Man I hate this stupid rule. I feel bad for Texas college kids now. You know the top 30% of Bellaire and Lamar is smarter than the top 5% of Madison, Westbury and Eisenhower. Why they hell do they get automatic admission for going to a crappy school. College admission should be about your grades, the school program in, what extracurricular stuff you do at school, your SAT scores and the essays you write. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/4188370.html 10% rule backer considers reprieve Royce suggests moratorium on university entry law to assess diversity efforts Associated Press AUSTIN - A powerful advocate of the state's top 10 percent university admissions law signaled Thursday that he may be willing to consider lifting the requirement for a few years to let schools prove they can build a diverse student body without it. State Sen. Royce West said a two- to three-year moratorium on the law could give its top critic, the University of Texas at Austin, the flexibility it seeks in the admissions process. Preliminary data shows 71 percent of this year's UT-Austin freshmen who are from Texas were admitted under the law, university President William Powers told the Senate subcommittee on higher education. That ties the hands of admissions officials who would like to consider students who aren't at the top of their class but have special talents or unique personalities, he said. Under West's proposal, the moratoriuom would be extended if university officials can show they've made a good faith effort to improve the racial, socioeconomic and geographic diversity of their student bodies. If they can't, the top 10 percent law would go back into effect. Universities would be evaluated individually, he said. The idea is a big departure from West's usually unwavering support of the law that guarantees all students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their class admission to the public university of their choice. He and other supporters have championed it as a means of increasing minority enrollment at state universities. In 2003, West and another senator filibustered a bill that would have capped top 10 percent admissions. The Dallas Democrat fought off a similar bill last year and proposed a 7 percent admissions plan, but that idea was coolly received by university officials. The top 10 percent law was adopted after a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision made affirmative action illegal in Texas college admissions. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision. The current law primarily affects UT-Austin and, to a lesser degree, Texas A&M University in College Station.
People in charge of college admissions at many colleges, including UT-Austin, would likely not agree with that set of standards for admission. The reasons for wanting to get rid of the law is so the University doesn't have to accept as many people with high grades/SAT scores, etc. It's likely not the high achievers from the "lesser" schools that are going to lose spots once the Top 10% law goes away. It's going to be the high achievers from the middle-of-the-road schools.
Watch yourself, dude. Do you honestly beleive that Madison graduates are less intelligent than Bellaire graduates? Or is it possible that Bellaire graduates have had access to more educational tools than graduates from Madison ...for various reasons? I beleive that Bellaire graduates do better on tests but that isn't a reflection on their intelligence. The SPIRIT of the rule is that if a kid from Madison high-school can manage to seperate themselves above the rest of the student body who had access to a similar education, then you shouldn't penalize that kid just because they didn't test high. They should be rewarded for excelling at school despite coming from an inferior school system. I can't think of anything worse the penalizing a child at Madison high-school that worked JUST as hard as a kid from Bellair but tested lower. Everybody knows test scores and grades isn't the final say in determining if a kid will succeed. I'd agree the 10% rule isn't perfect and could be tweaked but at least it makes an attempt to level to playing field in our horribly underfunded educational system. Fix the 10% rule ...but don't scrap it.
I went to bellaire, and was not in top 10% but still got into UT luckily. I do think the rule is unfair though, it did penalize me for going to Bellaire instead of a school like Westbury where I know someone who FAILED a class and still was in top 10%, that to me is a joke
You were fortunate enough to go to the top public high school in Houston. Did you do anything to deserve this incredible opportunity? If you worked hard and are of at least average ability you shoud have many options for college. Kids going to lower quality high schools in Houston have hurdles to academic achievement that you probably can't even comprehend. From chaotic school environments to crappy teachers. Not too mention, they are much more likely to come from lower income families and communities, with all of the associated problems, than Bellaire students. If they overcome all of these obstacles and make it into the top 10% in their high schools, the LEAST they deserve is admission to the state's flagship public university. 10% Rules!
Exactly the point. Think how crappy the school system must be at Westbury to fail a class and still be in the top 10%. Kids are falling through the cracks left, right and center. Take this mental experiment: Decrease the # of 2-parent households to 1-parent households at Bellair. Also imagine that the parents don't get involved in school activities as much, attend student-teacher conferences as much or even encourage their kids while AT HOME to study. If all that were true, do you think the rate # of kids at Bellair highschool flunking classes would increase? Do you think that is a reflection on the kids themselves? Be happy that the biggest disappointment in your life is that you didn't get accepted into UT. I'd bet many kids at Madison high-school WISH that would be their biggest disappointment.
so basically what you're saying is that the Madison kids deserve the benefit of the doubt while the bellaire kids don't? how very socialist. let the schools decide for themselves who they grant admission to based on their own critieria. the government should have very little say in the process. and yes, i know that these schools are technically government institutions...
Nope. You are being asked to compete against kids at your OWN school. Comparing kids between schools is an apples to orange comparison. If you honestly beleive kids at different schools received IDENTICAL educational experiences, then I have a bridge to sell you. If you really wanted to excel as a student in school, you'd be top 10%. It isn't that kids at Bellaire are really that much smarter. They all just kids.
Why is that a joke? Assume you take 6 classes a year, so you take 24 over a 4 year period. You make As (4.0) in 23 of the 24 classes and an F in the other (0.0). Your overall average is about a 96. Assume a graduating class of 500. To me it is more reasonable that a 96 would be IN the top 50 rather than OUT of the top 50. It seems these days there are way too many kids with 4.0+ GPAs.
Socialism BOO! Guess what. If you went to a public elementary, middle school, high school, or University, you were educated in a socialist system.
I think you guys forgot why we even had the top 10% rule in the first place. The Texas State Supreme Court in the Hopwood decision struck down all affirmative action programs in college admissions. As a way to compensate for that, the Texas Legislature instituted the top 10% rule as a way to guarantee some slots from traditionally poor and minority dominated schools. Now whether the program has lived up to its stated goals is another issue. Also considering the US SUpreme Court upheld affirmative action (essentially nullifying the Hopwood decision), the need for such a program has diminished drastically.
Study after study has shown that kids who finish in the Top 10% of any high school class do remarkably better in college than kids who don't. It doesn't matter what high school they go to or what race they are. Kids from Bellaire are NOT smarter than kids from HISD. I've met plenty from both up here at UT and tend to find the ones from HISD more grounded and find them taking more advantage of the situation than the kids who came from wealthier school districts. They don't have a sense of entitlement that you find in kids from wealthier districts. FWIW, I graduated from Alief Elsik.
The exact same people who are whining about the 10% rule will be back whining a lot louder if any affirmative action policies are implemented that achieve a similar effect.
the bottom Line is *I'm* out of the 10% . . so now I want the rules changed because I'm affected in a way that is negative If *I* benefitted . . *I* wouldn't give a d*mn *I* deserve . .. *I* am better than *THEM* Screw Society . .it is about *ME* and *MINE* Texas A&M decided the LEGACY RULE was unfair why? IMO . .well the 1st generation of MINORITY Legacies were starting to come in in larger numbers. . [didn't integrat tile the early 70s] It started affect Non-Minorities in a negative way Becky could not get in because Minority person was a legacy NOW NOTICE . . Becky not getting in because JENNIFER was a legacy was not an issue now it is. . . It is about RACE and CLASS when it affects people of Higher Incomes and of non minority position it is an issue Rocket River now you can all dismiss it with your rolling eyes and sarcasm
This is a very interesting debate. I luckily avoided this 10% rule by 1 year as I was a freshman at UT in 1997. Looking back at it, though, had I been born one year later and not gotten admitted, I would have no one to blame but myself. The reality of the situation is that I didnt take high school seriously enough which is why I was not in the top 10%. I understand that nowadays, schools like Bellaire and Clements are even more competitive that my class at Katy Taylor was, but there is a very logical reason for this. Next time you get a chance, just take a look at the student parking lot when school is in session at Clements. The student parking lot consists 50% of BMWs, Lexuses, Infinitis, etc. The surrounding area has homes that start at 300K and go upwards of a million dollars. The parent's of the kids at Clements have an insane amount of disposable income to pump into their kids educations and with the high taxes and property values in Sugarland, Clements receives a ridiculous amount of funding. In addition, I would say that the vast majority of kids from Clements have parents that will not even think twice to invest $1,000 for their kids to take an SAT prep course. When I was a sophomore in high school, my parents did it for me; without this course, my score would have probably been 150 points lower. The kids at Madison simply do not have these built in advantages. In some cases, the parents are struggling just to get by, much less even thinking about investing $1,000 in an SAT prep course. In addition, Madison simply is not funded as well as Clements which leads to poorer educational materials, not as good teachers and a much worse environment. Kids at a school like Clements for the most part only have to worry about going to school, studying hard and making good grades. In addition, they are surrounded by other kids whose main focus in life is education; not the same at Madison. One other thing.... If you are not in the top 10% at Bellaire or Clements, whats the big freaking deal going to another school for a year (ie. UH), making good grades and then transferring? Not getting into UT does not doom one's existence. I actually did some graduate work at UH between 2002-2004 and thought the experience was just fine. I work at a Big 4 accounting firm, and the firm hires people from all schools not just UT. The key is that they look for high caliber people and students regardless of the institution. I recently moved to New York and work at the same firm; the story is the same. The firm hires plenty of people from the regular schools in the Northeast and New York area ie. CUNY, Syracuse, Villanova, etc.
