1. Smith | 1
Texas’ Top 10% vs. UT’s Top 7%: Policy Change Makes UT Exception
Texas Senate Bill 175 – The Amended Top 10%Policy:
Senate Bill 175 was passed in 2009 by the 81st Texas Legislature to address growing problems with the
Texas Top 10% policy. These problems were especially plaguing the University of Texas at Austin (UT). SB 175
is “[a]n act relating to the automatic admission of undergraduate students to certain general academic teaching
institutions and to scholarship and other programs to facilitate enrollment at institutions of higher education”
(Texas 81(R) SB No. 175). Governor Rick Perry signed the act into law on June 19, 2011. According to the text
of the legislation and its application interpreted by UT President William Powers Jr.,“SB 175 modifies how
automatic admission works at The University of Texas at Austin by authorizing the University to limit automatic
admission to no less than 75% of its enrollment capacity for first-time resident undergraduate students beginning
with admission for the entering class of 2011 and ending with the entering class of 2015” (Powers 2011, 4).
This law also allows for UT to determine the student class rank needed in order to be eligible for
automatic admission. Based on the Texas Education Code, Title III, “Higher Education,” Section 51, the
University’s recruitment website states,“Each fall by September 15 the university will notify Texas school
officials of the class rank that current high school juniors need to attain by the end of their junior year in order to
be automatically admitted two years out” (bealonghorn.utexas.edu 2012). This provision enables the University to
adjust the automatic admissions policy to match the size of the State’s high school graduates population and the
available spots at UT. SB 175 went into effect with the 2011 summer/ fall incoming class and will remain in
effect through the 2015-16 academic year, unless further amended by the Legislature. The following are the class
ranks required for UT automatic admission since the law’s establishment: Summer/ fall 2010, top 10%; Summer/
fall 2011, top 8%; and Summer/ fall 2012, top 9%; Summer/ fall 2013, top 8%; Summer/ fall 2014, top 7%. The
Summer/ fall 2015 class rank is yet to be determined (bealonghonr.utexas.edu 2012). As this legislation and all
university admission policies require, freshmen applicants must meet the state’s uniform standard for high school
coursework as defined by SB 3826.
Prior Legislation:
Prior to enactment of SB 175, automatic admission in Texas was governed by HB 588, otherwise known
as the “Top 10% Law,” which the Texas Legislature passed during its 75th Regular Session in 1997. The bill,
“required each generalacademic teaching institution in Texas to admit applicants who were Texas high school
graduates or graduates of a high school operated by the U.S. Department of Defense and who graduated with a
grade point average (GPA) that placed them in the top 10 percent of their high school class” (Powers 2011, 5).
When HB 588 was going through the Texas House of Representatives Higher Education Committee in April of
1997, supporters within the committee stated that the bill “…would be a bold step to adapt admissions policies at
Texas institutions of higher education to the changing needs of the state's changing population, allowing all
students the opportunity to continue their education” (Rangel et al. 1997).
Impetus for the Amended Texas Top 10%Policy:
Recommendation:
The University of Texas at Austin should continue to annually decide which high school
graduation class rank will be automatically admitted to the University. Texas SB 175 allows flexibility for
the University to adjust automatic admission policies to fit the current state population and the University’s
needs. This policy increases competition among high school students and enhances the quality of students
attending the University. Though placing limitations on the scope and applicability of the original Top 10%
policy, the University does not foresee a decrease in minority student enrollment either as a result of this
policy or by limiting the number of slots available for Texas automatic admission residents under the old
Top 10% law.

2. Smith | 2
In the 2008 UT “Report on the Top 10% Law”,data showed that something must be done to address the
policy’s shortcomings in light of an increasing number of qualified students that exceeded UT’s capacity. The
report predicted that if nothing was done to address these problems, that by 2013, UT would be forced to reject all
Texas high school graduates not in the top 10% of their class. The policy also significantly limited the availability
of freshmen spots that could be given to out of state,international, and other students admitted through the whole-
student evaluation process (University of Texas 2008). In light of these issues, the 81st
Legislature passed SB 175
to mitigate the problem; this would allow UT a way to avoid the detrimental policy outcomes that were negatively
impacting its student makeup and, ultimately, the University as a whole through limiting student intake.
NewPolicy in Practice:
Last December,Powers presented the first annual report on SB 175 to the governor, lt. Governor, and
speaker of the house. In this presentation, Powers discussed policy impacts during its first cycle of
implementation. He included a section titled, “Recruiting Underrepresented Demographics,” where he used data
from the UT Office of Admissions, describing students who apply for, are admitted to, and enroll in UT Austin.
These data indicate the effects of the policy after its first year of implementation. Though a large body of data has
not yet been amassed to study the policy’s effectiveness in meeting the two primary needs – those of the
University and those of minority students – those data are a reliable indicator of initial policy impacts.
According to the report, “For the admitted class of 2011 the University admitted 12,140 applicants from
Texas high schools. Of that number, 9,383 Texas students were automatically admitted under the provisions of SB
175 (Top 8%)” (Powers 2011, 24). In the non-automatically admitted group from Texas,representation among
Hispanics increased from 12% to 14%. In the entire admitted class from Texas,however, Hispanic representation
held steady at 25%. In the enrolled group, Hispanic representation fell from 25% to 23%, indicating a drop in the
yield rate from 2010 to 2011 (Powers 2011). Additionally, “data indicate that this drop, prevalent among low-
income students, was in part related to delayed and reduced state financial aid. The percent of African Americans
in the enrolled class increased from 5% to 6% in the same period (Powers 2011, 24).
Policy Dissatisfactions:
This policy is highly satisfactory to the University of Texas since it solves the problem of requiring
admittance to too many top 10% students, yet also increases minority representation. Some interest groups,
however, are concerned. There is confusion among students applying to Texas public colleges, as the automatic
admissions policy is no longer uniform. Though there is the State of Texas Uniform Admission Policy, public
universities automatically accept different class rankings. While UT’s acceptance rank will vary from year to
year, Texas A&M still accepts the top 10%, the University of Houston accepts the top 15%, and the University of
North Texas also accepts the top 10%.
Upon the announcement this fall that UT will accept the top 7% next fall, severalHispanic activist groups
voiced concern over the policy and its decrease of Latino students at UT due to the more competitive class rank.
According to a Hispanic news blog, Mas Wired,“Latinos make up the majority - 50.3% - of Texas’ students.
Nonetheless, in an era where Texas’ K-12 educational system has been decimated by $4 billion in cuts, the
likelihood that Latinos will benefit from this even more stringent university admissions policy is more unlikely”
(Calderon and Ayo 2012).
Conclusion:
Despite the decrease in automatically admitted students allowed admitted to the University of Texas at
Austin, this policy is the most effective, feasible alternative. Built upon the principle of HB 588 – the original Top
10% policy – this legislation will curb the continually increasing amount of top 10% admissions that were
flooding the incoming freshmen class each year,limiting the number of non-top 10% students admitted. Though
outcry about higher class rank requirements has been voiced from the Hispanic community, the University’s
Latino enrollment has continued to increase even with this policy in place. This policy is set-up to do the most
good for the University and for the students, returning power to shape the freshmen class back to UT
administrators.

3. Smith | 3
Bibliography:
Bealonghorn. The University of Texas at Austin. September 2012. Accessed:8 November 2012.
< http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/freshmen/after-you-apply/automatic-admission>.
Calderon, Sara and Elaine Ayo. 2012. “UT Austin’s new admissions policy hurts Latinos.” Mas Wired. 30
October 2012. Accessed:7 November 2012. < http://www.maswired.com/ut-austins-new-admissions-
policy-hurts-latinos/>.
Powers,William Jr. 2011. “Report on the Implementation of SB 175.” The University of Texas at Austin.
Accessed:17 November 2012. <http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/SB_175_Report_for_
2011.pdf>.
Rangel, Irma, et al. House Research Organization bill analysis: HB 588. Higher education committee. April 1997.
Accessed:1 Oct. 2012. < http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/pdf/ba75r/hb0588.pdf#navpanes=0>.
Texas 75(R) HB No. 588. Rangel. 8 May 1997.
Texas 81(R) SB No. 175. Shapiro. 19 June 2011.
University of Texas. 2008. “A Report on the Top 10% Law.” Accessed 2 October 2012.
<http://www.texastop10.princeton.edu/publicity/general/UT_Report_Top_10_Law.pdf>. .