Beyond Race in Affirmative Action- New Supreme Court Case

Parents Forum
141

<p>Re: <a href=“http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report13.pdf[/url]”>http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/HB588-Report13.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>It looks like the non-top-10% (non-HB88) students were those with lower high school rank, but higher test scores.</p>

<p>The non-top-10% students with the higher test scores did worse in terms of UT GPA than the top-10% students with similar test scores. At the lower test score ranges (where there were fewer students), the non-top-10% students did better. Overall average UT GPAs were slightly higher for top-10% students in the most recent years, but higher by a greater amount in past years. (table 6a)</p>

<p>For all races listed, top-10% students with SAT scores >= 2100 had very high UT GPAs (3.56 for Asian American, 3.58 for African American and White, 3.69 for Hispanic). But UT GPAs for other categories show significant racial disparity. (table 6b to 6e)</p>

142

<p>

</p>

<p>Okay, so the question is why did a dozen to two black kids with lower SAT scores than her, get in?</p>

143

<p>

</p>

<p>That was my mistake, the plantiff had 1180 on M+V only. There seem to be about a couple of dozen kids with scores lower than her, who got in.</p>

144

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes, when the whole top 10% came about, it was touted as a way to ensure “diversity.” But of course, as others have noted, certainly many white kids from weaker school districts have benefited.</p>

<p>I am an alum of UT. If sending my kid to UT had been a TOP priority, we would have moved our daughters to the school district in which our lake house stands. I actually considered this once for completely different reasons. I toured the high school and spoke to the GC, who told me that only 30% of the students go on to four year university. While we could have assured my D of a top 10% automatic admit, the trade offs would have been unacceptable, so we kept D at her vigorous private prep, where, as a very bright and accomplished student, she is nevertheless likely only in the 30% if not lower. But she has received a wonderful education which would have been impossible in the other district. </p>

<p>It is what it is. At this point the top 10% rule is not in question.</p>

145

<p>Perazziman, – It isnt clear to me that it is a dozen. I think the stats are only for in-state, but i could be wrong. So I dont think we know re out of state.</p>

146

<p>I accept that an 1180 now is different from pre-1995 - I’ve been told it’s comparable to a 1280 these days. M+V only. </p>

<p>In 1984 that same score and my straight-As from a competitive private school got me into Vassar, Emory and Oberlin and the 3 “harder” SUNYs. Yale didn’t take me and Brown waitlisted me, though. I don’t recall taking the SAT more than once or doing any kind of prep course, either. Different time.</p>

147

<p>Now, that you have discovered the 10% reports published by UT, it is good to remember that a discussion about admissions cannot be settled by comparing applications and … enrollment. The missing link is obviously the middle part, namely admissions. With a yield in the 40 to 60 percent range, you simply cannot speculate why students do NOT accept the offers of admission. </p>

<p>For people who like to explore the issues of final choices, there is an interesting game to be played. On can compare the size of the senior class to the number of students who decided to enroll. Again, you cannot draw a real conclusion why a school with a senior class of 100 only sends 2 students to Texas while a school with a class of 500 might send 85. And of course, enrollment is a different animal than admissions because of yield variances.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/2011TexasFeeders.pdf[/url]”>http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/2011TexasFeeders.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The next step is to read the attempts to analyze the Texas rules and see how they might change over time. Here’s one of the first reports:</p>

<p><a href=“http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/forthcoming/flagships_feeders.pdf[/url]”>http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/forthcoming/flagships_feeders.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>A few years later: <a href=“http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/AffirmativeAction_TopTen.pdf[/url]”>http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/AffirmativeAction_TopTen.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Since we are dealing with speculations, we could ask ourselves what would happen if all the automatic 10 percenters from the more impoverished areas were given the financial and moral support to take advantage of the current law and make the trek to Austin and College Station!</p>

148

<p>

I think we would need more information to draw much from this. Comparisons of majors and so on. Otherwise it’s hard to get a handle on. Thoughts?</p>

149

<p>TXArtemis, Here is the article I was referencing: (The part about the NMF is at the end)</p>

<p>[Qualified</a> Texas students being displaced by out-of-state university applicants | News | …](<a href=“http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/04/02/2970160/qualified-texas-students-being.html]Qualified”>http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/04/02/2970160/qualified-texas-students-being.html)</p>

150

<p>Perazz, – why was that kid not admitted if he was in top 9%?</p>

151

<p>^Kayf, I think, under the new rule it is the top 8% at UT. also notice that in addition to those 10 AAs who got in with SAT scores below 1500, there were 8 Whites who go in too. So, it does not seem like a huge conspiracy against Whites at UT to me. If anyone, it should be the Asians (with 0 admitted below 1500) that may have a cause to gripe about.</p>

152

<p>The top TEN percent rule has become a misnomer. That is why I used the numbers 8-9-10 to refer to the rule has it worked for the past years.</p>

<p>One of the current rule is: </p>

<p>"(e) For the period from the 2011-2012 academic year through the 2015-2016 academic year, The University of Texas at Austin is not required to admit applicants in excess of the number needed to fill 75 percent of first-time resident undergraduate students." </p>

<p>Also, with a 75 percent cap and successive rounds of admissions that start at the 1st, 2nd percentile and work down, there is no guarantee students barely ranked inside the top ten will get the nod. </p>

<p>However, all of that should be irrelevant if the policy would be changed to a hard top 4 percent based on rank and a top 4 percent based on standardized tests. </p>

<p>Inasmuch as the policy has been positive in extending the number of schools that send students to the flaaship, its impact on increasing the minority participation has been mediocre at best. After a decade, it is a given that the message has been sent to all the schools throughout Texas. Time has come to reduce the scope of this boondoggle by drastically limiting the number of students admitted solely based on a rank as high as 8 to 10 percent. It should be halved to allow a true diversification in qualifications.</p>

153

<p>Peraz, the 10 whites with scores that low were out of over 500, which leads me to believe these 10 had other things to offer. The 10 AAs were out of 30, a not insiginificant %. We also dont know dispersal among the next grouping.</p>

154

<p>

</p>

<p>I think that would be an excellent idea.</p>

155

<p>perazziman, thanks for the article. If you’ll re-read the second paragraph, you will see the gripe is not that the National Merit kid was denied admission, but that he wasn’t auto-admitted. Clearly, his rank wasn’t in the magic top whatever percentage applied that year. “Being one of Texas’ National Merit Finalists – in the top one-half of 1 percent of the nation’s high school graduates – didn’t automatically secure [HS] senior [] a spot at the University of Texas at Austin.”</p>

156

<p>xiggi, UT also recently released their statutorily-required 5-year report. See [Admissions</a> Research: Automatic Admission (SB 175) Reports - UT Austin](<a href=“http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/admission_reports.html]Admissions”>http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/admission_reports.html)</p>

157

<p>TX, that is a valid point. Still, this is an example of a TAMS kid with stats (good enough to get into JHU) who is rejected by UT, while kids with weaker stats from inner city and rural areas get in automatically. Although, I am now beginning to understand xiggi’s point about how auto admit does not mean auto accepted to the major of your choice, I was under the impression that UT and A&M practiced rolling admissions- first come first serve.</p>

158

<p>

</p>

<p>Egads, xiggi. Are you suggesting that Techsus follow California’s lead on something? Be still my heart. :D</p>

<p>But to be fair, UC admits that they stole the Texas Top % idea, but also did the math and quickly figured out what impact that would have on their discretion for Comprehensive Review (aka ‘compassionate review’). Thus, UC set the auto-acceptance cap at 4% of class rank (as UC defines rank, not the HS), and excluded the state flagship(s) from participating.</p>

159

<p>Thanks, TXA. I saw it earlier but have not read the details. Only so much time in a day! It is also quite repetitive. </p>

<p>Here’s a blast from the past:</p>

<p><a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/31616-challenge-texas-top-10-a.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/31616-challenge-texas-top-10-a.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>And a long past indeed … I wrote this om 02-03-2005!</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>PS In a sign of changing times, the feeder report shows that 10 students from the above HS enrolled last year.</p>

160

<p>

</p>

<p>The ‘challenges’ UC and UT and every other public Uni faces is really K12 in their respective states. The real challenge that the public Uni faces is that the instate high school graduates who qualify for college may be dissimilar to the demographics of the state as a whole; indeed, this is the case in California.</p>

<p>I would submit that such a system was not very well designed in the first place. College admissions ain’t rocket science, particularly given such large numbers of applicants. They ‘systems’ may have been politically-expedient, and perhaps the only designs that could pass muster at the time, but ‘well designed’? hahahahahha</p>