Hacker News Reader

Comment by SOLAR_FIELDS | Hacker News Reader

I am a Texas resident (born here and also graduated from high school in Texas) and would like to point out that it's not just UT, every state school (the other big ones with a decent amount of competition are Texas Tech and Texas A&M) follows this policy. In actuality, it appears that because the demand is so high for UT they have had to lower the number to 6%: https://news.utexas.edu/key-issues/top-10-percent-law/

The primary flip side to the top 10% law is that urban centers have much higher levels of competition than rural ones. If you happen to go to high school in Nowhere, Texas, it's quite easy to go to UT since achieving that top 6% is a somewhat trivial endeavor. Whereas if you go to an urban high school in a population center such as Houston, Dallas, or San Antonio, you have to really apply yourself.

View on HN

I take it you never visited Yates High?

I think you mean if you go to a good school you need to apply yourself. If you live in a rough neighborhood and go to a bad school, it's not really all that difficult. Of course, you have to get through high school, which is not so easy in the rough neighborhoods. But you get the idea.

Aside from quantization errors for high school classes with fewer than 16 students, why would it be easier to get the top 6% in a rural school?

Because on average the children of urban/suburban professionals have more academic support, higher expectations placed on them, and more competition, and as a result end up with more academic practice/preparation, compared to rural or working-class children.

You're saying it would be easier if you imported the support and expectations with you? Otherwise I still don't get it. If rural school students as a class are poorly supported and have low expectations, and you are a member of that class, I don't see where your advantage arises.

The same amount of effort spent on academic pursuits (or the same amount of external support) will get you further on a local–relative scale in a less competitive environment. Even the 75th %ile students at many schools filled with children of upper-middle-class professionals work insanely hard. But sure, being one of the few academic strivers in a less competitive school has its own challenges.

I think making the system more equitable by supporting kids from all backgrounds is socially beneficial, even if it sometimes makes suburbanites complain.

I think he's saying if you're in a bad urban school, it's hard to see how you're any less likely to be in the top 6% than if you're in a bad rural school given the same academic abilities. (Academic abilities which don't always need to be very highly developed.)

football

A typical rural school attracts students based on proximity---if you're living in that district, you go to that school, no matter how much your parents make or whether they're lawyers or a convenience store clerk. (Additionally, the residents of the area are typically less interested in education, rather than getting a job or playing sports.)

In an urban area, residential areas are typically segregated by wealth, and wealthier parents want their kids to go to good schools. Further, they are capable of moving within the area so that their children go to good schools. As a result, the competition among students for the top N% more fierce due to the pre-selection of students.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com