quote:

---

Texas Senate Panel Passes Bill Eliminating 10 Per Cent Rule

Texas students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school classes would no longer be guaranteed automatic admission to a public university under a bill that a Senate panel passed Wednesday.

The legislation capping the guaranteed slots at 50 percent of an entering class passed 4-1 Wednesday in the Senate Higher Education Committee and now heads to the full Senate.

---

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/40722277.html

NM

[This message has been edited by saxxeyaggie (edited 3/4/2009 2:02p).]

quote:

---

because officials no longer have discretion over who gets in.

---

Bingo. I've never been a fan of the top 10 rule.

I have liked it, mostly to show that we can get kids into school that would not generally get the chance to get in (low income schools). Now paying for it or being able to succede is another point. Does the HS prepare them FOR college at the state level (A&M/tu vs. UH vs. SHSU vs. others).

At a point in the future, the amount of kids in the top 10% are going to outnumber the positions for fish going to college in TX. You will have to cap the program or get rid of it, which the TX supreme court wouldn't like (I would venture a guess).

I always follow the advice of my counselor "apply early." If you don't know if you want to go, apply anyways. If you know you don't want to go, but got in, then tell them, so someone else can have your spot.

~egon

I never liked the rule. It punished kids who are at bigger schools that are very competitive and took up spots with kids from less competitive schools who had lower SAT scores and other indicators.

I doubt this will get past the full Senate and House.

Senator Duncan tried in 2007. Never passed.
However, Senator Barrientos was the biggest supporter of this bill, if I remember correctly. He is no longer holding a Senate seat, so the bill may have a shot at being changed.

[This message has been edited by BeachGirl (edited 3/4/2009 3:11p).]

I wasn't top 10% in my high school, and had SAT scores under the "Recommended Score" for being top 25% in my class, and I'm not a minority. I had a lot of community service hours and I'm an Eagle Scout. Basically, I was a well rounded high school senior.

However, I got accepted to my first choice college within the university. I believe I was accepted because I conveyed my passion for what I wanted to do with my life in my essay.

I was never a big fan of the Top 10% rule. Had I been in the top 10%, maybe my opinion would be different.

I'm a fan of the top 10% rule. Because of the different grading systems at different schools, you really can't compare GPA at school A to GPA at school B. You also have a hard time comparing SAT scores because so much of that test is if you know the "tricks" to doing well at that test. These tricks are often taught at higher income schools and are available at test prep centers which can only be paid for by the affluent. (Princeton Review, Kaplan, etc.) The good thing about the top 10% rule is that it really asks "what did you do with the resources and opportunities you were given?" and "how do you compare with others who were given the same resources and opportunities?" For these reasons, class ranking is a really good determination for how you will succeed in college; much more so than an SAT score.

My graduating class was 72. When you go to a private school the 10% rule was definitely torbush. I think I was 12th in my class.

Does anyone know if this will be in effect for incoming freshman this year?

I friggin hate the 10 percent rule...it's realllly stupid. My g/f is at consol and she is in the top 11% which is still a really good gpa..if she were at Bryan High she would be in the top 5%..this shows that the top ten percent rule is bull!

And I have a friend at Brazos Christian who is number TWO in her class and she's not in the top ten percent! How crappy is that?!

and when big schools like UT haven't even been looking at anyone besides the top ten percent it really hurts students who deserve to get into a big school like that!

quote:

---

big schools like UT

---

You do realize that A&M is the only other truly big school in the state, right?

The top 10% rule is one of the most useless pieces of legislation that Texas has had. It does not predict college readiness and kids from smaller rural schools actually have a harder time getting into school since usually the top 10% is about 10 people or less. I'm all for getting rid of it.

I got in as an out of state who was only top 25% (in Arkansas no less). Thank god for killing the ACT!

But seriously, that rule only guarantees admission to those students, it doesn't mean that others can't get in. I'm a prime example of that.

Top 10% rule
=
affirmative action
=
a subsitute for the old quota system
=
liberalism continuing to eat away at the public education system

Ok, so when someone sues for "affirmative action" because they didn't get in, and it goes to the Supreme Court, then what? The courts have said we can't use affirmative action, but that we have to increase the ranks of minorities in school. What do you do?

And no, I did not get in on teh 10% rule. I went to a private school. To be in the top 10%, you have to have above a 4.0. I barely made top 25%.

~egon

Just because you aren't in the top 10% doesn't mean you can't get in. (Although maybe at texas since there are so many people that want to go there) If you worried about it, you or your kids need to make better grades. Its high school, its really not that hard.

quote:

---

Just because you aren't in the top 10% doesn't mean you can't get in.

---

That's right. My son graduated in the top 11% from consol so he didn't qualify for the automatic enrollment. But his sat's were very high and he was accepted as an academic admit.

That is the concern UT is having right now - 80% of their freshman enrollment are top 10% qualifiers. It hasn't hit A&M as hard yet, but it will eventually with the population of Texas growing as it is.

There could be a time in the near future where there just isn't any room in the freshman class for a top 11% student.

Do they need to look at changing it to top 5%?

CStrick-

You are aware that being in the top 10% at Consol, for example, may not be the same as being in the top 10% for Hearne? Not picking on Hearne or pumping up consol, but stating that it is a terrible measure of academic success.

quote:

---

Ok, so when someone sues for "affirmative action" because they didn't get in, and it goes to the Supreme Court, then what? The courts have said we can't use affirmative action, but that we have to increase the ranks of minorities in school.

---

Actually this is false. Affirmative action is not unconstitutional. In fact, it was upheld a few years ago by the Supreme Court in a case concerning the University of Michigan's program. What you can't do is have "set asides" or "quotas" for certain minority groups.

That said, the beauty of the top 10% rule is that it allows bright students who have come from poorer schools who cannot compete with the students from Austin Westlake, Consol, and Highland Park High Schools in SAT scores have a chance at a quality education at one of the elite universities in the state. These students are not any less intelligent than the ones at Westlake or Highland Park, they just have not been given the opportunities that their peers at the more affluent schools have been given.

quote:

---

These students are not any less intelligent than the ones at Westlake or Highland Park, they just have not been given the opportunities that their peers at the more affluent schools have been given.

---

While this is one case.. another is the case where the entire school is filled with students who are less motivated, less intelligent, less capable of achieving a high level of education.. and hit that 10% when a brilliant student at another school doesn't because of competition.

The fact of the matter is that the 10% rule isn't a good gauge of intellect or potential.. you might as well toss a coin.

I didn't say it was a good measuring stick, I just said it was a not a requirement for admission to college. As long as the child does well he/she should be fine. I know a lot of people no where near the 10% that got into A&M, now things may have changed since then, I don't know. But like I said earlier, if you are worried, either make better grades or move to Hearne.

[This message has been edited by Cstrickland05 (edited 3/5/2009 2:17p).]

This bill really wouldn't change too much at A&M. As it stands, only about 50-60% of our incoming freshman class is comprised of top 10% students. So putting a cap at 50% won't affect much of anything.

However, I can't wait to see how the mess would play out at UT. Are they going to take top 10%ers until they have reached the 50%? Or are they going to select the most competitive top 10%ers? If they go with the first scenario, you are going to have some upset parents claiming that their baby is a better top 10% student that one who was accepted.

Ah the joys of working in this field.

I think what tu is wanting to do is cap auto-enrollment at 50% for top 10% people. After that, everyone is looked at and THEN they make a decision.

Which goes back to my original advice...

APPLY EARLY!

As for what happened in Michigan, I don't remember if it was fed or state. And I realize that they can use those arguments down here, things (I would hope) are a bit different down here than MI, at least in the thoughts of "race relations" and colleges. Just my thoughts.

~egon

quote:

---

another is the case where the entire school is filled with students who are less motivated, less intelligent, less capable of achieving a high level of education.. and hit that 10% when a brilliant student at another school doesn't because of competition.

---

This is a vast overgeneralization. I would challenge you to find one school in which every single student is less motivated, less intelligent, and less capable than every student at the high schools I named. Your statement reeks of snobbery.

CLS,

I think the reason for the disagreement here stems from something other than the 10% rule by itself.

What is the objective of the admissions office? Take the most qualified applicants? Does the 10% rule do this?

The 10% rule was crafted with the best intentions of trying to allow access by those who do well in their schools and to promote diversity. The problem is that it also lets a bunch of people who are not even close to having all the normal requirements get in. It all sounds great, but when a large number of qualified applicants are turned away, it is punishing those students.

I know you say this reeks of snobbery, but the reality is that many of the qualified students being turned away are no better financially than those who have been accepted by the 10% rule. It is just a matter of where they were born. Actually, if you are a econ. disadvantaged student at Consol, the stats would say that you would have an even harder time getting into a University like TAMU or tu, due to the 10%.

quote:

---

The 10% rule was crafted with the best intentions of trying to allow access by those who do well in their schools and to promote diversity. The problem is that it also lets a bunch of people who are not even close to having all the normal requirements get in. It all sounds great, but when a large number of qualified applicants are turned away, it is punishing those students.

I know you say this reeks of snobbery, but the reality is that many of the qualified students being turned away are no better financially than those who have been accepted by the 10% rule. It is just a matter of where they were born. Actually, if you are a econ. disadvantaged student at Consol, the stats would say that you would have an even harder time getting into a University like TAMU or tu, due to the 10%.

---

While I agree with much of what you are saying, I think that the top 10% rule shows that many of these students are just as deserving as anyone else. If they weren't, I really think we would see a lower retention rate at A&M due to fail-outs from these top 10% students. Most of the students I advise who are from these so-called "disadvantaged" high schools come in and perform very well. To say that they are undeserving of their spots simply isn't accurate. They come in and prove themselves just like everyone else.

I must reply on this thread. I was recently speaking with a faculty of the university to our northwest. He said they have the highest number of Texas valedictorians accepted each year. They also have the largest number of valedictorians that fail out of school each year. The ones that do fail out are statistically more likely to come from the smaller schools in the more socioeconomically underprivileged schools in the state.

I came from a school that had less than 100 in my graduating class. Heck, only about 10% of my class even attended college. Why should all of those students have been guaranteed a spot at a "flagship" type of school? That kills all competition and brings us back to mediocrity. Believe me, the majority of the top 10% of my class would never have even been able to consider doing well at A&M or Texas, much less TT, UTA or UTSA. They needed to be at places like junior colleges or local small colleges (SHSU, SFA, TAMUK, TAMCC, etc...)

It is time that this rule is discarded. It won't, however, because of the large rural and South Texas component of our legislature who realize that their constituency would be hit hard with disbanding this. Oh, and before I get blasted for my thoughts, I come from both of those schools (rural and South Texas).

Stop it Harrierdoc! Being real and not being PC is not a good stance on this subject! It is about being equal!