<p>So there will be about 8000 first-year students at UT this fall:
about 400 African American,
about 1600 Asian, and
about 1600 Hispanic?</p>
<p>is this a question...? I'm confused...</p>
<p>Yeah sounds about right</p>
<p>First question, is 8000 first-year students about right?</p>
<p>I saw a pdf file on utexas.edu where it said there would be more than 7600 first-year students, another (the USA Today column) that said there would be 7200. US News says in 2006 there were 7417 freshmen. How many new freshmen will there be in 2008 - do we know?</p>
<p>Second, here are the 2006 proportions, according to US News.
African-American 4%
Asian-American 17%
Hispanic 17%
Native American 0%
White 57%
International 4%
and the second question is, do we know what we will we see as far as enrollment by racial and ethnic diversity this fall? Same as '06?</p>
<p>Thanks for the answer before I finished typing the questions...</p>
<p>So how many international students would you think there will be this year, I've heard something close to 3%.</p>
<p>wow 17% asians?
crazy.</p>
<p>Not to start anything but do the % reflect the state population %? Is Texas 17% Asian?</p>
<p>No, Asians are over represented by a lot. Latinos and African Americans are under represented.</p>
<p>Whites are overrepresented, but not by a lot.</p>
<p>The population of Texas is basically half white, half not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Not to start anything but do the % reflect the state population %? Is Texas 17% Asian?
[/quote]
17% of the top 10% are asian.....</p>
<p>**No, Asians are over represented by a lot. Latinos and African Americans are under represented.</p>
<p>Whites are overrepresented, but not by a lot.</p>
<p>The population of Texas is basically half white, half not.**</p>
<p>...which makes me wonder why the top 10% is believed by so many to increase diversity at UT?? Seems to me like the population of UT should look like the population of Texas.</p>
<p>Imagine what would happened without top ten percent, the under represented minorities would become even more under represented. There is a reason they are under represented in the first place; they do worse as a whole on SATs, which is why they are under represented in the first place. If there are spots no guaranteed they would get in in even lower numbers.</p>
<p>Wow. It's kind of surreal to know that I'm only 1/400 new black students. Personally, I think that's a crying shame. We basically make up the same amount as international students. PLUS, supposedly out of 49,000+ students at UT, only 2500+ are black?!</p>
<p>Wow. Talk about a REAL minority right there.</p>
<p>Imagine what would happened without top ten percent, the under represented minorities would become even more under represented. There is a reason they are under represented in the first place; they do worse as a whole on SATs, which is why they are under represented in the first place. If there are spots no guaranteed they would get in in even lower numbers.</p>
<p>The top 10% rule doesn't guarantee that URM will get in. It just ensures that every school will be represented at UT. There is no provision for race, that's the reason the top 10% rule was created, supposedly to provide diversity. I don't think it does.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The top 10% rule doesn't guarantee that URM will get in. It just ensures that every school will be represented at UT. There is no provision for race, that's the reason the top 10% rule was created, supposedly to provide diversity. I don't think it does.
[/quote]
Based on what? You just think it doesn't based on nothing? </p>
<p>The top 10% rule was clearly created for the sole purpose of increasing diversity, if it didn't work, it wouldn't have been put in place in the first place or kept there. </p>
<p>Its pretty clear how it works, there are high schools with a large amount of minorities. Those schools were sending very few grads to UT based on their merits alone. So by allowing the top 10% of students from any high school in, they are giving those normally under represented high schools( with large numbers of minorities) more [guaranteed] spots. </p>
<p>I still don't like the law, but it did what it set out to do, that I can't argue. I just know too many people that got screwed because they went to the wrong high school(the over represented ones like mine).</p>
<p>*Its pretty clear how it works, there are high schools with a large amount of minorities. Those schools were sending very few grads to UT based on their merits alone. So by allowing the top 10% of students from any high school in, they are giving those normally under represented high schools( with large numbers of minorities) more [guaranteed] spots. *</p>
<p>In theory, and up to now, it has worked...but once kids in the top 12% of their ultra competitive high school transfer to those 'minority' high schools,then what? I have a couple of babysitters from UT who did just that- they transfered out of Reagan and Churchill in San Antonio, where they were out of the top 10% and into Pearsall, where they easily graduated in the top 10%.</p>
<p>So you know 2 people that have done that? I know of a few too, but a couple people here and there aren't effecting the numbers or percentages in a big way. Plus, most of the time, some schools are more difficult than others, transferring to another school for a short period of time might end up making you look worse if your still not in the top ten. I mean what if you made a 3.5 at an extremely competitive high school, and maybe a 3.5 elsewhere is a joke? Then you end up looking worse and having a harder time getting into UT legitimately. So that's why most people won't transfer unless they would easily be in the top 5% elsewhere. Plus how many people honestly would go to the trouble, where as you could keep put, you could still do cap which isn't all that bad, and probably less trouble then trying to transfer schools.</p>
<p>I still can't see why merit should be below diversity</p>
<p>Isn't that kinda going backwards?</p>
<p>I don't believe that anyone advocates diversity over merit. Diversity is an objective just as merit is an objective.</p>
<p>However, merit is a subjective measure. A 4.0 GPA at one HS is not the same as a 4.0 GPA at other HS's. Even SAT scores are not that objective due to the variability in preparation for the test. Then there are essays and EC's which are the most subjective measures of merit.</p>
<p>That's why there is such much controversy in college admissions.</p>
<p>Even if the 10% law is repealed, there would still be controversy as to who is admitted and who isn't.</p>
<p>As for repeal of the 10% law, UT should be careful of what is wishing for. If it is repealed, it would present a whole new set of issues for the admissions department. </p>
<p>This is not to say whether the 10% law is good or bad but it is a quantitative stake in the ground. Anytime you put a rule in place, there will be legitmate exceptions.</p>
<p>*So you know 2 people that have done that? I know of a few too, but a couple people here and there aren't effecting the numbers or percentages *</p>
<p>Ha, ha, I don't exactly hang out with college kids for fun, so yes, I do know just a couple who have done it, but I think that if I were die hard to get my kids into UTA, I would consider transfering them out of an ultra competitive suburban HS into a lower performing one. I think I'd have to be pretty hard core to do so. Remember, there are always ways of beating the system which make the system look pretty silly.</p>