<p>He suspects that there will be another system than just merit floated by the admissions types and this will end up with another set of perverse incentives. </p>
<p>Of interest on should the Court allow this alternate formula:
"To extend the Jim Crow example, a literacy test for voting is not unconstitutional merely because fewer blacks pass the test than whites (though, today, it would still violate the Voting Rights Act). What made such tests unconstitutional, at least in the South, is that they were intentionally enacted for the purpose of excluding blacks from the ballot.</p>
<p>Just as one can imagine a ten percent plan adopted for entirely nonracial reasons, one could also imagine a literacy test enacted for reasons having nothing to do with race (e.g. – because literate voters are likely to be more knowledgeable than illiterate ones). In reality, however, both the ten percent plan and most literacy tests were enacted primarily for racial reasons. That makes them constitutionally suspect."</p>
<p>You can see that parallels Kennedy’s line of questioning.</p>
I don’t know if it’s cogent, but it’s pointed. It’s my observation that people who start by complaining that Asians are being discriminated against frequently end up talking about URMs. I guess it’s because while it’s hard to show anti-Asian discrimination, it’s easier to show affirmative action for URMs. But don’t pretend they’re the same. </p>
<p>a. I think its quite easy to demonstrate discrimination against Asians statistically.
b. It hardly matters how you slice the onion- admission is a zero-sum game. There arent magically more seats because of plus factors. </p>
<p>The non-cogency is you launch into this impugning of motives that people with whom you disagree are “horribly outraged” that black “kids” get a “hand up”.</p>
<p>"He suspects that there will be another system than just merit floated by the admissions types and this will end up with another set of perverse incentives. "</p>
<p>I would not call it perverse. They meet the qualification requirements for top 8% for UT. If they are not going to UT, then one reason can certainly be finance. UT has done away with national merit and most qualified kids get almost no merit money these days. There are enough incentives at other state schools in Texas to attract minorities that UT is forced to compete if they can’t get the more well off minorities through the backdoor.</p>
<p>Texas is becoming a minority majority state (or is it there already?). UT can’t have top 8% rule but have 90% whites and asians running around. Some sort of discrimination exists if the school is not able to attract qualified candidates of all races.</p>
<p>I agree that the increase in Asian admissions at the Ivies last year should temper concerns about discrimination there. But it will be interesting to see if this keeps up in the current admissions cycle or if this rise was a function of the DOJ OCR complaints filed against Princeton and Harvard last year (detailed below and withdrawn in Feb of 2012). The last time DOJ OCR investigated Harvard, Asian admissions rose there during the pendecy of the investigation, but then fell back to previous levels after the investigation closed. </p>
<p>Targeting URM’s for special financial aid awards does not bother me at all. I think this is a completely different issues from asian admissions at Ivies. Also, who knows what the author of that piece considers a targeted scholarship. It is not uncommon for donors to set up scholarships that target speicfic groups of students and the school is left with the choice of taking the money and honoring the donor’s wishes or saying no. I bet a good portion of those scholrships at Missouri are from those type of donors.</p>
<p>There are <em>always</em> reactions to a policy. And usually reactions beyond what the original meddlers intended. Sometimes its just kids being signed up for lacrosse or oboe [take that!]. Or test prep schools booming when SAT scores are valued. </p>
<p>people who start by complaining that Asians are being discriminated against frequently end up talking about URMs - And Jews.</p>
<p>Arg, we’re waiting for you to show us how to prove intentional discrimination. Go for it. This can’t be anecdotal or speculation, should substantially point to discrimination (not be possibly explained by a host of other interpretations.) And, really, can’t just say, “Well, Unz says…”</p>
<p>I’d also like to know if you occasionally look at both sides of an issue. It helps. More than the putdowns</p>
<p>“In the case of the 10% policy Somin says that people started moving their kids around in senior year to weak schools to get a reserved place.”</p>
<p>This whole thread exists because people are trying to figure out why they can’t figure out Ivy admissions. So why should we look down on someone who has a formula to get into UT? The law is clear and if someone wants to game it, there are no laws against it.</p>
<p>One year of weak schools will never help. They need to pick a school that works for them to get into UT based on the kid’s potential. It has to be at least 3 years if not all 4 because the school districts don’t have uniform policies and what you went in with to the weaker school might actually lower your rank. So if someone had B and B+s in honors classes and a weaker school does not offer them and hence no additional point for those classes, what happens to this kid?</p>
<p>Not sure why I cant do a "“Well, Unz says…” since you guys continually do an appeal to authority. “NO one can have an opinion unless they are a HYP ADCOM. You are arent on ADCOM”!</p>
<p>“not be possibly explained by a host of other interpretations”</p>
<p>“He’s quiet and of course wants to be a doctor.” Any idea how many times that STEM kid says he wants to be a doc- across all categories of kids? Usually adding, “since I was in kindergarten…” and “I want to help people.” Then you look and he’s done virtually zip to help people, nothing hands-on, but did found a pie club. The general rule is “show not tell.” It is so hard to take a sentence out of context and singularly make it seem like an indictment of Asians.</p>
<p>The fact that Asians score higher doesn’t mean they “need to,” as it is often phrased. Brown, which breaks out # vals, 800s, who applied and were admitted, takes a fraction of vals and 800’s- is that prejudice? Or simply reflecting, again, that something more than stats is what it takes.</p>
<p>Its not looking down on. I am pointing out that there are always reactions to policy- and reactions to other than what the regulators intended. </p>
<p>In this case TTP has the effect of discouraging kids to take honors and AP courses and in general shoot for ‘easy A’ classes. In the big picture is that really a good thing?</p>
<p>Argbargy, I’m really going to need a much clearer connection between the countrywide lending suit and the admissions standards of the Ivy League.</p>
<p>Arg, you protesteth too much.<br>
NO one said we can’t have opinions unless we are adcoms. </p>
<p>And, why keep bringing up loans? Just show us your proof. You say obvious, intentional discrimination. How do you know?</p>
<p>-Time to bring up my mantra to my kids: don’t fall into “I think it, so it must be true.” Applies equally to: [someone else] thinks it, so it IS true.</p>
<p>I think most of us posting in this topic know it is the latter. And I’m betting the one or two who insist something else is going on will never, ever accept that it’s about this.</p>
<p>At many schools, I assume also in Texas, AP and honors courses are weighted which means kids who take them actually increase their rank. In fact I’ve read many times on CC that the only way to get to val at many schools is to take TONS of AP courses and ace them, they simply can’t get there without advanced courses.</p>
<p>My kids’ school doesn’t weight or rank, but it seems we are somewhat of a minority.</p>
<p>"In this case TTP has the effect of discouraging kids to take honors and AP courses and in general shoot for ‘easy A’ classes. In the big picture is that really a good thing? "</p>
<p>The law is clear and they are saying all schools are equal irrespective of their standard of education and a person in top 10% in any school is considered equal. </p>
<p>Theoretically it is no different than an Ivy admission policy where they are saying we have no way to figure out across schools which school is good or bad but also across schools that offer no APs vs lots of APs and we want to pick kids based on how they have made the best use of what was available to them. So a kid who did 20 APs and a rural kid with zero APs have an equal chance at some of the top schools in the nation.</p>
<p>The point is the government sues entities all the time for policies that have a net effect of being racially discriminatory even though the language of the policy might be race neutral on its face. A literacy test at the polls is clearly written in race neutral language. </p>
<p>You guys seem to think it is necessary for there to be meeting minutes recording “All in favor of discriminating say aye” but there is no such legal requirement.</p>
<p>Like when the population is, say, 10% black but colleges only have 3% black students. Not sure that reasoning can be applied to rejections of *some/most *high scoring Asians when *some/most *high scoring people of other races are rejected as well?</p>