Top 10% Admissions in the Borderlands

The Context for This Study: “Bordering the Future”

The argument for improving access to a quality higher education for students from the Borderland region is that this region is considered to be the most culturally and economically isolated and segregated region of the state (Sharp, 1998). This Borderland region, generally defined as the Texas–Mexico border region, is often called the Borderland as referred by the interdisciplinary field of Border Studies and will be referred as such throughout this study. A major research contribution to policy and advocacy of Texas Borderland issues was Sharp’s (1998) “Bordering the Future.” In 1997, the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts John Sharp directed the Division of Research and Policy Development to assemble a comprehensive report about the Texas Borderland and the multitude of issues facing this region. This report provided an array of analyses of economics, health, education, families, housing, immigration, and other vital policy issues facing this region. Sharp (1998) wrote,

We believe the Texas side of the region snakes in a southeasterly line beginning at the New Mexico state line in Anthony and running through El Paso all the way to San Antonio along Interstate 10, then down Interstate 37 to the north side of Corpus Christi on the Texas Gulf. Comptroller staff designed economic and demographic models based in most cases on the 43 counties, which helped create the forecasts and analyses contained in this report. This report marks the first time the Border region has been so clearly defined and examined. (p. 6)

Similarly, in LULAC v. Richards (1993), lawyers arguing for higher education funding inequities in the Texas higher education funding formula for the most part identified the similar counties within the region:

The 41-county region, as designated by in plaintiffs’ petition, is hereinafter referred to as the “border area.” It comprises the following counties: Atascosa, Bee, Bexar, Brewster, Brooks, Cameron, Crockett, Culberson, Dimmit, Duval, Edwards, El Paso, Frio, Hidalgo, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Jim Hogg, Jim Wells, Karnes, Kenedy, Kinney, Kleberg, LaSalle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Medina, Nueces, Pecos, Presidio, Reeves, San Patricio, Starr, Sutton, Terrell, Uvalde, Val Verde, Webb, Willacy, Zapata, and Zavala. (p. 15)

To compensate for the differences, this study used all 45 counties mentioned in both LULAC v. Richards and in Sharp’s report to identify the Borderland. In addition, these same 45 counties were used specifically to identify Borderland students. The public universities found in the Texas Borderland, henceforth known as the Borderland Universities and used in this study, are the following nine: (a) UT–El Paso, (b) UT–Pan American, (c) UT–San Antonio, (d) UT–Brownsville, (e) Texas A&M–Kingsville, (f) Texas A&M–Corpus Christi, (g) Texas A&M International, (h) Sul Ross State University, and (i) Sul Ross State University–Rio Grande College.

An important and effective piece in Sharp’s (1998) report was the section titled “The Border: Where We Stand.” In this section, Sharp clearly pointed out the conditions of the 43-county area by treating the area as if it were a state among the rest of the United States and providing rankings for this theoretical state. Three years later, to update these rankings according to the 2000 U.S. Census, a new list of rankings was created (Sharp, 2001). In some cases, the conditions around the Borderland are similar to those of the rest of the state, such as with the violent crime rate and average annual employment rate. Nonetheless, the rankings in multiple areas begin to describe some of the challenges of the Borderland. If the Borderland were a state by itself, it would rank first in poverty rate, percentage of school children in poverty, unemployment rate, percentage of adult population without a high school diploma, and percentage of population speaking Spanish at home. Additional noteworthy rankings are Number 2 in percentage of population aged 5 to 17, Number 3 in percentage of population that is foreign born, and low percentages of population with the various levels of college degrees. In education overall, numerous reports have highlighted similar challenges along the Border (Sharp, 1998, 2001; Soden, 2006).

The Problem and the Questions

First, upon my own review of the literature, as much of the current research, politics, and overall discourse around the Top 10% plan concerns the Texas top-tier universities, UT–Austin and Texas A&M, little research on the Top 10% policy has occurred concerning other Texas public universities. This study provides new knowledge by doing a longitudinal data analysis with the Top 10% plan between Texas top-tier universities and Borderland universities. Second, the works of Tienda and Niu (2006) and Santiago (2007) demonstrated that Top 10% Borderland students waive their guaranteed admission to the Texas top-tier universities to attend their local university, and do so for important cultural, familial, and distance reasons that top-tier universities cannot compete against. Therefore, another implication of this study is to further explain differences in access and success of specific Borderland Top 10% students regardless of where they enroll, noting that racially diverse students have higher academic success at top-tier universities (Alon & Tienda, 2005; Ayres & Brooks, 2005; Bowen et al., 2009; Chambers et al., 2005; Fischer & Massey, 2007).

What led this empirical data analysis was the need to seek out any variations in access and success between the two institutional options of Top 10% students from the Borderland region. Therefore, three research questions guided this study:

Method and Data

This study used a nonexperimental, prediction research design, because no controlled or experimental groups and no treatment or measured interventions were applied. Beneficial to this study is that it resolves any population sample issues for the quantitative analysis. As this analysis compared Top 10% students from the flagship universities and Borderland universities in Texas, this study used data representing the entire population and avoided altogether issues of having an appropriate representation of the population. To answer Research Questions 1 and 2, I used descriptive and inferential statistics to compare college access and success of Borderland students.

To provide more powerful and in-depth analysis of access and success if Borderland students, this work puts a greater emphasis on the setting (Borderland) in informing this empirical study. To be more precise, the context and setting of this setting is informed by a history of legal and critically informed events, therefore including a critical paradigmatic influence in the development of this study (Crotty, 2004).

The quantitative data were derived from the multiyear longitudinal, archived, individual-level information facilitated by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board collects reports from all institutions of higher education in the state. The reports are aggregated into a large database that stores student-level information on enrollment, graduation, and admissions reports. Via permission from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, the author was given 2-month access to the database with enrollment, graduation, and admissions reports with student-level information spanning the 1999-2000 to 2007-2008 academic years from all public universities in Texas, also known as 4-year universities. This data set was used to answer Research Questions 1 and 2 of this study (see Appendix A for full variable details). The second research question used descriptive and inferential statistics with two outcome variables and independent student-level variables. In addition, these outcome variables are coupled with logistic regression models to explain the selected outcome variables of 6-year graduation and 1-year persistence.

Findings: Trends in Access and Success

The following descriptive statistics describe enrollment trends in access and success of Texas Top 10% students by using data retrieved through the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board between the academic years 1999-2000 through 2007-2008. Consistently, for these 9 academic years of reported data, 21.4% of all Top 10% students originate from a Texas Borderland county. Figure 1 illustrates the first-year student enrollment trend between Borderland Top 10% students and other Top 10% students at either a Texas Borderland public university or a Texas top-tier public university. In the 1999-2000 academic year, 47% of Borderland Top 10% students enrolled at a top-tier university, and 56% of other Top 10% students enrolled at a top-tier university, with only a 1% change for both groups over 9 years. Borderland Top 10% students enrolled at a Borderland university follow a similar pattern, with 39% enrolled in 1999-2000 and 41% enrolled in 2007-2008. Finally, other Top 10% students consistently enrolled at 1% across this time period at Borderland universities, clearly demonstrating that Borderland universities are exclusive for Borderland Top 10% students. The remaining 13% to 14% of Borderland Top 10% students between this 9-year period enroll at other Texas Public Universities, outside of top-tier and Borderland Universities.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Top 10% first-year student enrollment by student region and institution.

Comparing enrollment rates begin to hint at differences between institutions and students. Graduation rates, as shown in Figure 2, accentuate the differences in academic outcomes between institutions and for Borderland students. First, graduation rates of Borderland Top 10% students at top-tier universities were lower than the rates for all Top 10% students. These differences suggest the importance of considering ethnicity, gender, college generation, and family income to better explain possible institutional differences. In addition, as a side note, the 10% climb in graduation rates for other Texas universities 1999-2000 is unexplainable and will require further research, especially because the climb is very minimal at Borderland universities. Furthermore, the differences in graduation rates in Figure 2 between institutional groups further demonstrate variation, even when given a very similar demographic Borderland Top 10% population.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Borderland top 10% student 6-year graduation rate by institution.

Descriptive statistics of persistence rates and graduation rates demonstrate evident variations in comparing institutions. As with access, being from a Borderland county itself does not explain access, persistence, or graduation but may be another identifier for the unique sociodemographics of the region. Therefore, up to this point in the analysis via descriptive statistics, it can be concluded that the differences in persistence and graduation rates at Borderland universities in comparison with top-tier universities are related to differences in access and enrollment of students.

Therefore, what are the trends in success of Borderland Top 10% students at Texas public universities, particularly between Borderland public universities and top-tier public universities, and how does success vary while controlling for student characteristics? Using inferential statistics, I answered this using logistic regression analyses of persistence and graduation. This analysis supports differences that have been highlighted by research in higher education outcomes (Perna & Thomas, 2008). See Appendix B for complete tables reporting the results of the inferential statistics.

Findings in this study of Top 10% students suggest that ethnicity is not a significant factor in explaining persistence variations. Because most Top 10% students across ethnicity persist, persistence as an outcome variable is not a strong indicator of success. However, the telling story in explaining persistence is where students enroll. Top 10% students enrolled at top-tier universities are 2.37 times more likely to persist to the fall semester after their first year than those enrolled at other Texas universities. For Borderland Top 10% students, those enrolled at top-tier universities are 1.55 times more likely to persist than those at other Texas universities. However, Borderland Top 10% students enrolled at Borderland universities are 0.55 times as likely to persist as students at other Texas universities. This story in comparing all Top 10% students to Borderland students is that these differences may be due to institutional differences or the influence of distance from home on persistence.

Differences in graduation rates demonstrate the key findings in this work. Top 10% students enrolled at a top-tier university are 2.30 times more likely to graduate than those enrolled at other universities. Specifically for Borderland Top 10% students, those enrolled at a top-tier university are 1.77 times more likely to graduate than those at other universities, and those enrolled at Borderland universities are 0.69 times as likely to graduate as those at other universities. This means that where students enroll influences graduation likelihood. These findings also reinforce the findings in the descriptive statistics analysis mentioned above.

Future Research and Implications

This work provides numerous opportunities for future research, especially in the demand for mixed-methods research to provide voice to the findings. Numerous trends regarding enrollment variations for Borderland universities, Latina/o students, and socioeconomic variables reported shifts from 1 year to the next, especially in not following normal curve/growth patterns in numbers. The author concludes that the shifts were possibly related changes in tuition regulation, such as Texas residence status and tuition costs, and possible changes in the financial aid system. Future research would be required if indeed these changes in enrollment are related to these policy changes. With Texas HB 3015 (2003), the Texas Legislature granted tuition-setting authority to public university governing boards; students felt its impact the following academic year. Further research would be needed to indicate whether this was a result of tuition deregulation from Texas HB 3015, possibly influencing Borderland students to transfer to local community colleges where costs are significantly less. A similar note is that the spike in enrollment growth in the 2006-2007 academic year did not follow the growth trend from all other years. This might have been a direct result of change in tuition policy for Texas residents (Vazquez Heilig, Rodríguez, & Somers, 2011). More specifically, Texas Senate Bill 1528 (2005) improved how students can be identified as Texas residents and pay in-state tuition as earlier specified by Texas HB 1403 (2001). The key difference was that a student’s residency status was no longer dependent on parental residency status. Further study could investigate a link between changes in enrollment and this specific change in state policy.

One key finding here is the variation in graduation rate trends between institutional groups as shown in Figure 2. Given that the Borderland Top 10% student population experience a similar K-12 system and are culturally similar and unique from the rest of Texas, with some obvious within-group socioeconomic variation by college generation and economic status, it is noteworthy to consider how even when considering a similar demographic group, there are different graduation rates between institutional groups. Most importantly, this adds to the concern of comparing institutions by 6-year graduation rates, even when using peer institutional considerations, but more importantly, even when controlling for similar demographic student variables. While this necessitates further study, it is critical to examine the differences in resources, opportunity, and ecology that explain such institutional differences, especially where the outcomes may lead to improving equity across institutions, as similarly shown by Kim, Rennick, and Franco (2014). By simply punishing or defaming local Borderland Universities by using traditional college graduation rates to compare institutions, with policy considerations such as with the proposed U.S. Department of Education’s College Rating System to be released for use before the 2015 school year, may produce problematic implications for necessary resources. This is a critical element as, historically, it is only these local Borderland universities that are providing the access to a quality higher education, and such comparisons have yet to consider the unique local access and social impact of such institutions

Finally, the wealth of data that remains from this analysis will provide additional research opportunities. This study, exploratory in nature, highlighted trends that can spark further research, specifically regarding Borderland Top 10% students. When the Borderland legislators and Latina/o higher education leaders and scholars developed the policy response of the Top 10% Plan, it was with the intention that the plan would increase access for Borderland students to the top-tier institutions as a response to Hopwood v. State of Texas (Valencia, 2008). However, it is important to note that it is equally important to support the development and growth of Borderland public universities, as much as improving access to the top-tier public universities. Although the Top 10% Plan has improved access for diverse populations across regional dimensions in Texas to the top-tier institutions, it is additionally important to consider how current Affirmative Action practices coupled with the Top 10% Plan directly address the ongoing inequities in the K-12 system, as oppose to only examing access and success. Therefore begging the question, given K-12 inequities, how can college access policies reconcile the lack of resources, preparation, and overall opportunities that lead to greater college access? Perhaps that analysis will demonstrate the critical role that Borderland institutions do play in providing a quality college education for a region that has been historically inequitable in comparison to the rest of the state in the K-12 system.

Conclusion

Implications for this work stretch into both statewide policy implications and local implications. This research work demonstrates the importance of access to top-tier universities. While the recent debate launched by UT–Austin is about changing the Top 10% policy so that enrollment limits can be placed on the total possible admits from the Top 10% rule, which may eventually follow suit to Texas A&M University, another debate is also ongoing about providing additional funding support for other state research universities that are not designated as top-tier. This research highlights the possible student-level impact on graduation if not enrolled at the top-tier university, but this research plays a greater role in replicating what occurred with the South Texas Border Initiative by increasing funds to Borderland institutions. It is obvious from an institutional perspective that two public top-tier institutions for a state that has one of the biggest and most diverse populations in the United States is simply not enough. Especially given that distance is part of the decision regarding college enrollment (Tienda & Niu, 2006), improving the quantity of resources and opportunities through a top-tier status at the local level would have a significant influence in the success of Borderland students. Such an investment is ongoing by the University of Texas System, unlike other systems, with the development of the University of Texas–Rio Grande Valley, but the Texas Borderlands covers a vast region that also includes large demographic wealth like El Paso, Texas, with a rich culture, but is malnourished in resources and opportunity throughout the P-20 system.

In all, it is the hope of the author that beyond this work, research also can begin to focus on the degree achievers at top-tier universities and the path to returning home, if there is one. Such research would be not only for the sake of economic development for this region but also for communities and families. Ultimately, and prior to this study, a parent once expressed to the author how conflicting a college education can be in the investment made by a family on their children. The parent said, “They graduate and you lose your family’s investment because they leave to find jobs elsewhere, so what do we do then?”