Since the introduction of Top Ten percent, the 4-year graduation rate increased at UT from 35 percent to 55 percent or so. If anything, the program improved the academic quality of the institution.

My guess -- and it's only that -- is that they've thereby increased the percentage of students at UT for whom UT was their first choice.

Unfortunately, it also kept kids in rich suburban districts in the top third of their class from attending their birthright institution.

I don't know why everyone assumes kids in affluent schools are legacies. People can make the leap -- as both my wife and I have -- in a single generation into the upper middle class through hard work, good choices, and a little luck. We were both first generation college. We're not at all unusual.

Odds are, our daughter will go to "better" schools than we did, since cost won't be a top consideration. But there's essentially a regional quota system that makes it harder for bright kids in the DC suburbs of Northern Virginia to get into the University of Virginia than it is for students in the rest of the state. Test scores and whatnot are just disproportionately better here.

Unfortunately, it also kept kids in rich suburban districts in the top third of their class from attending their birthright institution.

While it's true that those kicked off by Texas can go to A&M, it may not be long before you have a waterfall effect where A&M becomes too crowded and they have to kick down to Texas Tech or the University of Houston or an alternate UT/A&M campus.

I like the 10 Percent idea, to be honest. At the very least, even if it is a mediocre school, you're still getting the students who were willing to put the most effort into their education. That's something, particularly in areas where there are high drop-out rates.

It was based on the comment prior to mine, which indicated that some of those in the top 10% of their class would for some reason have a low probability of being able to graduate college.

Gotcha. While it's quite possible that there are people who graduate the top 10% of a weak class are unready for an elite university, I tend to think that argument is overblown. A relative merit argument is more interesting, though.

It was based on the comment prior to mine, which indicated that some of those in the top 10% of their class would for some reason have a low probability of being able to graduate college. I'm still wondering why. Because the school they attended didn't have enough money for a debate team?

So being better than everyone around you is not meritorious? Oh, wise one, what is the perfect measurement of merit? Standardized tests, I assume?

Not sure who this is directed at. Presumably, they'd do what other competitive schools do: Use a complicated calculation that includes class rank, standardized test scores, extracurriculars, essays, and various other factors rather than a single data point.

Class rank is very useful but not as a standalone. Being ranked in the second decile at an elite school doesn't necessarily make you less meritorious than someone ranked in the first decile of a poor one. Standardized tests help provide an, um, standardized metric but they're obviously highly flawed as well. But given how high the stakes are, more than one data point is needed.

That's not true at all. School is one factor, but definitely not a necessary one. Work experience trumps schooling, and is a much better predictor of performance.

But, yes, somewhere along the line, you must show that you can stand out from the crowd through hard work and your own accomplishments.

I didn't realize this was being done on a wide scale in Texas. That said, the adjustment for the given reasons sounds reasonable.

Regarding the distribution of resources, I think the general goal should be to try to get the best out of everybody, which starts with a solid K-12 education. I don't think anybody is convinced that that is happening.