<p>^ Thanks. For a moment there I was considering suing John Elway because he won’t sign me to quarterback the Broncos!</p>
<p>MisterK…Do you live in Texas? Are you familiar with St. Marks? Cistercian? St. John’s? TAMS? What about Plano West? Southlake Carroll? Highland Park? These are just a few of the prestigious privates and publics in Texas. Please look up their academic profiles. You will see the kid at St. Marks, for instance, who falls outside of the top 8% has phenomenal grades and scores. ~25% of the class is National Merit, for instance, and the class size is between 85-88 if I’m not mistaken. Can a student who’s not in the top 8% gain entrance to UT? Sure, it does happen; however, there are also students with incredible stats who are denied. Conversely, kids from large, inner-city schools with inferior profiles are automatically in by virtue of the fact they attend an unchallenging high school. This happens all the time. Each year students at some of the super-competitive schools will bail and transfer to a local public where it’s usually a cake walk for them to graduate in the top 8%. Their dream has been to attend UT and they’re gaming the system. 6/80 kids from my son’s prep did this very thing in 9th grade, and most all will now be able to attend UT if they still so choose. Will they be as prepared? Ah, that’s another question.</p>
<p>
Yes, I agree with you that she doesn’t belong at UT, but that’s not the harm under discussion. If you’re curious, you could read my post, or better yet, go to the source. I’m not a lawyer, but that’s their theory of harm as I understand it. Whatever your stance, wouldn’t it be beneficial to know the point you’re arguing against?</p>
<p>The point of my last post was that the SC could choose to reject UT’s approach under Grutter, while honoring all existing precedent. There’s no need to overturn anything unless they want to. I’m assuming that you now understand that’s an option?</p>
<p>I heard that they’re changing admissions for TAMU Engineering in Fall 2014. They’re talking about the top 5% being auto-admit, and the rest being reviewed after that based primarily on rank, test scores, and unweighted gpa.</p>
<p>So you’ll be able to go to TAMU if you’re in the top 10%, but may not be admitted to Engineering. Right now it’s first come, first served. If you are admitted to the University, you are admitted to the school as long as there are slots left.</p>
<p>Not necessarily after this year.</p>
<p>So things are getting tighter all over. I thought I had heard that UT was going to tighten up their percentage too.</p>
<p>jc40 - No, I don’t live in Texas, but I’d really like to learn more about this. Do you have pointers to statistics regarding such rejections? In any case, I’ll do some reading about those districts.</p>
<p>I need to run, back later. But one quick point - all of these systems have pockets of unfairness. One good thing about Texas 10% is that the rules are out in the open. I’m much less comfortable with the opaque systems where the personal biases and undefined agendas of the adcom members come into play.</p>
<p>“The point of my last post was that the SC could choose to reject UT’s approach under Grutter, while honoring all existing precedent.”</p>
<p>Yes, I got that. But that’s going to be difficult to do if one places any weight on Chief Justice Robert’s interrogation. “So what’s the number necessary to achieve critical mass? If you can’t provide one, how do we know you’re making progress toward the goal?” Provide a number and the approach screams QUOTA. Don’t provide a number and the approach screams ARBITRARY!</p>
<p>My own view is that Roberts is posturing for future cases. No one knows how to define “critical mass.” How can Grutter be honored if it’s enabling function (i.e., “critical mass”) is judged to be a quota system and therefore impermissible?</p>
<p>My old econ professor was fond of saying just follow the money. Asians are backing Fisher and likely paying some legal bills. For those non minorities who think a pro Fisher decision will make getting into UTA easier, you had better think again. BTW as intended it is a one sided argument a lot of which is outdated. Also minority interest have filed similar briefs but in support of UTA. Who else is paying Fisher’s legal bills? </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/Fisher-v-University-of-Texas-Amicus-Brief-The-Asian-American-Legal-Foundation-and-the-Judicial-Education-Project.pdf[/url]”>http://www.projectonfairrepresentation.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/Fisher-v-University-of-Texas-Amicus-Brief-The-Asian-American-Legal-Foundation-and-the-Judicial-Education-Project.pdf</a></p>
<p>@Sosomenza…Asians? so Asians are the new “Fill in the blank”…they are behind everything. You do realize that lots of groups filed AMICI CURIAE in support of Fisher or UT. The AG office filed in support of UT, I don’t think that makes UT’s admission process an Obama plot…</p>
<p>For those who know Grutter, what’s left after Racial Diversity is removed?
From the Fisher v University of Texas petition, page 32:</p>
<p>"D. This Court Should Return to Genuine Strict Scrutiny
and Reject Racial Diversity as a Compelling Interest. </p>
<p>Because the racial diversity rationale for race-based decisions is unworkable and harmful, this Court should overrule that aspect of Grutter and re-turn to the strict scrutiny of cases such as Adarand and Croson."</p>
<p>^ Sorry, the page 32 text was from the Asian American Legal Foundation Amici Curiae, not the Fisher v. University of Texas petition.</p>
<p>@sosomenza, </p>
<p>The Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Asian American Justice Center, Asian American Institute and Asian Law Caucus filed a joint amicus brief backing UT when the case was in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.</p>
<p>If you think Asians are instigating Fisher, then let me tell you about how Asians instigated 9/11…</p>
<p>
If leadership is the quality UT is looking for, it is already represented by the valedictorian class presidents from the low SES schools, who were admitted via the percentage plan.</p>
<p>Garre was simply baring the dirty truth:
UT is unhappy the percentage plan admits too many of the “wrong kind” of URMs, i.e. poor ones. </p>
<p>from the oral arguments
MR. GARRE:
</p>
<p>Holy cow. Once you leave stats-only methods, you can hand pick. So many high school kids (just look at the chance-me threads) tend to do the same old/same old. Why not look for variety in “background or perspective?” And engagements, levels of responsibility, impact, challenges? </p>
<p>Just being val or in the top % does not ensure breadth. In any respect. Just ensuring top kids from each hs are admitted, likewise. Yes, you can achieve some of this just through including each hs, but the very fact the holistic portion is available, offers the chance to fine tune.</p>
<p>I didn’t invent that system. I don’t think it’s perfect. I’m torn by the conflict. But not satisfied that this problem of inequity will resolve itself. And, don’t see anyone offering a more perfect solution/one that’s viable.</p>
<p>And frankly, no, I don’t think being val is, in itself, leadership. Leadership is not top grades. Or not that, alone.</p>
<p>I just think it’s so strange, the more I hear on this thread about Texas’ system, that the supreme court would choose this particular case as a precedent setter. I mean, the system is different than any I have heard of, though I could be ill informed. </p>
<p>I can’t figure out how it will be placed in the context of other university systems.</p>
<p>^ pg, just picked up The Nine today. Fascinating.</p>
<p>Isn’t it great? It was the first place I started to learn that the conservatives of the past were not the same as the ones we have today. </p>
<p>But, all of it is really interesting.</p>
<p>California has a somewhat similar system to Texas. California HS grads are “eligible in the local context” if they are in the top 12 percent of their high school’s class. That is they are guaranteed admission to ONE of the UC schools. They must also have taken the so called a-g classes and have a 3.5 GPA. The ‘school of last resort’ is now UC Merced. </p>
<p>The racial demographics for UC Merced are:</p>
<p>AA - 6.6%
Hispanic - 39.8%
Asian - 28.7%
White - 17%
Mixed or decline to state - 4%</p>
<p>Now UC Merced is also in the central valley which is heavily Hispanic and is likely used by many as a commuter school.</p>
<p>The ‘second to the bottom’ in the pecking order is UC Riverside.</p>
<p>AA - 6.6%
Latino - 31%
White - 17.6%
Asian - 35.7%
Other - 2.6%</p>
<p>UC Berkeley</p>
<p>AA - 3%
Latino - 13%
White - 29%
Asian - 39%
Other or decline to state - 5%</p>
<p>These are the results with a similar ‘top of their high school’ system like Texas’ but with a law passed by a large majority of voters that prohibits affirmative action in selecting admittees to the UC system.</p>
<p>If Texas had such a system, that is if Fisher wins, would the Texas percentages be the same as they are now are substantially different?</p>
<p>“I just think it’s so strange, the more I hear on this thread about Texas’ system, that the supreme court would choose this particular case as a precedent setter. I mean, the system is different than any I have heard of, though I could be ill informed. I can’t figure out how it will be placed in the context of other university systems.”</p>
<p>I believe Texas’ approach is unique. Several states have university systems that encourage broad based (as opposed to stats-based) admissions systems. Georgia and Florida come to mind. But I don’t believe any states have attempted the Top 10%/7% approach that Texas has. I give Texas a lot of credit for trying something different … taking the risk that its public universities would be successful despite auto-accepting many kids (and not just minorities) that would not have been accepted under prior policies. The Texas approach has some faults surely, but boldness isn’t one of 'em.</p>
<p>The top 7-10% rule is not at issue. The only issue is whether race can be considered at all in the holistic review of ~25% of incoming class. Every and anything can be considered like meeting some int’l student or oos “quota” but many suburban whites like Fisher who don’t make the cut think that their spot was taken by an URM. </p>
<p>Maybe it was taken by an ORM (Asian)? I dunno . . . </p>
<p>Ironically, if Fisher has her way UT could just do a quota for Int’l + Oos and every Texas Resident will have to make the top 7-10% (no second bite at the apple). </p>
<p>Then we’ll have regentrification as all the suburbanites go slumming in the inner city to compete for a spot at UT. Otoh they can move to the boondocks to compete with the farm kids.</p>
<p>I’m not feeling the love for suburban whites,</p>
<p>Fisher is not demanding that quota’s be put in place, that holistic admissions not be used, or that all Texas residents must be in the top % of class to be admitted to UT.</p>
<p>The complaint is about awarding points based on race in the holistic portion of admissions.</p>