Texas Vote Curbs a College Admission Guarantee Meant to Bolster Diversity

[babylonsister]

Texas Vote Curbs a College Admission Guarantee Meant to Bolster Diversity

By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.
Published: May 30, 2009


AUSTIN, Tex. — The Texas Legislature voted Saturday night to scale back a program under which Texans who graduated in the top 10 percent of their high schools were given automatic admission to the state university of their choice. The action put limits on a 10-year-old experiment to increase diversity in the colleges.

The University of Texas, Austin, a top-ranked institution, had sought changes to the program for years because it allowed admissions officials almost no latitude in putting together a class and endangered some important but less popular departments, like music. Last fall, 81 percent of the members of the incoming class were admitted under the 10 percent rule.

Suburban parents with students at schools with rigorous standards also complained that the law discriminated against their children, since it was harder to make the cut at such schools than at smaller, rural and some urban schools.

For six years, however, an odd coalition of lawmakers from the inner cities and rural towns had beaten back efforts to weaken the program, arguing that it had ensured more of their students a chance at a first-rate education. They also pointed out that minorities and rural students had increased in number at the flagship university in Austin.

That coalition finally cracked this year under pressure from suburban factions in the Legislature and after heavy lobbying by university officials, who vowed to recruit minorities aggressively.

The law given final approval by the Senate on Saturday caps the number of students let in under the rule at three-quarters of the class, giving university officials discretion over the makeup of the last quarter. Sponsors of the bill had wanted a lower cap — 50 percent — but their colleagues in the House would go no lower.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/education/31texas.html?hpw

[mbperrin]

1. Don't know why anybody thought the white elite at UT would ever

surrender their privilege.

Or why anyone would be surprised they would get what they want - the old boy network is humming!

[sonias]

2. Yep all for UT Austin

Plus this is also very disturbing:

BOR diary 5/29/09
What if Higher Education Becomes a Luxury?

Will Higher Education Be the Next Bubble to Burst?

Is it possible that higher education might be the next bubble to burst? Some early warnings suggest that it could be.

With tuitions, fees, and room and board at dozens of colleges now reaching $50,000 a year, the ability to sustain private higher education for all but the very well-heeled is questionable. According to the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, over the past 25 years, average college tuition and fees have risen by 440 percent - more than four times the rate of inflation and almost twice the rate of medical care. Patrick M. Callan, the center's president, has warned that low-income students will find college unaffordable.

Meanwhile, the middle class, which has paid for higher education in the past mainly by taking out loans, may now be precluded from doing so as the private student-loan market has all but dried up. In addition, endowment cushions that allowed colleges to engage in steep tuition discounting are gone. Declines in housing valuations are making it difficult for families to rely on home-equity loans for college financing. Even when the equity is there, parents are reluctant to further leverage themselves into a future where job security is uncertain.

Consumers who have questioned whether it is worth spending $1,000 a square foot for a home are now asking whether it is worth spending $1,000 a week to send their kids to college. There is a growing sense among the public that higher education might be overpriced and under-delivering.

The graph (on the BOR diary) shows where higher ed financing support is coming from gives you the quick picture. In 1984-1985 the state was providing about 48% of the revenue to higher Texas Universities. Today that percentage is a measly 15.5%. The state under Republican control has shifted the burden of higher education to the universities and the parents of students. Where tuition and fees were 5.3 % of the revenue in 1984-1985 that percentage is now almost 24%. The Republicans really want to make higher ed the exclusive privilege of the rich. :grr:

Sonia

[Lithos]

3. Yes

Education is now moving back to what it was at the end of the 19th Century, expensive and for the few. As jobs keep being sent overseas, the mantra has been that we'll need to educate and prepare our selves for the higher tech jobs of the future. You can see how much of a crock that is when at the same time education is cut and made worse by intentional neglect.

L-

[Baby Snooks]

4. And as enrollments drop...

Not only will we see "lily white education for the rich" but most likely very "conservative" education as well - universities will feel the pressure from the larger donors, usually conservative, to cut costs by cutting liberal professors and programs. Especially in Texas.

We already have two college and university systems to go with the two Americas.

The University of Houston for example is trying to "dump" UH Downtown by renaming it something else. To "distinguish" which university a graduate actually went to. UF Downtown is primarily minority and a majority of its student body receives some sort of financial aid. There was even talk at one point of merging it with Texas Southern University and then of course dissolving both altogether.

The conservatives did not leave along with George W Bush. Either in Austin or in Washington. They want to keep the two Americas and further divide the two as much as possible.

What disturbs me about this legislative session are the number of Democrats who have voted for so much of this legislation which as always is more agenda than anything else.

"Works well with Republicans" doesn't work well at all.

[Honeycombe8]

5. I'm okay with this. What's wrong with it? You either make the grade, or you don't.

If you do, you get in. If you don't, you don't. Seems pretty clear.

BTW, I am white and would NOT have made the grade. I do have enuf smarts to be ashamed about that, though. If I could go back in time, I'd hit the books more and party less.

[sonias]

6. It's not that simple

There are more people who want to be admitted to our top tier universities than there is room for. And all of them "make the grade". The question is how the determination of the ones chosen gets done.

In the past other criteria were used to balance the diversity of a campus - the so called "affirmative action" programs. When a lawsuit ended that process - Texas took a legislative move to insure that students from all over the state of Texas got the chance to go to a top tier university by guaranteeing that any student who graduated in the top 10% of their class was guaranteed admission into a top tier university.

This program actually benefited a lot of rural Senate districts and I actually think that was a good thing. Let's expose all of Texas to a top tier education.

What we really need is more top tier (tier one) universities in Texas. That's the real problem. A limited top tier expansion bill passed with probably not enough money to make a whole lot of difference.

AAS 5/02/09
Boosting universities to top tier could take 20 years
(snip)

Only three institutions in Texas are top-tier universities, also known as tier-one or national research universities: UT-Austin and Texas A&M University, both of which are public, and Rice University, a private school. All are powerful engines for research, intellectual inquiry and economic development.

There is no precise and universally accepted definition of a tier-one school. One frequently cited benchmark is membership in the Association of American Universities, an organization of 60 major research universities in the United States and two in Canada. Another measure is annual research spending of $100 million or more. Texas' three tier-one universities meet those criteria.
(snip)

Seven of the state's 35 public universities aspire to that lofty status: UT-El Paso, UT-Dallas, UT-San Antonio, UT-Arlington, the University of Houston, Texas Tech University and the University of North Texas. All have strengths and weaknesses.

For example, Texas Tech has law and medical schools, as well as outsized ambition — its strategic plan said five years ago that it would achieve national academic prominence by now — but its location, dusty and windswept Lubbock, is a tough sell to top-flight scholars.

Sonia

[Honeycombe8]

7. SMU isn't a top tier U? Okay, well, the OP said that those who graduated

in the top 10% were guaranteed admission. It didn't say that only some of the top 10% were guaranteed admission.

So then wouldn't it default to the top 5%? I don't know. But admitting someone who was in the top 10% while denying someone else who was in the top 5%, all other things like extracurricular activities, being equal, doesn't seem right. But then again, they're all making the grade. It's a sticky situation. I don't know the answer.

[Ginny from the Block]

16. SMU is a private school anyway. Top 10% doesn't apply

I would assume this new bill just lets our public universities tap into the fund to elevate their status to Tier I...........

[Honeycombe8]

8. I looked this up and apparently misunderstood this law.

The law WAS that out of applicants, a public university HAD to admit those that were in the top 10% of their graduating class.

The law has been changed so that public universities do not HAVE to admit all the applicants who graduated in the top 10% of their class. The universities have more leeway in who they admit.

So this will INCREASE diversity, if a university wants diversity. It is not locked into admitting the top 10%.

So, this is a good thing for diversity. But it sucks for those who may have worked harder and got better grades.

But then, I didn't know that ANYONE had been guaranteed admission. I'm surprised by that.

[tammywammy]

9. Yeah

From what I've read, they'll start with accepting the top 1%, then 2, 3, 4 and so on until the number of auto applicants has been reached. I think it helps them get students from out of state, instead of only having freshman classes full of Texas top 10% applicants.


And I agree Sonia, what they need to be doing is beefing up the other universities and making them more competitive, instead of everyone basically wanting to go to A&M and Austin.

[kjackson227]

10. ...

I think it helps them get students from out of state, instead of only having freshman classes full of Texas top 10% applicants.
****************************************************************************************************

Translation... MORE MONEY for the institution.

[tammywammy]

11. Or it can be more diversity

What about those great candidates that aren't in the top 10%? Maybe someone's in the top 15 or 20 or 40, but since UT Austin, A&M, etc. is so full of everyone that's top 10 they have no shot at getting in and they're not even trying to get into the business school, but in something like geology.

We should be concentrating on beefing up our other universities.

[mbperrin]

12. Take another look at who's complaining about the old rule:

from the OP:

"Suburban parents with students at schools with rigorous standards also complained that the law discriminated against their children, since it was harder to make the cut at such schools than at smaller, rural and some urban schools."

Suburban parents are the white flight pioneers who left "those" people behind to move out beyond the "color zone." In so doing, they opened up opportunities for persons of color to become top 10 students, and the old law opened up real opportunities to attend top schools.

But the elite white folk, they don't like that none. And now, those students of color can once again be sidelined, regardless of their achievements, in favor of their more pale, but less academically-minded, competitors for slots at those top schools.

Disclosure: I graduated 4th in a class of 660 and attended A&M on a National Merit Scholarship in the early 70s.

[Ginny from the Block]

13. I agree we should raise the lower denominator!

Well said! Since Hopwood was ruled unconstitutional and Rep. Rangel got this top 10% bill passed, students from all over this state have been able to get into some of our better schools, but NOT without making the grade. I can't wait for the day that a high school diploma from Milby, Eisenhower (Houston) or Estacado (Lubbock) means just as much as a HS diploma from Bellaire, Highland Park, or Memorial High (Houston). It means not only do we need to improve ALL our 4-year universities, we need to level out the quality of our state high schools as well. If getting into UT is that big a deal to a student (or more likely his or her parents!), then they can transfer to one of these "less competitive" schools and it's not a problem being in the top 10%. Maybe this will stop white flight.

My sister-in-law was complaining to me about designing a h.S. curriculum for my niece to make sure she was taking enough 5 point courses to stay in the top 10% and how that compromised other good courses she could have taken. My response to her was that there were other good schools besides UT and A&M in this state (she's a Red Raider anyway!) if she felt like her HS education was being compromised. Her reply was that that was what my niece wanted (I think the parents are sometimes the more competitive ones). As a graduate of Texas Tech myself, I'm tired of people implying that my degree isn't worth more than a warm bucket of dog spit.

And as far as the "brain drain" to other states, that's happening at the graduate level, NOT the undergraduate level. Kudos to Sen. Robert Duncan for his legislation creating matching funds helping some of these Tier II schools elevate themselves to the top notch. It's about time.

[sonias]

14. Welcome to DU Ginny from the Block!

:hi:

Sonia

[Ginny from the Block]

15. Thanks! It's nice to be noticed!