<p>**dt123 **and bandit_TX</p>
<p>OK, we all agree that in the inception the legislation for admission of the top 10% had to do with attempting to address the anti-affirmative action ruling in Hopwood. I never said that the 10% arrangement couldn’t be changed. </p>
<p>My point as the OP was that having a rule that the top 10% are “in” changes the economics of the state colleges. It increased the expenditures for remedial classes because many more students from non-college prep level HS are admitted under the rule. This contributes to the cost of college going up.</p>
<p>It also decreased the number of students who did not need any aid (generally the under-top 10% students from wealthy independent school districts). It increased the number of students who needed substantial aid (the 10% student from a low income family). </p>
<p>AND becaue this rule resulted in part in the very steep increase in the cost to attend the state colleges, it made it increasingly more difficult for the middle income student to afford. Then the “renege” was only on the aid to the middle income student. The wealthy can still afford college, the low income gets aid and the middle income gets the shaft.</p>
<p>THAT is what the thread is about.</p>
<p>Your thoughts on the 10% rule, other than “it is popular.” For instance. If you are correct that the affirmative action adressed in Hopwood has now been determined to be constitutionally permissible (a point I am not willing to concede), isn’t that form of social tinkering better, since the “old” way admission is generally linked to ability (unlike rank in class in a state where the disparitybetween the have and have not school districts is immense).</p>
<p>THAT’s what this thread is about.</p>