<p>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES</p>
<p>No. 02241
BARBARA GRUTTER, PETITIONER v. LEE
BOLLINGER et al.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT</p>
<p>[June 23, 2003]
[quote]
Justice OConnor delivered the opinion of the Court.</p>
<pre><code>This case requires us to decide whether the use of race as a factor in student admissions by the University of Michigan Law School (Law School) is unlawful.
[/quote]
</code></pre>
<p>"um, getting into umich is not somehing to be proud of"</p>
<p>what the hell is wrong with u??? u Mich is a great school. u can be proud of going to ANY college.</p>
<p>Per your link:</p>
<p>Wow, that's just sickening. The median on the LSAT (the main factor in law school admissions) was ~165 for all test takers. U Mich law, routinely ranked in the top 4-5 in the country accepted 85% of all Black test takers with a 155 or higher while rejecting over 60% of the white test takers with 165-170.</p>
<p>You don't think that's a bit overboard?</p>
<p>OT: Cornell has a law school? News to me.</p>
<p>Oops..sorry kb54010</p>
<p>Yes, Cornell has a law school. </p>
<p>Test scores are not the only item law schools or colleges use in determining admissions. I think most of us understand that. The easiest way to get into any select college is to have something the college wants on its wish list. The reason for why you are on that list is not as important as how much the college wants that particular attribute. Legacies and URMs are on that list along with some other categories that are not as well known and may be a fleeting thing.</p>
<p>You can rationalize any way you'd like, but we both know that 0% of white legacies with 155's are getting in - let alone 85%.</p>
<p>..and test scores ARE the prevailing factor in LS admissions.</p>
<p>Maize&Blue22 -</p>
<p>It took me a while, but I found the stats you were refering to in your post #43 on pages, 492 and 493 of the article (pdf page #'s 31 & 32) <a href="http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/clr/synnott.pdf%5B/url%5D">http://organizations.lawschool.cornell.edu/clr/synnott.pdf</a></p>
<p>read on a little further on pages 493 and 494:
[quote]
Speaking for a 5-4 majority in Grutter, Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Bryer, reaffirmed Justice Powell's 'tie-breaking vote" in Bakke that racial diversity is a compelling state interest and that the strict scrutiny test did not restrict race-based governmental policies to remedying past discrimination.
[/quote]
In this decision the Justices recognized that academic freedom, a 1st amendment right, allows Colleges to choose their students without being second guessed by the courts.
[quote]
..., the Grutter decision also defended academic freedom as long as a university acts in good faith in establishing admissions criteria and achieving educationally beneficial racial diversity
[/quote]
</p>
<p>They ruled that providing each applicant a "Holistic" individual review was a an appropriate way to select a class and that race could be one of the factors. </p>
<p>(Regarding post #46. We don't know from this article how far down the LSAT curve the admissions committee considered students with other ethnic backgrounds. If they are acting in good faith there should be some with 155 LSAT's. But I guess that is the heart of the matter. Are they acting in good faith, or just doing what they want to get the results they prefer.)</p>
<p>OT: FYI Link to Cornell's Law School <a href="http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/%5B/url%5D">http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/</a></p>