Sept. 25, 2003, 11:40AM Automatic college spots for Texas' top grads under fire Associated Press AUSTIN -- In a move likely to spark a fight at the Capitol, a state senator is working on legislation to repeal the law guaranteeing the top 10 percent of high school graduates a spot in the state university of their choice. Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, said after this summer's U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing the use of race as a factor in college admissions, he has decided the top 10 percent law is unnecessary. Wentworth doesn't see the topic coming up during the current special legislative session, but he is working toward getting it on the agenda next spring when Gov. Rick Perry is expected to call a special session on public school finance. "It seems to me we can go back to the way we were admitting people before, which is better than the top 10 percent rule," Wentworth said in today's editions of the Austin American-Statesman. The top 10 percent law has become an issue at the University of Texas at Austin, where more than 70 percent of Texans admitted as freshmen this fall were guaranteed admission under that law. In the regular legislative session this year, UT officials pressed for a cap on the percentage admitted, but that effort failed. The law was passed in 1997 after another court case involving UT admissions resulted in a ban on affirmative action for Texas college and university admissions. After recent contacts from UT and Texas A&M University officials, Wentworth said he favors outright repeal. "I got a message from regents at UT and people at A&M that would like to get rid of the top 10 percent" because it has overwhelmed the admissions process, Wentworth said. UT System Chancellor Mark Yudof and UT-Austin President Larry Faulkner said there is no effort for repeal by the university system or the Austin campus. "There certainly are people in the UT community -- both among our alumni and inside the institution -- who believe that a repeal is the best way to go and others who believe a cap is more appropriate," Faulkner said. "I personally am still of the belief that the wisest course for the state is a cap." Yudof said he's a "deregulation buff" and wouldn't mind having the Legislature out of the admissions process. Yudof envisions a combination of factors that could include a percentage rule that the Board of Regents could oversee. UT officials had planned to revive affirmative action for fall 2004 admissions. But earlier this month, university administrators determined that a one-year notice to changes in admissions policy in state law blocks that plan. I have to say that I don't understand the opposition to the Top 10% rule. I mean, the Universities seem to be saying that they'd rather not make their decision based on academic merit and history and replace it with a much more complicated system. They mention in this article that the Top 10% overwhelms the admissions process. What? Looking at one transcript and stamping "Admitted" is too overwhelming? What easier way could there be to admit students? It certainly sounds easier than taking each application, weighing a variety of factors (without assigning a point system to those factors, apparently) and then making a subjective choice. The thing that just seems weird to me is that UT is arguing against letting in the top students Texas high schools have to offer. That implies they want to not admit students who achieved a Top 10% ranking in favor of students who did not achieve a Top 10% ranking. I don't understand that desire. Maybe it's just a desire to get the Legislature out of the admissions business and letting the school be the judge, but UT sure seems to be going to a lot of trouble to keep achievers out. I guess it doesn't matter to me, though. Neither of my kids wants to go to UT (or to A&M for that matter), and I wouldn't have gotten in back when I graduated high school under the Top 10% because I wasn't in the Top 10% of my graduating class (I was barely in the Top 25%. I was something like 107th out of 550).
I don't have any children and (even though I'm a UofH grad) I did not attend HS in TX so maybe I don't understand the process but.... If HS A is very good academically and HS B is very poor, does it not follow that students from HS B are given preference over some of the HS A students even though they may not actually be superior students?
It is a tough question and one I'm vitally interested in since my son almost for sure won't be in the top 10% at his very tough highschool and we have prepaid Texas tuition for him. The top 10% rule lets in some very deserving students, not just all minorities from disadvantaged highschools. This is a good type of socioeconomic diversity. My understanding is that the top 10% types, because they are so motivated, compete easily with those who score two hundred points higher in the standardized tests, that aside from class ranking are the main criteria for admission. I support affirmative action based on race and also based on socio economic background. Despite my support for affirmative action I don't think that the children of educated black professionals should be affirmatively admitted over the first college applicant from a lower class white background. I think a reasonable cap (say 25% of admissions) on top 10% admissions plus affirmative action is the way to go. On a different level, the state of Texas needs to fund U of H and two or three other universities to the elite status of UT and A& M (hate to admit it) to alleviate the crowding at these two schools.
It would be nice to know what the arguments are for a repeal as well as how the rule is "overwhelming" the admissions process. In reading this I wondered about 3 things: 1) "Top 10%" doesn't take into account academic inequality amongst public schools. Maybe UT-Austin, the most popular and respected UT, has concerns about students it considers of lower academic ability/preparation reserving spots UT would rather give to the top 15% of an extermely rigorous school? 2) What motivations do alums have in this? Is the top 10% rule infringing on their ability to influence the admissions process (legacy)? 3) How is this rule affecting class sizes? Is UT increasing the size of incoming classes or keeping incoming numbers the same and watching slots get filled by guaranteed admittees?
That's quite a drop, though, from the current 70%. Plus, you run into an issue with how you decide which Top 10% students get the automatic admissions. First come, first served? The argument about less rigorous schools being over-represented would tend to hurt the very people that a race-based admissions policy seeks to help. I mean, the lowest performing schools tend to have the highest minority populations (And I am not implying a cause-and-effect there). I just remember when I applied to colleges originally, and many schools had a chart in their admissions materials that would say something like: For this class rank range, a score of this on the SAT or ACT is required for admission. UT had such a chart when I applied back in high school. I guess that back then, there just weren't as many students applying to UT-Austin (I did reach college age during a population lull) because I don't recall UT saying their policies caused them problems then, even though the current Top 10% rule is largely the same. It just seems to me like a University that admits over 10,000 Freshmen per year has to have some sort of formula for admissions. They simply cannot give each application the kind of scrutiny that would be required to make a subjective decision.
It would be nice to know what the arguments are for a repeal as well as how the rule is "overwhelming" the admissions process. In reading this I wondered about 3 things: 1) "Top 10%" doesn't take into account academic inequality amongst public schools. Maybe UT-Austin, the most popular and respected UT, has concerns about students it considers of lower academic ability/preparation reserving spots UT would rather give to the top 15% of an extermely rigorous school? 2) What motivations do alums have in this? Is the top 10% rule infringing on their ability to influence the admissions process (legacy)? 3) How is this rule affecting class sizes? Is UT increasing the size of incoming classes or keeping incoming numbers the same and watching slots get filled by guaranteed admittees? #3 is the main concern. Each year, a larger portion of the UT incoming class is these top-10% people, meaning the school has less flexibility in getting other applicants. This reduces their ability to create the type of student body they may want, and really kills the possibilities, for example, of getting out-of-state people who bring in more money to the system. Something has to be done, whether its repealing the law, limited the size of the top-10%ers, or changing it to guarantee admission into a public university, but not necessarily the one of your choice.
This is an excellent point. The discrimination against the University of Houston and what I suppose might be one or two other universities... but, without question, the U of H, would lead to solving much of the problem. The state needs at least one more premiere state university and the University of Houston is it, with equal funding.
Eh, I say either keep it or do away with it entirely because any limitations would just lead to more problems and defeat the entire purpose of the Legislation. As for that last suggestion, I think that'd be even harder to decide than a cap. I mean, who gets the prestigious UT-Austin guarantee and who has to go to Sul Ross? But I disagree that something has to be done. There's nothing wrong with letting the highest achievers in. Just because UT-Austin wants things to be different doesn't mean they must be different. Until such time as UT-Austin is having to admit more students than it has room for under the Top 10% plan, there's no actual need to change anything. I guess I just always thought that admissions into the top colleges was for the students who had the best chance of succeeding. Like it or not, a student who does better in high school has a better chance of succeeding in college than one who does not. Personally, I also hate the uncertainty of college admissions. I hate this idea that my son could go on and be valedictorian of his school and still not get into UT-Austin (if he wanted to go) even knowing that UT-Austin has to be letting in students with lesser qualifications. Having a guarantee: Do this and you'll get in, is very comforting. I don't want my sons to set such a goal, achieve what should be necessary to achieve that goal only to not get what they were shooting for despite their success. I fear that because that's largely what happened to me. I lost all interest in college when I couldn't go to the school I wanted to go to (though my limitation was placed by my step mother based on cost). I ended up settling, hated every minute of it because I wasn't where I wanted to be, and ended up doing very poorly my first year in school (and I never really achieved in college at the same level I did in high school, because it seemed pointless. I tried, succeeded and still didn't get what I wanted. So why keep trying when success doesn't guarantee anything). I just think the process should be measurable and based on things that matter - and, like it or not, the most accurate predictor of college success is high school success. To turn those people away because you want to let in people with lesser achievement will just never seem right to me.
There's nothing wrong with letting the highest achievers in. However, this law is preventing just that. Many people who would get in otherwise are being squeezed out because of a lack of space. Top students from outside the state are having more difficulty getting in. Top 11% students from top high schools in the state are losing their ability to get in. There just aren't enough spaces and it gets worse each year. This was an interesting solution to Hopwood. What the system really should do (in my opinion) is eliminate this thing and replace it with socio-economic considerations in the admissions process (not race).
You know the Texas Tech crowd is going to say they more deserve it (and yes, I did got to Tech, originally). Here's another idea. If the University of Texas and Texas A&M are so gosh darn prestigious, why not work to make their satellite schools closer to the same level? I mean, why not work to achieve greater status for the schools within the prestigious systems? Why not attempt to make going to UTEP or UTSA on par with going to UT-Austin? They've already got the names on the buildings, but the UT system often has contempt for the schools that don't happen to be in Austin (heck, the Legislature actually had a bill that would've taken UT-Arlington away from the UT system because the System made noises about making UT-Dallas a favored son).
You know, though, if they are in the Top 11%, they're losing out to someone in the Top 10%. Being in the Top 10% is achieving something more than being in the Top 11%. Yes, the competition is tougher at tougher schools, but the achievement is still the same achievement. You're ranked against your peers at your school. But since UT-Austin is not arguing not using class rank as a factor at all, I say stick 'em with the Top 10% rule. If it isn't fair in regards to Top 10%, then it isn't fair in other regards, either. Yet, class rank was used as a huge admissions factor prior to the Top 10% rule. And there's still thousands of seats (30%) that can go to lesser achievers. Of course, UT doesn't necessarily want that. They are very adamant about reintroducing race-based admissions, which would, arguably, also take seats away from higher achievers who are not in the Top 10%. And I don't care about the out-of-staters. They have universities in their own states.
Or, if class rank is the problem, why not a system that guarantees admission based on high school GPA? I just think there should be some guarantees in life. I don't want the University of Texas to be able to tell the Valedictorian of Randall High School that he can't go to UT because the 125th ranked student from Hockaday wants to go and his parents are rich (or he's African-American or he was on the chess club and that's looked upon more favorably than playing Varsity soccer, or whatever). By the way, I did run into what I thought was an amusing class rank situation once. My cousin Cindy went to school in a town called Ola, Arkansas. Her graduating class consisted of her and one other person. She was the valedictorian so he, technically, wasn't even in the top half of his graduating class.
I admit to not caring about the out-of-state students either. If it makes the competition greater for those people to get in, then they will be some of the elite students that UT says are being harmed by the 10% rule. (yeah, I know... somehow I feel dirty saying it. In a perfect world, none of this would ever come up) I have a son who's in the Junior National Honor Society and goes to a magnet school here in Austin, is in numerous school activities... and not because we push him, but because he wants to. If he were bumped by some kid who graduated from Westlake High with a lower class ranking (he's in middle school, so we're not facing that yet), we would be pissed off. He may end up going to Rice or some other excellent private university, although it would be very expensive, to say the least. But this is an ongoing contoversy that those of us who are parents have to think about. GPA could work, but they would make the same argument that some high school's GPA means more than others.
If the problem is class size and overcrowding, then I wouldn't mind that. But then you could argue, "It's still crowded! Let's make it the top 3%." I'm not certain that class size and overcrowding are what's driving this issue.
No, I think a desire for self-determination is what's driving this. UT just doesn't want the Legislature involved in how they run the school, and they'd like to be free of that interference. I mean, they fought so hard for tuition deregulation, and now they're fighting this battle. I think they just want to call their own shots. And I don't think this is coming from the Regents (I think UT-Austin has virtually zero respect for their Board of Regents).
About inequality of Schools. 1. How do you determine which schools are more 'Rigorous'? 2. Why is my son penalized because the rest of his school are a bunch of idiots? 3. What about kids in RURAL school #2 that has no other choice about what school they goto? The cannot goto Magnet Schools or find another 'RIGOROUS' school? So the penalized for just being .. .well . . rural and isolated. 4. What you will find is the next step . . . WHO DECIDES WHO GOES TO RIGOROUS SCHOOLS. If Bellaire is a rigorous school and everyone in houston wants to go . . . once you have an alotment of Residency students, the competition for the rest of the spots is on. The same legacy/Aff Act/favoritism policies would come into question. The point being Favoritism AFTER FRICKIN MIDDLE SCHOOL could affect you child's life choices. So then we start looking at RIGOROUS MIDDLE SCHOOLS? ELEMENTARIES? PRE K SCHOOLS!!!!!! More aptitude tests? Where would it end? Genetics . .. . . . I don't mind the 10% rule. Just because someone's school is of lower rank does not mean that the person is of lower capabilities. Removing this rule will be a huge WIN for the rich. Why? Where are most of the schools of note? Simple. . . where the money is. Rocket River the trickle down effect will be interesting at best
The competition for spots at UT in the better school districts has gotten fierce and the influential parents of some of these kids are starting to call up their buddies in office. I think that's the real story here. I've never been a fan of this rule for a lot of reasons and these issues that are cropping up now were easily predictable. I get the feeling that Bush will do what he can in the state to keep it. Losing it would mean he'd be unable to continue lying about how successful it's been.
My how history repeats itself. In days long ago, they had the same questions with regard to university admissions. How do I say if a person in the top 15% of school A is better than a person in the top 5% of school B? The answer? Standardized testing. Give everyone the same opportunity to do their best on a standardized test, and see what level the students perform at. Of course, racially-motivated grandstanders complained that the test was 'biased'. It is tough to accept that some people will have higher levels of achievement than others. The standardized test was and is the most equitable way of judging performance, in light of the vast differences of quality of high schools. Everyone takes the same test. Everyone has the chance to prepare. There are no excuses. Excuses are only made when the underachievers are unable to come to grips with the fact that they aren't as talented as their peers. It's amazing how political correctness has led us down this extremely flawed path. It's amazing how people simply can't accept that they aren't qualified.
Yes, the competition is tougher at tougher schools, but the achievement is still the same achievement. You're ranked against your peers at your school. But since UT-Austin is not arguing not using class rank as a factor at all, I say stick 'em with the Top 10% rule. If it isn't fair in regards to Top 10%, then it isn't fair in other regards, either. Yet, class rank was used as a huge admissions factor prior to the Top 10% rule. Any time you use a "firm" rule, it opens the doors for abuse. This rule also encourages kids (especially if they are on the border of the 10% line) to take easier classes. Class rank is a bizarre way to evaluate people because everyone takes different courses at different schools, competing with a different set of people. As T_J stated, standardized tests are supposed to be the solution to that. The other solution is to give the schools leeway in evaluating people. If some guy took 10 AP courses but got B's and thus had a slightly lower class rank than some guy who took 10 Phys Ed courses, you can adjust for that if you have that flexibility instead of these hard-and-fast rules. I don't see the danger here... schools WANT minorities and they WANT social diversity. I don't see why there would be a trend towards picking rich kids over poor ones or unqualified ones over qualified ones.
