University of Texas Has 'Lost Control' of Admissions Policy

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I recently went to a new student orientation at UT and they stated that homeschooled, out-of-state, and international students didn't compete in the pool of "top 10%" kids. Homeschoolers were competing with the other homschoolers, out-of-state kids were competing with the other out-of-state kids, etc. So that being said, the top 10% rule in no way hurts homeschool, out-of-state, or international applicants. My daughter is homeschooled and and is working on raising her SAT scores and putting together a really great resume complete with outstanding essays. Last year (2010) UT accepted about 180 homeschooled students out of about 300 applicants. That's more than half!

christy of TX 2:17PM August 13, 2011

My daughter, at the 12th percentile in a highly competitive, private college prep school, with a 4.0+ GPA and 35 ACT composite, does not qualify for automatic admission to UT. She has been offered substantial scholarships from schools in other states. These schools LOVE the Texas Top 10 rule because top-notch students are applying to their schools in droves. Many will not come back to Texas - brain-drain??

Jan of TX 6:35PM November 18, 2010

Hi
Can you tell me what Junior Colleges in Austin are good schools to attend? thanks

02Mambo 8:27PM June 23, 2009

Here's a concrete example illustrating the biggest problem with the 10% rule. My child attends a large HS (graduating class about 600) in a district in TX with 3 other comparably-sized high schools. This year, the district had a total of 39 National Merit Semifinalists. 30 of them attend my child's school, the remaining 9 attend 2 of the other 3 high schools in the district. Obviously, it is much easier to be one of the top 60 students at a high school with NO National Merit Semifinalists (or even only 4 or 5) than to be one of the top 60 students at a school with 30 National Merit Semifinalists.
The end result is that Texas loses many of its best and brighest students simply because they are not in the top 10% of a very competitive high school. The vast majority of the top 60 students in my child's class are headed to the Ivys, Stanford, MIT and the like. The next 15%--a highly capable group of students--are also headed out of state, to prestigious schools with admissions offices that haven't been hijacked by their state legislatures.

WT of TX 2:31PM May 04, 2009

Just because one's SAT scores are lower etc does not mean they do not have the same potential as someone whose SAT scores are much higher. You need to take them in the context of their school. In North Carolina, there is great variation in school funding from one school district to another and even from school to school within a given district. The Charlotte Mecklenburg district is a prime example of incredibly poor resource distribution which gives this district both Myers Park High School, one of the top 50 public schools in the nation, as well as several other much poorer schools. The result of this distribution is that the wealthier Myers Park students (yes the district was conspicuously drawn to encompass the majority of the wealthy areas of Charlotte) have more resources and higher SAT scores, while the poorer districts have much worse facilities and access to resources and consequently their academic accomplishments suffer.
The 10% rule is actually decent in theory, because it is a percent, it actually DOES mean as much to be in the top 10% of a 100 person class as it does to be the top 10% of a 500 person class. I do concede, though, that the size of the top 10% being directly proportional to size of the class, and thus equal, is a rather challenging concept to grasp. Thus, it is equally impressive to be in the top 10% of students in a 500 person class as it is to be in the top 10% of a 100 person class.

mw of NC 4:45PM April 14, 2009

This rule is just another example of the government sticking its nost into something it should leave alone. UT is (at least, was) one of the best universities in the nation. But, the government had to pass a stupid rule that changed the admissions process. Here's the problem with the rule: the top 10 percent aren't always the smartest students. The public school system in the US is messed up, and high school students are graduating in the top 10% of some schools without knowing how to read, write, or do basic math. This a major problem. Another problem I see is for home schooled students (like me) not graduating in a high school that ranks its students so that we are not allowed entrance based on this rule. There are other problems: this does not consider extracurriculars, which are a good example of leadership potential; this does not consider previous work; it doesn't even consider GPA, so a person in a high school with 30 students might walk into UT with a 2.5 GPA. Finally, there is a major problem with the logic of this law. What happens when every student entering UT enters by this rule: (1) there will be a big lawsuit, because someone in the top 10% couldn't get in, because UT had no more room; (2) UT will become a laughable university that does not create the minds of the future but simply herds people through like a cattle auction. This 10% rule is wrong. It should not have been created. It should be removed. 10% RULE IS 100% STUPID!!!

John Ross McCaghren of TX 3:18PM March 06, 2009

This person is absolutely ignorant in his/her comments concerning junior college/community college transfers. Get the facts before you send an email speaking about something you don't know. Many students attend these colleges for various reasons. Some to get prereqs out of the way and at a lower cost than a 4 year university, some because they need to mature a little more before going to a 4 year college and doing stupid things that would eventually land them back at home. And some because they haven't made a decision as to where they wanted to go. There are so many reasons why people attend junior colleges but in no way does it mean they are not educated enough. I feel bad that their are people in this world with a undeveloped mindset like you. I pray for your maturity as well.

S. Jackson of IL 3:20AM February 10, 2009

The 10% rule might have had good intention behind it but when you put it into perspective it fails in certain areas. If you have a graduating class of 300-400 like many schools being in the top ten percent is a challenge and those students worked hard to be there. However, you have a small town with a high school graduating class of 30 your top ten percent isn't has admirable now. So Jane from said school gets accepted even though her grades, SAT scores, extracurricular activities, ect. are no where near as impressive as Jane from the bigger school who fell just under the 10%. This is where I feel that the 10% rule falls short. But this is just my opinion.

jm of TX 2:16AM February 10, 2009

It's a tactic to eliminate out of state students, transfers, and adult students.
http://volokh.com/posts/1166257228.shtml

nomore of TX 1:30AM February 10, 2009

They appear to be upset because if they have to admit the top 10% then they have fewer spots for "legacies." When I moved to Texas, that was all I heard about for the first two years...how hard it is to get into the University of Texas now. The interesting thing is that a few years ago I read an article in the Houston Chronicle that said that even though they're upset about this law, their graduation rates are going up (because these people are already on a path of academic excellence) but they saw their drop out rate go down (same reason). From what I understood he 10% rule also has the effect of diversifying the student body without resorting to traditional affirmative action measures. UT should stop whining because their complaints make them look as though their desire to continue to be an "elite" school might be driven by something other than academic excellence.

JD of TX 1:22AM February 10, 2009