<p>Anybody read this article? What do you think?</p>
<p>
[quote]
White teen sues UT over admissions policy
Sugar Land student, in top of class, challenges racial preferences
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I support this =)</p>
<p>The article says "The lawsuit doesn't challenge the top 10 percent law, which guarantees admission to those who finish in the top 10 percent of a Texas high school's graduating class. Instead, it contends that UT-Austin unlawfully uses racial and ethnic criteria to select other students."</p>
<p><a href="http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report10.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report10.pdf</a>
See page 17. For 2003, from outside the top 10%, we see data showing UT with 1202 White Texas Students, 64 African American Texas Students, 299 Asian American Texas Students, and 199 Hispanic Texas Students. </p>
<p>Is the lawsuit "challenging racial preference" basically objecting to why non-Asian, non-White students were chosen from outside the top 10%? (I see that on the average the Asian kids from outside the top 10% have higher SAT scores and higher GPA's than the White kids do and the Black and Hispanic kids from outside the top 10% have lower SAT and lower GPA's than the White kids do.) What exactly is the point of the lawsuit?</p>
<p>An aside:
My opinion is that the top 10% law is flawed in that if the current trend continues and the laws do not change, soon all of UT will be filled or even over capacity with top 10% kids, leaving no room at all for anyone outside the top 10%, not to mention that there would be no room at all for any international students and out of state students. Maybe a top 5% law would be better.</p>
<p>I hope she wins.</p>
<p>Hmmm. I knew a lot of us who post on this board don't like the top 10% rule, but I didn't know there were objections to how or why non-Asian, non-White students were chosen from outside the top 10%.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Is the lawsuit "challenging racial preference" basically objecting to why non-Asian, non-White students were chosen from outside the top 10%? (I see that on the average the Asian kids from outside the top 10% have higher SAT scores and higher GPA's than the White kids do and the Black and Hispanic kids from outside the top 10% have lower SAT and lower GPA's than the White kids do.) What exactly is the point of the lawsuit?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't really know either. I think the article is kind of confusing. I'm tempted to look at the website where they are trying to enlist others to join the suit and see if it explains more.</p>
<p>Here is their reasoning from the utnotfair website</p>
<p>
[quote]
But even under a liberal reading of Grutter, UT’s use of race and ethnicity violates the Constitution.</p>
<p>Here’s why: Grutter only allows schools to use race-base admissions preferences if race-neutral means have not been considered. UT has considered and implemented race-neutral means. Following Hopwood v. State of Texas, the Texas Legislature passed the Top 10% Plan in 1998. The Top 10% Plan is facially race-neutral because it grants automatic college admissions to any student graduating in the top-10 percent of his or her class. The Top 10% Plan shows that UT has considered and successfully used race-neutral alternatives. Under the Top 10% Plan, racial diversity at UT is higher today than it was when UT employed a race-based quota system.</p>
<p>In spite of this, the University of Texas in 2005 reintroduced racial and ethnic preferences into the admissions process of the UT system. Then-UT President Larry Faulkner claimed that because the majority of UT classrooms aren’t “diverse,” UT reintroduced racial preferences for those applicants not admitted through the Top-10% Plan.</p>
<p>Given UT’s success with the race-neutral Top 10% Plan, UT’s decision to reintroduce racial preferences runs afoul even of Grutter. The Supreme Court ’s opinions in Grutter and Gratz give no reason to suggest that the Court would permit the University of Texas, which already has a proven, race-neutral system in place, to use race or ethnicity to achieve diversity in various segments of the UT world, whether in classrooms (as suggested by President Faulkner), dorms, laboratories, or sports teams. We believe the sort of race-based micromanagement of student life and culture that UT now advocates has no legitimacy under the Equal Protection Clause, particularly in light of UT’s documented success in maintaining diversity without resorting to racial classifications.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Still, how will this affect this girl's admission status? Or anyone else's who joins the club? I don't think it can unless they can (before next fall) show that some minority person was unfairly admitted over her and I don't know how they could do that.</p>
<p>But, in the least, the lawsuit, by stirring the pot, may force some action by the legislature (crossing my fingers now;))</p>
<p>This is the group spearheading the project:</p>
<p>The Project on Fair Representation
1150 Seventeenth St. NW #910
Washington, DC 20036
(703) 505-1922</p>
<p>The top 10% rule in Texas is really only impacting UT Austin and Texas A & M. Texas students are very fortunate compared to students in California. Some of the top UC schools are over 90% top 10% without any State Law requirement or mandate.</p>
<p>UC Berkeley-98% top 10%, UCLA-97% top10%, UC Davis-95% top 10%, UC Irvine-96% top 10%, UC Santa Cruz-90% top 10%---this from a 2006 Edition, Newsweek, America's Hottest Colleges. The percentages may be higher now.</p>
<p>Also, Texas students have a chance at getting in Texas A & M, and Texas Tech by having a decent SAT or ACT score even if they are not in the top 10%.</p>
<p>The student/plaintiff who filed the lawsuit was in the top 12%, if she had a 1300 SAT she could go to A&M or Texas Tech which are excellent universities. The plaintiff can also transfer to UT Austin after a semeter or 2 somewhere else. </p>
<p>If the Texas Legislature does away with the Top 10% law, many will cry foul when the Asian American population increases to 30% or more at UT and A & M due to their high SAT/ACT scores, and high GPAs.</p>
<p>The top 10% law has improved diversity ethnically, economically, and geographically. Both of my children are in the top 5% of their class in a very competitive school district. They work harder than most other students, because of the Top 10% Law. Their school work is more important than:<br>
texting friends all night, video gaming, partying, shopping, hanging out at the mall, etc.</p>
<p>If going to UT Austin was so important to the Plaintiff in this lawsuit, the Plaintiff would have made it the number priority in their live to be in the top 10%. Of course, this would have required the Plaintiff to spend more time studying. </p>
<p>----"Be careful what you wish for"----The alternative may be worse!</p>
<p>the main argument around top 10% is that it makes kids undeserving in any other case get in over kids that are more qualified but fail to make it in.</p>
<p>It is basically pure luck and strategy. There are kids that decide to move to a worse school their senior year just because they couldn't get into the top 10% at their school that is better. </p>
<p>It is not just diversity, there are as many white students that get into UT via the top 10 rule as minorities. There are as many white kids that have weak stats that get in as minorities. </p>
<p>The UCs have their admissions policy in place, they are not going to accept a kid 10/100 in their class with 1000 SAT score and absolutely no ECs. UT will. </p>
<p>The UCs DECIDED to admit those students, UT does not get to decide. </p>
<p>When UT has no space left because all of their spots go to top 10%, OOS students with a perfect SAT score and valedictorian and are in love with UT will get denied. </p>
<p>Is this what you want? UT SHOULD have the right to alter their admissions requirements yearly based on the students applying. The top 10% rule handicaps almost all of that right.</p>
<p>This is the underlying complaint about the top 10 rule.</p>
<p>She will lose because the policy is within the Gratz and Grutter decisions. The race-neutral means is the top ten law. As she failed to qualify under the race-neutral means, she instead went to the race-considered pool and failed to come out on top.</p>
<p>There is also no real legal challenge to the top ten law. It may be bad policy, but I can't see how it violates the constitution when it doesn't give special preferences to any group at all.</p>
<p>The only way the top ten law is going to change is if you can somehow convince the urban Democrats and rural conservatives that their constituencies are going to benefit by changing the law. They won't--the current spots would go to kids such as this DeLay Land girl who go to suburban and private school.</p>
<p>UT is a powerful lobby, but don't expect it to change. There is no way that you could convince these legislators that the change will benefit their district because it WON'T. The only constituencies it will benefit are wealthy suburban districts, who don't have the numbers to win.</p>
<p>This law will stay in place for a while, but the numbers of seniors graduating will drop in a few years so it won't have such a big impact.</p>
<p>The thing is, as UT is advancing among the rankings of top colleges and it's programs get better, it will only lead to more top 10 students enrolling because that is the best college they can get into. It wouldn't be a safety in the sense that it is behind other choices, it will be the top choice which would make yield rates skyrocket. </p>
<p>it's a catch 22</p>
<p>BTW, university of california systems do not use rank in undergraduate admissions, they use their own weighted gpa system. so their percentage is skewed--i don't know where they come up with their numbers</p>
<p>I guess I somewhat understand why this girl would be upset, because a lot of people feel duped by the Top 10% Law. However, life is full of disappointments and if one REALLY wanted to go to UT bad enough, then they would tuck in their bottom lip, attend a different school, and transfer the next year. End result: one would still end up at UT and it wouldn't be as messy and headache-causing as this lawsuit that I'm SURE has been proposed before by many other individuals.</p>
<p>I know two people outside of top 10 that got accepted to UT this year. They were both white. I know about 15 that werent accepted....they were about half mexican/ half white.
You didnt get into the school. Deal with it.</p>
<p>Or one would get better grades in high school...</p>
<p>if you can't get in the top ten percent in most Texas public high schools, you aren't going to be very successful at UT. The top ten law has increased retention rates, increased graduation rates, and increased diversity, so there is really nothing wrong with it as it's met purpose.</p>
<p>Students who are qualified at another university may not be qualified at UT, and they need to learn to deal with this. UT considers class rank to be the most significant factor of determining success, and it's worked very well in the last 10 years.</p>
<p>Ive known people who transfer their senior year from a tough school to an easier school simply to get the top 10%. The ones I know went from HP to Hillcrest High School in DISD because DISD will let you attend even if you're not in their district if you pay a tuition.</p>
<p>the question isn't whether or not students inside the top 10% can handle the classes at UT. The argument lies in whether an imaginary line can do it. That is like saying you are perfectly qualified if you make a 95 on a test, but if you get a 94 we are not sure whether you can handle it.</p>
<p>Yeah we end up with quite a few students transfering from Jesuit to WT White because White allows anyone to take AP classes and hands out good grades like candy (and their senior class is around 600 students, so it's a larger top ten as well).</p>
<p>I know of a girl who transferred from a DISD magnet school ranked at 50% after sophomore year, and graduated as the valedictorian from WT White and went to MIT.</p>
<p>I actually know the girl who is suing. She goes to my school.</p>
<p>I think it's ridiculous. 80% this year was from the top 10%. It's hard out of all the other applicants is only 20% of them are chosen. So she didn't make it. She got CAPPed. She can work hard one year and move on up to Austin. No reason to sue.</p>