<p>I think they are just forced to admit any top 10 percent students that apply. So , I mean technically as a top 10 percent student you get in when you apply, but there is no first come first serve. Its just everyone gets in.</p>
<p>haha I meant for like everyone besides the top 10%... for everyone else outside of it, international, and OOS- it's just rolling admissions, right?</p>
<p>i like the scholarship 1500 a year</p>
<p>That scholarship is bs if you ask me. Why do dumb kids at po-dunk high school deserve 1500 dollars for just not being stupid, plus it will cost the state an a BUTTLOAD. I think it would be more fair to give kids who have a 3.5 or higher while at UT the scholarship. That way it will become more competitive, and people who really deserve the money, will get it.</p>
<p>i like the scholarship but you are right about the 3.5 gpa requirement....and why should po dunk kids get into good schools automatically....i go to a po dunk school and many people dont deserve any college....</p>
<p>foxshox what high school do u go to</p>
<p>It is my understanding from reading articles, that it will be like the business school admissions where they will admit starting with 1% and move up until they fill 50% then the rest will be lumped in with the others trying to gain admission. The estimate for the starting year will be around 7% guaranteed admits then anyone above that will be admitted in a holistic method (test scores, ec's, etc.) </p>
<p>It's not perfect, but it was a compromise that the reps could live with (excluding some).</p>
<p>So does anyone know exactly when will this be put into effect? Like what year?</p>
<p>I agree with the $1500 scholarship deal... it's going to cost a buttload for the state...and the majority of the people who will receive it don't deserve it. However I suppose it's better than automatically accepting them to the university itself.</p>
<p>yes it will be by 1% then 2% untill they fill up</p>
<p>"It is my understanding from reading articles, that it will be like the business school admissions where they will admit starting with 1% and move up until they fill 50% then the rest will be lumped in with the others trying to gain admission. The estimate for the starting year will be around 7% guaranteed admits then anyone above that will be admitted in a holistic method (test scores, ec's, etc.)"</p>
<p>What is intended by the Senate law is that starting at 1% and going downward, they will admit until 50% of total Freshman admits is reached. Then, the remaining top 10% will not be lumped in with everyone else. Those 10 percenters will be judged holistically against OTHER remaining top 10 percenters for additional admits until top 10% admits reach a total of 60% of Freshman class. Anyone left at that point will be lumped in with others trying to gain admission. So, after auto admits for 50% of the class it could be that a 7% admit and a 10% admit will have the same chance but they will still have a better chance than the general applicant pool. </p>
<p>Of course, still has to go to compromise with House and then get out of both chambers and the session ends May 31st so who knows what will happen. And both the UT system and A&M system believe in creative interpretation of any laws that affect them so who knows how the final compromise will be applied.</p>
<p>The article said the new law, if passed, would apply to incoming freshmen of 2008.</p>
<p>too late for me.... (unhappy face)</p>
<h2>"What is intended by the Senate law is that starting at 1% and going downward, they will admit until 50% of total Freshman admits is reached. Then, the remaining top 10% will not be lumped in with everyone else. Those 10 percenters will be judged holistically against OTHER remaining top 10 percenters for additional admits until top 10% admits reach a total of 60% of Freshman class. Anyone left at that point will be lumped in with others trying to gain admission."</h2>
<p>This is my understanding as well...that admissions will be in rank order until the 50% cap is met and then holistic measures of the remaining top ten percenters take over for the next 10% tier of acceptances. After 60% of the freshman class is filled, no law governs acceptance of the remaining 40%. At UT-Austin, a significant number of top ten percenters who would have been guaranteed admissions at their first choice school will no longer have those guarantees.</p>
<p>While it seems to be a step in the right direction, what has happened is that the State has placed even more focus on rank for 50% of admissions slots. Now students will feel even more pressure to achieve an even higher rank to get a guaranteed spot. </p>
<p>A couple of problems....</p>
<p>New proposed law still doesn't solve the problem of lack of a uniform grading, weighting or ranking system for high schools in the State of Texas. The quality of a top ranked candidate at one school could be dramatically different than one at another school. I'm a CPA. I took the Uniform CPA exam in San Antonio which was exactly the same as the exam taken in NYC or Seattle or Miami. Everyone who is a CPA has met the same standard of excellence and can be considered, to a certain extent, equal. Similarly, some sort of consistency in standards is necessary if rank is going to be the only factor considered in 50% of admissions decisions in our state.</p>
<p>Another problem....What will be the effect on curriculum choices for high schools students? Now that kids need an even higher rank to guarantee their spot at their first choice college, will they forego those AP classes or additional maths and sciences to protect rank? Or will they seek out the easiest possible classes with the heaviest weighting? Of course they will.</p>
<p>From the /Austin American Statesman/</p>
<p>A cut and paste below:</p>
<p>House rejects top 10 percent revisions
Supporters huddle to find a way to revive proposal.
By Ralph K.M. Haurwitz</p>
<p>AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF</p>
<p>Monday, May 28, 2007</p>
<p>Legislation that would have allowed the University of Texas to deny admission to some students ranking in the top 10 percent of their high school class for the first time since 1997 was derailed by the Texas House on Sunday night.</p>
<p>Top 10 percent students from Texas high schools have enjoyed a virtually unfettered right to attend any public college or university in the state since lawmakers enacted an automatic-admission law 10 years ago in hopes of increasing minority enrollment, especially at the University of Texas at Austin.</p>
<p>Senate Bill 101 would have allowed a school to limit top 10 percent students to 60 percent of its freshmen from Texas high schools. The Senate passed the measure 28-2 Sunday, but the House rejected it on a 75-64 vote.</p>
<p>The House sponsor, Rep. Geanie Morrison, R-Victoria, and other supporters of the bill were huddling late Sunday to try to find a way to revive the legislation before time runs out in the legislative session today.</p>
<p>Because there is a midnight deadline for passing bills, the issue appeared all but dead for another two years. But the measure's sponsors weren't giving up, and they could force another vote. Soon after the bill was rejected, they started going desk to desk, trying to persuade opponents to change their minds.</p>
<p>If lawmakers can get a measure to Gov. Rick Perry, he is likely to sign it. He has said that the current law causes good students to enroll in out-of-state colleges because they can't get into the state's flagship institutions.</p>
<p>The House vote was unexpected. The chamber voted 77-67 last week to approve an earlier version of the measure. And House members approved similar proposals during two previous legislative sessions.</p>
<p>"The difference between this session and last session may be that rural Republicans seem to have heard from their districts that the top 10 percent rule is helping them," said Rep. Mark Strama, D-Austin, who voted for limiting the law.</p>
<p>UT has sought limits for the past few years, arguing that too large a portion of its undergraduate enrollment is being determined by a single factor, squeezing out students with leadership skills, musical talent and other qualities who don't happen to rank high.</p>
<p>The university's fall 2006 freshman class had a larger portion, 71 percent, of students from Texas high schools admitted under the law than any previous class. That worked out to 66 percent of all UT freshmen. The automatic-admission law does not apply to students from other states.</p>
<p>UT is the only school among 35 public colleges and universities that sought relief from the 1997 law. But any school whose capacity is strained in the future could opt to restrict admission of top 10 percent students under the measure.</p>
<p>House rejection of the bill is a major defeat for UT President William Powers Jr., who spent considerable time testifying at legislative hearings and meeting with lawmakers this year. He argued that giving the university more flexibility in deciding whom to admit would allow it to recruit more Hispanic and black students.</p>
<p>Minority enrollment at UT has not changed significantly since 1997. Blacks went from 3.7 percent of undergraduates that year to 4.2 percent in 2006, according to university records. Hispanics made up 14.2 percent of the student body in 1997 and 17.1 percent in 2006.</p>
<p>Sen. Florence Shapiro, R-Plano, who authored Senate Bill 101, described the measure as a compromise. Some lawmakers, especially members of minority groups to whom top 10 percent is a touchstone of merit-based equal opportunity, wanted no changes. Others, including some representing highly competitive suburban schools whose students increasingly felt shut out of UT, favored repeal.</p>
<p>House and Senate negotiators had to resolve differences between the chambers' two versions. The Senate had included an amendment by Sen. Steve Ogden, R-Bryan, intended to award each top 10 percent student in the state a $1,500 scholarship annually. Morrison was resistant, arguing that it makes no sense to offer merit-based aid when the state has not set aside sufficient aid for students with financial need.</p>
<p>Lawmakers enacted the 1997 law in response to a 1996 federal court ruling involving UT that effectively banned affirmative action at public colleges and universities in Texas.</p>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2003 in a case involving the University of Michigan that race and ethnicity could once again be</p>