The New York Times reports today that the debate in Texas is itensifying over the policy of guaranteeing admission to the University of Texas to the top 10% of each high school’s graduating class.
This policy was implemented, at least in part (some believe totally), to preserve “diversity” after the Fifth Circuit barred the consideration of race in admissions, but it has now taken on a life of its own and attracted both critics and defenders for reasons that often have little if anything to do with race. Now that the Supremes have given the green light to racial preferences Texas plans to begin using them again, but the debate over guaranteed admission to the Top 10% will remain.
First, let’s look at what this debate is about. Top 10% critics point out that students in the top 25%, say, of very competitive and academically rigorous high schools are quite often (critics usually mean always) better students, better prepared for (and hence more deserving of admission to) academically rigorous schools such as the University of Texas at Austin. And because many of those students are now not accepted, increasing numbers, so it is claimed, are being forced to leave the state for college, perhaps never to return.
Because many of the more academically competitive and rigorous high schools are in wealthy suburban areas, this controversy has taken on something of a hard-edged class character.
“The State of Texas has done a great thing by offering this opportunity to get our most gifted students into a challenging educational setting,” said Cherri S. Franklin, principal of the public junior and senior high school in Marfa [about 200 miles souteast of El Paso that graduates around 30 students per year]. “And the rich people don’t want them there.”
….
“It’s a big-time social class story,” said Marta Tienda, a Princeton University professor of sociology and public affairs who has studied the effects of the rule. “School type is the proxy for social class.”
In addition, college administrators complain that guaranteeing admission to the top 10% takes away their discretion to shape entering classes the way they would like.
The president of the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Larry R. Faulkner, says the law
Very well said, John.
So well, indeed – I’m gonna post on MY blog! Thanks.
As a strong opponent of AA in its current incarnation as a virual quota system, I think that this sort of thing may offer a reasonable way of balancing a number of competing issues in the state universities.
I agree, it’s not a perfect system but someone will always be left unhappy when public money is involved. If nothing else, it leads to a reduction in size of admissions offices, allowing for the admittance and subsidization of a few additional students.
Some interesting thoughts on arguments against affirmative action:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_aa_unjust.htm
The constitution says nothing about “fair”, but alot about “equal”.
Talented tenth
As an alternative to racial and ethnic preferences, the public universities in Texas now admit the top 10 percent of students at each high school. Racial and ethnic diversity is higher than before the court decision throwing out preferences, and…
We moved to Texas a few years ago and have a daughter in High School. Her school is pretty ‘competitive’, although for the area it is not considered even close to the best. One thing the article failed to mention is that High Schools in Texas weight more advanced classes. So, if you are in an AP class or Honors or Dual Credit you get a few extra points on your GPA depending on the class type and your grade. For the most part we have no sympathy for the poor people who must spend more to go out of state or to a private college. Our daughter (and her siblings after her) will only be able to go to a Texas state school, there is no other financial alternative for us. Since we are white, under the old AA she would have been overlooked. Now she can’t be pushed out of the system.