So we have been talking a lot about how revolutions have occurred for women as well as different races. This made me think of laws like Affirmative Action and other movements that make it easier for employers to "discriminate positively" or not just employers but also colleges. Recently race being used as a factor in college admissions is under scrutiny and many recent Supreme Court Decisions (Recent timeline of 2 Supreme Court Cases in Michigan and Texas: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/a/affirmative_action/).
Beginning in 1997 after a Court case over Caucasian students not being admitted to a Texas Law School over students with lower credentials (Hopwood V.Texas), the top 10% law is a law that states that any student within the to 10% of their graduating class in Texas and are residents of Texas can be admitted to a State School Automatically. It was created to help allow students into state schools who were qualified but not allow discrimination to occur based upon race. This law only allows admittance into the school not different colleges within the school, does not put in a plan to pay for school or anything like that. The theory behind it is that the top 10% should mirror pretty closely the diversity at that particular school as well as it applies to all schools so students from all over the state would gain admittance into the top state schools or just universities in general.
I never really thought much about the rule in high school, because I was in the top 10% and if I wanted to go to UT I could or if I wanted to go to Texas A&M I could, but when applying to schools my motive to apply to UT was very much so I could have a back up school for all of the other schools I was applying to and wanted to attend a lot more. I found out later that I had quite a few friends who were worried about getting into these schools, because even though their GPA's, SAT scores and activities were well within the range to be admitted into the school they were worried that they would not get in, because of the Top 10% law. Their dislike of the law stemmed from the fact that they said they went to a more difficult private school and a smaller class so our Top 10% was only 10 people and not the 100 at a larger public school, so it was harder for them to get into the Top 10% at our school. They thought they were more qualified and would do better than students from rural schools or inner city schools, because they had developed the skills to succeed. They did have right to be worried in 2008 the number of top 10% students that were a part of UT's Freshmen class was 81%. Eventually, the law was changed only at UT that only 75% of the incoming students could be from the Top 10%, but that is the only school it changed at. (Figures from: https://www.texastribune.org/tribpedia/top-ten-percent-rule/about/).
So my question is, is this a fair method for trying to get diversity at the university level? Is it fair to students who go to rigorous high schools? Is this another type of discrimination?
Hallie, this is an interesting system that Texas has. The question you pose is very difficult to answer because it depends on whose perspective you view it from. Obviously, there are some students who may benefit from the law and some who may feel discriminated against because of it. But I think another important perspective from which we should view this issue is that of the state of Texas itself. To me, it seems like this 10% law is more effective in protecting the state than it is of eliminating discrimination, despite whatever the true original intent of the legislatures was. With the 10% law, state schools cannot really be accused of refusing or accepting students based on anything besides credentials - they are required to allow the top 10% in, and after that they have the right to claim full capacity if they deny anyone else afterwards. In this way, angry students and families who might want to file civil suits against the state for discriminatory university admittance will likely have to face a long, expensive, and possibly hopeless legal battle. Few people would be likely to attempt this, so the state is safe in that aspect.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think this law acts as a very safe investment for the state. By offering the incentive of automatic university acceptance for the top 10%, the state is attempting to ensure that most of its best and brightest citizens remain in Texas. It gives Texas students a convincing extra reason to stay in-state for college, securing the state with a few more years of multiple people who pay state tuition and taxes, thus supporting the local economy. Also, if most of those bright top 10 attend college in Texas, then they will be more likely to land nearby jobs, start local businesses, participate in local academic research, and perhaps even remain doing so in Texas for most of their professional career. All of these long-term successes by the state's top students will continuously add value to the state. Some of the most powerful and influential business people in Colorado, those on the Boettcher Foundation Board of Trustees, make this same type of long-term investment in their own home state by offering four-year full-ride scholarships to whom they determine to be the top 40 graduating high school seniors each year, as long as those students attend college in Colorado. By offering this, they ensure that the state's best students will stay in the state for at least 4 more years as they continue to give back to the state through their personal successes, community work, and academic prowess. Some may also see that system as possibly discriminatory, but it is a very common occurrence in most states.
With both the short and long term security the 10% law grants the state of Texas, it will likely be difficult for anyone to act to change or eliminate this law altogether. However, in its current state, it seems like everyone is benefiting (the state, and the top 10%) besides the smaller private school students who are now raising accusations of their own discrimination. And those are only the private school students who want to stay in state, which is a very small number negativey affected by the law. I understand their arguments, but I would have to counter them by pointing out that if they truly do have higher credentials than some of the lower end of the top 10%, then they probably shouldn't have any trouble getting into any other college of their choice, even if one of the in-state ones is too "full" for them. I guess overall I think that the law positively affects many more people than it might hinder; I also think that its resulting problem of potentially limiting the college admittance of a few highly qualified students is not a specific act of discrimination, but rather the unintended result of bad legislature.
Brandon,
DeleteI can see your argument for keeping the best and the brightest students in the sate, but there is one problem with the 10% law. It's relative. These may not necessarily the smartest kids in the state, but the top 10% from every school. So as Hallie was saying, it may have been possible that her whole school on an absolute scale was within the top 10% of another school, yet those students are be excluded for this opportunity.
Personally I feel this was only a law for the diversity aspect. While I can agree with Brianne as well that it may not necessarily be fair that some students end up in worse off public schools than others, but isn't that what they are trying to change with standardize testing? I could be wrong, but if standardize testing were used to address the schools that needed more funding or teachers to improve their education, then this disparity would dissipate. At this point the state could change this to the top 10% of the state rather than school. This would then be based of the brightest students in Texas rather than the "brightest" at each school.
The point of standardized testing may be to compare students all at the same level, but these exams pigeon hole our public schools into teaching restricted and uninspired material. The "standards" we hold our students to are pretty pathetic at times (my Juniors have already started ACT prep) so I don't believe a test is the answer to increasing diversity.
DeleteI like that you brought up the "relative" idea. Maybe it's good that we're taking the 10% relative to each school's population. You do increase diversity in the university population while still picking from the strongest minds and voices relative to their peers. This reminds of the "cycle of poverty" discussion we constantly went back to in the service learning course. When the same kids from good families go to good high schools and then go to good state schools and the students from bad schools are lucky to go to community colleges, then we're just perpetuating the cycle of poverty.
I completely agree with you, but the intention for standardized testing isn't to increase diversity, its to address the intellect of the student taking the test.While I understand the need for diversity, altering the lens in which we view peoples accomplishments based off of items like race, I think, is wrong.
DeleteI get that some people have been less privileged and that we are trying to break this "cycle of poverty", but does that mean we should make lower standards for those of different backgrounds from others? I personally don't think so. What's the solution then? I honestly don't think there is a fair solution here. I hate to say this, but we need ditch diggers and there's nothing wrong with that either. Some people would prefer this life style over going to college. I feel our society sees these types of jobs in the wrong light. Just because the majority of our society goes to college doesn't mean everyone has to. I've been having this same conversation with my sister recently. She doesn't enjoy college and is contemplating dropping out and in my opinion that is fine. As long as she does something to make a living there is nothing wrong with that. For her, that might be working as ski patrol or working as a fire fighter.
Here is where I see the larger problem (again I'm not sure in our society there is a solution). Those who do great work for our society, for example fire fighters, are getting paid way less then they should, while people who are in the entertainment industry receive absurd amounts of money for work that is nowhere near essential to the functionality of a society. Once we address this situation then I feel the "cycle of poverty" could be broken because you don't have to have a degree (although some education is required) or spend as much money to get into a positions such as fire fighting, construction, EMT etc.
I don't know if this was the best method for what they were trying to do, but I can applaud what the state was trying to do in passing this law.
ReplyDeleteI know many of your peers were upset that a small private school means the top 10% is ten or twenty people, but going to a small, private high school also probably means you'll be better prepared for college anyways. Your grades can still be high, your course load rigorous and expansive, and the school's reputation can shine brightly on your applications. I think the students at less-than-ideal schools get an opportunity to go to college because they're automatically enrolled without the school's reputation keeping them out.
No, this isn't a fair method to increase diversity, but is it fair that some students have no choice about what high school they can go to and must hope their public high school can sufficiently prepare them for college?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brianne that it is unfair that I got to choose what High School I went too, but that does not mean that the government should help perpetuate discrimination by discriminating on the wealthy or at least the people who get a choice on where they should go. I am not sure what the solution to this problem is and there may not be one in a capitalist society, because there are quite a few things like that exist, but that is why I like living in one.
ReplyDeleteOn the flip side though, if someone really wanted to choose where they went, they could. They could look into scholarships or transfer public schools. There were kids like this at my school both the public ones I attended and the private schools. So I am not sure in saying that it is unfair that some students get to choose the high school they attended. I do understand though that this is more difficult than I am simplifying it and for some students it is, but for arguments sake in our society people have the opportunity to do whatever they want and that is fair.
On the note Mitch's comment about how we need people to do things like EMT, Firefighters, etc, I completely agree, but that is not the image that is portrayed to our society. The image is that people should go to college and if they don't they are deemed failures (a little dramatic, sorry). But if we start to encourage people to not go to college, then we could lose the traction we have of being an educated society or they idea of the American Dream. We need to encourage people to follow their American Dream and not THE American Dream.