<p>“I agree that there is a difference, but based on the law they are qualified.”</p>
<p>No, based on the law they are automatically admitted. I suppose you can say that they are “qualified” in the technical sense, but the law can’t make them actually qualified.</p>
<p>Many scholars of college admission point out that the number of high school students in the United States who are college eligible (readily able to get admitted to college) is about double the number who are college ready (able to perform well academically in college classes). </p>
<p>[What</a> Does It Mean to Be College Ready? | Edutopia](<a href=“http://www.edutopia.org/college-ready]What”>http://www.edutopia.org/college-ready)</p>
<p>The law states the standards of admission to a public school. </p>
<p>They fit those admission standards as it relates to their respective schools.</p>
<p>They are qualified.</p>
<p>Those qualifications grant them admission. None others.</p>
<p>I understand what you are saying, but it is silly. If they flunk out because they aren’t prepared for college work, they weren’t qualified in the normal sense of the term. If UT has to create a new remedial track for them, then I supposed they were qualified for that, but it’s a new, lower set of qualifications.</p>
<p>I changed my mind and now think the top 10 percent rule is a good idea.</p>
<p>(Many) Well-off people like me have everything in our favor. Being financially well-off gives you so many more opportunities than if you are poor.</p>
<p>It’s about time something went in favor of the less well-off people. Everything else is stacked against them, and they’ve had to live hard lives, so I think they should get a little lee-way.</p>
<p>Besides, UT is not Harvard, if you work hard, you WILL get in. All you need is to be in the top 50 percent of your class and have like a 1420 sat, and you’ll probably make it.</p>
<p>And even if you don’t, if you truly are qualified, you’ll easily be transferred to ut after a year in ut san antonio.</p>
<p>Besides, learning to deal with disappointment is one of the important lessons in life. Have everything handed to you, and when you finally fail at something, you’ll fall apart.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents.</p>
<p>It seems like sometimes your opinions have no basis in anything but your current emotional state.</p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>My opinion started chaning after I read about this girl who was suing UT after she didn’t get in.</p>
<p>She was omplaining because she thought her credentials were really good, but she was denied because she goes to a “hard school” and it’s really hard to be in the top 10 percent there (she was in the 13th percentile).</p>
<p>I looked up her school profile and the average act score is 26. Not that impressive.</p>
<p>I know this is a massive generalization, but it seems like most people who are against the top 10 percent rule are spoiled well-off kids who have had everything go their way in life, and they expect to be favored in the college admissions process too.</p>
<p>Also,have you seen the sat ranges for UT? They are NOT high.</p>
<p>If you study hard and get 1380 on your sat and are in the top half of your class, you should get in.</p>
<p>That applies to success in general. </p>
<p>People only scapegoat when they refuse to acknowledge their own failings…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See what I mean?</p>
<p>Are you saying that I am bitter because I won’t get into UT?</p>
<p>Because that’s wrong, I’m sorry</p>
<p>“I am floored by the attitude that if one African American succeeds then racism is no longer pervasive in America!!!”</p>
<p>It’s not that “one” African American is succeeding, it’s that millions are succeeding, and Obama’s success shows that they can succeed even to the top of the political world, and with the help of literally millions of white people cheering him on over viable white candidates (who have more politiacal experience). I don’t know what sort of utopian evidence you’re looking for to conclude that reacism isn’t “pervasive,” but this is pretty encouraing.</p>
<p>Of course it’s pervasive. It’s pervading you, for a start. You only have to look at Hillary’s increasingly overt play on it, from the (fairly) subtle “who do you want answering the phone at 3am” stuff to the desperate later stuff on “good hard working white Americans”. I see that this is the wrong place for this discussion, though. </p>
<p>I was accepted at Oxford, without an affirmative action rule or anything similar, but was always convinced I was accepted because i was from a poor comprehensive school in the industrial north, and the college that accepted me was 87% Eton, Harrow, etc. It doesn’t help your self esteem to think you got in somewhere under special circumstances.</p>
<p>life is unfair…this prepares you to accommodate such unfairness</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>“It doesn’t help your self esteem to think you got in somewhere under special circumstances.”</p>
<p>Exactly…psychologists keep telling us that the key to success is getting a positive self-image, yet Affirmative Action sabotages minority achievement by putting an Affirmative Action asterisk next to their accomplishments. And gives racists a handy explanation for minorities’ success. Get rid of affirmative action, and all minority achievements will stand on their own merit, and racists will be without ammunition to attack their successes. Look long-term solution, not short-term white-guilt assuagation. (is that a word? Harryssecret, look that up in your Oxford dictionary–the one with laces on it?).</p>
<p>It’s “assuagement”, I think. My OED is downstairs and I am lazy. </p>
<p>I am not saying affirmative action is necessarily a bad idea. The people who got in to my college from Eton, etc., may well think, “I am only here because I am incredibly privileged and my ancestors cosied up to Henry VIII.” There is always something to dent your self-esteem - I suppose the point is to give everyone enough bedrock of self-esteem as early as possible. And you lot are quite good at that. </p>
<p>The Texas ten percent rule seems better to me anyway - based on merit rather than ethnic origin or gender.</p>