<p>Bel, maybe we drop back a step more: stop seeing all this as “racial preference.” You really think they “prefer” URMs to the degree some imply? That they go hunt for all the URMs in the holistic pool, then- oh, if we have to, we’ll take some majority kids? That, since your web research leads you to some studies about test scores and assumptions about IQ, that it really all boils down to unfair selection based primarily or singularly on race?</p>
<p>This case is not dealing with poverty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>SCOTUS takes cases when 4 justices agree to hear them. In many cases the appeals court ruling is affirmed.</p>
<p>@soso, the pursuit of wealth is not a zero-sum game, but the number of admitted college applicants is.</p>
<p>GMT, do you think smart kids can only succeed in a small range of college environments? Or will they succeed wherever they go?</p>
<p>sally, I agree that smart kids will probably achieve success wherever they go-- but one can argue that there are different degrees of success (no pun intended). </p>
<p>On an individual school basis, admissions is a zero-sum game. The lawsuit is lodged against one school, UT, and not against the entire Texas public university system. I wonder if Fisher would have been admitted into TAMU.</p>
<p>This is why AA’s time has ended for college admissions:</p>
<p>[Most</a> Americans oppose use of race in admissions: Polls](<a href=“Most Americans oppose use of race in admissions: Polls”>Most Americans oppose use of race in admissions: Polls)</p>
<p>“A recent ABC News poll finds 76 percent of Americans think colleges should not consider the race of applicants. The poll did not find major differences in race: 79 percent of white people oppose the use of race in admissions, while 71 percent of nonwhites oppose it (including 78 percent of blacks and 68 percent of Hispanics).”</p>
<p>No one wants to deny URM’s a chance at college. But that’s not the issue. The issue is granting someone an advantage, based on race, to get into a selective state flagship university.</p>
<p>We also shouldn’t discount the stigma attached to AA (college admissions).</p>
<p>A ways back GMTplus7 asked (what I thought to be) an important question … “How much longer should preferences stay in place?” Regarding Grutter, Sandra Day O’Conner expressed the hope that the need (her word) for AA would disappear by 2025. Sheer delusion on her part … regardless of whether your opinion is “The need for AA never existed” or “The continued existence of URMs shows AA isn’t the problem.”</p>
<p>As with many social issues, there’s an enormous difference between theory … “fifty years of AA is surely enough” … and the actual life challenges of URMs. At this point I’m not happy with either side. But if Justice Roberts believes he can end discrimination by ending AA, then he’s as deluded as O’Conner … because the only difference between his view and that of O’Conner (and also Justice Thomas) is the specific year AA would no longer be necessary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fisher graduated from LSU and has gotten a job as an analyst. She is fine. Hopefully a deserving student has also been educated. The country now has two educated minds. Seems like a win-win to me.</p>
<p>Just a reminder to every one that of all the applicants that were allegedly given preference over Fisher, the majority of 42/48 where white.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, in Texas, at the very least, one of biggest implications would be a huge loss in alumni donations and alumni endowed chairs. If there is a state where football is more important to the alumni than Texas, I’d be surprised.</p>
<p>“No one wants to deny URM’s a chance at college. But that’s not the issue. The issue is granting someone an advantage, based on race, to get into a selective state flagship university.”</p>
<p>[Warning: Trick question ahead.] So if UT came up with a system that admitted twice as many URMs as presently … a system that didn’t use applicant’s race in any way … would that system be OK with you?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is interesting and is an angle I hadn’t thought of (although it is related to the question I asked you). How would Ms. Fisher demonstrate that ONLY UT could provide her an outcome that the rest of the state university system could not? I think ultimately this might be what decides the case, and not in her favor. She has no way to demonstrate harm. She was not as strong as other applicants. She has done fine since her rejection and probably stands to benefit from the attention she has gotten through this case (although that information is probably not being considered by the court).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly my point…and one I wish more parents here were honest about. (GMT was.) Do these “elite-school-at-all-costs” parents really think their kids will suffer materially if they don’t get into their top-choice schools? Somehow I don’t think so…especially because for every parent whose kid gets the golden ticket there are nine more who have to justify a different or “lesser” outcome.</p>
<p>There are school systems in the world that are very much test score oriented. They don’t have dorms or the amusement park settings that we provide for college students. You are there to study and that is it. For those who truly want a system like that, there are some out there. </p>
<p>Our system is unique in that unlike a game of tennis or the raw numbers on a test, or how well one plays an instrument, a lot of things are taken into consideration. The beauty and value of the top colleges is often because of this blend. Al Gore, a legacy roomed with Tommy Lee Jones at Harvard. Those who are on full financial aid can be i the same suite with billionaire’s children and those who are going to be in positions of power in the world. Many of us on this board who have gone to these schools can attest that getting to know this mix is one of the most educational parts of the experience. </p>
<p>Race is an issue in this country. So the top schools want a representation of it when discussing it They want the future decision makers to be in the classrooms with people of different races, abilities, options, religions, nationalities. They aren’t looking at drawing a line in a formula and accepting folks that way. Also, development, legacy, sports brings money, recognition to a school in ways that just taking the top kids won’t do. </p>
<p>The American university system is incorporating more than just academics. And for now, it’s allowed to use race as a factor for diversifying a class because it brings something to the school to have that mix that it wants. The whole thing in question now is whether this is necessary any more in order to bring the numbers to where they benefit everyone. Whether you agree with the very premise or not, is immaterial, because it is the policy in place. That it should never have been policy is a moot point. That is was valid and legal is NOT being challenged and you are arguing at a whole other tangent that has nothing to do with the question at hand. The question now is whether this is still valid, and particularly in the case of University of Texas at Austin, since they already have a system in place, their 8% system that might be , should be maybe, getting them the representation of minorities that is deemed important to a school like this. Bear in mind, the argument is not whether that representation is right or not, has been made, and a decision on it is the status quo. </p>
<p>I don’t know how far the SC is going to delve in terms of whether in this case, UT Austin already has ample URM candidates and that the problem is getting them to the school due to socio economic issues.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I don’t think this lawsuit really has anything to do with Fisher. She knew at the outset that she would be long graduated before it was ever decided. I wonder who really was behind this whole thing. Do we know?</p>
<p>I have heard it’s Americans for Prosperity (Koch brothers) but I also saw this:</p>
<p>[Special</a> Report: Behind U.S. race cases, a little-known recruiter | Reuters](<a href=“http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/us-usa-court-casemaker-idUSBRE8B30V220121204]Special”>http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/04/us-usa-court-casemaker-idUSBRE8B30V220121204)</p>
<p>Wouldn’t surprise me if it is being funded by multiple sources.</p>
<p>Re: Funding for Fisher. It’s a growing cottage industry. Fundraising from the rich and paranoid, and likely being paid very nicely along the way. An org called Donor’s Trust is bankrolling the Fisher case. The Fisher case is first and foremost about making money for the fund raisers. BTW the liberals do the same but probably not as well or as lucratively.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some of them do provide dorms, though presumably basic compared to what many universities in the US provide.</p>
<p>[Students</a> | Indian Institute of Technology Madras](<a href=“http://www.iitm.ac.in/students]Students”>http://www.iitm.ac.in/students)</p>
<p>[Hostels</a> | Indian Institute of Technology Madras](<a href=“http://www.iitm.ac.in/hostels]Hostels”>http://www.iitm.ac.in/hostels)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>@sally, you mistake my stance on this issue. </p>
<p>Since applicants have been cut slack for low SES in the Percentage round, I am uncomfortable in the Holistic round w the race thumb on the scale after factors like EC’s, leadership, character, academics are weighed, especially since racial classifications are so arbitrary. Why do Brazilians and Spaniards get classified as Hispanic/Latino, but not Portuguese? What do Pakistani’s have in common w Koreans? With so many multi-racial kids, who really is a URM?</p>
<p>Fisher may be “fine” for having graduated from LSU, but LSU is no UT—not even close. If non-URMs are not materially impacted by going to a less selective school, then the same should hold for URMs. </p>
<p>Is it material who funded Fisher? Bottom line is that the SCOTUS accepted the case.</p>