By guaranteeing college admission to all students who graduate in the top 10 percent of their high school class, Texas H.B. 588 replaced an opaque de facto practice of admitting nearly all top 10 percent graduates with a transparent de jure policy that required public institutions to admit all applicants eligible for the guarantee. The new admission regime sent a clear message to students attending high schools that previously sent few students to the Texas flagships. Using 18 years of administrative data to examine sending patterns, we find a sizeable decrease in the concentration of flagship enrollees originating from select feeder schools and growing shares of enrollees originating from high schools located in rural areas, small towns, and midsize cities, as well as from schools with concentrations of poor and minority students. For new sending schools, we find substantial year-to-year persistence in sending behavior, which increased after the top 10 percent policy was implemented.
Aizer, Anna.2007. Public health insurance, program take-up, and child health . Review of Economics and Statistics89 (3): 400-15.
2.
Astin, Alexander W., and Leticia Oseguera .2004. The declining "equity" of American higher education. Review of Higher Education27 (3): 321-41.
3.
Bansak, Cynthia, and Steven Raphael.2007. The effects of state policy design features on take-up and crowd-out rates for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management26 (1): 149-75.
4.
Bowen, William G., Martin Kurzweil, and Eugene Tobin.2005. Equity and excellence in American higher education. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
5.
Coleman, James S.1990. A brief summary of the Coleman report. In Equality and achievement in education, ed. James S. Coleman, 69-74. Boulder, CO: Westview .
6.
Coleman, James S., and Thomas Hoffer.1987. Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.
7.
Coleman, James S., Thomas Hoffer, and Sally Kilgore.1982. High school achievement: Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
8.
Currie, Janet.2004. The take up of social benefits. Working Paper 10488 , National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w10488.pdf .
9.
Domina, Thurston.2007. Higher education policy as secondary school reform: Texas public high schools after Hopwood. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis29:200-17.
10.
Forest, Benjamin.2002. Hidden segregation? The limits of geographically based affirmative action. Political Geography21 (7): 855-80.
11.
Fraser, Kelly.2008. State lawmaker wants ten-percent rule: Automatic college admission policy has been implemented in Texas, California, and Florida . Michigan Daily, April 14.
12.
Frost, Michelle B.2007. Texas students’ college expectations: Does high school racial composition matter?Sociology of Education80 (1): 43-66.
13.
Giovanola, Anouck.2005. Irma Rangel. Women’s Legal History Project . Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University . http://www.law.stanford.edu/library/womenslegalhistory/papers05/RangelI-Gio (accessed January 28, 2008).
14.
Horn, Catherine L., and Stella M. Flores .2003. Percent plans in college admissions: A comparative analysis of three states’ experiences. The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/affirmativeaction/tristate.pdf .
15.
Hughes, Polly R., and Matthew Tresaugue .2007. Small-town GOP behind survival of top 10 percent rule; Republicans from rural cities say law essential for their students. The Houston Chronicle, May 30.
16.
Jaschik, Scott.2009. The 10 percent fight is back. Inside Higher Education, January 12.
17.
Kain, John F., and Daniel M. O’Brien .2003. Hopwood and the top 10 percent law: How they have effected college enrollment decisions of Texas high school graduates. Working Paper 26, Cecil and Ida Green Center for the Study of Science and Society, UT-Dallas. http://www.utdallas.edu/research/tsp/pdfpapers/paper26.pdf .
18.
Kleven, Henrik J., and Wojciech Kopczuk .2008. Transfer program complexity and the take up of social benefits. Working Draft. Available from http://www.2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/news/forums/conferences/peuk/complexity2.pdf .
19.
Koffman, Dawn, and Marta Tienda.2008. Missing in application: The Texas top 10 percent law and campus socioeconomic diversity. Working Paper, Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project, Princeton University. http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/ApplicantSocialClass.pdf .
20.
Long, Mark C., and Marta Tienda. Forthcoming. Changes in Texas universities’ applicant pools after the Hopwood decision. Social Science Research .
21.
Long, Mark C., and Marta Tienda.2008. Winners and losers: Changes in Texas university admissions post-Hopwood. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis30:255-80.
22.
Martin, Isaac, Jerome Karabel, and Sean W. Jaquez .2005. High school segregation and access to the University of California. Educational Policy19 (2): 308-30.
23.
McDonough, Patricia M.1997. Choosing colleges: How social class and schools structure opportunity. Albany: State University of New York Press.
24.
Monastersky, Richard.2007. Texas House rejects changes in top-10-percent plan for admissions. Chronicle of Higher Education, June 8.
25.
Montejano, David.2001. Access to the University of Texas at Austin and the ten percent plan: A three-year assessment. Admissions Brief, Office of Admissions Research, University of Texas at Austin. http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html .
26.
Niu, Sunny X., Teresa A. Sullivan, and Marta Tienda.2008. Minority talent loss and the Texas top 10 percent law. Social Science Quarterly89 (4): 831-45.
27.
Niu, Sunny X., and Marta Tienda.2008. Minority student academic performance under the uniform admission law: Evidence from the University of Texas at Austin. Working Paper, Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project, Princeton University. http://theop.princeton.edu/reports/wp/MinorityAcademicPerformance062008.pdf .
28.
Niu, Sunny X., Marta Tienda, and Kalena Cortes.2006. College selectivity and the Texas top 10 percent law. Economics of Education Review25 (3): 259-72.
29.
Paredes, Raymund A.2006. Testimony on the top ten percent law by Raymund A. Paredes, Commissioner on Higher Education. Hearing of the Texas State Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education. http://www.thecb.state.tx.us/commissioner/testimonytop10.pdf.
30.
Perna, Laura, and Marvin Titus.2005. The relationship between parental involvement as social capital and college enrollment: An examination of racial/ethnic group differences. Journal of Higher Education76 (5): 485-518.
31.
Root, Jay.2009. UT pushes lawmakers to modify "Top 10 percent rule ." Houston Chronicle, January 7.
32.
Saenz, Victor.2007. Democratization of access: How the top ten percent law has affected the geographic and socio-economic diversity of Texas high school feeders to UT-Austin. Paper presented at the Civil Rights Project Research Conference, Austin, TX , October.
33.
Schevitz, Tanya.2008. Texas Chancellor selected to lead UC. San Francisco Chronicle, March 21.
34.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB).2009. First-time undergraduate applicant, acceptance, and enrollment information for summer/fall 2007. Report, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. http://www.txhighereddata.org/interactive/AppAccEnr.cfm .
35.
Tienda, Marta, and Sunny X. Niu .2006a. Capitalizing on segregation, pretending neutrality: College admissions and the Texas top 10 percent law . American Law and Economics Review8 (2): 312-46.
36.
Tienda, Marta, and Sunny X. Niu .2006b. Flagships, feeders, and the Texas top 10 percent law: a test of the "brain drain" hypothesis. Journal of Higher Education77 (4): 712-39.
37.
Tienda, Marta, and Teresa A. Sullivan .2009. The promise and peril of the Texas uniform admission law. In The next twenty five years? Affirmative action and higher education in the United States and South Africa , ed. Martin Hall, Marvin Krislov, and David L. Featherman.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
University of Texas, Office of Admission Research (UT-OAR).2008. An investigation into rural high school representation in entering freshman classes at the University of Texas at Austin, Summer/Fall Classes of 1996-2007. Report, Office of Admission Research, University of Texas. http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/RuralSchoolStudy-96-07.pdf .
39.
University of Texas, Office of President.2008. The top 10 percent law and its impact on the University of Texas at Austin. Report on the Top 10 percent Law, University of Texas.
40.
Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE).2008. Knocking at the college door: Projections of high school graduates by state, income, and race/ethnicity, 1992 to 2022 . Boulder, CO: WICHE.
41.
Wolniak, Gregory C., and Mark E. Engberg .2007. The effects of high school feeder networks on college enrollment. Review of Higher Education31 (1): 27-53.
