It is interesting that the “privileged” kids who attend wealthy suburban schools are the ones that are harmed by this policy. When a white or asian kid ranked in the 11th percent of their class is shut out by UT and TAMU, they are largely forced to go the private school route if they want to be in a selective school with their peers. So much for privilege.
@zinhead Non-private schools that have benefitted from this law are OU, OSU, Alabama, Arkansas, LSU and Ole Miss. A lot of Texas students in those schools. Of course Texas Tech, Universities of Texas at Dallas and Arlington etc. are all picking up great students too.
A&M is still very achievable for an 11 percenter. Their policy allows top quarter kids to score a certain SAT/ACT score and be guaranteed admission.
Fair point. I would point out though that even if the Texas legislature was split in 97, being a Democrat in Texas from anywhere but Travis County and maybe Houston County is a different proposition from being a Democrat in California or the North East.
The point I am trying to get to is that the 10% rule is exactly the kind of thing conservatives talk about when they talk about AA.
Yes, @Ohiodad51 As usual, you are right, except you forgot Dallas County.
I’ll also point out that this law has not been repealed by subsequent Republican led and Tea Party heavy legislatures.
Hey, @gettingschooled mention that to my wife, will you?
In all seriousness, It is a very complex topic. One thing no one has brought up but Roberts touched on in oral argument and that is that Gruetter kind of telegraphed that the Court was not willing to let race conscious admissions go on for ever. I wonder if that inclines at least some of the Justices to write an expansive opinion here.
“@zinhead Non-private schools that have benefitted from this law are OU, OSU, Alabama, Arkansas, LSU and Ole Miss. A lot of Texas students in those schools. Of course Texas Tech, Universities of Texas at Dallas and Arlington etc. are all picking up great students too.”
CU Boulder (50% OOS enrollment) is another school that lives off of getting these kind of suburban kids from TX (CA too).
Do we know anything about the economic and racial composition of the students who don’t get into UT under the 7% rule? Are they richer than the 7% group? Whiter? Blacker? Are the in-staters black and the out-of-staters richer nonblack kids?
I don’t know that, but I did just run across this …
"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. …
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.
"It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.
“Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year.”
Here is an interesting CNN op-ed regarding mismatch theory: http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/13/opinions/mcwhorter-antonin-scalia-affirmative-action/
The CNN author is a Columbia professor that says “… anyone reading [Sander’s critics] with an open mind would see that they left Sander’s basic point standing tall and this applies to any other critique I have seen: there has been no ‘smackdown.’” He also points to other studies that show mismatch theory is real.
@“Cardinal Fang”, care to rebut?
Looks like the auto admits have lower test scores than the in-state holistic kids. The in-state kids in turn have lower scores than the OOS students.
Test Scores
Average SAT Score: 1901 (out of 2400)
Texas Students Automatically Admitted: 1874
Texas Students Not Automatically Admitted: 1939
Out-of-State Students: 2000
International Students: 1925
Average ACT Score: 29
Texas Students Automatically Admitted: 28
Texas Students Not Automatically Admitted: 29
Out-of-State Students: 30
International Students: 30
@gettingschooled You are absolutely correct that a ton of Texas students are coming to Ole Miss. I think there is an unwritten rule in Texas that if a bright student will choose Ole Miss over SMU or some other expensive school the parents will give him or her an expensive car and lots of spending money.
The Hope Scholarship in Georgia has made UGA extraordinarily selective (average ACT, 29). So Ole Miss is getting a lot of Georgia students, too.
Jon McWhorter has been discussed at depth in other threads. he is very conservative and a regular on fox news
The 4 year grad rate is 57.7% as of a Sept report and surely you saw the current goal is 70%. And that funds are being put into support and other areas.
As for this: “I think this is the problem that UT faces when they state they want to use race as a basis for choosing the students who do not get in as an auto admit.” You have to realize that, despite words like “discrimination” and “preference” being bandied about, the holistic phase does not solely “use race” as a basis.
My bold. “In August 2004, the Board of Regents formally approved UT-Austin’s proposal to alter its admissions policy to allow for the consideration of race as part of the holistic review process for applicants who were not automatically admitted under the Top 10% Law.” I.e., one element, along with, eg, rank, rigor, achievements, and more.
So what? Appearing on Fox News means we should ignore whatever the guy says? But articles in the Guardian and MSNBC (the two outlets which started this round of Scalia is a racist) are received wisdom, right? Isn’t that how this whole mismatch discussion started?
One of the truly amazing things that people of a more progressive bent have been able to do is insist that any “facts” come only from other liberals. I have never understood how people can believe it is persuasive to argue that data from the Center for American Progress or an article in Slate is gospel, but that everything said by National Review or put out by the Heritage Foundation is bunk.
Jon McWhorter was an editor at the new republic and was at the Manhattan Institute which is funded by the Koch brothers and big Tobacco
That is completely irrelevant. The relevant legal question is whether a protected classification is considered at all.
Is this some type of liberal dog-whistle which indicates that everything that McWhorter should be ignored, because discussing the merit of lack thereof is uncomfortable?
@ohiodad51 lots of people have called scalia a racist including Harry Reid, Pelosi and Butterfield and many others
Ohiodad, No not irrelevant. People here (again, I mean this thread) assume they can call out actions as discriminatory or preferential, without examining what those actions really are and encompass. People assume considering race, as well as other circumstances (and achievements,) means relying on race alone. Not defensible.
As for the “liberal dog whistle” phrase, what we ask is that bloggy opinions not be considered facts.
What a holy mess this is: Here’s a solution for the non-10%ers. UT establishes a floor of GPA, SAT scores, a certain number of AP classes with 5 scores on the AP test, a certain number of ECs. If your application is above that floor you get thrown into a lottery in which your application is drawn by a random mechanized process. Problem solved. No discrimination against anyone.