How would you change the Top 10% law...

<p>I was thinking along the lines of maybe....
a. Keep the law as is
b. Top 7% get automatic admissions
c. Top 10% and at least a 1300 (Math + Critical Reading) or 28 ACT
d. Top 10% and at least a 95 GPA
e. Top 10% and at least a 1300 (Math + Critical Reading) or 28 ACT or 95 GPA
f. Just get rid of an automatic acceptance law altogether</p>

<p>I think c is the best option or an alternative would be to have automatic admission for the top 5%. The latter option would give UT a lot more freedom to consider a wide variety of things when looking at an application.</p>

<p>If they could put SAT restrictions on the top 10% rule, it would completely negate the purpose of the rule in the first place. The whole idea was to get people from the top 10% from every school, however bad or good they were in terms of quality, which would allow more minority students in...</p>

<p>Not that I am a fan of the rule to begin with, seeing as I myself was not in the top 10%(and had above a 1300, not that it matters) , but putting an SAT restriction on it, is essentially just making it like it was before the top 10% rule, so what is even the point? </p>

<p>I think a top 1-10% rule would be better, which could change based on the universities desired incoming freshman class, and a percentage limit such as 50% that could come from students admitted under the rule. </p>

<p>So for instance, if the university wanted X number of people in its freshman class, it could make it so that it could do admissions like McCombs where it starts at 1% and goes down until the .5*X quota is filled, however the quota will be much larger so it will go down below the percentage that McCombs gets to. Then the rest of the people will be considered with everyone else.</p>

<p>Give automatic admission to the top 5%. Then admit the top 6%, top 7%, etc until a 60% cap is reached. Then open admissions to everyone.</p>

<p>I would change the law to ensure admission automatically to the top 6% at UT, the top 8% at A&M, and the top 10% at all other schools. I would also mandate that UT be at least 50% from the top ten, but would not stipulate how they would choose those not covered by the top 6 law. This would cover any drop in the percentages, but the way things are going it would only be top 6 and that would be about half the class.</p>

<p>This leaves half the spots open for competition, and they could reserve some spots for "Longhorn Opportunity Scholars" to achieve any racial balance they think the top 6 law fails to cover. If they simply specified that LOS kids and Terry kids were competing for specific spots, it would solve a lot of questions.</p>

<p>I would not force any college of the university to accept anyone. There are plenty of kids who are valedictorians who just aren't cut out for McCombs, and McCombs shouldn't have to take them. They should be placed in undeclared Liberal Arts and we can see if they will sink or swim. These kids should have to meet SAT and leadership and writing requirements to get their chosen major.</p>

<p>choice c for UT. the only reasonable one. because not all students do good on the sAT.</p>

<p>Yes, that's the whole point of the law. Kids from underpriviliged backgrounds tend not to do as well on the SAT. This way they still have a chance to get in.</p>

<p>Making an SAT score requirement would defeat the entire purpose of the law: to ensure diversity at UT without using affirmative action or a racial quota.</p>

<p>The reason this is the case is because UT has become such a great school. In Texas even as a public school it rivals as the best college. Other public schools IMO would have to step up and become better this way students in top 10% will not all jumble at UT.</p>

<p>People have pointed out that putting an SAT restriction would defeat the entire purpose of the law, but the thing is, how effective has the law been?</p>

<p>If right now, the percentage of African-Americans at UT hovers around 3-5%, then how effective has the affirmative action in disguise law been. I will concede that the percentage of Hispanics has increased because of said law, so the law has been effective in that regard, but then that means that the law has only been half effective. {I don't count Asians because I don't think anyones going to argue that the Asian students aren't qualified}</p>

<p>I guess in the end, I'd rather have an in your face quota system than a disguised affirmative action law.</p>

<p>No, because were the top ten law dropped the percentage of minority students would drop to near zero.</p>

<p>It is a fact that Latinos and African Americans and Native Americans have much lower SAT scores on average.</p>

<p>The fact is that most African Americans and Latinos attend schools which are majority-minority in Texas. So if EVERYONE is a minority, the top ten percent will be minority. However, if the top ten law didn't exist, then maybe only 1% of kids at that school would have the scores and essays to get in besides their grades. The other places would be filled by better-prepared whites and Asians.</p>

<p>So yes, the law does a lot to help diversity. People talk about how the percentage hasn't changed since before the law, but people fail to recognize that for many years before the law was passed UT STILL admitted any top ten kid as an institutional policy. They likely would have changed that policy by now if they had the choice (but I don't think the number of top ten kids applying would go up as high if it weren't an actual law).</p>

<p>It's not disguised, the stated purpose is affirmative action. In-your-face quotas are illegal since the Michigan decisions. Texas has the Hopwood decision in the 5th Circuit, so that also affects admissions procedures.</p>

<p>The top ten law has been shown to be one of the best ways for UT to ensure diversity.</p>

<p>"No, because were the top ten law dropped the percentage of minority students would drop to near zero."</p>

<p>First, you can't say that for a fact. I'm sure UT has plenty of minority students who would have gotten into UT had there not been a Top 10% Law. I'm also sure that if the Top 10% Law were repealed or modified, there would be plenty of Caucasian and Asians who wouldn't get in as a result of the law change.</p>

<p>"People talk about how the percentage hasn't changed since before the law, but people fail to recognize that for many years before the law was passed UT STILL admitted any top ten kid as an institutional policy."</p>

<p>I highly doubt UT was accepting kids back in the mid-90s who finished in the top 10% but had sub 1000 SAT scores. Now I may be wrong, but I doubt it. My problem with the law is that it forces UT to accept obviously unqualified students.</p>

<p>"It's not disguised, the stated purpose is affirmative action."</p>

<p>So the legislature explicitly states in the approved bill that put the Top 10% Law in effect that the purpose of the bill is to use affirmative action.</p>

<p>"The top ten law has been shown to be one of the best ways for UT to ensure diversity."</p>

<p>I was just wondering, what other ways have there been?</p>

<p>Yes the Lege explicitly states that the purpose is to admit more minority and rural kids who wouldn't get in otherwise. That is the definition of affirmative action.</p>

<p>And yes, in the mid-90s, UT was accepting kids with sub-1000 SAT scores who were in the top ten percent of their high school.</p>

<p>There would be plenty of Caucasians and Asians who wouldn't get in under a changed law, but these kids would be replaced with...different Caucasians and Asians!</p>

<p>Now, I am a Latino who would have been admitted regardless of the law. But most Latinos and blacks live in much lower income homes than me, go to much worse schools, and have much less preparation in school for the SAT, let alone could afford prep classes if they wanted/needed them. These kids deserve a chance to try to succeed at UT despite their obvious disadvantages. That is why they have transfers and CAP admission: some of these kids won't cut it, and they will leave/be kicked out. But they deserve the chance to try.</p>

<p>Well, let's see now. There was the time when minorities weren't allowed to go to UT. Then there was a quota system, where a specific percentage of spaces were reserved for minorities. They've also done a format where you received extra points added to your score if you were a URM. Then came the Hopwood decision, which said that quotas and points awards were illegal.</p>

<p>So now UT has a two-fold system for ensuring diversity: the top-ten law and a system which rewards applicants from low socioeconomic backgrounds.</p>

<p>Without the top ten law, UT would either have to ramp up the socioeconomic background stance (hurting more-well off URMs, as well as the wealthier kids who are getting shut out by the top ten law in the first place), or else admit fewer URMs, which I think most people agree would not be good for the school.</p>

<p>So I think that the top ten law, or top 8, or top 6 law, would work the best for admitting students and preserving diversity.</p>

<p>You know, I'm an African-American female and to be honest, most of the African-American kids at my school who have the grades to get in, haven't exactly considered UT as a college choice BECAUSE of the fact that 1500 black students out of a campus population of 49000+ isn't exactly uplifting. I think they'd (the AA kids at my school) want more diversity than that. I mean, yes, the hispanic population at UT is fairly sizeable but it still hurts my heart to see that there are so few African-American kids, especially if it's assumed that blacks and hispanics are at a disadvantage intellect-wise, which I still think is the most insulting point-of-view ever.</p>

<p>It's not assumed that they are at a disadvantage intellect-wise, but preparation wise.</p>

<p>Many blacks and Hispanics are from lower-income urban schools, which simply don't prepare students for college as well as suburban public schools or private schools do.</p>

<p>I think most would agree that if these students had the same opportunities as someone from a more affluent area, their scores and preparedness for college would go up.</p>

<p>The general theory though, is that kids who are motivated and hard-working in HS will also be so in college.</p>

<p>Top 10% should only be guaranteed into CAP status at UT not automatic into the Austin campus.</p>

<p>MagicMan, I am prety sure ALL Texas residents who apply are guaranteed at least CAP status. Most kids who are accepted CAP just don't take it.</p>

<p>OOS Students can't be offered CAP, they are either accepted or denied. I don't even think OOS kids can get summer admission.</p>

<p>That is a possibility but then it really doesn't reward kids for working hard at all.</p>

<p>It would also likely lead top kids who are not top ten to go to other state schools like TAMU, and it would hurt diversity, which is a top goal for UT.</p>