<p>Not that it’s particularly relevant to this thread, but just for the record, a 2100 SAT (or ACT equivalent) with a 3.5 unweighted GPA is going to get get a rejection from the University of Michigan about half the time. They say they weigh GPA more heavily than standardized test scores, and the scatterplots I’ve seen suggest they mean it. With a GPA north of 3.7 and a 2100 or higher SAT, it’s a pretty safe bet–though even in that territory, some are not admitted. Below a 3.7, rejections are common at all test score levels, though of course the 2100+ SAT scorers are accepted with greater frequency than those below that threshold.</p>
<p>AA is dead for admissions? I think the holistic schools will go right on choosing the kids they want. Under holistic, you have multiple opportunities to target and justify those you want. I felt Garre was inelegant in his defense. I would have skipped economic diversity within diversity and moved forward on the basis of leadership and how various kids who don’t meet the stats bar nonetheless challenge and stretch themselves, have impact, in multiple respects.</p>
<p>I think it’s got to be about standing. Abigail Fisher doesn’t come close to showing that the concrete harm she suffered in this case—not being admitted to the University of Texas at Austin–was caused by UT’s use of race as one factor among many in filling up the last seats in the entering class. Not only were several hundred URMs with better stats than Fisher not admitted, but of the 47 students with lower GPAs and test scores who were admitted in the non-10% round, 42 were white, while only 5 were black or Hispanic. Moreover, hundreds, if not thousands of other white kids with better “objective” stats than Fisher were also denied admission, so that even if UT had not considered race at all and instead just admitted based on GPAs and test scores, Fisher would not have been admitted. Or at least, she can’t show that her denial was due to UT’s consideration of race, which means she has no standing.</p>
<p>Standing has been too important to the conservatives on the Court in other cases for them to just turn a blind eye to it now–and IMO they’d have to radically refashion the law of standing to find standing in this case, and I don’t think they want to go there. The liberals on the Court just want to make this case go away, which they can do with a ruling on standing that doesn’t change the existing law on that subject. And Justice Kennedy, who loves being the center of attention and the pivotal vote, and who has his own ideosyncratic views on standing, might see it as an opportunity to advance some of his pet theories. The Chief Justice hates letting Kennedy play both ends against the middle; he might step forward and join the liberals (and perhaps bring along some other conservatives) in throwing the case out by applying conventional rules of standing, rather than let Kennedy make new law.</p>
<p>AA as it relates to a quota system is dead. The holistic method can’t be seen as an AA program, it has to be seen (based on Grutter) as an effort to meet “critical mass”. </p>
<p>The Grutter ruling held that the United States Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” The Court held that the law school’s interest in obtaining a “critical mass” of minority students was indeed a “tailored use”. </p>
<p>So holistic admissions have to be seen as using race to reach a critical mass that would lead to educational benefits. Not as an AA program.</p>
<p>The more you dig into this stuff, the uglier it gets…what a mess…</p>
<p>BCK, I made a reference to the GPA part of the qualifier (2100 SAT /3.5.) Presenting a student with such numbers distorts the laws of averages. Looklng at Michigan, one can see that about 1/2 score above 700 on the SAT Math and around 1/3 on the Reading and Writing. On the other hand, only 20 percent with a GPA below 3.5 form the enrolled class.</p>
<p>This shows that there is not a high correlation between a very high SAT and a pedestrian GPA. Simply stated, the rejection is based on the relatively low GPA. </p>
<p>Fwiw, one could make a similarly misleading statement about students being rejected with 2400 SAT and 3.5 GPA. The simple reality is that the schools do not look kindly on students with dismal (again relatively) GPA but sky high SAT, as it tends to convey a message of a brilliant mind that is underachieving by disinterest or laziness. </p>
<p>Lastly, I am not sure if this has been brought up, but one should be surprised to see that UT does NOT consider the GPA Important in its factors of admission; they only look at the ranking. This means that the 3.59 of Fisher had not relevance. Unless the CDS reports were filled incorrectly.</p>
<p>This is quite different from the schools that place a high importance on the GPA number.</p>
<p>I think that she has standing. Independently of whether she would have been accepted in the absence of racial preferences, she (and all other Texas students) are entitled to a constitutionally sound process. If the process was in fact unsound, then she suffered a harm. So I don’t buy that argument at all.</p>
<p>The more I look at the Texas situation, the more interesting it becomes! I really like the fact that the 10% rule has been so successful in achieving racial diversity goals without the need to explicitly categorize people by race, a practice which so many find to be repugnant, and which nearly all of us hope will eventually disappear. After more than a half century down this path, society needs to begin moving towards a more ethical and sustainable stance. Maybe Texas has been showing us one possible path with their 10% rule.</p>
<p>Small improvements don’t convince me they are “there.” </p>
<p>Would it be possible for Texas to admit to the system, then assign a segment of those kids to another state school? Those kids, perhaps, who would “thrive” in a slightly less challenging scenario? Some way to make that “fair” and not further exacerbate some form of segregation?</p>
<p>lookingforward, not sure I follow you. There are LOTS of state schools that are not as challenging and not difficult to get into. So, those kids who could thrive in a slightly less challenging scenario can get into any one of those. They only have to apply.</p>
<p>LF - that is what happens today. The qualified kids under the 10% rule find their own school to attend, which in many cases tends to be the financially optimal one for them.</p>
<p>Yes xiggi, that was the sense of my point as well. If you look at (for example) the Penn State bubble chart, <a href=“http://admissions.psu.edu/info/counselors/bubble_chart.pdf[/url]”>http://admissions.psu.edu/info/counselors/bubble_chart.pdf</a>, you can see that 2100 and 3.5 (Weighted) likely doesn’t get you into the main campus, and Penn State is considerably less selective than Michigan. I’m not going to sympathize much with a 2100 student who didn’t crack the top 10% of his/her competitive HS class - not when hard-working students from disadvantaged backgrounds are taking those slots under the same 10% rule.</p>
<p>As for all these 2220+, 3.8 UW, 10 AP students with great ECs who are supposedly being rejected - I’m not saying that it never happens, but until I see some evidence, I’m not buying it.</p>
<p>This is the second time you’ve mentioned “overturning SCOTUS precedent”, or “overturning Grutter.” There’s no delicate way to say this, but you have a basic misunderstanding of the lawsuit.</p>
<p>There is no assignment process and so what they do is be self selective. I see valedictorians from inner city schools in Houston attending University of Houston while knowing that they could go to any state school.</p>
<p>Can anyone here explain what’s going on in this exchange from the oral arguments:
I am familiar with the Jacksonville decision which holds that the “denial of equal treatment” can constitute an injury in fact for standing purposes but I don’t think I properly understand Lesage. Any help?</p>
<p>MisterK - As I understand it, the “harm” Abigail Fisher suffered was that she wasn’t admitted over the 168 minority students with better stats who were also denied. Some “harm.”</p>
<p>I believe Fisher is saying the harm is that the process is not fair, to begin with. That if it were not for the process in place and its goals, she might have been more fairly evaluated. Not that, well, I didn’t qualify under your system, but you should have ignored that.</p>
<p>She’s not attacking her denial- if I’m reading this right, she’s attacking the core. I think that’s why standing is debatable.</p>
<p>^ I’m sorry, but if she’s conceding that she’d have been denied even if admissions was strictly based on academic stats … then where’s the “harm” to her. I understand that if admissions was based on stats alone that there would be more whites attending UT. But she still wouldn’t be one of them.</p>
<p>^ The “injury in fact” in an equal protection case of this variety is the denial of equal treatment resulting from the imposition of the barrier, not the ultimate inability to obtain the benefit.
Northeastern Fla. Chapter of the Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville (91-1721), 508 U.S. 656 (1993).</p>
<p>EDIT: As referenced in my question above, I don’t fully understand the way Texas v. Lesage relates to this. So I can’t give an opinion as to whether Fisher has standing or not.</p>