Not unless they score in the top 7 percent.
California’s UCs specify a GPA and test score based threshold to approximate the top 9% statewide, and “eligibility in local context” if one has a GPA within the top 9% recent historical GPAs at one’s high school (all GPAs recalculated). Students meeting either of these thresholds are supposed to be admitted to a UC (not necessarily the student’s choice), which typically means that such a student who applies to several UCs and does not get into any of them will likely see an acceptance from UC Merced.
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/admissions-index/
http://admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/freshman/california-residents/local-path/index.html
California’s CSUs have a GPA and test score based threshold to approximate the top 33% statewide. Students meeting that threshold will be admitted to non-impacted majors at non-impacted CSU campuses. However, most campuses have some level of impaction these days, and some majors are impacted at all CSU campuses that offer them, or are offered only at impacted campuses.
https://secure.csumentor.edu/planning/high_school/cal_residents.asp
https://secure.csumentor.edu/planning/high_school/impacted_supplementary.asp
TatinG, I’ll use my ds1 as an example. Hispanic male at a competitive public magnet HS who was just out of the top quarter of his class. Eagle Scout, AP Scholar with Distinction, four-year varsity athlete with an SAT hundreds of points above the UT avg. He is the kind of kid UT wants to accept … And did. But he could only have been taken out of the holistic review because he wasn’t in the top 8%. There are lots of solid upper-, middle- and lower-class minorities in the same boat.
They absolutely can do the work and don’t need to be at a “lesser” school. As it is, my ds1 decided to forgo UT and graduated with Latin honors from a top 10 LAC. Never looked back. Ds2, with higher test scores than his brother, didn’t even apply to UT. But I think diversity at all schools is a good thing and hope UT is allowed to help create the quarter of the class it wants.
One thing that needs to be clarified is that race is not just a factor for that 25 percent. Every student, even the top 8 percent (this year) is given an academic index score and a personal achievement index score. Race is a factor in the PAI. The combination of AI and PAI is used for admission to the university for 25 percent but it is used for admission to major for everyone. A weak PAI can keep you out of your major. And there are many barriers to transferring into competitive majors.
People don’t get the top 8% thing. I wasn’t even going to get into fit to major and getting into the major those 8% want.
@Youdon’tsay wrote
One of the amicus briefs pointed out the % hispanic students at UT is greater than the % of asian students. So why does UT need to increase the % hispanic students but not the % asian students if UT is arguing that it’s about a critical mass for diversity and ensuring that a demographic doesn’t feel isolated? Do 19% hispanic students feel isolated, but somehow 18% asian students do not?
Or is it really about proportional representation (quotas) for social justice or to pander to a powerful voting block?
@2VU0609 In response to your comment about the physics class, you should be aware that one of the U of Texas arguments is that some majors do indeed have enough diversity but others do not. So their argument is not just one of the campus being “diverse,” but also that AA be practiced so that the physics classes are diverse.
This thing is all going to be up to Justice Kennedy. He hates affirmative action, but also hates the thought of voting to end it permanently. Other people have noted that the SC sent this case back to the 5th Circuit and asked the school to explain in more detail exactly why they needed to discriminate by race. The school essentially refused to do so, and it is going to make it hard for Kennedy to side with them again.
On a personal level, I would not want my children to attend a university where their test scores were below the 75th percentile. In other words, I want my children to be well above average at whatever school they attend. Many blacks are being encouraged to attend colleges where they will be well below average. In my opinion this does them no favors, and is what is behind Scalia’s remarks (as for legacy boosts, they tend to be quite small in relation to racial boosts, say 50 SAT points vs. 300-400 SAT points).
Someone in a post above mentioned Asians, and they are truly the elephants in the room. At many schools whites are just as underrepresented in terms of their share of the general population as blacks and Hispanics. If these two groups are to be given anything approaching a “guaranteed share,” then Asian enrollment will have to be slashed by 20-70 percent in order for whites also to be fairly represented. The idea that every ethnic group share should be somewhat equal to that group’s share of the general population can only work if every ethnic group is given a defacto quota. I don’t see this as being beneficial to society, and it certainly is not in line with previous court rulings.
Not everyone wants to be the big fish, some are encouraged and empowered, even driven, by the opportunity to stretch and grow. People get the opportunity to lift themselves- not by gift, but by these experiences. In turn they lift others. I don’t fear that.
Some here aren’t bothered by the sheer categorization of Blacks, don’t see the stereotyping or profiling? Suggesting that, as a whole, they “can’t” succeed? After all, they can’t possibly be “as good as…?” You can’t imagine UT selecting based on qualitative? You really believe it’s stats or nothing?
What’s happening?
Seems similar to what Gladwell advocates.
It also is not a popular concept in general, since it essentially means attending a safety or low match, rather than a reach or match. Attending the reach is more popular than attending the safety, as shown by yield rates that are highest for the lowest-stat admits and lowest for the highest-stat admits.
Methinks it is really up to Roberts (and his legacy-building). I don’t think he wants a monumental decision with a 5-3 vote…
my guess, is another remand with a few harsh words for the 5th (in the form of directions). I can’t believe that the Supremes aren’t more than a little miffed that the 5th essentially ignored their earlier remand. Just my speculation.
There is another thread for that in the College Admissions forum where AA can be debated. This thread is to debate the merits of this particular case and UT’s use of AA.
No one is arguing in Fisher v UT that it is “stats or nothing” and no one is arguing for proportional representation. Holistic admissions are not at risk anywhere except Texas and that is because of the way the legislature wrote the law. Proportional representation is not allowed. That has been decided in previous cases.
So what are Kennedy’s options assuming he does not want to completely kill off AA? Apart from sending the case back down to the lower court? Can he influence the written opinion or write it himself to narrowly interpret AA for just this UT case? Is that his get out of jail free card?
Some data to put some of this discussion into context:
Based on the (estimated) 2014 Census for Texas:
Blacks/AA = 12.5%
Hispanic/Latino = 38.6%
White = 43.5%
Asian = 4.5%
Fall 2014 at UT-Austin
Blacks/AA = 4%
Hispanic/Latino = 22%
White = 46%
Asian = 19%
(Two or more races = 3%)
Even with the 10% (7%) rule, and considering race during the holistic review, UT-Austin is struggling to get Black/AA students to apply and enroll. A ruling the in Fisher case, one way or the other, will not have much impact on this issue (most URMs are coming in via the 10% rule, not the holistic admissions).
A lot of attention is being paid to this case, due to it’s possible impact on Affirmative action, but UT-Austin’s recruitment issues with Blacks/AA is much more complex.
UT-Austin’s Graduation rates:
Overall: 84%
White: 84%
Asian: 84%
Hispanic: 72%
Black/AA: 69%
UT-Austin is struggling with graduation rates (compared to it’s peers), likely due to the 10% rule. That’s one reason they want to recruit higher performing URM’s through the holistic method, as an effort to improve overall URM performance. In fact, this “gap” is even worse at other UT campuses. For example, UT-Dallas has a 71% overall graduation rate, but a 50% Black/AA grad rate.
Edit: http://nces.ed.gov/collegenavigator/?s=TX&ct=1&ic=1&pg=2&id=228778#enrolmt
Let’s assume that the first part of your quote represents a compelling interest. That taking disadvantaged and perhaps less well prepared students and providing them an opportunity they may not otherwise get is overall a good thing. Leads to greater economic mobility, breaks the cycle of poverty, etc. I personally benefited from something very similar, although the “hook” was athletics, not race. So I understand the point. The issue though is why is it necessary to favor individuals of one race over another in that context?
I think the legal point is that the Court has consistently said that achieving diversity is a compelling educational (state) interest, which satisfies half of the test under a strict scrutiny analysis. The other half of the test is that the means chosen to attain the end (diversity) are “narrowly tailored”. The issue here is that UT has failed to articulate why the 10% rule does not provide for “sufficient” diversity. In other words, why is it necessary to consider race in the 25% (or whatever) of the class which is not admitted via the 10% rule? Now you can say that some of the Justices (Scalia) are baiting UT to say that they don’t enroll sufficient blacks and latinos by the 10% rule, at which point the argument becomes that the current policy is nothing more than a quota system, which has already been struck down. That’s the box. UT has to prove that race is a factor which needs to be considered in this program in some manner as to not make the program look like a quota system. Obviously, they are struggling with that.
Remember that the Supreme Court operates by majority vote. So let’s assume that there are 2 justices who are looking for an opportunity to end affirmative action across the board (Thomas and Scalia) and two more who are maybe uncomfortable with the stark use of race by UT, but want to leave the door open that affirmative action is still an important option under certain circumstances (Alito and Roberts). Assuming these four can agree on something, then they need Kennedy’s vote to make a “true” majority. In that context, it becomes how far will Scalia and Thomas move from a straight repudiation of the use of race as a factor in admissions to satisfy Kennedy before one of them goes off and writes a separate opinion. The same applies on the other side. Can Breyer and Sotomayor craft an argument that will both satisfy Kennedy’s obvious problems with the manner in which UT operated and still keep Ginsburg (who was the lone dissenting voice in Fisher I, and a strong proponent of race based affirmative action) on the reservation? If she does bolt from the “liberal coalition”, then all of a sudden the case comes down 4-3-1 and the conservative wing can do what it wants even without Kennedy.
As far as who writes the opinion, the Chief Justice if he is in the majority, if not the senior Justice who is decides who writes. Any Justice can always write separately, but really I do not know why Kennedy would do that here, since his best chance to shape the law is (presumably) to try and win concessions for his view from the other four in the majority.
I agree with everything you said, but stop appropriating Native American’s safe spaces.
Thanks for the explanation @Ohiodad51 That is what I was getting at, specifically the motivation for Kennedy to shape the opinion and majority ruling should he throw his weight to the conservatives. As for Ginsburg, I can’t see how she abandons the left unless its a hopeless cause with Kennedy going to the right. In any case, my original question remains, namely can Kennedy influence the majority with his vote to write a more narrow opinion specific only to UT? I suppose the risk here is that the conservative justices know that Kagan will be back on the other AA cases coming down the road, so they are motivated in this one to try and push the envelope… It is certainly not looking too good for the future of AA…
I just want to point out that in a way, Fisher’s lawyers are in fact arguing for at least a program of “stats or nothing”. They are directly saying that the facially race neutral auto admit rule generates sufficient diversity such that for the remainder of the class not admitted under that program there is no compelling interest to look at race as part of the “holistic review”.
Now, assuming that the Court were to agree with that position, there is an open question of how that decision would apply to other schools. Certainly in non highly competitive schools (UT admits 44% of applicants over all) with lower yield, you would see challenges saying that you can’t use race in admissions decisions because a program like the one in place in Texas is the most “narrowly tailored” way to achieve diversity. But in the schools everyone obsesses about here, where the admit rates are ridiculously low and the yield rates equally high, it is not likely that you could set meaningful auto admit criteria for even a portion of the class, and holistic review (with or without race as a factor) may be the most “narrowly tailored” means available.
@Regulus7 Yes, Kennedy can influence the majority either way. Not only in what he will agree to sign off on, but by writing a separate, concurring opinion. Assuming Roberts is in the majority, he may assign the opinion to Kennedy as the surest way to keep him “on the reservation”. In a tell all book written by a clerk on the Warren court several years ago, that was apparently a favorite tactic of Chief Justice Warren. The risk there is that you lose Scalia and Thomas if the opinion isn’t broad enough. I am going to guess though that if the Court wants to make a big statement about race based admissions, Thomas will write it. This has been his issue for decades.
As far as Ginsburg, I am not a professional Court watcher, but I have always thought of her as kind of the left’s Scalia on the current Court (they are supposedly buddies, btw). She is at times shrill, but often writes eloquently and persuasively. She seems more of an ideologue than a consensus builder. She is the intellectual liberal with a capital l. It may be more important to her intellectually to state her position clearly for posterity than to join (for her) yet another compromise opinion. Don’t know. People much smarter than me make a lot of money trying to predict which way the wind is blowing on the Court and are wrong about as often as they are right.
“No one is arguing in Fisher v UT that it is “stats or nothing” and no one is arguing for proportional representation.”
My comment was about opinions seeping through on this thread.
Eg, the assumption that the qualitative phase focuses on “disadvantaged and perhaps less well prepared students” and forgetting UTs arguments about the need for critical mass to provide a conducive environment. Neither side presents a crystal clear position or argument and it behooves us to carefully check our own assumptions. As ever.