top 10% law and minority student academic performance: … · 2008. 3. 21. · top 10% law and...

Top 10% Law and Minority Student Academic Performance: Lessons from UT-Austin

by

Sunny X. Niu Marta Tienda

Princeton University

March 2008 ____________________ Paper presented at the 2008 meetings of the American Educational Research Association, March, New York City. This research was supported by grants from the Ford, Mellon and Hewlett Foundations and NSF (GRANT # SES-0350990). We gratefully acknowledge institutional support from Princeton University's Office of Population Research (NICHD Grant # R24 H0047879).

Introduction

In the wake of the judicial ban on the use of race or ethnic origin in admission

decisions in force following the 1996 Hopwood decision,1 the Texas legislature passed

the uniform admission law (HB 588), which guaranteed admission to any public post-

secondary institution to any senior who graduated in the top 10% of their high school

class. Designed to restore ethno-racial diversity to the public flagships while

simultaneously increasing access to students from high schools with low college-going

traditions (Montejano, 2001; Giovanola, 2005), the top 10% law initially was heralded as

a race-neutral alternative to affirmative action policies that rewarded academic merit in

allocating admission slots (Barr, 2002; Faulkner, 2000).

As demand for access to Texas’ selective postsecondary institutions surpassed the

carrying capacity of the State’s higher education systems (Tienda and Alon, 2007), the

uniform admission plan came under sharp criticism and spawned several myths about its

consequences. One is that the top 10% law privileges low income students of color who

attend minority-dominant high schools at the expense of white graduates from affluent

suburban high schools, who face tough competition achieving top decile rank relative to

other economically advantaged peers (Barr, 2002). Another criticism is that large

numbers of middle class minorities and talented white youth are leaving the state because

they are crowded out of the public flagships. Both criticisms lack empirical foundation

(Niu and Tienda, 2006; Tienda and Niu, 2006), yet such claims dominate media discourse

and public perceptions. Summarily stated, critics of affirmative action claim that race

preferences are unconstitutional because they give allegedly under-qualified minority

1 Hopwood v. Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), cert. denied.

3

students a boost in their probability of admission to the most competitive post-secondary

institutions. Opponents of the top 10% law argue that the admission guarantee gives

students from underperforming schools this unfair advantage (Flores, 2003; Nissimov,

2003; Glater, 2004).

Critics of both admission regimes maintain that students who benefit from race

preferences or guarantees are less well prepared for college-level work than their

counterparts who are presumably admitted solely based on their academic achievement.

Yet, there exists extensive empirical evidence that high school grades are better

predictors of college success than standardized test scores (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Alon

and Tienda, 2005). It is conceivable, therefore, that top 10% minority students, many of

them from segregated minority schools, could meet the challenges and perform well in

college given the strong motivation that had driven them to excel in high schools under

unfavorable situations. In fact, when the fate of the Grutter2 decision was uncertain,

supporters of the uniform admission law touted its success (Jayson, 2003). In 2000

University of Texas President Larry Faulkner made such a claim based on institution-

wide averages (Faulkner, 2000): “… top 10 percent students at every level of the SAT

earn grade point averages that exceed those of non-top 10 percent students having SAT

scores that are 200 to 300 points higher.”

Although encouraging and consistent with a large body of research about the

predictive power of high school grades, Faulkner’s claim was based on all students who

graduated in the top decile of their senior class, without regard to variation in the quality

2 Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 328 (2003).

4

of their high school. In fact, several recent studies have shown that the composition of the

applicant and admit pools has changed over time (Long and Tienda, 2008; Long and

Tienda, 2006; Alfonso and Calcagno, 2006; Long, 2004). Unfortunately, very little

empirical evidence is available to adjudicate competing claims about how black and

Hispanic students admitted under the top 10% law fare academically, and whether

observed changes in college performance stem from changes in the quality of students

admitted.

Accordingly, this paper considers whether academic performance of students

changed and in what ways under affirmative action and the uniform admission regime.

Students who graduate in the top decile of their high school class have been well

represented at the most selective institutions in Texas, but their share of the applicant,

admittee and enrollee pools has increased over time. In 1996, the year of the Hopwood

decision, about 43 to 44 percent of freshmen enrollees at the two public flagships, the

University of Texas at Austin (UT) and Texas A&M University (TAMU) ranked in the

top decile of their senior class. Three years later, this share rose modestly to 47 and 51

percent, respectively, at these institutions.3 While the share of students automatically

admitted to TAMU reached a plateau around 50 percent, at UT the number of top decile

applicants has continued to rise, such that 70 percent of the applicants during 2003-04

qualified for automatic admission (Tienda and Sullivan, 2008; THECB, 2003; Lavergne

& Walker, 2003; Nissimov, 2003; Wolfson, 2004). This has fueled anxiety among

3 Anticipating an enrollment squeeze as the demand for automatic admission rose, in 2000 UT President Larry Faulkner temporarily increased the size of the freshman class, but this increase was rescinded in 2002 as the University exceeded its carrying capacity (see Faulkner, 2000; Jayson, 2003).

5

parents and students, particularly those from affluent school districts, who fear that they

will be denied access if they do not qualify for the admission guarantee.

Our analyses focus on enrolles at UT-Austin and expand on Faulkner’s claim that

top 10% admits outperform students ranked lower in their high school class by evaluating

it relative to changes in admission criteria admission regime over a longer period of time

and by disaggregating college student performance by race/ethnicity and quality of

secondary school attended. Specifically, we examine Texas public high school students

who enrolled UT-Austin between 1990 and 2003, the State’s most selective public

institution that witnessed growing saturation with top decile graduates as demand for

access surged (Tienda and Sullivan, 2008). Empirical analyses address three concrete

questions: (1) How has the class rank composition of enrollees changed between the two

admission regimes, and which decile class rank groups are displaced? (2) How does the

test score distribution differ among replacement and displaced groups between the

admission regimes? And, (3) how does the academic performance of the replacement

groups compare with that of the remaining members of the groups being displaced? We

assess academic performance using multiple outcomes, including on first-year and 4th

year GPA, freshman attrition, and 4-year graduation rates.

Section II describes the data and research strategy, including operational

definitions of key empirical constructs. Section III presents empirical results, first

describing changes in the class rank and SAT composition of enrolled minority and

nonminority students under affirmative action and top 10% admission regimes and

subsequently estimating multivariate models to compare changes in academic

6

performance that take into account changes in the standardized test scores and high

school economic status of enrolled students.4

II. Data and Methods

Our analyses are based on administrative data for the University of Texas at

Austin that were assembled as part of Texas Higher Education Opportunity Project. The

administrative data from UT includes a base file and a term file. The base file, which

contains 224,893 applicant records from 1990 to 2003, provides for them basic

demographic information, high school class rank, test score, admission and enrollment

status, and graduation date. Applicant term files include academic performance

indicators, which include term-specific GPA and cumulative GPA for each semester

enrolled. The working sample is restricted to 75,360 fall semester enrollees who

graduated from a Texas public high school with at least 10 seniors and reporting student

ranks.5 Using a database maintained by the Texas Education Agency, we appended to

each record the percent of students ever economically disadvantaged at their high

school.6

Key Variables

High school economic status: Using a variable “percent of students ever

economically disadvantaged” drawn from the TEA database, we derive a classification

4 Technically there are three regimes during the period we analyze: affirmative action (pre 1997), no race or rank preferences (1997), and top 10% law sans race preferences (1998 to 2004). Since 2004, UT is permitted a narrowly tailored consideration of race in admissions, but its ability to do so is constrained by the institution’s carrying capacity (Tienda and Sullivan, 2008). 5 We use residency as a proxy for high school location when missing. 6 This variable was based on a special tabulation provided by the Texas Education Agency.

7

scheme for Texas high schools according to socioeconomic status. Annual quartile cut-

points are used to classify high schools into three strata: affluent schools (top quartile);

average schools (second and third quartiles); and poor schools (bottom quartile).

Affluent schools are further sorted into two subgroups designating a subset of “feeder

schools” and others; similarly, poor schools are sorted into those designated “Longhorn

Scholarship Schools” versus other poor schools.

Feeder high schools are a set of high schools with very strong college-going

traditions, including large numbers who historically attended the two public flagships.

Operationally, feeder high schools are the top 20 high schools based on the absolute

number of students admitted to UT-Austin and A&M in 2000 (Tienda et al., 2003). At

A&M, the top 20 feeder high schools accounted for 15 percent of students admitted in

2000, and 14 percent of enrolled freshmen. For UT, the corresponding figures for both

admitted students and enrolled freshmen is 23 percent. Because of the considerable

overlap between the two sets, the combined list of feeder schools represent only 28 high

schools out of a possible 1,644 public high schools in 2000 (TEA, 2001). Most of these

feeder high schools are affluent high schools based on criteria defined above, and none is

poor. Longhorn Scholarship high schools are a subset of high schools with low college-

going traditions that were targeted by UT-Austin for extensive outreach and scholarships

that enable their top performing students to attend UT-Austin (Domina, 2007). Most of

these schools are poor high schools based on criteria defined above, but some are

classified as “average” schools in our Texas secondary school classification scheme.

High school class rank: Under the provisions of the uniform admission law, high

schools have great latitude in determining how to calculate grade point averages used to

8

compute the rank distribution—whether to weight honors and advanced placement

courses differently and whether to include non-academic courses. In order to regulate the

calculation of class rank, UT requires high schools to report the size of their senior class

and class standing in order to determine whether an individual applicant qualifies for

automatic admission under the top 10% law. For analyses detailed below, we sort

students into three categories based on their rank: top decile, second decile, third decile

and below.

Test scores: Although standardized test scores are not considered in the admission

decisions of students who qualify for automatic admission, all applicants must submit test

scores, either SAT or ACT, in order for an application to be considered complete. ACT

scores are converted to SAT scores based on conversion table published by College

Board, and SAT scores are re-centered for years prior to 1996.

Analytical Strategies

We use descriptive tabulations to discern changes in the composition of freshman

classes at UT under the two admission regimes. Critics of the top 10% law complain that

highly ranked graduates from low performing high schools, which we proxy by

socioeconomic status, will underperform academically relative to lower ranked graduates

from competitive high schools because they are not well prepared for the academic

demands of selective institutions. Therefore, our assessment of these claims requires

comparisons by high school percentile class rank, race/ethnicity groups and economic

status of high school attended.

9

Student responses to the change in admission criteria evolved over time, as

information about the new requirements were diffused throughout the state, therefore we

examine annual changes in the high school class rank composition of UT enrollees

according to demographic groups and high school socioeconomic status. In order to

characterize changes in replacement and displaced groups associated with the two

admissions regimes, we focus on enrollee “qualifications,” notably standardized test

scores, and their college performance, focusing on freshmen GPA, cumulative GPA at

the 4th year, freshmen year drop out rate, and 4th year graduation status.

By answering the three research questions posed at the outset, these descriptive

analyses address criticisms about the alleged underperformance of minority students from

poor high schools under the uniform admission law. Although we use SAT scores to

portray changes in academic qualification of enrollees, we do not endorse the use of SAT

scores as a reliable measure of academic merit. Rather, we concur with Alon and

Tienda’s (2007) conclusions that this measure has become an inflated measure of

academic merit with lower predictive power than class rank.

Tabular analyses by demographic groups and high school socioeconomic status

ignore the strong association between minority status and school quality (Tienda and Niu,

2006; 2007). Because minority students are disproportionately concentrated in low-

performing high schools and average lower SAT scores than their white counterparts, we

use an OLS regression model to predict freshmen and 4th year college GPA, and a probit

model to predict the probability of first-year withdrawal and graduation in 4 years. Test

scores are not considered for rank-eligible enrollees under the uniform admission law, but

they were taken into account prior to that time. Therefore, we estimate multivariate

10

models excluding and including test scores as predictors of academic success to gauge

how gaps in test score contribute to group differences in academic performance, and how

it changed over the two regimes. These analyses engage the continued controversy over

the predictive power of standardize tests in college performance (Alon and Tienda, 2007).

III. Results

We first report the composition of UT enrollees shifted over time to a high share

of top decile students, and this trend holds for every subgroups defined by race/ethnicity

and by high school economic status. Considering size differences of subgroups, we

subsequently examine composition of UT enrollees across class rank and subgroup status.

This exercise allows us to identify two sets of comparison groups whose representation in

the freshman class have been altered, and who are the focus of critics of the Top 10%

law. We then contrast their test score gap and equivalent college performance to attest the

value of demonstrated achievement—high school grades—as a predictor of college

success. Finally, we report results of regression and probit models which consider

race/ethnicity and high school economic status together, and statistically gauge the effects

of test score gap on the group differences in college performance.

Enrollment Trends: Changes in Student Composition

By design, the composition of UT enrollees shifted over time toward a higher

proportion of students who graduated in the top decile of their class. This trend, portrayed

in Figure 1, obtains for all race and ethnic groups (upper panel) and across the high

school socioeconomic spectrum (lower panel).

11

(Figure 1 about Here)

Between 1990 and 1996, when admissions officers selectively considered race

and ethnicity in admissions, between 40 and 50 percent of all UT enrollees graduated in

the top decile of their class; this share was relatively stable, although a slight downward

trend is discernible in the years before the uniform admission regime was in force. Once

the uniform admission law was in effect (1998), the share of top 10% enrollees

rebounded and continued rising through the observation period. By 2000, nearly 50

percent of UT enrollees graduated in the top decile of their high school class, as did 60

percent of freshmen in 2001 and 2002, and almost 75 by 2003.

With a relatively fixed number of slots, growth in the share of top decile enrollees

implies a decrease in the proportion of enrollees of lower rank. The upper-left bar-graph

in Figure 1 reveals that the largest decreases occurred among enrollees who ranked at or

below the third decile of their high school class. This share shrunk from about 30 percent

of enrollees between 1990 and 2000 to about 15 percent in 2001 and 2002, and further

down to a meager 8 percent in 2003. The temporary increase in the size of the freshman

class between 2000 and 2002 enabled second decile admittees to maintain their

enrollment share to about one-quarter of the freshman class until 2002. Once the class

size was reduced by admitting fewer students, representation of second decile graduates

among 2003 freshmen enrollees fell to about 18 percent. Understandably, critics of the

law complain that UT has been hampered in its ability to use the broad range of criteria

allowed by the law to diversify its student body as the vast majority are now admitted

using a single criterion (Tienda and Sullivan, 2008; Nissimov, 2003).

12

Three periods appear as students and UT responded to the Top 10% law. During

the first three years of the top 10% regime (1998-2000), the share of top decile students

increased slowly and posed a negligible threat to non-top decile students. As knowledge

of the law spread and outreach programs that targeted high schools with low college-

going traditions evolved, the share of top decile students in the freshman class grew, but

at the expense of students ranked at or below the third decile. By comparison, students

ranked in the second decile maintained their relative shares through 2002 due to

temporary increase in class size. By 2003, top decile students dominated the freshman

class, virtually displacing students who graduated at or below the third decile of their

class and eroding shares of the second decile students.

A similar trend obtains for each demographic group, except that the proportion of

top decile enrollees differs (upper panel in Figure 1). Being the smallest group, blacks

comprised only four to five percent of UT’s first-time freshmen throughout the

observation period, their class rank status changed most dramatically after the admission

guarantee was implemented. In the early 1990s, the proportion of top decile enrollees

was the lowest for blacks among four race/ethnicity groups and that share continued to

fall until 1997 and stayed the lowest until 1998. With the admission guarantee in force

since 1998, their class rank status shifted upward and the share of top decile enrollees

quickly caught up with that of other three race/ethnicity groups. Specifically, in the early

1990s, 40 to 50 percent of black enrollees ranked in the top decile of their high school

class, but this share fell to 25-30 percent after 1994. In 1999, two in three black enrollees

were top 10% graduates; by 2003 this share rose to 80 percent.

13

The lower panel in Figure 1, which disaggregates the rank composition of first-

time freshmen by type of high school attended, also shows a shift in the class rank

composition of enrollees toward top decile students. However, the proportion of top

decile enrollees differ greatly and students ranked at the second decile fare very

differently. Specifically, less than one-third of freshmen enrollees from feeder schools

were top decile graduates under the affirmative action regime, but this share rose

gradually after 1998 and spikes to 55 percent in 2003 (when the temporary class size

expansion was eliminated). Until 2000, about half of enrollees graduated from feeder

high schools were third decile and lower students, then the proportion drops to one-third

in 2001 and 2002, over one-quarter in 2003. The proportion for those ranked the second

decile remains at around 25 percent through 2000, and even increases slightly to 30

percent in the early 2000s.

At the other end of the economic spectrum, two-third of enrollees from Longhorn

schools were top decile students in 1990 to start with. Although the percent of top decile

students ebbed in 1998, this share rebounded to 87 the following year after the Longhorn

fellowship program was implemented and accompanied by aggressive outreach to recruit

rank-eligible students from these high schools. In 2003, almost all students enrolled at

UT were top decile ranked. Students ranked the second decile and those ranked the third

decile and lower are all disappearing quickly.

Comparison Groups: Identification and Justification

It is important to examine whether each subgroup responded to the Top 10% law

in similar way. However, given the carry capacity of UT system, difference in group size

14

requires that we consider class rank distribution across group status to identify possible

replacement. Table 1 reports distribution of UT enrollees by class rank and

race/ethnicity, and Table 2 reports distribution of UT enrollees by class rank and high

school economic status.

(Table 1 About Here)

(Table 2 About Here)

There are a few noteworthy points. First, blacks took very small share of UT

freshmen throughout the period of 1990-2003, and Hispanics comprised a much larger

share than do blacks, ranging from 14 and 19 percent. Second, even though UT faced

rising demand for slots owing to rapid growth in the number of high school graduates

(Tienda, 2006; Tienda and Sullivan, 2008), the share of first time freshman from the 28

top feeder high schools remained relatively high, ranging from 24 to 32 percent of all

enrollees during the observation period. On the other hand, students from 40-60

Longhorn high schools took only 5 percent or less of freshmen class. Third, regardless of

its size, the share of every top decile subgroup rose since 1998, and the share of every

third decile and below subgroup shrunk.

To evaluate propositions about the college readiness of beneficiaries of the top

10% law, in this paper we compare the academic performance of two groups of enrollees

whose representation in the freshman class have been altered under the two admission

regimes: (1) the rising share of top 10% black and Hispanic enrollees versus white

students ranked at or below the third decile whose shares are diminishing; and (2) top

decile graduates from Longhorn high schools whose shares are clearly trending up verses

15

the third decile and lower enrollees from feeder and affluent high schools whose shares

are shrinking.

We focus our analyses on these two sets of comparison groups for the following

reasons. First, the comparison groups directly concerns the critics of the Top 10% law.

Opposition to both affirmative action and the uniform admission regimes stems from

what is presumed to be unfair competition—that is, giving preference to applicants based

on ascribed attributes who are presumed to be less qualified, or in the case of the top 10%

law, treating top ranked students from both high and low-performing high schools

equally. Whether beneficiaries of preferential admission regimes actually are college

ready is an empirical question that requires evidence based on actual academic

performance.

Second, the changes in the shares of comparison groups are non-trivial. In an

increasingly competitive climate for access to selective colleges and universities driven

by a 50% growth in the number of high school graduates in Texas (Tienda and Sullivan,

2008), the replacement of third decile graduates by top 10% minority students is quite

substantial. For example, third decile and lower whites took 24 percent of all freshmen

class seats in 1997, but their share dropped to 11 percent in 2002; this implies about 780

fewer slots in the average UT freshman class of 6000. Similarly, enrollees from feeder

and other affluent high schools ranked at or below the third decile of their class together

filled 28 percent of all freshmen class seats in 1997, but their share dropped to 14 percent

in 2002 – a change of about 840 slots.

Third, Longhorn high schools are targeted by UT with scholarships and

aggressive outreach programs. Without financial support, guarantee of admissions do not

16

lead to matriculation among top performing students of low economic status (Tienda and

Niu, 2006). And the absent of financial support is evident – the share of top decile

students from poor high schools among all enrollees remain the same until 2003, yet the

share of top decile students from Longhorn high schools rose since the first year of the

program. That the lack of rising trend for top decile students from poor schools also

dictates that they are not in the comparison groups.

Although the comparison in academic performance for the two sets of groups

defined above is warranted, we need to note its limitation as to answer the critics of the

Top 10% law. Ideally one would want to compare top 10% graduates admitted under the

top 10% regime who would not have been admitted otherwise with non-top decile

students denied admission who would not have been denied otherwise. However, UT

practiced automatic admissions of top decile students before the Top 10% law. In fact,

over 93 percent of all top 10% applicants were admitted to UT prior to the enactment of

the uniform admission law. HB 588 formalized a de facto practice to a de jure policy.

That is, top decile students admitted under the Top 10% law would be admitted without

the guarantee of the law. The Top 10% law does not make unqualified top decile

students become qualifying for admission, in stead, it awakes many more top decile

students to apply to UT and get admitted. As the result of this awakening, UT witnessed

increasing representation of Texas high schools since 1998.

Alternatively, we can focus on those top decile students who were awaken by the

Top 10% law to apply for UT. Presumably, these top decile students might have weaker

academic qualification than those who would apply to UT without the guarantee of the

law. However, class rank distribution among top decile enrollees over time show very

17

small downward shift. For example, the mean percentile class rank among top decile

Hispanic students was 4.18 (with a standard deviation of 2.83) in 1997, and the means

were 4.51 (S.D. 2.87) in 2002, and 4.44 (S.D. 2.89) in 2003. And 62 percent of top decile

Hispanics ranked at top 5 percent or better in 1997, this share dropped slightly to 58 to 60

since 1998. Similarly, the mean percentile class rank among top decile Longhorn school

students was 3.81 (with a standard deviation of 2.76) in 1997, and the means were 3.77

(S.D. 2.76) in 2002, and 4.07 (S.D. 2.91) in 2003. And 67 percent of top decile Longhorn

school students ranked at top 5 percent or better in 1997, this share bounced around it

since 1998. That is, those top decile students who were awaken by the Top 10% law to

apply for UT are not less qualified than those who would apply without the guarantee of

the law, at least in terms of their class rank status.7 That comparable class rank status

between these two sets of top decile students leads to a difficulty in identifying who were

awaken by the law, but also provide some basis that they are likely to perform at

comparable levels. Therefore, examining top decile students instead of awaken top decile

students is unlikely to lead to upward biases.

On the other hand, non-top 10% students who were denied admission are out of

the sample. If the number and quality of applicants changed after the admission

guarantee—and there is evidence that this in fact occurred (Long and Tienda, 2007;

Alfonso and Calgano, 2006; Tienda and Sullivan, 2008)—then it is conceivable that the

“quality” of enrollees changed as a result of the law. More concretely, third decile

students who survive the admission squeeze are likely to be more qualified than those

who fail. Therefore, the comparison groups proposed in the paper approaches one of the

7 Koffman and Tienda (2008) show that application rates to UT rose mostly among students ranked at top 5 percent or better across high school economic status.

18

worst scenario: top deicle students are replacing the most qualified students who rank at

or below third decile. A comparison of their college performance thus provides an upper

bound of differences in achievement.

We also need to note that the comparison groups do not imply one-to-one

replacement. Although we compare the top decile black and Hispanic students with

white students ranked at or below the third decile, and compare the top decile Longhorn

school students with feeder school students ranked at or below the third decile, the former

groups do not replace the latter groups on one-to-one basis. As we pointed out earlier,

the former groups take only small shares of UT freshmen class, and most of latter groups

are actually replaced by their own top decile counterparts. However, complaints against

the Top 10% law target on small number of top decile students from low-performing high

schools as if they took away all the slots – it was similar case when complains were filed

against small number of AA beneficiaries.

Top Decile Blacks and Hispanics vs. Whites Ranked at or Below the Third Decile

The saturation of freshmen classes with students guaranteed admission using a

single measure of merit legitimately concerns UT administrators seeking to diversify

their student body along various dimensions. Yet, complaints from parents and legislators

largely revolve around the qualifications of top 10% graduates from under-performing

high schools who allegedly squeeze out students from competitive high schools. Critics

of the law specifically focus on changes standardized test scores (SAT) to argue that the

law has eroded the quality of students admitted under the admission guarantee. The

critics are right that average test score has eroded among top decile UT enrollees,

19

however, whether the quality of students admitted eroded is questionable when we find

that the beneficiaries of the top 10% law have maintained their academic performance

relative to the third decile and lower students. This is consistent with a large body of

evidence showing that standardized tests are less reliable predictors of academic success

than high school grades (Bowen and Bok, 1989; Alon and Tienda, 2007).

Figure 2 plots mean SAT scores by year for top decile black and Hispanic

students and white students ranked at or below third decile. It shows that, the former

group has averaged lower SAT scores than the latter group over the entire 1990-2003

period and the test score gap has widened appreciably since the enactment of the Top

10% law. The 60 point gap in 1990 was approximately halved by the mid-1990s through

1997 owing to the improvement in scores of black and Hispanic enrollees. Since 1998,

the tests score gap widened again. During the first three years this was driven largely by

enrollment of black and Hispanic top decile students with lower test scores, but thereafter

(2001 – 2003) the sharply increased test score selectivity of white enrollees expanded the

SAT gap. Specifically, the 1997 mean score among top decile Hispanics of 1128

dropped about 30 points by in 2000 and then an additional 10 points over the next 3

years. For whites ranked at or below the third decile, the 1997 mean score of 1158

remained stable until 2000, but rose 90 points over the next three years to 1250.



Though enrolled at UT with lower test scores, top decile black and Hispanic

students have consistently performed equally well or better than white students ranked at

or below the third decile throughout the entire observation period (Figure 3).

20

Specifically, top decile Hispanics maintain 0.3 freshmen year CGPA margins over the

comparison group until 2001. By 2003, when the SAT gap reached 161 points, both

groups performed equally well. Hispanics ranked in the top decile of their high school

class also maintain about 0.2 margins in their 4th year college GPA over white enrollees

ranked at or below the third decile through 2000, the last year our data allow comparisons

of this measure. Compared with white enrollees ranked at or below the third decile of

their high school class, top 10% Hispanic enrollees have slightly lower withdraw rate in

freshmen year. Although their 4-year graduation rate was slightly lower in the early

1990s, they catch up by the mid-1990s, and by the late 1990s their probability of

graduating in four years surpasses that of white students ranked at or below the third

decile. The small numbers of top 10% black students result in greater annual fluctuation,

but their academic performance generally parallels that of similarly situated Hispanics.

Top Decile Longhorn Students vs. Feeder School Students Ranked at or Below the Third

Decile

Enrollees from Longhorn high schools who ranked in the top decile of their class

primarily include economically disadvantaged minority students; by definition, these

schools have relatively low college-going traditions, but also high shares of black and

Hispanic students. By contrast, enrollees from feeder high schools who ranked at or

below the third decile largely include wealthy white students. To certain extent, this set

of comparison groups defined by high school economic status represents an extreme case

of the last set of comparison groups defined by race/ethnicity. The great economic

21

disparities between graduates from Longhorn and feeder schools are mirrored in their

average test scores.

Their test score gap started at 70 points in the early 1990s. Predictably, the SAT

gap widened after the introduction of the top 10% admission guarantee, mostly due to

dropping scores among top decile Longhorn school students until 2000 and then a sharp

rising score among feeder school students ranked at or below third decile in 2001-2003.

To be specific, top decile Longhorn students lost 115 SAT score points from 1994 to

2003, including the largest drop of 50 points in a single year in the second year of the top

10% law (1999). Feeder school students ranked at or below the third decile gained 94

points in average test score between 2000 and 2003. Consequently, the average SAT

score difference between top decile graduates from Longhorn high schools and third

decile and below students from feeder schools rose from 152 points in 2000 to 257 points

by 2003. Although critics of the uniform admission law use this evidence to argue that

UT is becoming saturated with students unprepared for college work, empirical evidence

about actual performance does not support these claims.



Figure 5 tracks the four academic performance indicators for the comparison

groups according to high school economic status. Despite the much lower test scores for

top decile Longhorn school students, they earned 0.13 points higher in their freshmen

year GPA in 2000, showed strong persistence in their freshman year, and were doing

equally well in their 4th year college GPA. Nevertheless, top ranked students from

Longhorn schools students were about 8 percent less likely to graduate in four years

22

compared with feeder school students ranked at or below the third decile. Moreover,

since 2001 they witnessed an erosion of their edge on freshmen year GPA, and by 2003

averaged 0.25 points lower. Their freshmen year withdraw rate, however, remained

unchanged. Considering their socioeconomic backgrounds, the college academic

achievements of top decile Longhorn students is nothing short of remarkable.

Until 2000, the test score gap between top decile Longhorn students and students

ranked at or below the third decile who graduated from affluent, non-feeder high schools

is about half as large as that between them and feeder school graduates ranked at the third

decile or lower. After 2001, rising mean test scores among enrollees from affluent, non-

feeder high schools and ranked in the third decile or below widened the test score gap

vis-à-vis rank-eligible enrollees from Longhorn schools. That academic performance of

top decile Longhorn students on all four outcome measures was comparable to or slightly

above that of allegedly better qualified students from competitive, affluent high schools,

even as the test score gap approached 210 points, attests to the value of demonstrated

achievement—high school grades—as a predictor of college success.

Our analyses so far focus group differences in test score and in college

performance, our findings reinforce claims that class rank is a stronger predictor of

college success. When we examine the secular trends in academic performance for each

group, we also find evidences that further underscore the limited predictive power of test

scores. For every group considered here, although their mean test score did not rise over

1990-200, their academic performance improved substantially. To be specific, the mean

SAT scores improved in the early 1990s then were dropping since 1994/5 to or below

previous levels among top decile blacks, Hispanics and Longhorn school students, the

23

mean SAT score stayed stagnant among third decile and lower whites and affluent school

students, and gained merely 17 points among third decile and lower feeder school

students. However, from 1990 to 2000, their gained about 0.3-0.4 points in freshmen

year cumulative GPA, about 0.2 points in the 4th cumulative GPA, continued lowered

freshmen year drop out rate, and most impressively, gained more 10 percentage points in

4 year graduation rate.

Though test score is weak in predicting college performance, it is strong at very

high and very low range. In the period of 2001-2003, as the share of the three top decile

groups continued to rise, their mean SAT score kept dropping and their freshmen year

academic performance leveled off. At the same time, the three groups of students ranked

at or below third decile become disappearing since 2001, they become very selective,

coming with stunning high SAT scores and continuing improvement in freshmen year

academic performance.

Nevertheless, we need to note that widening gap in test scores between top decile

students and non-top decile students maybe partly due to the fact that test scores are not

considered for students qualified for the admission guarantee (although they must submit

board exam scores for an application to be considered complete). This is especially true

for top decile minority students and Longhorn students. Most of them do not apply for

out-of-state universities, who give significant weight to test scores in admission

decisions. However, test scores remain an important admission criterion for students who

do not qualify for automatic admission to UT, hence the higher average SAT scores for

enrollees ranked at or below the third decile of their class.

24

Multivariate Analyses

While suggestive about the value of high school class rank in predicting college

performance, especially compared with standardized test scores, these descriptive

analyses can not address how much of the college achievement gap stems from group

differences in test scores. This question is important because black and Hispanics average

lower test scores than their white counterparts (Alon and Tienda, 2007; 2005); because

black and Hispanic students are more likely than whites to attend poor, underperforming

schools (Tienda and Niu, 2006; 2008); and because the test score gap widened between

freshmen who qualified for the admission guarantee and those that did not. The

multivariate analyses reported in this section, therefore, ask how would top decile black

and Hispanic students perform academically (1) if they had the same standardized test

scores as white students ranked at or below the third decile of their class and (2) if they

attended high schools of comparable socioeconomic status? Because group membership

and type of high school attended are correlated, it is necessary to consider their joint

influence on post-secondary academic achievement.

To address whether academic performance of top 10% minority enrollees would

improve if they shared the advantages of white students who attend more competitive

high schools, we estimate several regression and probit models that predict four measures

of academic performance: freshman and 4th year college cumulative GPA; freshman year

attrition; and 4th year graduation probability. The base model includes only dummy

variables for the subgroups defined by class rank and race/ethnicity. The second model

adds students standardized test score to the baseline, and model (3) adds high school

economic status to the baseline. Finally, model (4) considers the joint influence of test

25

score and high school economic status on the group differences in academic performance.

As a descriptive exercise, these analyses provide a clearer gauge of how much test score

and high school economic status accounts for observed differences in academic

performance of enrollees whose share of the freshman class is increasing or decreasing.

Table 3 reports coefficients from regressions predicting freshman and fourth year

college cumulative GPA, and Table 4 reports marginal effects from probit regressions

predicting freshmen year withdrawal and the likelihood of graduating in 4 years. Year-

specific estimates take into account the changing composition of the freshman class over

time, which is important in order to consider how the selectivity of replacement and

displaced groups is related to college performance. We only report the coefficients and

marginal effects for top decile blacks and Hispanics, whites ranked at or below the third

decile serve as the reference category.

The baseline model mimics the descriptive findings while also indicating the

statistical significance of the observed differences. The point estimates indicate that

compared with the white reference group, black and Hispanic enrollees who qualified for

automatic admission attained statistically higher grade point averages for most years until

2000. Moreover, they were significantly less likely or equally likely to persist in college

beyond their freshman year and to graduate in four years. Thereafter, they perform at

least equally well in freshmen year (see column 1 of Table 3).

(Tables 3 about Here)

The second set of estimates (column 2 in Tables 3) indicate that academic

performance of top decile black and Hispanic enrollees would be higher if their

standardized test scores were comparable to those of white students ranked at or below

26

the third decile of their high school class, although the improvements are quite modest--

less than 0.10 cumulative GPA points – in years 2000 and earlier. However, as the test

score gap between minority enrollees qualified for automatic admission and students

ranked at or below the third decile of their high school class, the GPA advantage

associated with high class rank eroded as well. The point estimates imply that after 2001,

top decile minority enrollees would improve their freshman GPA by 0.20 to 0.30 points if

they arrived with the standardized test scores of their reference group.

Although test scores exercise a small net influence on first-year college

cumulative GPA (a 100-point test score difference translates into approximately 0.14 to

0.17 GPA points) prior 2001, their influence is magnified the larger the gap between the

comparison groups, as occurs after 2001.8 Consistent with prior studies based on national

data (Bowen and Bok, 1998), our estimates show that the influence of standardized test

scores on college performance declines over time. Therefore, equalizing test scores

between the comparison groups would lead to smaller gains in 4th year college GPA for

top decile blacks and Hispanics. Moreover, the influence effect of test scores on

freshmen year dropping out and 4-year graduation is minimal, which results in mostly

unchanged coefficients and significance levels between the base and the test score

models.

Minority enrollees who qualify for the admission guarantee disproportionately

hail from high schools with limited resources and low college going traditions (Tienda

and Niu, 2006); however, if they graduated from high schools comparable to those

attended by white enrollees who graduated at or below the third decile of their high 8 The test score coefficient is statistically significant yet small throughout years, about 0.0014 and 0.0015 in year 2000 and prior, and rises to 0.0016 and 0.0017 in years 2001-2003.

27

school class, their college academic performance would improve significantly—even

more than the boost associated with comparable standardized test scores (see column 3 of

Tables 3). The point estimates indicate that if top 10% black and Hispanic enrollees

attended schools as affluent as those of white enrollees who graduated at or below the

third decile of their high school class, their freshman cumulative GPA would be 0.3

points higher and their fourth year college cumulative GPA would average 0.2 points

higher. Also, their likelihood of dropping out after the freshman year would be reduced

by 2 to 4 percentage points, and their 4-year graduation rate would be 7 to 19 percent

higher. Furthermore, the influence of high school economic status on freshmen year GPA

increased rose after 2001, as the share of black and Hispanic enrollees from Longhorn

high schools increased.

A comparison columns 2 and 3 in Tables 3 reveals unequivocally that differences

in high school economic status are far more significant predictors of differences in

college academic performance than are differences in standardized test scores. This

inference finds further support in the final set of estimates, which estimates the joint

influence of test scores and high school economic status on college performance (column

4 of Tables 3 and 4). For all outcome measures in most years, the point estimates for

group differences remain unchanged from those reported in column 3. The only

noteworthy exception is, once again, after 2001, when the test score gap widened

appreciably due to higher mean scores among whites ranked at or below the third decile

of their class. For these years, the point estimates are greater in predicting group

difference in freshman year college cumulative GPA; yet the net improvement is

relatively small, especially for Hispanics ranked in the top decile of their class.

28

In summary, compared with white enrollees with class rank in the third decile or

below, top decile black and Hispanic students come with lower test scores and many

attended high schools with a high share of economically disadvantaged students and low

college-going traditions. Differences in their standardized test scores predict a small share

of the measured group differences in college academic performance; instead, the

economic status of high school attended is a stronger predictor of group difference in

college academic performance.

Finally, we note that differences in college readiness of first time freshmen affect

how they perform differently in freshmen year, and continue to affect them substantially

as they go through college years. Although high school economic status affect more

strongly for freshmen year GPA than for the 4th year CGPA, the effect on the latter still

is sizable. The effect is very limited for freshmen year dropping out probably because

that rate is low, but the effect is quite strong for 4-year graduation. Our analyses end in

2003, so for UT enrollees as of 2001-2003, our data do not indicate how they fare during

their 4th year at UT. However, it is likely that for top decile black and Hispanic students

and Longhorn scholarship recipients, their 4th year college performance will level off, as

their freshmen year performance did, although to a lesser extent. The opposite is likely to

occur for white students and students from feeder and affluent schools ranked at or below

the third decile, who are likely to continue improving their 4th year academic

performance. As a result, these minority top decile students will likely lose their

performance edge or be surpassed in their 4th year performance as well.

Conclusion and Policy Implication

29

Just as the affirmative action is criticized for giving allegedly underqualified

minority students a boost in their admission to the most competitive post-secondary

institutions, the Texas Top 10% law came under sharp criticism for giving unfair

advantages to students from underperforming high schools. Opponents of the uniform

admission law argue that these students are less well prepared for college-level work than

their counterparts putatively admitted solely on academic achievement, with SAT scores

presumed to be the most valuable measure of merit. Disputing this claim, there is

extensive empirical research showing that high school grades are better predictors of

college success than standardized test scores (Bowen and Bok, 1998; Alon and Tienda,

2007). Our results provide further support for this proposition based on the experience of

students enrolled at UT-Austin in 1990-2003. This finding is all the more impressive in

light of the growing saturation of the Austin campus with students automatically admitted

on the basis of a single academic criterion.

Descriptive analyses and multivariate analyses established three major findings.

First, under the Top 10% law, UT enrollees are becoming mostly top decile students, and

those ranked third decile and lower are disappearing, yet those ranked in the second

decile maintained their relative share until 2002, which was the last year that benefitted

from the temporary expansion in the size of the freshman class. The contrast of rising

shares of top decile students and shrinking representations of students ranked at or below

the third decile obtains for every race and ethnic group and across high school economic

strata.

Second, compared with third decile and lower ranked white students, top 10%

black and Hispanic enrollees arrive with lower average SAT scores throughout the

30

period; moreover, the SAT gap between them widened appreciably over time.

Nevertheless, throughout the observation period, top 10% admits consistently performed

as well or better than their lower ranked white counterparts who arrived with appreciably

higher SAT scores. Moreover, compared with the third students who graduated from

highly competitive feeder high schools, top 10% graduates from Longhorn high schools

arrive with much lower average SAT scores, which eroded over time. Yet, until 2001,

their academic performance was comparable to that of graduates from feeder schools who

were ranked at the third decile or below but who had significantly higher SAT scores.

After 2002 Longhorn top 10% students were surpassed in their freshmen year GPA by

third decile feeder school students who scored over 200 points higher on their SAT

exams.

Third, consistent with numerous studies (see Bowen and Bok, 1998), we find that

differences in SAT scores exert small effects on group differences in college academic

performance. Instead, our analyses support claims that the economic status of high

schools attended exert much larger influence on group differences in college academic

performance. The strong effects of high school economic status on differences in college

academic performance leaves few short-term alternatives for policy intervention, but they

underscore the importance of cultivating college-going cultures in secondary schools and

strengthening ties between high school and college curricula. In Texas, feeder high

schools stand out for their strong ties with competitive post-secondary institutions

(Tienda and Niu, 2006), and they provide a standard of college-going behavior to be

emulated by other secondary school campuses.

31

Not only do high schools provide the training ground for post-secondary

achievement, but they also shape students’ college aspirations and expectations (Niu and

Tienda, 2008). The Longhorn and Century Scholars programs have proven successful in

raising the number of high achieving students from schools with low college traditions

who enroll in the Texas public flagships, but they are restricted to relatively few high

schools and they are not designed to strengthen college readiness. Although Domina

(2007) provides some evidence that financial incentives designed to raise college

attendance have had modest success in lowering absenteeism and raising college

aspirations, indicated by growing numbers who take the required entrance exams, these

initiatives do little to improve college readiness by strengthening the curriculum and

ensuring mastery of core subjects. This responsibility falls to the entire post-secondary

system, not only the public flagships that, in any event, have a limited number of slots

relative to rising demand.

That top decile black, Hispanic and Longhorn school students score low on

standardized test, yet perform equally well or better than students ranked at or below the

third decile attests to the power of high school class rank in predicting college

performance and the limited predictive power of standardized test scores (Bowen and

Bok, 1998; Alon and Tienda, 2007). Yet, it appears that test scores exert significant

influence on college performance beyond economic status of high school attended after

2001, precisely when the test score gap widened due to the higher scores among students

ranked at or below the third decile of their class. These students hail from highly

competitive high schools after 2001 because UT had become saturated with students

eligible for automatic admission; because the numbers seeking admission climbed owing

32

to demographic pressure; and because the temporary expansion of the freshman class in

force between 2000 and 2001 was rescinded, thus accentuating crowding out of students

ranked below the 10th decile. As the admission squeeze took its toll on students ranked at

or below the third decile, test scores assumed a major influence on those admitted.

Despite agreement that standardized test scores are weaker predictors of college

success than high school grades, SAT and ACT exams are highly predictive at the very

high and very low range. Our comparisons of top 10% students, whose share of the

freshman class has continued to rise, with students ranked at or below the third decile

whose share of the class become disappearing even as it has become more selective on

test scores raises an important research question that bears on college readiness and

college access, namely: How wide can the test score gap go without negatively affect

overall academic performance? Our analyses end in 2003, so for top decile UT enrollees

in 2001-2003, we do not yet know whether and how much their 4th year college

performance will level off as their freshmen year performance has. However, based on

our analyses, increased saturation of UT freshman classes with students admitted using a

single criterion of merit (Tienda and Sullivan, 2008) implies that college performance of

students admitted automatically may decline in the future. If this is the case, then the

uniform admission law, regardless of its laudable equity goals, needs to be reconsidered.

33

Figure 1. Distribution of UT Enrollees, 1990-2003

Source: The administrative data component of the Texas Higher Education Project (THEOP).

Class Rank Distribution by Race/Ethnicity

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

All Black Hispanic Asian White

Top Decile 2nd Decile 3rd Decile and Below

Class Rank Distribution by High School Economic Status

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

Feeder Affluent Average Poor LOS

Top Decile 2nd Decile 3rd Decile and Below

34

Table 1. Distribution of UT Enrollees by Class Rank & Race/Ethnicity

Black Hispanic Asian White Black Hispanic Asian White BlackHispanic Asian White1990 2 8 7 32 1 4 2 17 1 4 2 19 1001991 2 9 7 30 1 3 3 16 1 4 3 20 1001992 2 8 7 29 1 4 3 17 2 4 3 20 1001993 2 8 8 28 1 4 3 16 2 4 3 20 1001994 1 6 9 28 1 4 4 16 2 4 4 21 1001995 1 7 9 29 1 4 4 17 2 4 3 19 1001996 1 6 8 28 1 4 4 17 2 5 4 21 1001997 1 6 9 24 1 4 4 17 1 4 5 24 1001998 1 7 9 27 1 4 5 17 1 4 5 21 1001999 3 8 10 27 1 3 4 16 1 3 5 19 1002000 2 9 10 28 1 3 4 16 1 3 5 19 1002001 2 9 12 32 1 4 5 15 1 2 4 12 1002002 2 10 12 33 1 3 4 16 1 2 3 11 1002003 4 15 14 42 1 2 3 11 0 1 1 5 100


Top Decile 2nd decile 3rd Decile and Lower

Table 2. Distribution of UT Enrollees by Class Rank & High School Economic Status

Feeder AffluentAverage Poor LonghornFeeder AffluentAveragePoor LonghornFeeder AffluentAverage Poor Longhorn1990 7 17 15 6 4 6 9 6 2 1 11 9 5 1 1 1001991 7 17 15 6 3 6 8 6 2 1 12 10 5 1 1 1001992 7 18 13 6 3 7 10 6 2 1 13 10 4 1 0 1001993 7 18 12 6 2 7 11 5 1 1 12 11 4 1 1 1001994 7 17 13 5 2 7 10 6 2 1 14 11 5 1 0 1001995 9 17 13 5 1 7 10 6 2 0 13 10 4 1 1 1001996 9 14 14 5 2 8 9 6 1 0 15 11 5 1 0 1001997 7 14 13 4 2 7 9 7 2 1 16 12 5 1 0 1001998 8 14 15 5 1 8 9 7 2 0 15 9 5 1 0 1001999 9 15 15 5 3 7 8 7 1 0 13 10 5 1 0 1002000 8 15 16 5 4 7 8 7 1 0 15 8 5 1 0 1002001 9 18 20 5 4 8 9 7 1 1 9 6 3 0 0 1002002 9 19 21 5 4 8 9 7 1 0 8 6 3 0 0 1002003 12 26 22 9 5 7 7 4 1 0 4 3 1 0 0 100


Top Decile 2nd Decile 3rd Decile and Lower

35

Figure 2. Average Test Scores for UT Enrollees 1990-2003


Top Decile Blacks and Hispanics and Third Decile and Below Whites

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Top Decile Black Top Decile Hispanic 3rd Decile and Below White

36

Figure 3. Academic Performance of UT Enrollees 1990-2003, Top Decile Blacks and Hispanics and Third Decile and Below Whites


Freshmen Year Cumulative GPA

2

2.5

3

3.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

4th Year Cumulative GPA

2

2.5

3

3.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Freshmen Year Dropout Rate

05

1015202530354045

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Graduated in 4 Years

05

1015202530354045

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Top Decile Black Top Decile Hispanic 3rd Decile and Below White

37

Figure 4. Average Test Scores for UT Enrollees 1990-2003


Top Decile Longhorn School Students and Third Decile and Below Fedder and Affluent School Students

800

850

900

950

1000

1050

1100

1150

1200

1250

1300

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

TopDecile Longhorn 3rd Decile and Below Feeder 3rd Decile and Below Affluent

38

Figure 5. Academic Performance of UT Enrollees 1990-2003, Top Decile Longhorn School Students and Third Decile and Below Feeder and Affluent School Students


Graduated in 4 Years

05

1015202530354045

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

TopDecile Longhorn 3rd Decile and Below Feeder 3rd Decile and Below Affluent

Freshmen Year Dropout Rate

05

1015202530354045

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Freshmen Year Cumulative GPA

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

4th Year Cumulative GPA

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

39

Table 3. Academic Performance of Top Decile Black and Hispanic UT Enrollees Relative to Whites Ranked at or Below Third Decile (Coefficients from regressions, s.e. in parentheses)

Black 1991 -0.08 (.079) 0.02 (.076) 0.22 (.079) ** 0.25 (.077) ***1994 0.31 (.087) *** 0.38 (.047) *** 0.62 (.085) *** 0.62 (.083) ***1996 0.27 (.099) ** 0.36 (.095) *** 0.57 (.097) *** 0.57 (.095) ***1997 0.51 (.101) *** 0.57 (.097) *** 0.73 (.098) *** 0.73 (.096) ***1998 0.31 (.090) *** 0.40 (.086) *** 0.58 (.088) *** 0.58 (.086) ***2000 0.25 (.056) *** 0.42 (.054) *** 0.60 (.058) *** 0.61 (.056) ***2001 0.11 (.064) 0.37 (.061) *** 0.46 (.065) *** 0.52 (.062) ***2002 -0.02 (.058) 0.25 (.056) *** 0.34 (.059) *** 0.42 (.057) ***2003 -0.05 (.060) 0.26 (.057) *** 0.33 (.061) *** 0.42 (.058) ***

Hispanic 1991 0.31 (.043) *** 0.41 (.042) *** 0.64 (.048) *** 0.65 (.046) ***1994 0.44 (.049) *** 0.51 (.047) *** 0.77 (.051) *** 0.75 (.049) ***1996 0.42 (.044) *** 0.49 (.043) *** 0.74 (.047) *** 0.73 (.046) ***1997 0.45 (.043) *** 0.50 (.042) *** 0.80 (.046) *** 0.75 (.045) ***1998 0.32 (.041) *** 0.40 (.039) *** 0.65 (.044) *** 0.61 (.043) ***2000 0.35 (.034) *** 0.46 (.033) *** 0.73 (.038) *** 0.70 (.037) ***2001 0.31 (.039) *** 0.50 (.037) *** 0.65 (.042) *** 0.66 (.040) ***2002 0.17 (.036) *** 0.37 (.035) *** 0.53 (.039) *** 0.56 (.038) ***2003 0.05 (.044) 0.31 (.042) *** 0.47 (.046) *** 0.50 (.044) ***

Black 1991 -0.16 (.069) * -0.10 (.067) 0.00 (.070) 0.02 (.068)1994 0.06 (.070) 0.10 (.067) 0.28 (.070) *** 0.25 (.068) ***1996 0.16 (.083) * 0.21 (.081) ** 0.34 (.082) *** 0.34 (.081) ***1997 0.19 (.081) * 0.22 (.079) ** 0.33 (.080) *** 0.32 (.078) ***1998 0.15 (.073) * 0.20 (.071) ** 0.30 (.072) *** 0.30 (.071) ***2000 0.06 (.049) 0.17 (.047) *** 0.36 (.051) *** 0.35 (.050) ***

Hispanic 1991 0.06 (.037) 0.10 (.036) ** 0.24 (.041) *** 0.24 (.040) ***1994 0.15 (.039) *** 0.19 (.037) *** 0.37 (.041) *** 0.34 (.040) ***1996 0.20 (.038) *** 0.23 (.037) *** 0.43 (.041) *** 0.41 (.040) ***1997 0.25 (.037) *** 0.28 (.036) *** 0.48 (.040) *** 0.44 (.039) ***1998 0.19 (.034) *** 0.22 (.033) *** 0.39 (.037) *** 0.36 (.037) ***2000 0.17 (.030) *** 0.24 (.029) *** 0.48 (.034) *** 0.45 (.033) ***

Base+ High School

Economic Status (3)

Base+ Test Score+ High School

Economic Status (4)

Freshmen CGPA

4th Year CGPA

Base+ Test Score

(2)Base (1)

40

Table 3. Academic Performance of Top Decile Black and Hispanic UT Enrollees Relative to Whites Ranked at or Below Third Decile (Continued) (Marginal effects from probit models, s.e. in parentheses)

Black 1991 0.05 (.038) 0.04 (.037) -0.01 (.030) -0.01 (.029)1994 -0.09 (.016) ** -0.09 (.016) ** -0.10 (.009) *** -0.10 (.009) ***1996 0.02 (.043) 0.02 (.042) -0.01 (.036) -0.01 (.035)1997 --a -- -- --1998 -0.06 (.019) * -0.06 (.018) * -0.07 (.011) ** -0.07 (.011) **2000 -0.10 (.009) *** -0.10 (.006) *** -0.11 (.005) *** -0.11 (.005) ***2001 -0.04 (.018) -0.05 (.013) ** -0.06 (.012) ** -0.06 (.011) ***2002 -0.02 (.018) -0.03 (.015) -0.04 (.013) * -0.05 (.012) **2003 -0.01 (.017) -0.03 (.012) -0.04 (.010) ** -0.04 (.009) **

Hispanic 1991 -0.04 (.014) * -0.04 (.015) * -0.07 (.012) *** -0.07 (.012) ***1994 -0.03 (.017) -0.04 (.017) * -0.07 (.012) *** -0.07 (.012) ***1996 -0.04 (.015) * -0.04 (.014) * -0.06 (.012) *** -0.06 (.012) ***1997 -0.04 (.014) ** -0.04 (.013) ** -0.07 (.009) *** -0.07 (.009) ***1998 -0.02 (.013) -0.03 (.013) * -0.06 (.009) *** -0.06 (.009) ***2000 -0.09 (.007) *** -0.10 (.006) *** -0.12 (.006) *** -0.11 (.006) ***2001 -0.01 (.013) -0.03 (.011) * -0.04 (.011) *** -0.04 (.010) ***2002 -0.02 (.012) -0.03 (.010) ** -0.04 (.009) *** -0.05 (.009) ***2003 -0.01 (.013) -0.03 (.011) * -0.04 (.010) *** -0.04 (.009) ***

Black 1991 -0.13 (.040) ** -0.12 (.041) * -0.05 (.054) -0.05 (.054)1994 -0.02 (.057) -0.01 (.058) 0.09 (.067) 0.09 (.067)1996 0.08 (.072) 0.10 (.072) 0.17 (.075) * 0.17 (.075) *1997 0.18 (.075) * 0.20 (.075) ** 0.29 (.074) *** 0.28 (.074) ***1998 0.20 (.067) ** 0.21 (.067) ** 0.29 (.065) *** 0.29 (.065) ***2000 0.07 (.043) 0.11 (.044) ** 0.25 (.043) *** 0.25 (.043) ***

Hispanic 1991 -0.06 (.025) * -0.05 (.026) 0.06 (.034) * 0.06 (.034) *1994 0.02 (.032) 0.03 (.032) 0.16 (.039) *** 0.15 (.039) ***1996 0.05 (.032) 0.07 (.033) * 0.17 (.037) *** 0.17 (.037) ***1997 0.14 (.032) *** 0.15 (.032) *** 0.31 (.035) *** 0.30 (.035) ***1998 0.12 (.030) *** 0.13 (.031) *** 0.26 (.033) *** 0.26 (.034) ***2000 0.05 (.026) * 0.08 (.026) ** 0.24 (.029) *** 0.22 (.029) ***

***: p<0.001, **: p<0.01, *: p<0.05Note: a: None of top 10% black students dropped out in freshmen year in 1997.Source: the administrative data component of the Texas Higher Education Project (THEOP).

Base+ Test Score+ High School

Economic Status (4)

Freshmen Year Drop Out

Grauated in 4 Years

Base+ High School

Economic Status (3)

Base+ Test Score

(2)Base (1)

41

top 10% law and minority student academic performance: … · 2008. 3. 21. · top 10% law and...

Documents