<p>I agree all of divvying up by race is a bad thing---for everyone. I think I can help someone who was rejected by UT in 2005 or 2006 challenge the system. Any takers?</p>
<p>Rural legislators will strenuously fight any attempt to repeal the top 10% policy.</p>
<p>I don't think it will be the rural legislators leading the protest. It will more likely be driven by ethnic lines , which points to inner city. This thing is driven PURELY by race.</p>
<p>It may have been driven by race, but rural areas are definitely benefitting from it. LakeWashington is correct - both rural and inner city legislators will vigorously defend keeping some part of the rule intact.</p>
<p>It may have started out as a race thing, but I think it has had a much broader effect than that. Their stats show that prior to the rule, UT had 60+ feeder High Schools (mostly rich, white suburban schools) - now they receive a good number of students from over 500 High Schools in Texas. It is like a "congress" of Texas students, evenly distributed across the state. So the rule has had the effect of changing the mission of the University. It now serves a broader cross-section of the state, while still maintaining its status as a university of the first class. Isn't that consistent with idea of a state university?</p>
<p>""""It now serves a broader cross-section of the state, while still maintaining its status as a university of the first class. Isn't that consistent with idea of a state university?"""""</p>
<p>No it is not consistent with the idea of a state university. Admission to a flagship state university should NOT be decided by an accident of geography. Just like it should not be decided by an accident of ethnicity or skin color. It should admit the best and brightest. Make decisions based on merit and let the chips fall where they may. Keep in mind that if admissions were to be determined by geographical distribution, 99% of all students would be from the three most populous metropolitan areas ... and few if any rural students would be admitted. </p>
<p>Interestingly, notice that the legislator does not allocate seats by socio -economic background. The reason is that if a certain number of spots were reserved for ... lets say students whose family income falls below the poverty line ... poor whites would out perform poor blacks/hispanics and therefore take all of those allocated seats. It is a proven fact that whites/Asians outperform blacks/hispanics at ALL income levels when it comes to educational performance. </p>
<p>We need to face up to the fact that the intent of the legislator's manipulations is soley to maintain a different set of standards based of skin color and ethnicity. Create conditions that favor minorities at the expense of better qualified whites and Asians. Sad but true.</p>
<p>Blinc, let me offer an analogy that might give you an additional perspective on the motivation of rural (typically Republican) legislators regarding the Top 10% rule.</p>
<p>In the late 1980s and 1990s white Republican legislators in many states sided with Black Democrats to draw new congressional and legislative district boundaries to create "super-minority" districts. Why, you ask, would conservative Republicans do such a thing? In order to similarly create 'Republican-leaning' districts from areas that heretofore had elected white Democrats. Republicans benefits by packing minorities and other presumed Democrat voters into 'single' districts, leaving lessor opportunity for non-Republicans in all the other districts. In other words, Republicans supported such action because it was to their benefit.</p>
<p>hello,
I am an Asian student. I intend to apply to U of Texas Austin ( at McCombs), but my status is not really perfect.
My SAT is about 1880 ( 530 in CR, 600 in W, 750 in Math), toefl is about 607. I also got 800 in Math IIc, 740 in Math IC, and 700 Phy.
About my Ecs , I took part in some volunteering programs, got some prizes in Math, swimming, etc.
My GPA is 4.0, and my rank is 2/50 in my class.
My family's income is sufficient to pay for 4 years to study at UT.</p>
<p>Do you think I have any chance to be accepted at McCombs?
Please reply me soon. I worried so much about my chance to be accepted there!
Thanks in advance.</p>
<p>Thanks for the input LW. My porblem is that the reason put forth for these manipulations is to increase "diversity". But it is a sham. If the legislators truly wanted diversity, they would consider diversity of opinion/thought... not diversity of ethnicty or geography. What is happening with affirmative action in our country's universities is that it simply insures that the overwhelming majority of students and professors are far to the left in thought. What difference does it make to admit a lessor qualified black/hispanic or white rural student when they will have the same opinions and input as the balance of the liberal student body and faculty. </p>
<p>If they wanted TRUE diversity in a manner that would expose students to a variety of views, they would reach out to Hasidic Jews, Evangelical Christians, those with military experience, Libertarians... etc..etc... This would insure diversity of THOUGHT .... not skin color or geography. The fact that this criteria is NOT used... exposes the sham of affirmative action as justified by the need for "diversity.</p>