<p>^^^As I understood it the top xxx% rule doesn’t apply to privates. In that case kids going to private preps are really not looking to the state schools from the start. I have found Texas to be interesting in that many students including top students in public schools who are in the top xxx% only apply to one or two state schools since they know these are a sure thing and they really don’t want to be any place else. The loyalty to schools like UTA, TAMU and even Tech runs through generations and many students pick their favorite well before the time they begin a real college search. In the San Antonio area where there is lots of variation in what will get you in the top xxx% I have known students to move around. Even if families don’t physically move strategies are used to fudge the home address. I’m not saying there is a mass exit from the most competitive public high schools but it isn’t unusual to hear that students just out of the top xx% at one school conveniently relocate after sophomore year. It definitely happens. Many students in Texas public just don’t even consider nationally recognized colleges. For them UTA or TAMU are as good as it gets. The student who goes on a national college search tour is the exception rather than the rule at many Texas public HS’s.</p>
<p>Sorry if this is a stupid question but when will scotus vote on the case? I’m curious because I’m wondering how this will affect my admission chances for this fall admissions process</p>
<p>SCOTUS likely has already come to a decision, but has to write up its opinion. It is anticipated that the opinion on Fisher will be released before SCOTUS goes on recess for the summer. Opinions are released on Mondays.</p>
<p>There is contingency planning in the works in the Texas legislature to address what happens if Fisher prevails. A bill (SB1530) is pending to allow UT to keep a cap on the number of students admitted under the Percentage Plan. Otherwise, a 2009 law (the Hook em Amendment) would take effect, which would force UT to accept 100% of its students via the Percentage Plan, if considering race in admissions is deemed unconstitutional. </p>
<p>Without SB1530, 100% of the freshman class admitted in 2016 will be admitted via the Percentage Plan, leaving no room for OOS, intls, athletic recruits.</p>
<p>I agree most parents usually do not move to help kids get into UT. My spouse is a teacher in an urban school district, so our son could legally transfer without us moving. Even then, son decided not to transfer. I have complained loudly about how our school district appears to discriminate against URMs/ discourages them from moving here from the surrounding poor neighborhoods. It was upsetting to see this, but it was never about getting our son into UT.</p>
<p>I agree with Spectrum concerning the mindset of sticking with the big public Us in Texas. That is what most students do.</p>
<p>I know that some people do some fudging and moving around, but I don’t think that’s a common approach.</p>
<p>UT was a bit expensive for our taste, and the setting wasn’t quite right for my D. However, both UT and TAMU are much less expensive than a private, and depending on the major, are EXTREMELY competitive.</p>
<p>Most figure, for the money, why would I go anywhere else? Plus, there is some school spirit involved. 
Generational things, etc.</p>
<p>I know for my D, there’s no way we could have justified (monetarily) her going anywhere else when she was an auto admit for TAMU in her major.</p>
<p>I would have to disagree with Xiggi’s theory that it’s only the middle section of academia that’s interested in UT. While the very best students have competitive options many still select UT. This is reflected in the fairly high (for a flagship state University) enroll rate.</p>
<p>School % admitted who enrolled
UT 49%
UF 52%
UC-Berkekey 39%
UM-Ann Arbor 40%
UW-Madison 40%
U Virginia 42%
UNC-Chapel Hill 54%
Baylor 19%
Rice 37%</p>
<p>FWIW… D’s 2012 HS class was right around 550 students. That year it was Top 9% for UT, so ~50 kids qualified for auto-admit to UT. I believe 10 ended up enrolling, including the Val and Sal (who got into Plan II). We know of 3 kids who were not in the top 9% but did get accepted and enrolled. Of the top 10 students in the class, Val & Sal were the only two to choose UT. The others went to TAMU, OOS privates, or schools where they got significant merit money.</p>
<p>I agree, Gator88NE. UT is a great school, academically, and in many other regards as well, and it attracts a WIDE spectrum of kids including those with EXTREMELY high academic standards. Admittance to UT is a coveted thing. It’s the toughest public school to get into in Texas, and it rivals many privates nation-wide.</p>
<p>Even though we’re bent towards the maroon and white, the truth is the truth.</p>
<p>“FWIW… D’s 2012 HS class was right around 550 students. That year it was Top 9% for UT, so ~50 kids qualified for auto-admit to UT. I believe 10 ended up enrolling, including the Val and Sal (who got into Plan II). We know of 3 kids who were not in the top 9% but did get accepted and enrolled. Of the top 10 students in the class, Val & Sal were the only two to choose UT. The others went to TAMU, OOS privates, or schools where they got significant merit money.”</p>
<p>This is why I see no particular tragedy here. lLss than 20% yield at this school. Obviously, lots of students used it as a safety - it would be interesting to know how many of the ten are going because they didn’t get in (or get enough money) where they really wished to be. But in that rural school, or the school in the poor area, if they can afford it, I bet the yield is closer to 50-60% - those would be students who really want to be there. And if some more of them make it in because of ‘holistic admissions’, so much the better. </p>
<p>All approaches have downsides. But it seems to me that Texas has hit upon one that really works.</p>
<p>^^ I find myself in agreement w mini regarding the Percentage Plan. The planets must have come into alignment… ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Students at public and private high schools in Texas are included, as are Texas residents at DoD operated high schools.</p>
<p>[EDUCATION</a> CODE**CHAPTER 51. PROVISIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO HIGHER EDUCATION](<a href=“EDUCATION CODE CHAPTER 51. PROVISIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO HIGHER EDUCATION”>EDUCATION CODE CHAPTER 51. PROVISIONS GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO HIGHER EDUCATION) says:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@mini, I would guess it was about half and half. A few did apply to other schools but did not get in/get enough money. Others applied to UT and UT only. That’s one of the nice things about the percentage plan: if your dream is to attend a particular TX school and you’re in the Top%, the application process is a breeze. No stress, no uncertainty… just fill out the forms and you’re in.</p>
<p>Because academic achievement varies so greatly across Texas schools, the Texas top 10% plan does lead to the admission of some unqualified students, as described in</p>
<p>[The</a> Unfinished Work of Affirmative Action - Sarah Garland - The Atlantic - October 10, 2012](<a href=“The Unfinished Work of Affirmative Action - The Atlantic”>The Unfinished Work of Affirmative Action - The Atlantic)</p>
<p>One student profiled flunked his freshman classes in “microeconomics, business foundations, introduction to psychology, and rhetoric” and came back after switching from business to African-American studies, in which he has earned much better grades. Does African-American studies exist in part so that students who cannot pass other classes can be pushed through? The department at UNC Chapel Hill seems to have played that role:
[Report</a> finds academic fraud evidence in UNC department | North Carolina | NewsObserver.com](<a href=“http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/04/2044178/report-finds-academic-fraud-evidence.html]Report”>http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/05/04/2044178/report-finds-academic-fraud-evidence.html) . Once a school admits less-qualified students it is tempted to lower academic standards to graduate them.</p>
<p>I don’t think the Supreme Court should strike down the Texas plan as it should racial preferences, but if public universities admit most of their classes by such a system, this will lead to considerable mismatch.</p>
<p>“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”</p>
<p>This may help put UT’s impact on URM participation in Texas into perspective: </p>
<p>Fall Headcount at Texas’s Public Universities:</p>
<p>Total Fall 2000 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 % change Fall 2000 to Fall 2012</p>
<p>Total 414,626 568,938 576,733 39.1%
White 242,024 (58.4%) 255,237 (44.9%) 251,538 (43.6%) 3.9%
African American 40,763 (9.8%) 69,483 (12.2%) 70,706 (12.3%) 73.5%
Hispanic 81,180 (19.6%) 155,783 (27.4%) 164,193 (28.5%) 102.3%
Asian 23,626 (5.7%) 36,756 (6.5%) 37,870 (6.6%) 60.3%
International 21,981 (5.3%) 32,010 (5.6%) 32,979 (5.7%) 50.0%
Other 5,052 (1.2%) 19,669 (3.5%) 19,447 (3.4%) 284.9% </p>
<p>[THECB</a> > Accountability System - Universities - Participation - Statewide Totals](<a href=“http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability/UNIV_Participation.cfm?FICE=445566]THECB”>http://www.txhighereddata.org/Interactive/Accountability/UNIV_Participation.cfm?FICE=445566)</p>
<p>AA went up from 9.8% to 12.3%; while Hispanic went up 19.6% to 28.5%.</p>
<p>The State of Texas has made good progress in increasing URM participation, but UT has been less successful.</p>
<p>Total Fall 2000 Fall 2011 Fall 2012 % change Fall 2000 to Fall 2012</p>
<p>Total 49,996 51,112 52,186 4.4%<br>
White 31,368 (62.7%) 26,116 (51.1%) 26,040 (49.9%) - 17.0%<br>
African American 1,582 (3.2%) 2,317 (4.5%) 2,376 (4.6%) 50.2%<br>
Hispanic 5,920 (11.8%) 9,309 (18.2%) 9,976 (19.1%) 68.5%
Asian 6,236 (12.5%) 8,285 (16.2%) 8,475 (16.2%) 35.9%<br>
International 4,286 (8.6%) 3,732 (7.3%) 3,780 (7.2%) - 11.8%<br>
Other 604 (1.2%) 1,353 (2.6%) 1,539 (2.9%) 154.8% </p>
<p>UT’s results are improved, but it lags vs. the state wide results. That’s to be expected, when you take into account rigor and cost. </p>
<p>Whatever the ruling is on Fisher (unless it impacts the Top X% rule) it will have little impact on the State as a whole. It would results it some modification to the admissions process, but I wouldn’t expect much change in overall URM participation.</p>
<p>Not sure why they need any results based on race since it is irrelevant. The state law has no requirement to have a certain number of URMs. It does give URMs a shot at fair access via merit.</p>
<p>[Automatic</a> Admission | Be a Longhorn](<a href=“http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/freshmen/after-you-apply/automatic-admission]Automatic”>http://bealonghorn.utexas.edu/freshmen/after-you-apply/automatic-admission)</p>
<p>“The University is to automatically admit enough students to fill 75% of available Texas resident spaces.”</p>
<p>It is only getting much harder this year.</p>
<p>"Summer/fall 2014 & spring 2015 applicants</p>
<p>Class rank to be automatically admitted: Top 7%
Notification to Texas educators: September 2012"</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>UTA is NOT UT-Austin!! UTA is University of Texas at Arlington.</p>
<p>Whatever the ruling here, I find it troubling that this case was taken up in the first place. Fisher is a weak plainiff to argue some sort of reverse discrimination. She has above average but not outstanding stats. Texas percentage plan is race neutral still results in low URM matriculation UT.</p>
<p>I think this case was taken to try to overturn Gutter and declare that there is no longer any need for affirmative action. With all the social indicators stacked against said URMs how can it be that we believe that this society has reached “critical mass”? Maybe we just want to believe it because it is too burdensome to cash the check that this society wrote when it resisted equal opportunity for so long.</p>
<p>Justice Thomas, who may only be on the Court bc of AA, objects to AA because in his magical thinking he is a Supreme Court Justice simply because he earned it. Laughable - hahaha! Many URMs have earned it too but without AA they would not be afforded the same opportunities. </p>
<p>If this court rules in Fisher 's favor she will not have helped any other applicant with her profile but the ruling will hurt a lot of people who seem to always face higher hurdles to get the same opportunities.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wouldn’t UT Austin not be a safety for a top 7% student if either:</p>
<ul>
<li>The student is applying for a major or division more popular than its capacity, so a top 7% admit is not guaranteed admission to that major or division.</li>
<li>The student cannot afford it based on need-based aid.</li>
</ul>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not my field, but I did talk to several friends who are law professors, and I looked up Texas v. Lesage. There, a white applicant who was denied admission to a graduate program at the University of Texas sued for money damages and injunctive relief, arguing the program had impermissibly considered race in making its decision. The university defended on grounds that this applicant lacked standing because he was unqualified and would have been rejected even if there had been no consideration of race. The Supreme Court agreed with the university, saying:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sounds like a slam-dunk against standing for Fisher. Except the Court went on to say this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That part sounds like a clear winner for Fisher. But the university’s point in the Fisher case is that, unlike the Jacksonville case where plaintiffs were contractors who were still competing for contracts on an ongoing basis and were harmed in an ongoing way by being unable to compete on an equal footing, Fisher has no intention of re-applying to the University of Texas for admission as a freshman. She’s already completed her undergrad education at LSU. She’s not currently suffering from an “inability to compete on an equal footing”; she’s just complaining about a past harm, not an ongoing harm to her. And she filed suit as an individual, not as a representative of a class of similarly situated individuals. The only money damages she seeks are a return of her $50 application fee and $50 housing deposit, but the university points out these are non-refundable whether an applicant is admitted or denied, so that doesn’t redress her alleged injury. Nor does the injunctive relief she seeks redress the past harm to her, or any ongoing or future harm to her insofar as she has no intention of re-applying for freshman admission to the University of Texas. The injunctive relief she seeks is really not on her own behalf; she’s trying to sue for injunctive relief for the benefit of other people, which the law of standing (as I understand it) generally does not allow unless she’s suing as a member of an adversely affected class, which she elected not to do in this case. </p>
<p>Chief Justice Roberts tried to deflect all that by saying the lower court had separated the “remedial issues” (i.e., what relief a court can grant) from the “liability issues” (i.e., was the university wrong to do what it did), such that Fisher could still amend her complaint to ask for relief that would give her standing. But I think that’s clearly an illegitimate move. My law professor friends tell me that standing is “jurisdictional in nature”; if the plaintiff isn’t alleging facts that give that plaintiff standing, then the court has no business hearing the case, and can’t rule on the “liability issues.”</p>
<p>I still say Fisher has no standing, and SCOTUS would need to rewrite its law of standing to find that she does.</p>
<p>Great digest, bclintonk.</p>
<p>So, in effect, that is the technicality. Not whether this is fair to Abby or whether it’s right to allow race as one consideration. I think they might make some opinion statements on the % process and how it is paired with holistic. Whether, in principle and per existing law, they think it is an acceptable way to reach an already accepted goal.</p>