No, they don't conflict with each other. Top 10% rule admits unqualified students. Getting rid of that rule does not exclude those who still achieve academically. You can be top 10%, have a great academic resume, and get accepted. You don't have to be top 10%, have a great academic resume, and get accepted. You can be top 10%, have a horrible academic resume, and get rejected. That's the admissions process that should be in place. It's unfortunate if they get rejected, but let's face it. If a kid does not learn geometry, do you think they can handle college? It's just reality. Rural schools aren't the best. They do not have good scores, great resources, or good teachers. The kids that are in rural towns do come from a background where education isn't highly praised. That still does not exclude them from achieving, though. Students can still teach themselves, learn AP classes, and take the AP test. These students deserve to get in because they show the desire for higher learning and the capability to understand it.
When do you think they can get some results? Can you see what I am getting at? How long does the current generation have to wait? Should we tell them tough luck, you are born too early, wait until the year 2020 when we fix things. Yes, the top 10% rule has its flaw and it's a stopgap measure but it serves its purpose. Once you overhaul the education system, let me know, we can work to get the top 10% law thrown out.
I think I just using a different definition of "academic" when I said your paragraphs were conflicting.
I don't agree. The article I quoted doesn't agree. You can see many arguments from both sides ... It's a half way decent fix to a bad system.
Why does race matter when it comes to academics? Are you implying we should go to affirmative action?
Yes they can make it at UT even without taking AP courses and stuff. UT does offer college Algebra and other basic classes. College is not about how smart you are, its about how hard you work. Kids who are in the top 10 percent for the most part have shown that they have discipline and work ethic.
"If you ain't first, you're last"... well, maybe not, but as the costs of education continues to rise, this rule or any version of will be bent...can't turn away good money forever...
College requires both intelligence and hard work. There are also kids in the top 10% who know how to work the system for their advantage, without showing the promise and intelligence of others who are not as highly ranked. That's where the system fails at the competitive schools where qualified students are displaced out of the top 10% for those who play the numbers game.
You don't have any statistics to back you up. I showed the links to UT's research where it does not say that. 1) Well qualified students will get admitted no matter their skin color, where they come from or if they are top 10% or not. 2) The top 10% law does allow slightly below average Spanish & Blacks to get in. (slightly below avg. compared to the rest of the students) 3) The top 10% law keeps out the slightly below average White kids. This is the argument that several have made in this thread. They do not have a case against the well qualified students of other races. They have problem with other crappy students who get in while their own crappy relatives can't. 4) Once they get in, a good percentage of top 10% performed well. A small number did not.
By "working the system" you must mean making it into the top 10% of the school they are zoned for. And who are these mythical characters that achieve top 10% in a terrible school/environment but yet don't show promise or intelligence? I understand the point about some kids in better schools are probably going to get shafted, but the solution of having the poor kids pump of the "soft" aspects of their resumes when the kids from the better schools don't have to is also unfair. I don't think the poor kids should be forced to overcompensate because they had the bad luck to crawl out of a vagina on the wrong side of the tracks.
Will you stop it with this nonsense about me "not seeing it from both sides"? Believe me, I've looked at this from far more angles than you probably have. Lousy justification if I ever heard one. Bad fix for a bad system. Crap on top of crap makes more crap.
Look, I understand why you think it's better than nothing. If you can understand why I think we can do better, then we can agree to disagree.
I didn't mean to imply that the cutoff was always about some score. But there always will come a point where someone is going to be the last person admitted and someone else is going to be at the top of the list of students not admitted. Usually, there is no significant difference between these two people, making it seem as if there is an arbitrary cutoff. I was part of a grad admissions committee, which is obviously different from an undergrad admissions committee.
Given what I've read in this thread (I knew almost nothing about the 10% rule before this), I've got to say that I'm still in favor of the spirit of the rule. It sounds like it might work out better though if the number were lowered. Putting it at 8% sounds like a good step. It will give the university more open spots to admit students they want who aren't automatically admitted.
I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it has been mentioned, but why don't they keep the rule, but add one more provision... say SAT score. How about top 10% (or 8% or whatever) AND some fairly high SAT score gets you automatic admission. This still gives kids something to shoot for, while eliminating some of the worthless talent that comes from the crappy schools. (I just graduated from UT... there's plenty.) Then there are more available spots for the kids who didn't make the top 10%, but may be really great students or really involved, etc. And the kids who didn't get the high SAT score/high rank could still get admitted if they have stellar extra-curriculars or whatnot. It seems too simple to work, though.
