Ok, this is probably showing my ignorance at college admissions (namely, giant college admissions)...but...

What happened to good ol' fashioned applying for college, and then leaving it up to the admissions counselors to decide your fate?

Can you write an essay?
You play the oboe?
Started a non-profit to feed starving children in your hometown?
Great test scores?
Varsity letter all four years?
Student Leadership?
Great teacher references?

Regular ol' need-blind admissions.

Is it because there are just TOO many applicants, so the easy way out is to have some random statistical information that they go by, not as a guideline, but as a hard-and-fast line?

I'm guessing that must be the reason.

Um, how about the fact that that would be totally unfair to students from less advantaged backgrounds?

Life isn't fair?

I think the main issue in this case is the culture of admissions in the State of Texas. When this girl applied, the Top Ten 10% rule was the rule. It has changed a bit, but only for the University of Texas at Austin, and now that percentage varies each admission year with a "projected percentage" (this year top 8%, next year it will be top 7%) that will fill 75% of the class, leaving 25% of new freshman coming from holistic admissions. The issue here is the "holistic" admissions side of UT's admission practices.

When she applied, the top ten percenters filled much more than 75% of the freshman class. Because the top 10% rule was put in place to create diversity in the first place (Top 10% in black high schools, hispanic schools, white high schools, etc...it does not discriminate) I believe her argument is why is race even being considered a factor during the holistic review? Should the university not be going after the best and brightest (not saying the girl is...) with no consideration to race, religion, male or female? Again, the creation of diversity is already achieved with the first measuring stick. It, in my opinion should not be a factor in the "second round."

If you study college admissions at all, most admissions "panels" give points to specific criteria. (The following is just an example) Why should a black female from Tyler be given 5 extra admission points just for being black, when the white girl from Sugarland might get 5 subtracted for being white. All things considered equal the Tyler student would be placed ahead of the Sugarland student on the admissions list. And just because she was born not white. I understand the importance and reasons behind making sure a campus is diverse. What I don't understand is bypassing a student because she is white or asian (frankly I think the asians have an even more difficult under holistic, "race matters" reviews) Why not just go after the smartest, highest achieving students you can get, ESPECIALLY when you created diversity under the top 10% rule.

Disclaimer: My debate only applies to the University of Texas and the unique circumstances the Top Ten Percent rule has on diversification of college admissions.

Good. Tell that to Miss Fischer.

I think the core of the argument comes down to this: what is the purpose of a state university?

You know what she DOES get for being born white? White privilege. Her entire life.

So to balance the scales the other way, you think the government should put a thumb on 'em? Why is it helpful for diversity's sake to grant admission points solely based on race. Race =/= always culture. IIRC, at one time, Michigan had an admissions process which favored race over a perfect SAT.

I guess institutions should be free to decide how they want to shape their classes, and I think UT's 10% (or whatever) is probably more likely if stuck to on its own to shape a diverse class as compared to other methods when dealing with classes of the huge size they deal with.

I see where you're going with this...but aren't there bands, sports, teachers, writing, leadership opportunities, etc... in almost every public school in America? And if they somehow missed your school, isn't that what your essay is for - to talk about who you are and how that affected you?

I'm curious as to how the other academically demanding/strict admissions state schools handle this (I'm thinking UVa, Michigan, etc...etc...)? Clearly this isn't an issue that is unique to UT/A&M?

I do think the Tier I situation will get better in Texas over the next decade or so (thus alleviating the pressures), but there's clearly no right answer here.

I hope so.

IIRC, UH has been named Tier 1 by one measure, and is likely to be the next "official" Tier 1 university in the state.

I know UTA, UTD, UNT, and Tech are all fighting hard to fill in the other spots. I hope we have another one pop up soon.

UH probably has an identity complex to overcome before the masses see it as a Tier I - definitely seen (to the general 18 year old population) as a commuter school. "Cougar High"! (speaking as a former Houstonian...:D)

In my mind, Tech is the next logical one. UTSA is working on it as well, but I think it still falls into the same commuter image bucket as UTD, UTA, UH, etc...

I should clarify by saying just because a school has a commuter image doesn't mean it can't be a Tier I (they are not mutually exclusive) but I do think an academically above average 18 year old looking for a true "college experience" would hone in on Austin and College Station before (near) downtown Houston.

FYI - The link I was talking about
http://www.uh.edu/about/tier-one/

I have heard the opposite about UH. Interesting.

I think UTSA should be last in line. I think it's the most "commuter" of the bunch (I think it has the lowest admissions criteria as well). If any of the others I listed make it anytime soon, though, I'll be pleased.

I'm not from Texas, so I'm not familiar with colleges there.

I can say that I support her lawsuit. I say this because I have been a victim of reverse discrimination. I applied for a scholarship while in college and I was told to not even bother turning the application in because I wasn't black or hispanic. Somehow because of my white skin it was assumed that I had money growing off a tree in my backyard and that I didn't need the scholarship. I was pissed.

I'm sorry admissions to college should be purely based off your merits, your skin color shouldn't even be a consideration. But instead it is. You get two people who have equal merits, grades, letters of rec, etc... most of the time the "minority" will get in over the white person because as DeltaBetaBaby so ignorantly pointed out "You know what she DOES get for being born white? White privilege. Her entire life."

That's exciting for UH!

That's great (I'm serious) that you've heard the opposite! It means the perception is changing. I haven't lived in Houston in over 10 years, but I can tell you that back then, there was not much over by UH (except TSU across the street, and it was a far more developed/active campus area) so people who went to school there, didn't live anywhere nearby.

Again goes back to perception. UTSA is playing DI sports now (joining Conference USA next year, I believe?), so they're getting much more press these days. I'm sure if I lived in DFW, I'd say the same about UTD and UTA, but I still see them as more commuter than UTSA.

Agreed that if ANY of them get Tier I soon, I'd be doing backflips...I already am about UH!

1. Why is minority in quotes?
2. I'm not a fan of discrimination, but you have to be naive if you think that what DBB said is inaccurate.

I think it is unique because of the 10% rule. However, after the Supreme Court case in 2003, the state of Michigan passed a ballot proposal (in 2006) stating that race cannot be a consideration for admissions to any state university.

I was flabbergasted when I heard about the 10% rule. Many kids in our top 10% do not get into Michigan. There would not be room for them all. Michigan is more selective than the top 10% for the average public school. Test scores are important as are extra-curricular activities and essays.