were admitted in this manner, 842 is what Kroll could find from people who destroyed admission records and were not forthright.

I was beat to making this point. It was not only 73. Read the report.

Also, Mr. Deez, your last post is nearly identical to one I made earlier on this thread haha.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Also, Mr. Deez, your last post is nearly identical to one I made earlier on this thread haha.

We've made some of the same points, but where we disagree is on who is to blame. This issue seems to have become a pissing match between Rick Perry/Aggies/anti-education establishment and UT/Bill Powers/liberal university administrators, and I think that's unfortunate because it diverts attention from what should be the real issue. You seem to want the book tossed at Bill Powers, and Paso thinks Powers is a holy man who's fighting off a witch hunt. I think the issue is bigger than that.

My view is that Powers is no angel, but he's not anywhere near the root of the problem. And if he loses his job, legislators will still be able to hassle his successor to corrupt the admissions process for their kids, contributors' kids, etc. Yes, Powers should have told Jim Pitts to screw off when Pitts tried to get Powers to admit his stupid-*** kid into UT Law School. However, I understand why he didn't. Pitts chaired the House Appropriations Committee and was on the Legislative Budget Board (LBB). He was big **** and had the power to jerk UT around on its funding like very few others could, and the point is that Powers shouldn't have been subject to that kind of influence. He shouldn't even be in that dilemma.

 

[Htown77]

Mr. Deez, I think they are all bad and all should go. In fact, if you read the link to the thread from last June, I am on the record as saying I wanted BOTH Perry and Powers gone. The problem legislators need to go as well. Luckily Perry is already gone, and Powers needs to be gone already as well. We are not going to get new policies to attempt the fix the issue without new people.

 

[Lancehorn]

I learned a lot from reading this thread and the info and links accompanying much of it. I am glad that there are obviously quite a few others who are not ready to just dismiss what Powers was doing unethically just because he happens to be the UT President. He needs to be gone...sooner = better. I am completely underwhelmed with McRaven deciding to only appoint former Presidents on his panel to "discuss" potential changes. Smacks of arrogance. At least bring in some people who aren't directly implicated in the practices also. It is like bringing in drug dealers to set policy on curtailing drug sales. No sense whatsoever.

 

[Htown77]

I would like to add, if the report is true, moving our basketball stadium south of the colorado to the list of bad Powers policies. (again only if reports are true)