@bluebayou While that argument may be true, many kids are startled to find that rank only gets you in and does not get you into your major. That takes a combination of multiple factors including test scores. Kids who don’t know that end up as Undergraduate Studies majors and face an uphill battle getting into the more competitive majors.
@bclintonk and @Ohiodad51
https://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/admission_reports.html
Back when they op 10 percent rule was known as HB588, UT reported that data. Now that it is SB175, they don’t have to.
Back in 2010, holistic admits had higher scores than auto admits
That is still true:
https://admissions.utexas.edu/explore/freshman-profile
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, thanks for the data. Still struggling with how this data moves the needle in Fisher though.
Good find, gettingschooled. For 2014, you can see the largest SES category of non-7% are all clustered over $100k to 200k+ income, admitted and enrolled. And, parents with degrees.
You may also be able to get something out of this file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/EnrolledFreshmenProfile-2013%20(3).pdf
which shows scores 1800-2090 dwarf those below.
(You may need to get to 2013 enrolled via https://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/profiles.html )
@Ohiodad51 It doesn’t move the needle in Fisher. I was just answering a question about data. As I said early in the thread, this case does NOT hinge on mismatch theory. We got off track on mismatch because of a ten second detour by Scalia who read Sanders’ brief. Fisher only mentions mismatch in a footnote. She isn’t arguing mismatch. She is arguing that UT’s use of race doesn’t meet strict scrutiny. Remember, I think Scalia was just being Scalia.
UT can’t tell you which of the non auto admits got in because of race. A lot of these applicants would have gotten in regardless of race. The scores I linked to show that is likely the case.
Justice Powelll wrote about a Harvard plan where race was a tie breaker- not a holistic system where race was a factor for every applicant. UT can’t answer whether its use of race moves the needle in critical mass. I think that is going to be its fatal flaw. Ironically, if they could, I think we might accuse them of using quotas.
Yesterday (while I was at work- how do you guys have time to post all day?) someone asked whether all schools might have to have a 10 percent law. Sotomayer asked that in oral arguments too. Fisher’s attorney answered that there are a lot of race neutral ways to increase diversity besides such a law including placing LESS emphasis on test scores.
I think UT has lost this case. I think the opinion will be narrow. Next up is Harvard. A 10 percent plan doesn’t work on a national basis and Kagan doesn’t have to recuse. That will be very interesting.
Could be, but I’d like to know where the athletes fall in the two pools. At least last year, the New York Times ran a piece reporting on universities recruiting 9th graders–and the University of Texas features prominently: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/sports/committing-to-play-for-a-college-then-starting-9th-grade.html?_r=0.
They’re not considering SAT scores in the summer before 9th grade, but they are offering full scholarships. Hmm.
It’s better not to guess, right? Because I’ll guess that someone who’s committed to play for a university in 9th grade will only worry if her SAT score doesn’t match whatever minimum’s needed for recruited athletes.
Keep in mind, that even at only 4%, that’s still close to 2,000 Black/AA students. I’m sure they have around 300 (males and females) on scholarship.
However, male (of all races) graduation rates are lower than women. Using 2013 data, Black Female graduation rates were 76.4% (close to the 79.4% overall average in 2013), while Black Male graduation rates were at 55%. You can find a similar gap at other schools (at UF, it’s 80.6% vs 70.9%, at Howard, it’s 62.6% vs. 53.1%). Even considering that the gap is normal, it’s fairly wide at UT-Austin. In fact, instead of saying we have an issue with Black/AA graduation rates at UT-Austin, the real issue is with the male black/AA graduation rate.
http://www.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/search1ba.aspx?institutionid=228723,131520,134130,160904,228778
Looking at the admissions data, UT is doing an admirable job admitting students from families of all income brackets. But the “diversity” introduced with “holistic” admissions is the diversity of parental graduate degree–is the parent’s degree an M.D., a Ph.D, a J.D. or merely a masters? Fully 58% of the “holistic” admits have parents with graduate degrees. The holistic admits are on average a whole lot richer than the automatic admits too. This does not look much like affirmative action for black people; it looks like affirmative action for children of rich, well-educated parents of all colors.
With 153 Blacks admitted via holistic and 1873 Whites, not sure we know what the wealth distribution is. But agree it makes one wonder. And wonder where the steam is, in critical mass.
Then that begs the question:
If they wd have gotten admitted regardless of race, then why does UT need to give racial preferences?
Table 5 of the 2013 report at https://www.utexas.edu/student/admissions/research/EnrolledFreshmenProfile-2013.pdf indicates (for regular admits) that the median known parent income of auto-admits is in the range of $80,000 to $99,999, while that of other admits is in the range of $150,000 to $199,999. Overall, the median known parent income is in the range of $100,000 to $149,999.
The top N% (8% in 2013) does contribute more to SES diversity than the holistic portion of the admission class. The Pell grant eligible students are probably 30-39% of auto-admits, 10-14% of non-auto-admits, and 23-30% overall. However, even the auto-admit part of the class skews toward higher income than the overall Texas population.
From table 6, parental educational achievement was:
Bachelor’s degree or higher: 65% of auto-admits, 85% of non-auto-admits, 71% overall
Graduate or professional degree: 34% of auto-admits, 53% of non-auto-admits, 40% overall
Not a big surprise that having high education parents correlates to going to college, whether you see it as nature or nurture or both. All of these numbers are far higher than the overall educational attainment rates in Texas or the US.
Agreed. It is hard to believe UT’s argument that there are insufficient high SES URM auto-admits, when the auto-admit pool already skews toward significantly parental higher income and educational attainment than the Texas population.
Clearly, it’s not racial “preference.” We cant say they prefer 153 Blacks over the number of Whites (and not without knowing numbers of applicants.) It looks like the preference could be ability to pay.
I was looking at the admitted students rather than the enrolled freshmen. The distribution is a bit different. Table 6 of the admitted students has what I said:
Graduate or professional degree: 34% of auto-admits, 56% of non-auto-admits, 41% overall
Of course, it’s racial preference-- that’s the ENTIRE point of this SCOTUS case: that UT claims it needs to continue racial preferences in the holistic round to admit more blacks.
U think UT is putting up such a big fight bcs it’s about the $100 application fee Abigail Fisher wants refunded?
Which holistic admitted students enrolled in UT?
Black students, 49% of holistic admittees enrolled
Asian students, 38%
Hispanic, 45%
White, 43%
Multiracial, 43%
Foreign, 35%
Rest, 31%
But blacks are less likely to be high SES. The high SES auto-admits are not likely to be URMs.
@“Cardinal Fang”
455 are u saying these percentages are yield?
Or are these the percentages of holistic admits v percentage admits?
Yes, yield for holistic admits. Computed by me so there might be errors.
@gmtplus7 you ask why does UT need to give racial preferences.
Racial diversity provides a good learning environment for all involved. Diversity was an important factor in my kids choice of college.Some people choose to make fun of a multi cultural environment while others such as myself and my kids look at as an opportunity to become more worldly