In which case, let those with a distaste for AA apply to UMich and similar places. There is no shortage of options in the U.S. – AA and non-AA.
This, xiggi:
CC is notorious for throwing the word “discrimination” around without an accurate context for that, creating logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
This, too.
It’s straightforward, merit, stats. The only modification I will make to that is that Oxbridge (esp. Cambridge) engages in Outreach to the Under-represented now, but it’s not really equivalent to our AA.
I wonder when someone will sue based on gender based admission disparity at UT. 
C1 Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who applied 19,342
C1 Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who applied 19,443
C1 Total first-time, first-year (freshman) men who were admitted 6,971
C1 Total first-time, first-year (freshman) women who were admitted 8,410
Xiggi,
I also think 1300 might be mediocre at best these days.
SAT Critical Reading SAT Math
700-800 23.1% 36.8%
600-699 42.7% 40.2%
C9 ACT Composite
C9 30-36 49.5%
https://sp.austin.utexas.edu/sites/ut/rpt/Documents/IMA_PUB_CDS_2014_AY.pdf
There is nothing marginalizing about politics. Politics makes for a healthy backbone of civic society. In 1964 the Congress after intense debate passed the Civil Rights Act which laid the groundwork for Affirmative Action. It was political then and it is political now. Nothing wrong with that.
I don’t understand why adults shy away from discussing politics when politics controls our entire lives.
That’s like saying those that oppose slavery can stay in the Northern states. Discrimination based on race is illegal and that applies to everywhere in the USA.
Excuse me, MSD, but I think Cali is referring to a TOS bullet against turning conversations to intently to the political.
Why do people get so mad about colleges that have the right to pick and choose as they feel best? And why do they presume it’s all unfairly stacked? Some of the most vociferous have very little idea what the colleges’ values are. I sometimes think you just want it to be like high school. And oddly, same folks don’t complain about competitions that have a qualitative element.
@lookingforward, My point is simple. Affirmative Action is either discrimination by race (which is frowned upon by the Constitution) or it isn’t. The SCOTUS should decide that and everyone else should fall in line. Colleges have to abide by the Constitution if they want to take Govt money. If they want to keep their right to pick and choose what they feel best then all they have to do is give up taking Govt money. Of course public schools don’t even have that option. It’s only privates who can do that.
This is not about college’s values. Those are secondary to the Constitution. I don’t understand why anyone should have a problem with that.
I don’t connect it to “discrimination.” I find that a leap. And Scotus allowed the concept of critical mass. So much anger emanates from the confusion- and assumptions- about what makes one candidate qualified over another. Yes, values matter. And the values are not simply the same as what makes a kid a top performer or one of the top x% in his high school. It’s much more than race. But if one doesn’t know what those values are, of course they can assume.
Colleges care about race/ethnicity because their constituents (students, donors, state governments for state universities) care about race/ethnicity. A college whose racial/ethnic composition is seen as undesirable by many potential students is at a marketing disadvantage compared to other colleges. An example on these forums is the often-unstated assumption that non-black students will not be interested in historically black schools. It has also been claimed that most white students would not attend a school where they are not the majority group. So these student preferences (among others) could be constraints on what a college’s “ideal” (for marketing purposes) racial/ethnic composition is. Political pressures from donors and (for state universities) state governments can add to the constraints that they face.
That seems to suggest, ucb, that critical mass can work in various ways- not just for the URM, but also for the kids who don’t wish to attend a school where one type is predominant (whether that’s race, religion, athletic emphasis, pre-professional aspects, too conservative, too liberal, etc.)
Yes, the effect of student preferences on other demographic factors can create constraints on the colleges’ “ideal” (for marketing purposes) demographics in other factors.
Of course, it is generally the most selective private colleges that have the most freedom to build an “ideal” (however defined) frosh class, since they are overflowing with more highly qualified applicants than they can admit, and (being private) have fewer external political pressures to deal with. Less selective colleges tend to have to focus mainly on the academic qualifications in order to get students who have the best chance of graduating. State universities may have mandates from the state government (e.g. the Texas top 10% (or 7%) automatic admission rule) and/or greater demands for transparency.
Sure, the colleges have the right to pick and choose as they feel best, provided that how they pick and choose isn’t illegal. Fisher2 will decide on whether the how is illegal.
For UT.
It depends on how narrowly the SCOTUS decision is worded.
To suggest that a Texas student who does not want to be “discriminated” against based on race can simply apply to Michigan is bogus. 1) Look at Michigan OOS acceptance rates 2) look at the difference between Michigan OOS tuition versus Texas in state rates and 3) equal protection applies to Texans in Texas.
@lookingforward, you can argue that privates are free to pick and choose however they want, but I don’t believe that publics, who take taxpayer money, should be allowed to favor one group of residents over another on the basis of race or religion. And even if privates are allowed to do, that doesn’t mean that it’s a commendable practice. Decades ago, the Ivies and some other elite privates definitely favored WASP’s over Jews and even sometimes Catholics (if they were the “wrong” race). I don’t see anyone arguing that that’s the ideal admissions philosophy that schools should put in to practice these days.
The privates have to follow the Constitution also. They take taxpayer’s (federal) money so they cannot discriminate and must follow the Supreme Court rulings on AA.
@PurpleTitan I’ve always agreed publics have a different mandate. But I’m also not afraid of holistic.
Too many people focus too intently on their conviction there’s magic in being URM, that it dominates admissions discussions and decisions. And, that the colleges will willfully take a URM who cannot succeed for whatever mindless reason comes up. I have seen plenty of URM apps and mind the open stereotyping of them as subpar, undeserving.
What Harvard did roughly 90 years ago is (sorry) irrelevant.
@lookingforward, we’ll have to disagree. Just as I don’t buy the argument that the Civil War (which took place 150 years ago) isn’t relevant to American politics now, I disagree that Ivy policies of decades ago (more like 60-80 years ago, BTW) is irrelevant as holistic admissions came in to being because of those policies.
@TatinG I think it depends on the private. Some do take federal money, but others simply accept students who are receiving federal aid. The amount they can discriminate differs as well. A religiously based college can include religious affiliation, for example, as a factor in a holistic admissions process