<p>Now its more of the top 3% rule at top colleges. Just look at Penn. They only accept 6% of applicants ranked in the 6-10% of their class.</p>
<p>I get tired of people who can't distinguish the fact that Texas' policy benefits some groups from the question of whether it's a good policy or not. Yes, it benefits students from weak rural schools (who may be mostly white, I have no idea), and it benefits students from weak urban schools, who are most likely predominantly minorities. If you think it's good to benefit those folks, fine.</p>
<p>I think this policy also helps keep good students at their local high schools. Eventually, I believe that this will improve the school system. Success breeds more success. It is important that kids in every school see their peers going off to college. Some of those kids don't do as well on SAT's because of fewer AP classes offered. This advantage is being used to offset the inherent disadvantage of going to a less competetive smaller or more crowded school. Trust me, it is a win win situation. No different than financial aid. Kids who are less advantaged get a chance to change the track of their life. This is a good thing morally and economically!</p>
<p>A contrary argument is that this lets the top 10 percent at each high school take it easy and possibly grade-grub rather than raise the academic level of the high school (as verifiable by external estimates of academic performance). What actually happens in practice probably varies from high school to high school, with perhaps good changes to the school culture in some places but bad changes in others.</p>
<p>It is easy for peolpe who have always had opportunities to begrudge another person for getting help. I feel that is what the original poster is doing. Think about it this way, what if you never had a decent breakfast before school, or what if no one in your household spoke English, what if you hadn't been able to get help with your homework since grade school because you had already passed your parents education? Some kids have no idea how lucky they are, and I just ask them to really count their blessings. Be assured many of the kids, if not all, in her competetive high school get help from their parents on science projects, and term papers. They have someone to ask for help on an algebra question, these are advantages not shared by many rural area and urban area kids! So what if they get this one advantage, there is no level playing field to begin with.</p>
<p>"I go to a private school that is very difficult. Also, to be in the top 10% at my school you have to have above a 96 GPA (we don't use the 4-point scale). I know of public schools in Dallas (which are generally easier than the school I go to) where an 88 GPA would place you in the top 10%."</p>
<p>So transfer to an inner-city or rural public school and you're in! Easy solution, no?</p>
<p>I still want to know if Obama's success is going to have any impact on the perception of many that racism is so pervasive that the government has to step in to ensure equality of results in addition to equality of opportunity.</p>
<p>First of all, stop trolling for answers.</p>
<p>Second, affirmative action's primary purpose is NOT to combat racism. It is used primarily to compensate for the pervasive socioeconomic conditions and lack of opportunities that tend to plague certain minority groups, due to historical reasons (such as racism, segregation, Jim Crow laws, etc).</p>
<p>And in your bitter mindset, you fail to realize that Obama, no matter how potent of a symbol his candidacy is for unity and post-racial thinking, is just one example. </p>
<p>I wonder if you could possibly explain why low-income/low-educated whites tend not to vote for Obama, despite the fact that he has consistently received backing from the labor unions that typically represent this particular demographic. Or, you could perhaps explain to me why few, if any, Southern states or congressional districts have elected an African-American candidate unless that district was a majority African American one?</p>
<p>I go to the best school in my county, and am in it's science and technology program, and am currently doing really really badly (read:3.4 UW). I could have gone to my "neighborhood" school and been vale. So could most of my friends. But I would have been socially unhappy, exposed to no diversity of race or thought, and academically unchalleged.</p>
<p>If those people who go to nice schools are complaining, maybe they should make the choice to go to a crappy school so they can "have it easy". I'm sure a lack of materials, incompetent teachers and peers, and no AP's classes is great if you get to get into UT easily.</p>
<p>I might not be able to get into any good schools because I haven't done too well grades-wise this year, but at least I can say that I enjoyed my high school career. I'll get into college somewhere, and those who are top 15% at a top school will too.</p>
<p>A problem with the top 10% law is that, if current trends continue just a few more years, UT Austin will be filled with "top 10% students," leaving no room for international students (now about 4% there), out of state students (now about 4% there), and stellar Texas students at the 11th percentile and below (maybe 11 or 12% of this year's class). These "not-top 10% students" really do enrich the school. The University president told USA today that 81 to 85% of the class entering UT this fall would come through the top 10% rule.</p>
<p>I am floored by the attitude that if one African American succeeds then racism is no longer pervasive in America!!! Past that point, think of this law more from a socio economic aspect. Poor kids black and white, are being given an opportunity that they would not get otherwise. They are stuck in the worst schools and have the least help at home. These kids abilities are relatively untapped. This is a great thing for these kids, and I am sure Texas will reap the benefits of buiding a stronger middle class. Think about it this way, they will make more in life than they would have otherwise, and will pay more tax dollars. Those very capable students from good schools in the 11th% will still go to college and do great!</p>
<p>What are the economic impacts of this? Access to a good instate college with instate tuition rates is valuable. Doesn't this policy cut out some middle-class students who are in the second decile at better schools, in favor of poorer students? Again, this tradeoff may be worth it, but it's also a financial subsidy.</p>
<p>This law gives kids in the lower class a chance to move up to the middle class, and it gives students in their schools hope for a similar opportunity. Those schools will improve as a result. Please listen to what I've said. These kids do not have some of the same opportunities that the kids at the "good" schools have to begin with. If we constantly supress poor people and they lose hope for the American Dream, then we are creating a downward spiral of poverty that will kill our economy. The spiral will eventually suck down the middle class as well, and who will be left to speak up. The people that have the money won't want to dole out a financial subsidy. It is important morally and economically to create a fair system, if we wait it will be too late!</p>
<p>I don't disagree with what you are saying at all, happy4him--those are arguments why this approach is a good idea. But unlike some others, you do seem to recognize that this approach benefits certain groups of people at the expense of others. You just think it's wise to do so.</p>
<p>I think, being that I live in the northeast and don't plan to apply to any Texas schools, that I have a pretty unbiased opinion. To me, the ten percent rule sounds like a very good one, because many times some individuals simply do not have the educational oppurtunities that you have had. This balances not the race problem, but a socioeconomic problem, because the rule works in the favor of poor whites and disadvantaged people everywhere.</p>
<p>Frankly, I think you're making excuses for yourself. You don't seem to realize that not everyone has the oppurtunities you do. After all, is it really fair that you should get into a school simply because you probably go to one of the best public schools in Texas, which is a large reason that you are a competitive student. Where I live, some schools are downright dreadful andno one gets accepted to any top notch schools despite the fact that many of them are smarter than those that do get accepted and work harder. This is simply because their school did not prepare them adequately or did not give them the proper resources to succeed.</p>
<p>Short Response: Ten Percent Rule = Good idea</p>
<p>I do realize it does not help out those that go to good schools, because they have competition, but I think the same way a person in a poor school can fight for a high rank, so can those in a great school. As long as you are all getting the same education (and in the same school theoretically you would be), then the fight is fair.</p>
<p>What educational opportunities are we talking about here?</p>
<p>SAT Prep?
Parental Guidance?</p>
<p>Those are the ones that keep getting tossed around. Who can say for a fact they know those who are more economically privileged received those benefits? </p>
<p>Please don't assume everyone goes to these SAT Prep courses. I'll admit I went to an SAT Prep class. Having done so, I can say confidently I didn't learn anything I couldn't have learned from a book easily obtainable at the local bookstore. Practice SATs are not exclusive to the SAT Prep courses and neither are vocabulary lists. There were no secret, substantial lessons learned that gave me an added advantage.</p>
<p>In addition, parental guidance is not something every privileged student receives. I know that for a fact. Where I come from, if you need help on learning a concept or studying material, you form a study group with friends and learn from each other. Please tell me what parents would know that fellow students wouldn't.</p>
<p>It seems to me the fairness of the "10 percent rule" depends on what you think the goal of college admissions should be. If the purpose of such a competitive process is to select the best qualified, most capable students (at least in theory), than the rule is certainly unfair. As others have pointed out, a student with great stats at a competitive high school could be in the top 11% of his class but lose a spot to a weak student at a noncompetitive high school because he happens to be in the top 10%. The controversy, of course, is that students who tend to be in noncompetitive schools usually don't have access to the same resources other students do and can be disadvantaged by factors such as home life, neighborhood, etc., so the logic is that the 10% rule will ensure them a place at UT. Some might argue the rule is justified, but students who accomplish more (regardless of resources) should not be penalized for their success.</p>
<p>Basic- Think this through. Are you saying your parents did not help you with your school work during all your years of education? I realize study groups are common in high school, but do you realize that poor students are frequently working a part time job by high school and have to come home and get their work done late at night with little to no help from their parents.</p>
<p>govman-If these students are in the top 10%, then they are qualified. Definig them as weak students is insulting. We could debate all day the definition of "best and most capable". I would say more prepared, the "more capable or best" statement is narrow minded at best.</p>
<p>I am astonished by the "me,me,me" attitude I am hearing, and the complete lack of empathy being shown. No one is being penalized for their success. If a student wants in to the school, then they need to get into the 10% of their school.</p>
<p>Wow, really awesome post. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Yeah, it's true my parents didn't help me with my schoolwork. Did I expect them to? No. What could they even help me with? Read from a textbook? Memorize formulas? Speaking from personal experience, most of what we learn in high school is not something we typically retain in our memory anyway. I also worked a part time job, and I was able to manage my time efficiently. In fact, many of my fellow students worked part time jobs, and they too were able to keep up with school work. Part time jobs are not solely reserved for those who have to help out the family. I really don't see what significant advantage a student from a privileged area receives over someone who's not.</p>