Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 1 of 10
| UT Directory | UT Offices A-Z | Campus & Parking Maps | UT Site Map | Calendars | UT Direct | UT Search
UT Home -> Admissions -> Admissions Research -> "Top 10%" Reports -> Diversity of Feeder Schools
Admissions
Research
Access to the University of Texas at Austin and the Ten Percent Plan:
A Three-year Assessment
Top 10%
David Montejano, Ph. D.
Department of History
The University of Texas at Austin
Institutional
Research
Reports
Measurment
&
Evaluation
Student
Profiles
Texas
Demographics
Statements
& Releases
Surveys
Education
Laws &
Cases
Admissions
Home
Apply
Application
Status
About
Admissions
[David Montejano is an Associate Professor of History and Sociology at the University of Texas at
Austin. He is the former director of the Center for Mexican American Studies, 1996-2000. As
director, he led the research efforts that yielded the “top ten percent” policy. Comments can be
directed to him at [email protected].]
Abstract
The following is a partial assessment of the “Top Ten Percent” higher education admissions policy
enacted into law in 1997. This study examines the change in the makeup of high schools sending
students to the University of Texas at Austin. Looking only at the UT-Austin in the period between
1996 and 2000, this study finds that:
(1) in 2000, as in 1996, the distribution of the entering class at UT-Austin is highly skewed, with a
relatively small of number of schools contributing nearly half of the entering class;
(2) nonetheless, some change is evident, and the number of high schools sending students to UT
Austin increased from 622 in 1996 to 792 in 2000, or a 27.3% increase; most of the increase
occurred among high schools that sent low numbers, indicating greater access to the UT flagship
school;
(4) a closer look at the “new senders” reveal that they come from seventy-one counties across
Texas, with East and Northeast Texas prominently represented;
(5) a profile of the “new senders” uncovers two distinct clusters of inner-city minority high
schools in Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston and San Antonio, and rural white high schools in East
and Northeast Texas; and there is also a suggestion of a third cluster of minority and “mixed
rural schools in West and South Texas.
In short, after three years the “Top Ten Percent” law appears to have broadened, in a modest way,
the high school “sending” or “feeding” pattern to UT-Austin. And it has done so in a way that
benefits all regions of the State. This preliminary look at the “new senders” suggest that the law has
made the State flagship university more accessible to the best high school students, regardless of
race, economic standing or residence. In so doing, the “Ten Percent” law has helped ensure that
the diversity of the State is reflected at UT-Austin.
Introduction
Previous studies and reports on the impact of the “top ten percent” law (HB588) have focused on
the questions of racial diversity and academic performance. These questions have been settled.
The top ten percent law has restored diversity at the UT-Austin campus to pre-Hopwood levels. In
terms of academic performance, President Larry Faulkner noted recently that “top ten-percenters
the University have outperformed non-top ten percent students with “SAT scores that are 200 to
300 points higher.” [1]
No previous study, however, has considered the impact on the high school sending or “feeding
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 2 of 10
patterns to the University. The legislative sponsors of the “Top Ten Percent” bill –Representative
Irma Rangel, Senator Gonzalo Barrientos, and others—had made it clear that this law was intended
to help all Texans from every part of the State. The philosophy behind HB 588 was that the very
best students of each high school in the State should have an opportunity to attend the flagship
universities --or to put it another way, that the flagship universities have an obligation to serve all
areas of the State. In this sense, HB588 had a populist bent. The top ten percent law, in other
words, holds the promise of significantly broadening the ranks of “feeder” or sender schools to the
University.
This is a partial assessment of that promise three years after the law’s enactment. I look only at the
new high schools that have appeared on the UT-Austin enrollment listing. A full assessment would
have to consider the impact on the pre-existing high school sending pattern, with particular
attention paid to previous “marginal” or “low” senders. Unfortunately, that research will have to
wait. One final caveat: as with any policy that has been in effect for a short time, this assessment
must be considered preliminary.
This study is divided into two parts. The first draws on data from the UT-Austin Office of Admissions
to look for changes in the high school sending patterns. The second combines this data with that
from the Texas Education Agency in order to take a closer look at the “new sender” high schools,
those which were not previously represented in the entering classes at UT-Austin.
I. On High School Sending Patterns
Table 1 suggests how skewed access to UT-Austin was in the pre-Hopwood period. A handful of
high schools (64) contributed fully half of the entering class. The other half came from 558 high
schools. Missing from this table are approximately 900 high schools that sent no one! It should be
noted that 1996 was the last “affirmative action” class.
Table 1
Distribution of Entering Class by High Schools
1996
Sending Level
# of High Schools
Total # Enrolled
% of All Enrolled
Low (1-9 per HS)
481
1,470
28.9
Intermediate (10-19 per HS)
77
1,048
20.6
High (20+ per HS)
64
2,564
50.5
Total
622
5,082
100.0
[Derived from Office of Admissions Data, University of Texas at Austin]
Table 2 demonstrates that in 2000 a skewed distribution pattern still exists. Again a handful of high
schools (74) provided nearly half of the entering class. The remaining half came from 718 high
schools. And approximately 700 public high schools sent no one to UT-Austin in 2000.
In comparison with Table 1, it appears that there may have been a slight proportional increase of
slightly more than 3 percent for the “low sending” category. In 1996, the number of students from
“low sending” schools constituted 28.9% of the entering class; in 2000, it constituted 32.5%. This
suggests a very modest broadening effect in the high school sending patterns.
Table 2
Distribution of Entering Class by High Schools
2000
Sending Level
# of HS
Total # Enrolled
% of All Enrolled
Low (1-9 per HS)
624
2,060
32.5
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 3 of 10
Intermediate (10-19 per HS)
94
1,269
20.0
High (20+ per HS)
74
3,007
47.5
Total
792
6,336
100.0
Table 3 shows that the number of high schools sending students to UT-Austin has increased by 170
in the past three years. The bulk of the increase has come from high schools sending low numbers
(or 1-9 students per high school). This suggests that the “ten percent” policy is reaching out to
schools that had previously sent no one to UT-Austin.
Table 3
Change in Distribution by Number of High Schools
1996 and 2000
1996
2000
Sending Level
# of HS
# of HS
% Increase
Low (1-9 per HS)
481
624
29.7
Intermediate (10-19 per HS)
77
94
22.0
High (20+ per HS)
64
74
15.6
Total
622
792
27.3
[Derived from Office of Admissions Data, University of Texas at Austin]
Table 4 demonstrates that the proportion of students being sent by “low senders” has increased
notably –40.1 percent--in the past three years. Again this suggests a “broadening” effect in the
sending patterns to UT-Austin.
Table 4
Change in Distribution by Number of Students Enrolled
1996 and 2000
1996
2000
Sending Level
# of Students
# of Students
% Increase
Low (1-9 per HS)
1,470
2,060
40.1
Intermediate (10-19 per HS)
1,048
1,269
20.1
High (20+ per HS)
2,564
3,007
17.3
Total
5,082
6,336
24.7
[ Derived from Office of Admissions Data, University of Texas at Austin]
II. On the “New Sender” High Schools
In order to have a better idea of the impact of the “Ten Percent” law, I took a closer look at the
“new sender” high schools. Understanding the characteristics of these high schools, in terms of
geographic location, size, racial makeup, and economic status, should suggest the kind of
communities or localities that have benefited from the “Ten Percent” law. A profile of these new
sender schools might also suggest what the non-sending universe of 700 high schools looks like.
I defined a “new sender” high school as one that sent a student to UT-Austin in 2000 but did not
send a student in 1996 and 1997. Again, it should be noted that 1996 was the last “affirmative
action” class, and that 1997 was a Hopwood class. Controlling for these two years should give us a
slightly more rigorous definition of a “new sender.” This definition reduced the total of 170 additional
schools to a group of 114 high schools.[2] A listing of these 114 high schools has been appended.
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 4 of 10
These schools sent a total of 210 students to UT-Austin in 2000.
Surveying the listing of these 114 “new senders,” the first point that should be made is that they
come from all across Texas. Seventy-one counties are represented: 20 from West Texas and the
Panhandle, 17 from the Northeast, another 16 from East Texas, 9 from Central Texas, and 9 from
South Texas. The four heavily-urbanized counties –Tarrant, Dallas, Harris and Bexar—are
represented, but the geography of the new senders clearly points to a rural base. The Northeast
and East Texas regions are well-represented. One can also discern a band of rural counties that
begins in the Panhandle and runs through West Texas to South Texas. I have appended a map
illustrating the geographic distribution of the new high school senders.
Combining data from the Academic Excellence Indicators System ( AEIS) of the Texas Education
Agency with that from the UT Office of Admissions allows the construction of a basic profile of the
“new sender” high schools. In order to see if these“new senders” were racially-diverse, the 114
high schools were classified according to whether they were “minority” high schools (less that 33%
white), “mixed” (between 33% and 66% white), or “white” (more than 66% white). The resulting
profile is shown in Table 5.
Table 5
Profile of "New Sender" High Schools
2000
Type & #
Avg.
Size
%
White
% Eco
Disadv
Avg Size Sr
Class
% Sr at UT
Minority HS
(37)
1089
4.4
64.3
199
1.2
Mixed HS (18)
571
53.5
34.7
123
1.3
White HS (59)
405
84.4
22.4
87
1.8
# at UT
[*New Sender = Schools not represented in entering classes of 1996 & 1997; Minority HS=
white<33%; Mixed HS=66%>white>33%; White HS=white>66%]
There are several interesting points that can be drawn from this profile, but I will focus on the main
contrast. Table 5 suggests that the new sender schools are comprised of two very distinct
groupings.
On the one hand, we have the minority high schools (37), which are large (average school size of
1,089 students) and with a dense concentration of “minorities” (4.4% white) and impoverished
(64.3% economically disadvantaged). These figures suggest urban or inner-city schools.[3]
The
average size of their senior class was 199 students, and 1.2% of this class enrolled at UT-Austin.
Together the 37 minority high schools sent 89 students to the Austin campus.
On the other, we have the white high schools (59), which are small (average size of 405 students),
fairly homogeneous (84% white) but with a notable impoverished fraction (22.4% economically
disadvantaged). These numbers clearly suggest rural schools. The average size of the senior class
was 87 students, and 1.8% of this class enrolled at UT-Austin. The 59 white high schools
altogether sent 92 students to the UT flagship school in 2000.
Controlling for size allows for more precise descriptions of the relevant groupings. Organizing the
new sender schools according to the Univesity Interscholastic League designations for school size
gives us Table 6. [The UIL designations “1A,” “2A” and “3A” refer to school populations between 6
and 844; the designations “4A” and “5A” refer to school populations between 845 and 5030.]
Table 6
New Sender High Schools by Size and Race
2000
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 5 of 10
Small
Large
(1A, 2A, 3A*)
(4A, 5A*)
Minority
14
23
Mixed
14
4
White
56
3
Total
84
30
[*UIL designations for school size; 1A, 2A, 3A: 6 – 844; 4A, 5A: 845 - 5030; Minority HS=
white<33%; Mixed HS=66%>white>33%; White HS=white>66%]
The summary profile offered in Table 6 makes clear that the great majority of “new senders
small high schools. And all of the 84 schools classified as 1A, 2A and 3A --with the exception of six
urban programs-- are rural-based. Conversely, it should be noted that all 30 4A and 5A schools are
urban-based.
Table 6 also suggests that the rural-urban distinction reflects or parallels a racial distinction.
Although the minority high schools include a sizable number of small schools (14), the bulk are
large, urban schools (23 ). Looking at a map of Texas, one sees that these large minority schools
are located in Dallas-Ft.Worth (6), Houston (8), San Antonio (5), the Rio Grande Valley (2), El Paso
(1), and Waco (1).
Of the white high schools, the overwhelming number –56 of 59-- are small and rural-based. The
majority are located in Northeast Texas (24 schools) or East Texas (16 schools), with the remainder
scattered in West Texas, the Panhandle and Central Texas.
A third grouping appears if we look closely at the small minority schools (14) and the small mixed
schools (14). Of their combined number, 17 are rural schools located in a band that stretches from
the Panhandle to South Texas.
This, then, describes in a preliminary way the social geography of the “new sender” high schools
that have likely benefited from the ten percent law.
Summary
In short, after three years the top ten percent admissions policy appears to have slightly broadened
representation in the entering class of UT-Austin. The “new sender” high schools come from across
Texas. There are two principal clusters, comprised on the one hand of inner-city minority high
schools in Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston and San Antonio, and on the other of rural white high schools,
located mainly in East and Northeast Texas. There is a third grouping consisting of minority and
“mixed” rural schools in West Texas and South Texas. The change in high school sending patterns
since 1996 is very modest, but it points in the direction of increased access to the University of
Texas at Austin for all areas of the State.
The key to greater access lies in the fact that the “top ten percent” law assures the very best of
each high school admission to the state university of their choice. Because high schools generally
reflect local communities and environments, this is also the key to creating a diverse student body
that roughly reflects the make up of the State. As should clear by now, this diversity is more than
a matter of race: the new high school senders clearly point to a diversity of region, economic class
and social background. In essence, HB 588 is helping the University of Texas at Austin achieve
its motto, “We’re Texas.”
Data and Caveats
The high school data for this study came from two sources. The Office of Admissions at the
University of Texas at Austin provided the high school breakdown for the entering classes of 1996,
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 6 of 10
1997 and 2000. The Academic Excellence Indicators System (AEIS) of the Texas Education Agency
provided basic information for each high school –size, percent white, percent economically
disadvantaged, and size of the senior class. These various data were extracted, matched and
organized to yield the tables. It should be noted that this assessment covers only the period 1996
2000. This short time period makes for a very tentative review. Another caveat to keep in mind
is that this is only an indirect test of HB 588, since the “ten percenters” make up only half of the
entering class. The admissions data do not make a direct assessment possible. Finally, this study
focused only on the new sender high schools, those who were previously not represented in UT
entering classes. A full assessment would have to detail the impact on previous high school sending
patterns.
Footnotes
1.
See the research reports prepared by the UT-Austin Office of Admissions at
http://www.utexas.edu/student/research/reports/admissions/ResearchHome.htm
2.
I also excluded 11 new high schools and 23 private schools.
3.
The 37 minority high schools consisted of 23 predominantly Mexican American schools, 8
predominantly African American schools, and 6 mixed African-American and Mexican-American
schools.
Appendix
NEW HIGH SCHOOL SENDERS TO UT-AUSTIN, 2000
County
City
High School
HI
SCH
POP
White % ECO
#
DISADV Seniors
%
#
UT
Stu.
ANGELINA
POLLOCK
CENTRAL
INDEPENDENT
410
94.4
24.1
83
1
BELL
ROGERS
ROGERS
256
82
25.8
54
1
BELL
SALADO
SALADO
302
87.4
10.3
78
2
BEXAR
SAN ANTONIO
HIGHLANDS
2169
11.8
76.9
409
14
BEXAR
SAN ANTONIO
LANIER
1724
0.9
83.3
318
5
BEXAR
SAN ANTONIO
LUTHER
BURBANK
1483
1.3
79.3
306
2
BEXAR
SAN ANTONIO
SAM HOUSTON
1306
3.2
76
241
6
BEXAR
SAN ANTONIO
SOUTHSIDE
1025
17.4
67.3
181
3
BOWIE
DE KALB
DE KALB
322
70.5
48.4
84
1
BRAZORIA
DANBURY
DANBURY
250
82.4
8.8
58
1
CAMERON
BROWNSVILLE
RIVERA
1705
1.7
85.2
308
3
CAMERON
BRUNI
BRUNI
97
8.2
64.9
20
1
CAMERON
RIO HONDO
RIO HONDO
574
6.4
79.3
114
2
CAMERON
SANTA ROSA
SANTA ROSA
308
1
91.2
63
1
CASS
HUGHES
SPRINGS
HUGHES
SPRINGS
272
82
35.7
66
1
CHAMBERS
WINNIE
EAST
CHAMBERS
302
75.2
24.2
75
1
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 7 of 10
CHILDRESS
CHILDRESS
CHILDRESS
SENIOR
364
65.7
30.8
79
1
COLLIN
PROSPER
PROSPER
253
85
11.5
65
1
COOKE
LINDSAY
LINDSAY
165
96.4
1.8
36
2
CULBERSON
VALENTINE
VALENTINE
22
32.8
75.9
6
1
DALLAS
DALLAS
JEFFERSON
1405
3
57.1
207
2
DALLAS
DALLAS
KIMBALL
1565
0.7
51.1
238
1
DALLAS
DALLAS
LAW MAGNET TOWNVIEW
315
5.4
43.8
54
1
DALLAS
DALLAS
LINCOLN
1102
0.1
71.1
199
3
DALLAS
DALLAS
NORTH DALLAS
1874
2.2
58
256
1
DALLAS
DALLAS
PINKSTON
828
1.3
56.2
166
1
DALLAS
DALLAS
ROOSEVELT
845
0.2
48.4
135
2
DALLAS
IRVING
LAKE
HIGHLANDS
1816
59
20.4
604
1
DELTA
COOPER
COOPER
266
86.1
30.5
65
1
DENTON
KRUM
KRUM
274
92
10.2
58
1
DENTON
LITTLE ELM
LITTLE ELM
402
77.1
21.9
69
3
DENTON
PILOT POINT
J. EARL SELZ
325
85.2
20.6
68
1
EASTLAND
EASTLAND
EASTLAND
367
83.7
24
98
1
EASTLAND
TYLER
GORMAN
146
70.5
48.6
27
1
EL PASO
EL PASO
YSLETA
1869
2.8
64.6
437
3
ELLIS
PALMER
PALMER
267
71.2
22.8
50
1
FAYETTE
FLATONIA
FLATONIA
268
57.5
41.4
33
2
GARZA
POST
POST
253
50.2
38.3
54
1
GRAYSON
POTTSBORO
POTTSBORO
395
CONSOLIDATED
98.2
10.9
72
1
GRAYSON
WHITEWRIGHT
WHITEWRIGHT
190
85.3
28.9
42
1
GREGG
GLADEWATER
GLADEWATER
629
75.4
31.6
133
1
HARRIS
GALENA PARK
GALENA PARK
1679
13.7
60.1
329
1
HARRIS
HOUSTON
BARBARA
JORDAN
1240
0.9
64.7
232
1
HARRIS
HOUSTON
FOREST BROOK
1427
0.3
37.4
323
1
HARRIS
HOUSTON
GEORGE I.
SANCHEZ
352
2
68.2
81
2
HARRIS
HOUSTON
GEO
WASHINGTON
CARVER
491
16.5
51.9
62
1
HARRIS
HOUSTON
JACK YATES
1613
0.3
56.6
310
3
JAMES
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 8 of 10
HARRIS
HOUSTON
MADISON
2073
1.7
65.4
237
2
HARRIS
HOUSTON
KASHMERE
931
0.3
80.1
130
1
HARRIS
HOUSTON
KERR
654
35.5
20.2
119
5
HARRIS
HOUSTON
REAGAN
1945
5.4
73.3
394
6
HARRIS
HOUSTON
SMILEY
1632
1.5
56.1
300
4
HENDERSON
EUSTACE
EUSTACE
385
92.2
28.6
74
1
HIDALGO
ALAMO
PHARR-SAN
JUAN-ALAMO
1665
2.2
86.8
300
1
HILL
BLUM
BLUM
171
89.5
36.3
39
1
HILL
ITASCA
ITASCA
150
52.7
50.7
29
1
HOUSTON
LOVELADY
LOVELADY
147
83.7
21.8
29
1
HUNT
CADDO MILLS
CADDO MILLS
273
90.8
15.4
45
1
HUNT
QUINLAN
FORD
816
91.5
28.7
164
1
JIM WELLS
ORANGE
GROVE
ORANGE
GROVE
448
47.3
44
85
1
JOHNSON
GODLEY
GODLEY
320
92.8
23.4
73
2
JONES
STAMFORD
STAMFORD
356
51.7
54.8
43
1
KAUFMAN
FORNEY
FORNEY
726
87.2
8.3
157
4
KAUFMAN
MABANK
MABANK
825
90.9
24.5
175
3
KIMBLE
JUNCTION
JUNCTION
238
70.6
27.7
45
1
KLEBERG
KINGSVILLE
ACADEMY
152
24.3
56.6
37
2
LASALLE
COTULLA
COTULLA
375
12
69.3
83
2
LUBBOCK
SHALLOWATER
SHALLOWATER
380
75.5
27.4
81
1
MADISON
MADISONVILLE
MADISONVILLE
534
59.4
48.5
96
1
MARION
JEFFERSON
JEFFERSON
438
57.8
46.6
87
2
MCLENNAN
CHINA SPRING
CHINA SPRING
490
94.1
11.4
115
2
MCLENNAN
WACO
UNIVERSITY
1084
10.2
56.2
192
1
MEDINA
NATALIA
NATALIA
284
29.2
54.9
53
1
MILAM
ROCKDALE
ROCKDALE
541
61.6
26.4
119
2
MONTAGUE
BOWIE
BOWIE
477
93.7
20.5
110
2
NAVARRO
BLOOMING
GROVE
BLOOMING
GROVE
217
87.1
21.2
49
1
OCHLITREE
PERRYTON
PERRYTON
577
70.2
35.7
111
1
OLDHAM
VEGA
VEGA
195
78.5
31.3
28
1
ORANGE
BRIDGE CITY
BRIDGE CITY
SENIOR
822
92.7
15.9
195
2
PALO PINTO
MINERAL
WELLS
MINERAL
WELLS
922
79.1
35.5
170
1
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Page 9 of 10
PALO PINTO
STRAWN
STRAWN
72
77.9
51.3
16
1
PRESIDIO
MARFA
MARFA
146
21.2
53.4
35
1
RAINS
EMORY
RAINS
429
91.4
25.6
95
1
RANDALL
CANYON
CANYON
909
85.1
11.4
205
1
REAL
LEAKEY
LEAKEY
93
71.9
57.7
27
2
RED RIVER
BOGOTA
RIVERCREST
215
91.6
27.4
54
1
ROBERTSON
FRANKLIN
FRANKLIN
285
86.7
21.8
70
1
RUNNELS
WINTERS
WINTERS
225
60
48.4
38
1
RUSK
NEW LONDON
WEST RUSK
COUNTY
277
67.9
41.9
42
1
RUSK
OVERTON
OVERTON
203
85.2
32
26
1
SABINE
HEMPHILL
HEMPHILL
279
79.2
46.2
59
1
SHERMAN
STRATFORD
STRATFORD
154
64.3
45.5
45
1
SMITH
BULLARD
BULLARD
356
88.5
19.4
54
1
SMITH
MT PLEASANT
CHAPEL HILL
888
60.7
28.8
170
1
STARR
SAN ISIDRO
SAN ISIDRO
93
1.1
74.2
23
1
STEPHENS
BRECKENRIDGE BRECKENRIDGE 552
79.5
25.2
134
3
SUTTON
SONORA
SONORA
277
46.6
24.5
67
2
TARRANT
FORT WORTH
TRIMBLE
TECHNICAL
1346
4.9
42.8
265
1
TARRANT
FORT WORTH
WYATT
1543
5.1
33.4
313
5
TARRANT
KENNEDALE
KENNEDALE
676
78.1
17.8
132
2
TARRANT
N RICHLAND
HILLS
RICHLAND
2265
85.9
11.5
556
11
TERRY
BROWNFIELD
BROWNFIELD
SENIOR
669
37.4
36.5
136
2
TOM GREEN
SAN ANGELO
LAKEVIEW
1187
48
38
217
1
TOM GREEN
WALL
WALL
297
77.8
24.6
57
1
UPSHUR
DIANA
NEW DIANA
287
86.1
21.3
75
1
VAN ZANDT
WILLS POINT
WILLS POINT
786
83.6
28.2
150
3
WICHITA
IOWA PARK
IOWA PARK
701
96
15.4
150
1
WICHITA
QUANAH
QUANHAH
234
69.2
32.5
55
1
WICHITA
WICHITA FALLS
HIRSCHI
1051
54.5
44.8
195
3
WILLIAMSON JARRELL
JARRELL
195
69.7
9.7
37
1
WILLIAMSON THRALL
THRALL
162
71
25.3
39
3
WILSON
LA VERNIA
LA VERNIA
593
86.3
15.7
120
1
WOOD
MINEOLA
MINEOLA
403
74.9
25.6
71
3
YOUNG
OLNEY
OLNEY
253
82.2
20.2
56
1
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04
Admissions Research: Diversity of Feeder Schools - UT Austin
Total
Page 10 of 10
74856
37.1
46.6
14794
210
Updated: 18 November 2003
Policies & Notices | Privacy Information | Feedback | Contacts
http://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/montejanopaper.html
10/19/04