<p>Actually, I think that the mis- allocation of opportunity is worth commenting on. </p>
<p>Why should an affirmative action program be used to allow the rich to get richer?</p>
<p>In the particular situation mentioned, I had no personal concerns.</p>
<p>kayf, I had to go find a link–here it is. I think you can expect the discussion to be framed by CJ Roberts’ opinion in the Parents Involved vs. Seattle School District case. [PARENTS</a> INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1](<a href=“http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-908.ZS.html]PARENTS”>PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS v.SEATTLE SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Whatever the merits/demerits of UT’s admissions policy, she doesn’t sound like an optimal case considering the stats above. Back when I was in high school, the stats above would have made her admission iffy for Suny Binghamton…my state’s premiere flagship back then…and many HS classmates knew it was not in the same league as UT’s flagship. </p>
<p>In short, her inclination to bring a lawsuit is reminiscent of the insipid whining of some well-off White suburban neighbors of an uncle who were bitter about being rejected by the elite universities/LACs…especially the Ivies and ONLY admitted to Rutgers and/or NYU CAS…despite the fact their GPAs were at the B/B- level at an academically average well-off suburban high school* and pre-1995 SATs were barely breaking 1000. </p>
<ul>
<li>The less academically rigorous one compared to the other public high school my uncle’s kids attended in the same town.</li>
</ul>
<p>Cobrat, I couldn’t agree with you more. If this is the best test case that they have-a mediocre student in a competitive state that had alternative state schools, I am surprised that this case is the one that will get to the Supreme Court. Because she is not an auto admit, I almost wish they would release her entire application as part of the evidence. Was her essay stellar, was she deeply committed to community service, what did she bring to this class?</p>
<p>From the brief I found this sentence that disturbs me:
“The ever-increasing number [*217] of minorities gaining admission under this Top Ten Percent Law casts a shadow on the horizon to the otherwise-plain legality of the Grwtter-like admissions program, the Law’s own legal footing aside”. </p>
<p>Are they arguing AGAINST the automatic Top Ten% rule as well, since it is allowing more minority applicants? I was under the impression that they were looking to argue for that tiny piece of non-auto admits. If the former is the case, are they arguing that the top 10% in a histrocially black school system should not be allowed in? I can see a great uproar in rural Texas if the Top 10% is overturned.</p>
<p>Mizz, I thought what they were saying was since the Ten Percent Law itself results in many more minorities, an additional preference is uncalled for.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the young lady was arguing that racial preferences ensured that those minorities with stats equal to or worse than hers were admitted. Further, UT argues that it needs active racial preferences to be sure that enough URMs were in the classrooms. This wasn’t some generic statement - i.e, “classrooms” standing in for the generalized academic experience. UT means and meant it literally: more admitted URMs means more “diversity” in the actual classrooms. Unfortunately for UT and for their premise, the evidence shows that most of the URMs cluster in a very few majors (African American Studies, hello?) and a very few classrooms (where in many cases the URMs are the majority!), so the whole premise of classroom-based race preferences falls completely flat. You can be sure that this kind of evidence will be presented to the court.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. Those would certainly not be considered impressive stats for a respectable state flagship even for an in-state student…and if she was attending one of the more academically rigorous public/private high schools like mine…her SAT stats alone would have placed her firmly in the bottom 10-20% of my graduating class*. Considering many state universities take class ranking into account…even if the school doesn’t rank in some cases…that alone may have put her out of the running.</p>
<ul>
<li>Someone with an 1180 combined on the pre-1995 SATs at my HS tended to graduate with GPAs in the high 1.x - mid 2.x range…assuming they weren’t attritioned out by being “strongly encouraged” to go back to their neighborhood high school within the first two years.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s not the “best test case” that “they” (whoever “they” are) could have used. This particular student (and likely her parents) are stating that many less qualified students even than she were admitted, and that the criteria which put them in over and above her was race. It HAS been accepted by the Supreme Court, which I, too, have found surprising.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I also read that as one of their premises.</p>
<p>What do we know of this young lady’s “circumstances”, “challenges”, family situation, SES, health…?
Are these ever considered at any point in the admissions process she is suing about?</p>
<p>I think the relevant comparison of this applicants SATs and GPAs is with the accepted students in the non-Ten Percent Law group, by race. Without knowing that, I dont think we can say much.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the same insipid spiel those suburban White neighbors of my uncle’s made about “minorities” who were “taking their rightful places” at the elite universities/LACs…despite the fact they attended an academically average suburban high school, their GPAs were in the B-/B range, and their SATs were barely breaking 1000. </p>
<p>I’d be interested to see whether this student and her parents have substantiated evidence which stands up to scrutiny…or if it is just bitter unsubstantiated rantings of those who have an excess sense of entitlement. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Incidentally, your girlfriend’s son has a far stronger case than the woman in the case heading to the supreme court.</p>
<p>Cobrat, not certain what your point is – that someone else should have been plaintiff. I do think that various groups have filed briefs in support of Fisher, including the Asian American foundation (which I suspect has the best case). Does it really matter who the plaintiff is? </p>
<p>How is any plaintiff supposed to get evidence? Does UT disclose SAT/GPA by race?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s the problem the plaintiff, her family, and her lawyers have to figure out if they’re going to assert that many “minority” applicants with lower stats than hers are being admitted. If they are able to muster such evidence and it stands up to cross-examination/scrutiny…they have a reasonably credible case. If not…they don’t.</p>
<p>Cobrat, that is what is absurd. To knock the plainttiff for her scores, when no wants to tell us what is really happening.</p>
<p>Thats what discovery is for. But I suspect UT doesnt want the results out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is the burden of the plaintiff to prove her case and to address any questions presiding judges and defense attorneys may use to cross-examine her…especially those going to credibility and finding out whether any assertions in their case are substantiated or not. </p>
<p>If the plaintiff in this case IS asserting that “minority applicants” are getting in with similar/lower GPAs/SATs…she/her family/her lawyers all have the burden to back/substantiate that before the court.</p>
<p>I’d be very interested to see if she can…especially knowing how many lawyer friends/relatives who had similar educational backgrounds to Supreme Court justices are much more skeptical than I am about her “lowish” SAT scores. If they’re already raising questions about that…the Supreme Court Justices are just as likely to do so.</p>
<p>The specifics of this woman’s grades and SAT scores don’t matter in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decides constitutional questions. If they decide that the University of Texas admissions policies were unconstitutional in that they used race as a criteria, this individuals case is not over. The case would then go back to the lower courts to determine the facts, that is, if a race neutral test had been used, would this woman have been admitted.</p>
<p>Cobrat, you conveniently cut off the rest of my post. The courts can order discovery if a relevant fact is at question. I certainly suspect it is for the Asian American Foundation, who have submitted a brieg.</p>
<p>The biggest problem that I see with this case is that race is only one factor, and there are several other factors listed that allow the schools to build a class. the plaintiff is arguing that her mediocre academic efforts were substancial enough to gain admittance. However, unlike many state schools, things like ECs and essays are required and considered.
If race were the ONLY special circumstance, then I would have an issue. However, I believe that eliminating race as a factor at a state school could have econimic consequences to that state, and that state should be able to use any and all means to create a workforce among its citizens that meets the state’s needs. If race is taken out of the equation but there remains a large disparity in employment in the state among college-educated versus high school-educated workers by racial group, then why shouldn’t the state make any and all effort to increase its tax base by investing in education?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Judging by comments from several Asian-American friends along with some lawyer friends who are sympathetic towards eliminating affirmative-action…some are voicing fears this case will actually undermine their chances of a precedent setting case for their cause because of her weak stats along with the possibility that non-race factors not publicized as of yet would prove they wouldn’t have had a chance even if race-based AA/AA policies in general was absent given the academic reputation of UT-Austin. </p>
<p>Personally…I can see a good reason for their concerns. From my vantage point and those I’ve known who taught high school, college, and/or worked in elite university admissions…a 3.59 HS GPA and an 1180 SAT tends to be viewed as a red flag for:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Student concerned attended an academically mediocre high school.</p></li>
<li><p>Student concerned took the lowest/easiest track available at a respectable-average high school.</p></li>
</ol>