@tiger1307, Daubert deals with the qualification of expert witnesses to testify. It does not apply to research papers cited in briefs. The relative strengths and weaknesses of the arguments in briefs are for each individual Justice to decide.
As far as standing, there is a case that holds standing exists if a person goes through a race conscious admissions process. That case dealt with injunctive relief, and UT sought to distinguish this case on that basis. Frankly, I don’t get the importance of the distinction. More importantly, if the Court seriously thought standing was an issue, they would have thrown the case out the first time around.
@ohiodad51 you cant just put anything in a written brief. Look at rule 11(b)(2). That would make daubert applicable to pleadings
@gmtplus7 standing was not decided the first time around. I just reread Fisher 1 and didnt see it mentioned. Maybe you can point out to us where it was addressed in Fisher 1 and give us the legal cite
It doesn’t seem to have much to do with the conclusion you want to draw. Instead, it talks about how students’ success depends on their parents income.
It also stresses that dropping out has a substantial psychological component divorced from either ability or preparation. Students from low income families or with lower SAT/ACT scores or in racial minorities sometimes fail at college because they interpret minor setbacks as indications they don’t belong at college, whereas white students from higher SES families feel that they are entitled to belong at college and don’t overinterpret small setbacks. Most of the interventions in the article are about making these outsider students feel like they belong and can succeed. Tiny interventions are found to make big differences.
And if you are believing the article you quoted, then may I assume you believe this part too?
“It may seem counterintuitive, but the more selective the college you choose, the higher your likelihood of graduating.” Sorry, don’t have the full article, but are they really saying that the same student is more likely to graduate if they choose a more selective school rather than a less selective one? Or is it the case that higher achieving students as a group are more likely to graduate, and they are found in greater numbers at more selective colleges and therefore graduation rates are higher at more selective colleges?
I’m a little puzzled by all the furor over the mismatch idea. I haven’t read these papers, but I don’t see anything different than, say, a high school requiring students to have an A in the freshman course in order to enroll in an AP class, or a certain score on a placement test to be put in honors or accelerated courses throughout their schooling. Presumably the reason for this is that students with weaker backgrounds struggle too much in the higher level classes. If this weren’t the case, then we should just enroll all students in honors/AP classes.
Students with weaker backgrounds can be successful, but this is less likely to occur when the gap in preparation/achievement is large. Aren’t they simply saying that some of the students admitted are so underprepared they aren’t likely to catch up and no one is doing them a favor by placing them in a situation where they are unlikely to be successful? It’s not a matter of racism, since this concern applies as well to anyone who is given a very large admissions boost, the main other group being recruited athletes.
The article doesn’t address if the low income students who attend these selective universities are graduating with the degrees which they had initially wanted or if the students had to take an easier degree to graduate.
mathyone, they are saying the former-- that students like Vanessa in the article have a higher graduation rate at more selective schools. Obviously the graduation rate at more selective schools is higher, but the article is making the further claim that Vanessa is better off going to the more selective school.
I’m on my iPad right now and it’s too much of a nuisance to pull up the research, but IIRC the claim is based on research by Hoxby.
@tiger1307, I am familiar with rule 11. Not to sound like a jerk, but it is not at issue here.
@cardinalfang, do you know if the research you are discussing talks about kids whose stats are below say the 25/75 line or just saying that low SES kids who go to more rigorous schools tend to do better? It seems to me to be two different questions.
I am not up at all on the research, but it wouldn’t shock me to see that kids who maybe have stats within the 25/75 grouping at TAMU, but whose stats are below that line at UT, would have a statistically greater chance of graduating at TAMU. Isn’t that what the mismatch theory is at its most basic?
I read the Dale & Krueger article. I am concerned that it is basing its results off a skewed data set. In particular, they analyzed data from:
Public universities seem to be significantly under-represented in this study. This matters because the majority of college students attend public universities, not private universities, LACs, or HBCUs. And public universities tend to be sink or swim, whereas private colleges and universities put much more emphasis on graduating all their students. Witness the 84% graduation rates for whites at UT, but 70% for blacks.
So the more complete answer could very well be–blacks should get into the most selective private university or LAC that they can, and should avoid the most selective public universities.
@bluebayou Fisher’s attorneys accuse UT of flip-flopping and UT accuses them of misinterpreting. UT has at one time or another referred to the need for high SES URM but now says it is not seeking them but URMs with a wide variety of backgrounds. Whether the article you quote misrepresents or not is a subject of debate. Posters were saying the "diversity within diversity"and “seeking higher SES URMs” as if it were fact and it may be, but UT is now disputing that.
What they are saying has opened them up to charges of stereotyping the top 10 percent URMs which is what Thomas has claimed in previous briefs. Automatically assuming they are unqualified is unfair to those who ARE qualified and lessens their achievements. A problem with affirmative action- when you are qualified many people assume you aren’t because you are a URM.
getting schooled, perhaps UT is walking back their arguments (due to their obvious un-persuasiveness…), but according to the WaPo, the quotes were in one of UT’s briefs in Fisher 1 (bold mine):
I guess its a question for our cc legal scholars on whether UT can claim in Fisher II what they said in Fisher I no longer applies, but their initial legal arguments are still in the record. Regardless, Fisher’s attorneys are not the only ones “mis-interpreting”.
Also, here’s a cut and paste of the ‘most recommended’ comment:
Bravo, Frank. I am a tenured prof in the social sciences at a large public university, and I have three observations.
First, with the Administration’s blessing, every racial, ethnic, and gender group (except whites and males) on my campus has its own official club, drawing financial support from fees assessed to all students. This confirms your references to “self segregation” and “homogenous islands.”
Second, it is not just politically conservative professors whose views the rigid academic left can not tolerate. I am a liberal, on the moderate political left, and have learned the hard way that I dare not even raise questions about race or gender policy with fellow faculty. On my campus, if you don’t agree that we must do all we can, openly or secretly, “by any means necessary,” to advance the causes of everyone but white males, you had better keep it to yourself. Accordingly, I must go off campus to one of the local debating societies to have a discussion of race policy. “Celebrate diversity” is a sham.
Finally, as a liberal, I often disagree with Justice Scalia. Yet folks ought to read what he said at oral argument in Fisher before opining on it. He was quoting from a brief in the case, and the question he raised would apply to anyone, of any race, admitted to a university for which he is not prepared.
If diversity were not a sham, we would welcome rather than condemn views that challenge our own.
“Critical mass” basically holds that the number of like individuals present, (here, minorities, in a very diverse state,) is a legit consideration for members of those groups. Garre described it in Fisher 1 (altho not to my satisfaction.) In an ideal world, maybe it wouldn’t be necessary, each would be empowered as- and accepted as- an individual. But we are still a very race conscious society. We do label people and make broad statements, even as shown in this thread.
We do still have plenty who automatically assume a person isn’t qualified, “because you are a URM.” (And, we’ve seen this statement before on CC threads, even for MIT.) Personally, I fault those individuals who stereotype, who assume, not a system that seeks diversity among qualified applicants.
Nothing says minorities, as a group, are bound for failure at a competitive college. This is much more than who snags what college GPA or who discovers another major, once there and engaged, exposed to other academic paths. It’s about the process, the growth and the empowerment that can and should come with an education. And, at a state U, which should try to offer a representative environment for its people. To my thinking, yes, even at the flagship.
UT is not some special prize that should only go to tippy top kids who see themselves as exclusively worthy. It’s not a STEM-only summer program or a Julliard that can and should expect only performance and production at some pre-determined level.
Nor is it accepting “unqualified” kids simply because they are “Black.”
Based on some of the responses in this older thread, “critical mass” of their own race/ethnicity is a consideration for a significant number of students (including, perhaps especially, white students):
Flagship publics don’t want to be sink or swim. The New York Times magazine article linked above, [Who Gets To Graduate?](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-graduate.html), talks about this very subject at the University of Texas. The article is about programs to help the students who are more at risk for not graduating, kids with two of the “adversity indicators”: low SAT/ACT scores, low family income, low parental education. The article doesn’t say it, but probably race is a proxy for those indicators: that is, black and Latino students are more likely than white students to have at least two of those indicators, but white students with at least two of them are also at risk for failure.
The article talks about UT programs aimed at helping these at-risk students, and it turns out that a good part of their effective help has nothing to do with academic remediation, but is aimed at creating an attitude in the students that they belong at UT, and can and will succeed.
It would be interesting to know the graduation rates for races at UT for different races/ethnic groups, stratified by income level and parental education. How much of the black/white difference can be attributed to factors other than race? BTW, the four year graduation rate at UT is a surprisingly small 52%, according to the article.
i think this is a good example of why it is not a good idea to read to much into oral argument. I assume several of these arguments pro and con on the critical mass theory were made in the briefs. Maybe it is safe to surmise that some of the Justices are skeptical of the underpinnings of the theory, and maybe UT’s counsel could have handled the questioning more adroitly at oral argument. But do not lose sight of the fact that the majority of the information the Justices will use to craft their opinions is gleaned from the briefing, not the questioning on oral argument. At least that is what I tell my self every time I get a “hot” panel ( lots of questions) like both sides faced here.
And @bluebayou it is not uncommon for arguments to “evolve” as a case makes its way up and down the system. In fact, the real reason the case went back down in the first instance is likely because the Court wanted the parties to have time to refine their arguments in light of the holding in Fisher I. It is very unlikely in any case that any of the arguments presented were presented in as black and white of a form as we see here, and “arguing in the alternative” is a common practice.
Some of both. The Hoxby research talks about low SES kids who are well above 25th percentile. But a lot of research, including Dale & Krueger, talks about stats. I recommend you read the [Empirical Scholar’s brief](http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/LCCR-and-Mintz-Fisher-Amicus-Empirical-Scholars.pdf) for a long discussion of the research about whether being at a more rigorous school is better for students.