<p>conroe texas! I live in Montgomery (right down the freeway)...that's crazy.</p>
<p>We are in The Woodlands. Not far either!</p>
<p>When we visited UT last October, they told us that not all top 10%ers are placed in at Austin due to overcrowding. Many are sent to other UT campuses and then they transfer to Austin sophomore or junior year. Overcrowding is a problem.</p>
<p>woot i love the conroe are heck yes</p>
<p>Overcrowding is a problem, however, the consequence of limiting enrollment would be to deny admission to many well qualified applicants that are not in the top 10% of their graduating class.</p>
<p>The top 10% law guarantees that Texas HS graduates who rank in the top 10% of their senior class be admitted to any state institution of higher learning. UT has no discretion there.</p>
<p>Applicants that contribute to the overcrowding, are the ones who fall outside the top 10%. Quite often, these applicants have high GPA's and high SAT's but attend highly competitive HS's. Would anyone want to deny some these applicants the opportunity to attend UT?</p>
<p>Nothing more than a de facto disguised racial quota system, which would likely be unlawful if done in any other way</p>
<p>i know of quite a few people in the top ten % who on their essays just write crap like "well you have to accept me anyway because im in the top ten % so blah blah blah" :/</p>
<p>im in the top ten percent of a rural school but i dont like the rule because my scores are legitamite but their are ppl with a higher rankl then me that cant evn score above a 1000 on the old sat i think they should drop the rule</p>
<p>due to the political aspect of this debate within the texas legislature, the bickering about whether to get rid of the rule, or to lower it to 5%, or whatever, will seem go on indefinitely. this rule will not be taken away for a quite a while. certainly not for the class of 07 applicants. and i very much doubt it'll happen for the 08 applicants either.</p>
<p>granted this rule in general sucks, but its still producing some results, such as actually letting more texas rural/minority students get a quality education. but as others have stated, its just becoming ridiculous now, with over 70% of this year's entering freshmen class coming from the top 10%. and this stat will only grow year after year, at which point, the university will be filled with more underqualified "top 10%ers" students. and i can attest to m1817 previous post. i came from an extremely competitive public high school, with a class size of roughly 1250 and was fortunate enough to be within the top 10%. but i knew some of my classmates who were outside of the top 10% who didnt get accepted but are 100000000000x smarter than a lot of the people i know here at UT; its not very fair is it? at least the university is trying to cap the admission quota. so overcrowding is becoming less of a problem at least. =)</p>
<p>CitationX; Umm, no.</p>
<p>Look at this issue a bit more critically, CitationX. The 10% rule was a deal, like any other struck by the legislature. And who benefited the most? Rural areas. So then-Governor Bush and the rural representatives got to boast about their high minded sense of priciple. The rural folks knew what they were doing. Bush, I'm not so sure about.</p>
<p>Just to give some hope to some of you. I know many kids both last year and the year before who were not top 10% (including my oldest s) who got accepted to UT. They all attended competitive hs's, either public or private, had really high test scores, and very well put together applications (ie good recommendations, essays, extracurriculars, etc.) There is hope! </p>
<p>When my sr s and I met with the admissions couns. at McCombs, he made the point to say that they feel that even though some kids get in under the top 10% rule with fewer skills than others (depending on the hs they attended and the curriculum offered), they feel that everyone has worked their butt off to attain top 10% status and that they can succeed at UT Austin. So, I didn't get the feeling that they think that "lesser" students are taking the place of smarter kids.</p>
<p>I'm surprised no one has mentioned this before -- so surprised that I'm starting to think I'm misinformed? So someone please correct me if I'm wrong.</p>
<p>I was under the impression that the Top 10% law only guaranteed you entrance into the College of Liberal Arts(at UT). I understand that it's a popular school, but that makes the Top 10% rule useless to anyone who wants to major in something more specific(say, Microbiology or Business), right? I feel like that would do a LOT to prevent a worsening of the overcrowding problem(as I hear UT has always been overcrowded), because I don't see the point in going to a school where you can't major in what you want.</p>
<p>Visitor_here,</p>
<p>That's my understanding, too, although the theory is that once a student is admitted s/he has a good chance to transfer into another college if s/he completes the freshman year with good grades. In addition, many freshmen ultimately change majors at some point in college - so getting the first choice major may not be that important to every student.</p>
<p>It is very difficult to get in to Business or Communications. For Business, out of high school, you would need to be in the top 5-6% to be in for sure. After a year, your GPA would need to be very competitive.</p>
<p>Flatxca,</p>
<p>I agree it's probably not easy to transfer into some colleges (e.g., Liberal Arts/Plan II, Business, Communications, Pharmacy, and maybe Engineering), especially with anything less than a 4.0 college GPA. But it's hard to really know since I'm not aware of official statistics on transfers. I know sophomores who transferred into Business and Pharmacy but I don't know how common that is. My guess is that a lot depends on how many students leave due to grades, illness, change in major, desire to go elsewhere, etc. Thus, I probably shouldn't have said a "good" chance to transfer but I do think the number of transfers between colleges varies from year-to-year.</p>
<p>Dr and visitor,</p>
<p>The top 10% rule guarantees you admission to the University, but not to the college of your choice. Not necessarily to LA, but you generally wind up in a college of low desire if UT isn't impressed with your resume yet you are top 10%.</p>
<p>Of course, that's basically the same thing as yall have said.</p>
<p>I hate the top 10% rule ... I'm top 11%. Being 2 ranks higher, would relieve a bunch of stress.</p>
<p>The top-10 percent plan has a checkered history. </p>
<p>Back in 1996, a federal court in Texas ruled that schools could no longer use a students race or ethnicity in the admissions process; in other words, admissions had to be colorblind. The case was Hopwood v. Texas. Out of concern that minority enrollment would drop without race preferences, the Texas legislature passed the top-10-percent plan a few years later. This plan has been very successful in helping minority students (and others from less competitive schools) gain admission. In fact, more minorities attended UT with the help of the top-10 percent plan than they did when UT used race preferences pre-Hopwood.</p>
<p>But heres the problem now: In 2003, the US Supreme Court ruled in a Univ. of Michigan case that race preferences were, for the most part, lawful. So in 2004/2005 UT started using race and ethnicity in the admissions process and continues to use the top-10-percent plan. </p>
<p>Many people dont think this is fair. And, in fact, many people believe that Texas is not even allowed to use race preferences because the top-10-percent plan is working just fine. </p>
<p>Perhaps one day a student who has been rejected by UT will sue to stop the use of race preferences.</p>
<p>Michigan has a proposition before its voters right now that would prohibit the use of race in any public venue. This would include admissions to public universities, gov't contracting, public employment, etc. California passed such a proposition some years ago. The results are that Asians are disproportionately represented in the University system ... and deservedly so. They are outachieving all other groups .... and based on merit deserve this position. Shouldn't merit prevail REGARDLESS of ethnicity??!! I , personally could not care less if the California University system was dominated by Martians ... as long as all decisons were based on objective merit exclusive of any racial or ethnic considerations.</p>
<p>Regarding Texas, the Hopwood decision will remain law unless it is appealed to the Supreme Court. Given the current court make up, I believe that it would be upheld. All this is irrelevant however, as the 10% policy is a transparent way to get around the Hopwood decision. The ONLY reason it was signed into law was to increase the representation of lessor qualified minorities. I believe it could be challenged as a violation of the Hopwood decision.</p>
<p>once again, more lowering the bridge instead of raising the river, and the longer term outcome will not be positive</p>