MSU Listserv


EQUITY Archives

EQUITY Archives


EQUITY@LIST.MSU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV at MSU

LISTSERV at MSU

EQUITY Home

EQUITY Home

EQUITY  March 2007

EQUITY March 2007

Subject:

Diverse Issues-Texas’ Guaranteed Admissio ns Program Under Fire

From:

Rudy Redmond <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Retention & Graduation Issues Concerning Minorities in Higher Education <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 20 Mar 2007 12:37:59 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)

Current News
Texas’ Guaranteed Admissions Program Under Fire
By Blair S. Walker
Mar 20, 2007, 06:57
 
Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas, right, and Rep. Fred Brown, R-Bryan, discuss proposals for reforming the admissions process at a state hearing. 

In the 1990s, Florida and Texas stopped using affirmative action as a factor in state university admissions. Instead, the states opted for programs that grant top high school seniors guaranteed admission to state schools. 

Lately the Texas program, signed into law by then-Gov. George W. Bush in 1997, has a huge bull’s-eye draped over it. Critics say Top 10 Percent takes admissions discretion away from state universities and hurts deserving high school seniors who aren’t in the top 10 percent of their graduating class. The Texas Legislature has already defeated one bill that would have watered down the program’s impact, and there have even been attempts to repeal the Top 10 law altogether. 

A measure is currently winding its way through the Texas House of Representatives that would cap the number of Top 10 students coming into a state university’s freshman class at 50 percent. This would free up the remaining slots, which could be filled using other admissions criteria. 

By contrast, there’s no push to dismantle or modify Florida’s Talented 20 program, which was created by Bush’s younger brother, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in 1999. Critics say the Talented 20 isn’t in anyone’s crosshairs because it’s always been focused more on rhetoric than substance.   

Texas’ Top 10 law stems from Hopwood v. Texas, a 1996 lawsuit filed on behalf of White University of Texas Law School applicants who believed they were denied admission in favor of less qualified minority applicants. 

As a result of the case, Texas received a federal order to scuttle race-based state university admissions. Not wishing to derail a system that had been making gains in minority enrollment, Texas politicos, college administrators and faculty established the Top 10 program.

 “I helped develop it,” says Jorge Chapa, who at the time was a public affairs professor at the University of Texas at Austin. “What really makes a difference in improving minority admissions is making the requirements for admission clear and unambiguous.”

The reason the Top 10 program has so many detractors and opponents in Texas, is “because it’s working,” says Chapa, presently a sociology professor with the University of Illinois.  

At UT-Austin, Texas’ flagship school, Hispanic freshman enrollment has increased from 13 percent in 1997 to 19 percent in 2006. Black enrollment dipped to 4 percent in 1997, compared with 5 percent the previous year, but rebounded to 7 percent in 2006. 

White enrollment, meanwhile, has decreased from 61 percent in 1997 to 52 percent in 2006, according to UT-Austin statistics. 

“People with political connections can’t get their kids into the University of Texas at Austin like they used to be able to,” Chapa says. “Plus Top 10 Percent takes discretion away from admissions officers. Admissions boards are mesmerized by SAT scores, so that’s a good thing.”

But UT-Austin President William Powers doesn’t agree. He recently testified before state lawmakers on behalf of the new House bill. 

At Powers’ school, 72 percent of the university’s latest freshmen class was comprised of Top 10 students. 

“The opponents of the law feel that admitting 72 percent of an admitted class is too large of a percent to be based on one variable,” says Gary M. Lavergne, who is in charge of admissions research at UT-Austin. “We’re really the only university that has a problem, because such a large percentage of these kids want to come here.”

Several hundred miles to the east, in Florida, not many people are paying much attention to the Talented 20, which is designed to get the top 20 percent of Florida high school seniors into state colleges and universities.  

“In Florida, the [Talented 20] plan has almost no bite, it has almost no effect,” says Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. “Nobody’s very disturbed about it, because it actually does very little.”

The Civil Right Project took an in-depth look at the Talented 20 in 2003, and the resulting report eviscerated Florida’s program to replace affirmative action in university admissions.

Among other things, the report claims the Talented 20 fails to guarantee admission to the crème de la crème of Florida’s state schools, like the Texas program does. Instead, Talented 20 students must meet individual admission requirements for state colleges. 

The Civil Rights Project report also notes that Florida’s Talented 20 lacks the extensive freshman support mechanisms found in Texas’ Top 10. 

Jeb Bush created Talented 20 in an effort to preempt affirmative action foe Ward Connerly’s bid to bring his movement to the Sunshine State.

 “We found that the program was really a failure on a pretty massive scale,” Orfield says of his organization’s 2003 study.

Calls to the Florida Department of Education seeking comment about the Talented 20 program were not responded to, nor were requests for data indicating how the program has functioned since its inception. 

 --Blair S. Walker

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

January 2020
March 2018
August 2017
February 2017
October 2016
July 2016
June 2016
April 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
August 2015
July 2015
May 2015
April 2015
February 2015
January 2015
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager