Fisher v. University of Texas: Predict the SCOTUS decision

[sosomenza]

<p>

168 URMS with better stats than Fisher were rejected was because they were too poor and UT was looking for wealthy URMs."

</p>

<p>The purpose of the 168 was to show that Fisher was way down on the list.</p>

<p>BTW- The ability to pay for college is the biggest preference there is. If you can’t pay then you can’t get in. (including, scholarships, loans, aide, etc). Just because the university is need blind that does not negate the economic advantage of wealth. it is the ultimate preference.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@GMTplus7

I guess UT does pick up the fullpay OOS & int’ls in the holistic round. I wonder how the % of fullpay IS admits compares if race and athletic recruits are factored out (i.e. compare only White percentage-plan admits v. White holistic admits).</p>

<p>Is the holistic round a de facto rich kid round?

</p>

<p>Even if UT did not specifically look for high SES applicants for the last 25% after auto-admitting 75% of the frosh, the last 25% would likely be mostly high SES applicants, since high SES applicants tend to get higher test scores and likely have advantages in extracurriculars and whatever else may be considered. This may be especially true with applicants from the elite prep schools that do not rank and therefore exclude their students from being auto-admitted.</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>

@cptofthehouse

UT is need blind for admissions. I don’t know any state school that is need aware for admissions.

</p>

<p>Universities of California are said to look very favorably on applicants who overcame adverse or disadvantageous conditions, including poverty. Some have commented that this makes them indirectly need-aware, but in the opposite direction that “need-aware” is normally associated with (i.e. UCs favor low SES applicants, rather than high SES applicants).</p>

[bclintonk]

<p>

@sosomenza

BTW- The ability to pay for college is the biggest preference there is. If you can’t pay then you can’t get in. (including, scholarships, loans, aide, etc). Just because the university is need blind that does not negate the economic advantage of wealth. it is the ultimate preference.

</p>

<p>Valid point, especially at schools that don’t meet 100% of need, i.e., at most of them. According to its 2012-13 common data set, UT meets on average only 66% of need for its full-time undergrads. An admissions preference is one thing, but that admissions decision rings pretty hollow if, at the end of the day, you can’t afford to attend. And higher SES applicants will always have the upper hand in that regard, unless the university has FA policies and resources in place to neutralize it. UT clearly doesn’t.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@bclintonk

And higher SES applicants will always have the upper hand in that regard, unless the university has FA policies and resources in place to neutralize it. UT clearly doesn’t.

</p>

<p>“High-SES kid” or “rich kid” can be misnomers. It’s not the child that is rich but the parents, and the parents are not obligated to pay for college. We regularly read on CC of families where the parents are unwilling to help much or at all despite the financial means to do so. So the statement “SES applicants will always have the upper hand” is incorrect. In some cases they have a weaker hand than low-income applicants.</p>

[sally305]

<p>Some cases, yes. But on the whole kids who have enjoyed higher SES growing up have had many advantages over poor kids–better and safer schools, better access to ECs, stronger support networks, and of course things like better nutrition and a more comfortable environment to grow up in.</p>

[cptofthehouse]

<p>The ability to pay does not DIRECTLY affect admissions in that the info given to admissions regarding income/assets does not come into consideration at all at schools that are need blind in admissions. </p>

<p>That does not mean that ability to pay is not, in fact, in reality an issue since economic status and academic achievement are closely linked in every major educational study I have seen. That was a field of my focus for a while, and the stats were resoundingly in that directions with very little in outliers, though, yes, such pockets were there. Overall the link was about as strong as any. </p>

<p>However, the 8% rule does give those kids at schools that have a high population of low income families a boost, in that they are not competing as directly or as much as they would be if the percentage were not set per school. It is a cause for some resentment I know. But it does give those kids who are in schools that are self segregated by demographics and income a shot at a seat at the state flagship without getting any holistic considerations. I know that my BIL does begrudge this boost that kids get in schools that are not so hot, but he is not about to give that advantage to his kids by sticking them into such schools which was a choice he could have made. </p>

<p>However, it the TX case, it can also be argued that race should not be included in the holistic factors since the way the auto admits are set up, it already has a built in mechanism to give URM, particularly underprivileged ones who are in schools comprised largely of such URMs, a boost in admissions. The URMs getting a boost from the holistic reviews may primarily be those kids who are not in such schools</p>

[bogibogi]

<p>[Poll:</a> Most oppose race-based college admissions programs - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-majority-opposes-race-based-college-admissions-programs/2013/06/11/4aee6cf8-d2b9-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html?hpid=z2]Poll:”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-majority-opposes-race-based-college-admissions-programs/2013/06/11/4aee6cf8-d2b9-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html?hpid=z2)</p>

<p>

The wide opposition to affirmative action in college admissions spans partisan and racial divides. Nearly eight in 10 whites and African Americans and almost seven in 10 Hispanics oppose allowing universities to use race as a factor. And although Democrats are more supportive than Republicans of the practice, at least two-thirds of Democrats, Republicans and independents oppose it.

</p>

[bluebayou]

<p>

I don’t know any state school that is need aware for admissions.

</p>

<p>UC is definitely need aware in admissions. Parent education and income is requested on the front page of the app. Overcoming adversity is a a plus factor on the application, and being dirt-poor counts. I know of a few other state flagships that also give plus points to low income kids.</p>

<p>Ditto Williams and other schools that claim to be need-blind are really not. Williams, for example, even counts the number of “low-ec” students as the admissions process unfolds. (It is a plus factor there as well.)</p>

[TXArtemis]

<p>I’m in the camp predicting 5-3 for Fisher with an AA holding narrowly tailored to UT’s unique admission scheme. They will defer full review of AA to the fall when they hear Schuette challenging Michigan’s Prop 2 banning the use of race in public college admissions (another Kagan recusal–Kennedy will remain in the spotlight).</p>

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>bclintonk, on Fisher’s standing, did you happen to see this piece suggesting an ideolgical twist? <a href=“http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/10/thoughts-on-the-oral-argument-in-fisher-v-university-of-texas/[/url]”>http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/10/thoughts-on-the-oral-argument-in-fisher-v-university-of-texas/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
</blockquote>

<br>

[sally305]

<p>^So if Fisher prevails, what does that mean? There are no “damages” to her, correct? Can the court force UT to remove the word “race” from its admission policy and be done with it? (I don’t think this will happen, FWIW.)</p>

[ucbalumnus]

<p>Hmmm, didn’t she want her application fee back if she won?</p>

[NewHope33]

<p>^ If I recall correctly, Chief Justice Roberts has already severed “the case (use of race)” from “the complainant (Fisher).” This is a pretty good indication of how strongly Court Justices feel about AA … that they’d take the case but promptly throw the Complainant off the train.</p>

<p>There are two factors that make this case problematic. First, there is recent evidence (Hopwood, 1995) of what happens at UT when race is eliminated as a consideration for admission. (The extreme consequences were probably the reason SCOTUS took Grutter in 2003.) And secondly, while “top 10%” enables UT to select a freshman class with a significant number of URMs, it is useless for other processes, like hiring, in which the country has a compelling interest in providing opportunities for URMs. As much as the Court might want to strike AA from the American lexicon, there are comparatively few tools to do that at present.</p>

[sally305]

<p>@ucb: Apparently so.

Asked by a news reporter what harm she had suffered, she cited only her inability to tap into UT’s alumni network and possibly missing out on a better first job. If she wins, Fisher seeks only the return of her application fee and housing deposit 2014 a grand total of $100 in damages.

</p>

<p>Here’s her first job:</p>

<p>

She has already gone on to graduate from Louisiana State University, her second choice, and is working in finance at a firm in Austin.

</p>

<p>[What</a> Abigail Fisher’s Case Against Affirmative Action Is Really About](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>What Abigail Fisher's Case Against Affirmative Action Is Really About | HuffPost Voices)</p>

[sosomenza]

<p>For all who don’t understand the need for AA. Here’s one of your own telling a good story.</p>

<p>[At</a> the intersection of privilege and college admissions: An apology of a former Abigail Fisher](<a href=“http://community.feministing.com/2013/04/02/at-the-intersection-of-privilege-and-college-admissions-an-apology-of-a-former-abigail-fisher/]At”>http://community.feministing.com/2013/04/02/at-the-intersection-of-privilege-and-college-admissions-an-apology-of-a-former-abigail-fisher/)</p>

[kayf]

<p>Sos, that saga seems to focus much more on the issues with lower SES groups, not race.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

[/quote]
I am only now beginning to understand how much our role models and beliefs about what is possible shape us.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>This (brilliant) quote from the article posted by Sosomenza should be etched in the desk of the Justices who will decide the Fisher case. And, probably in caps, in the case of Alito.</p>

<p>In a way, the Justices should have been put on a plane to Texas and forced to walk around the school where Abigail studied, and then take a side trip to the Valley and some of the more “colorful hoods” in Dallas, Houston, or San Antonio. </p>

<p>The worst element of AA is that it is still so MUCH needed in our country, and that little progress has been made. It is easy to rail against AA, but a lot harder to explain why our society would be better off by not pursuing a quest for equity and justice for all.</p>

[TXArtemis]

<p>^^^ sally, thanks for sharing that article–it’s important people understand Abigail Fisher is just a (willing) pawn.</p>

<p>Texas CCers who have sweated out a holistic review decision will get a kick out of how the author illustrated the odds for a non-auto admit:</p>

<p>

Even among those students, Fisher did not particularly stand out. Court records show her grade point average (3.59) and SAT scores (1180 out of 1600) were good but not great for the highly selective flagship university. The school’s rejection rate that year for the remaining 841 openings was higher than the turn-down rate for students trying to get into Harvard.</p>

<p>As a result, university officials claim in court filings that even if Fisher received points for her race and every other personal achievement factor, the letter she received in the mail still would have said no.

</p>

[TatinG]

<p>The role of the Supreme Court is not to be a super legislature, evaluating the sociology-economic effects of UT’s admissions policies. Their role is to rule on whether Fisher’s rights under the Constitution have been violated. Was she discriminated against based on race and if she was is that racial discrimination constitutional?</p>

<p>SCOTUS does not take cases to pat the appeals court on the back and let them know what a great decision they made. The appeals court ruling will be changed.</p>

[Beliavsky]

<p>

@xiggi

It is easy to rail against AA, but a lot harder to explain why our society would be better off by not pursuing a quest for equity and justice for all.

</p>

<p>Quoting Chief Justice John Roberts,</p>

<p>“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”</p>