<p>Except that, now that I think about it, the liberal dissenters are only going to be 3, since Kagan has recused herself. That changes the dynamics. A Kennedy solo concurrence might not be so pivotal if it ends up 4-1-3. That puts a premium on Kennedy and Roberts working together; if they do, they get to decide the outcome. If not, then all bets are off; I could see it being anything from a 5-3 reversal of the lower court, to a 4-4 split resulting in affirmation of the lower court, if either Kennedy or Roberts successfully bargains with the liberals for language that sets the tone for future cases, while not actually doing anything in this case (other than affirming).</p>
<p>The problem with focusing on just SES from a diversity standpoint is that there is still a substantial gap in test scores between AA (even affluent ones) and non URM SES. I will dig out test scores from SAT site if people want. </p>
<p>Also, it has been my impression that SES have been doing ok at top colleges (although maybe not at the next tier) due to no loan/free ride policies. Of course, they still need to apply and woudl agree that in many cases their mediocre counselors may not know of, understand, or tout these programs for the top SES students. </p>
<p>My fear is that if AA goes more colleges will resort to the Texas 10% (now around 7%) rule that I think is a bit of a gimmick and takes way too much discretion away from admissions officers because now admission boils down to one factor regardless of circumstances.</p>
<p>Is it really true that high SES URMs have lower test scores than those from other races? I find that hard to believe. Why would that be the case? Are the tests biased against URMs?</p>
<p>Muckdogs, only UT-Austin is going to a 7% auto admit rule for the HS class of 2014, down from the current 8%, as it broke off from the other schools that use top 10% with the passage of a law in 2009. More than 80% of UT-Austin in-state admits were auto admits in 2008 and the percentage was climbing, and UT-Austin wanted to admit no more than 75% of in-state students under the auto admit law, with 25% to be admitted under “holistic admissions,” which would include consideration of race – what is at issue in this case (I believe the goal was to admit more kids, URM and white, from upscale school districts). The original 10% rule was passed in 1997 by a coalition comprised of legislators representing mostly URM districts and legislators representing rural districts, including mostly white rural districts, and that same coalition has protected the rule ever since. Even though not so many URM’s have enrolled at UT and A&M due to cost and culture, as others have said, the auto admit rule has served to provide opportunities for a great many URM students at all the public universities in Texas.</p>
<p>I think one justice has recused herself, so this decision may be made without all nine justices. Different process for outcome then, if there is a tie.</p>
<p>Probably because, from the selective colleges’ point of view:</p>
<p>a. It is “easier” – just look at the race/ethnicity check-box if the admissions people are lazy and do not want to holistically figure out how much racial discrimination held each applicant back.</p>
<p>b. People get more politically worked up about race/ethnicity and diversity of such than they do about SES and diversity of such. Also, poor people tend not to have much political lobbying power in any case.</p>
<p>c. Admitting more students from low SES backgrounds will cost more financial aid money that many colleges do not have a lot of to give out.</p>
<p>The 10 Percent Plan is not under review, and the impression I get from reading the oral arguments is that the justices have no issue with it at all.</p>
<p>It is the “holistic” plan that is being called to task.</p>
<p>I don’t think Fisher’s case is that strong.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Fisher said in news reports that she hoped for the day universities selected students “solely based on their merit and if they work hard for it.” But Fisher failed to graduate in the top 10 percent of her class, meaning she had to compete for the limited number of spaces up for grabs.</p>
<p>It seems to me to be a clear states right issue. Can a state implement the auto admit process? It seems to me that since it builds and funds the university system that the state should have that right. Provided that it implements a reasonable selection process. From a practical standpoint, admission selection can never be perfect. It will always be preferential in some way, hence the heavy use of standardized board scores. Anyway the 10% auto admit is not perfect but it should be considered reasonable. BTW Fisher was far from an exceptional student. I think she finally settled on LSU.</p>
<p>In some ways she reminds me of the “Ivy crapshoot” girl who whined about her rejections to the Wall Street Journal. Her application (and her case) seemed far from flawless.</p>
<p>@soso, it’s not the 10% Plan that is being challenged. Fisher is suing over how the remaining applicants are being selected outside the 10% Plan. </p>
<p>It came out in the oral arguments that UT was giving preferences to high SES URM’s outside the 10% Plan, because the 10% Plan, while it significantly boosted the number of URM’s, they were predominently low SES URM’s. </p>
<p>The lawyer for UT said the school needed to target high SES URM’s to have “diversity within diversity”. They want rich URM’s, not just poor ones.</p>
<p>If this country is trying to become “race” blind then why is race used in admissions? That is the issue. It’s not really that she wasn’t admitted but that race is used in admissions. Texas already uses the 10% rule to admit students from all high schools regardless of race. While I think this borders on the brink of “socialistic admissions” — admitting lower performing students and denying higher performing students, I understand what they are trying to do. There has to be a better way. It is a Robin Hood type of admissions. (Don’t get me started on the Texas Robin Hood act either !)</p>
<p>If we are to be race blind you can’t have race as an admission criterion. But if you do away with it the other side will file a lawsuit. It is a catch 22 that will never end.</p>
<p>For me, the question boils down to whether the state has a legitimate interest to ensure that a significant portion students of all races, especially those of race who have had difficulty accessing opportunities in the past, should be able to attend the best state-supported institutions of higher education? I think whether or not I agree with the particular policy, the state does have a legitimate interest. I can also disagree with the mechanism they use in service of that legitimate interest, but I’d probably want to leave that up to the state. State’s rights and all…</p>
<p>Please note that the Terms of Service prohibit excerpts from any other source that are longer than a sentence or two. You should provide the link to the source, then keep your quote very short.</p>
<p>Then what is the argument? Per the Huffington Post (outside the auto admit). Fisher has identified 47 cases who were allegedly given a preference. But 42 of those are white? Also there were 168 minority applicants with better stats than Fisher who were rejected. Fisher was so far down the list that even without any preferences, she still would not have been selected. The more I read about the case the more I find it to be nothing more than the shoving of a weak case through a conservative court system. In reality Fisher was a marginal student who is being used as a pawn by big money conservatives. </p>
<p>texaspg, the Lege passed a law in 2009 that allowed UT to only admit 75% of its class under the Top 10% so they are now admitting 25% of the class holistically. That’s why now at UT they’re only auto-admitting the top 7% or 8%, depending on the year.</p>