<p>I think it is safe to say, there is no one method.<br>
Can we start there?</p>
<p>Again, some are mixing giving a kid his score and allowing some public oversight. And, when it gets emotional (they’re operating without accountability, there was a scandal in IL, someone I know didn’t get in, etc, etc,) the thinking gets mixed up.</p>
<p>Sally,</p>
<p>The fact that Fisher made it all the way to the US Supreme Ct is evidence that her allegations have merit. The idea that you value the status quo of bureaucracy over a quest for lawful system of admissions is a bit depressing.</p>
<p>Fisher’s lawyers appealed the case. There is some history of activism with this court. And I DON’T value bureaucracy over lawful admissions. You are the one calling for more bureaucratic involvement, not me. If you want oversight or assurance that the process is fair, call for an independent audit. No one has demonstrated that there is widespread unlawful activity going on. And even Fisher’s case, which is supposed to suggest that there is at least some, is incredibly weak.</p>
<p>Actually, Bay, aiui, that the case has interest to the court. They will decide on the merit.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fisher isn’t alleging that the system is corrupt or lacks transparency. She is complaining that the published, admitted standards allows the state university to take race into account as a favorable factor in some admissions decisions, and claiming that is legally discriminatory. She is NOT saying that the UT is secretly considering race without disclosing it – she is suing over a published criteria and saying that it is improper. </p>
<p>UT has a hybrid admission system that allows many students to be automatically admitted based on their class rank. Fisher’s grades were not good enough to put her in the top 10% of her class, meaning that her stats simply weren’t good enough to allow her admission under the standards that applied to 92% of the admitted class. So her gripe is that she knows that she even if she had been admitted, she would have been in the bottom 8% of the class, but she thinks that maybe some black or hispanic students with a similar below-threshold class rank got in because of their race. </p>
<p>If UT has been required to state a reason for its rejection, then I am sure that it would have looked like something like this: “Your grades, class rank, and SAT scores weren’t good enough.” Perhaps they might have added information about the average scores of accepted students. But I think you can be pretty sure they wouldn’t have added, “And besides, you’re white” to the statement of reasons. </p>
<p>The year that Fisher applied, the University offered provisional admission to 5 black & hispanic students with lower grades and test scores, and to 42 white students in that category. They also rejected 168 black and hispanic students who had equivalent or better scores than Fisher. So it’s a huge stretch to think that Fisher’s factual claims that her race played a role have any merit. </p>
<p>The US Supreme Court took the case to weigh the very transparent and publicly disclosed policy. See [A</a> Colorblind Constitution: What Abigail Fisher?s Affirmative Action Case Is Really About - ProPublica](<a href=“http://www.propublica.org/article/a-colorblind-constitution-what-abigail-fishers-affirmative-action-case-is-r]A”>What Abigail Fisher’s Affirmative Action Case Was Really About — ProPublica)</p>
<p>If the US Supreme Court were interested in accountability on an individual basis, they would never have taken this case. Because it’s easy to see that there were many very good reasons to reject Fisher that weren’t based on race. They took the case because they are interested in the group standards that are applied, not in individual cases.</p>
<p>*Because it is a selection rather than a rejection process, it is going to be much easier to state the “reasons” why some applicants are accepted rather than why some are rejected. For the students who are in the gray area (not automatically accepted, not automatically rejected) – then the “reason” for rejection might be nothing at all. That’s because rather than looking for affirmative reasons to reject, they are looking for affirmative reasons to accept. *</p>
<p>This makes sense and mirrors our experience.
Both kids were accepted to all the schools they applied to, even though their numbers were in the middle or even lowish for some. ( low numbers- can also be attributed to learning differences)
They were first gen college, which still seems to be a tip.
Students whose parents have degrees and who may have professional careers, may have a higher bar for admissions.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know there are some who would disagree with this. There were some allegations by credible sources that the expansion of holistic admissions by the UCs was in direct response to, and an attempt to circumvent the provisions of Prop 209. So I would not be comfortable making that statement.</p>
<p>In any event, this is an issue upon which we do not need to agree. I (obviously) favor maximum disclosure by public universities in the admissions process. I still have not been convinced that there is any significant righteous reason not to lean in that direction. This is generally my position about all government operations, and it is not because I do not understand how open government impacts public employees; I have been one at both the federal and local levels. Accountability in government is good; secrecy is bad. Even if it requires taking an extra step to send out the scores.</p>
<p>I will add that I have no personal stake, other than as a taxpayer, in this issue. None of my kids were interested in attending college in our home state, either public or private. One had Cal on the list, and she was admitted, but it was not her first choice and she did not attend.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But how will anyone know that the group standards are actually being applied consistently if the data is kept secret.</p>
<p>Transparency International has a page devoted to corruption in education. While the focus of the education page is on corruption in Third World Countries, it’s depressing how some of the issues they raise apply to Illinois.
<a href=“http://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/education[/url]”>http://www.transparency.org/topic/detail/education</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or it could said that Fisher was accepted as a case because a group of four conservative justices did not mind revisiting the issues of Grutter, instead of patiently waiting for the 25 years suggested by SOC. Or that this might very well be the last chance for 4 conservatives judges to shatter the AA armor, as the SCOTUS court will be veering even more to the left in the next years. </p>
<p>A shame that such a weak case with a pathetic pawn might get that part of the agenda accomplished. Although the odds of a “victory” for Blum and his ilk are pretty slim.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think that is where I also have a problem. If decisions are made in an arbitrary manner than it is not equitable. When you talk about “holistic” decision making you are talking about something that is pretty arbitrary and I’m not convinced that is appropriate for a public educational institute. For example, if the Texas system is arbitrary after the 92% of the class in chosen in a non arbitrary manner than that would make me question exactly how that last 8% is being accepted and what criteria is being measured and is that criteria fairly equitably. While I’ find the10% rule intriguing and it can potentially lead to manipulation by individuals and families…it IS a transparent and equitable method of allocating seats and if you are not in the top 10% then you know the outcome and if you want to rearrange your life to guarantee that outcome that is an individual decision. The problem is that if it doesn’t allocate ALL the seats you have a nebulous area of admissions. At that point they ought to fill the class based on GPA and test scores and nothing else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is exactly my conclusion, xiggi.</p>
<p>It would be amusing to see how this would pan out. I foresee:</p>
<p>Kid writes one essay, gets 2 teacher recs, test scores, EC info and transcript and submits to 7 schools via Common App or whatever - same stuff goes to all schools.</p>
<p>Kid is accepted to 2 and rejected from 5 and gets these new “rejection reason” letters with essays and recs and rigor and interview and “quality of ecs” all scored totally differently by each school because a person read that essay-rec-whatever and made a subjective judgement, as people do.</p>
<p>All you’d learn is that it was your bad luck that UMich’s’s essay reader hates stories about grandmothers but MSU’s absolutely loves them. Or The adcom who evaluated your ECs loves Lacrosse but hates oboes and the orchestra has too many this year anyway.</p>
<p>I’m not seeing the value.</p>
<p>Do they really shoehorn all the football, basketball, baseball, tiddlywinks, and etc. acceptances into that last 8%? How is Ms. Fisher ever going to compete against them (unless she gains 200 pounds, or they put her on the rack)?</p>
<p>"Dear Ms. Fisher -</p>
<p>Your grades weren’t good enough to get you into the top 10% of your high school class, and your SAT scores were mediocre.</p>
<p>So we put you in the “holistical pile”. But as an athlete, you suck, and you’re far too skinny. Didn’t your parents ever feed you?</p>
<p>So we had to chop you. (P.S. your holistic score was 0.673951.) Good luck at Podunk.</p>
<p>Sincerely,"</p>
<p>lol mini…</p>
<p>In Grutter, 25 years was an aspiration and not an explicit deadline.</p>
<p>If your kid can ride a bike at age 4, are you going to make him keep the training wheels on till age 7?</p>
<p>@OHmom, supposedly more than one person assesses the applicant to reduce the opportunity for capriciousness</p>
<p>But if the holistic process is so COMPLETELY capricious and arbitrary as u say, then a fairer and more transparent way to dole out a considerably valuable and costly public benefit would be to hold a public lottery drawing.</p>
<p>GMT: let’s say University A has 5 new openings for administration mid level mgrs. 1000 online resumes come in. The jobs are “valuable” and are a “public benefit”. </p>
<p>Should the HR dept of the college be bound by your same requirement for Transparency and inform the 995 rejected applicants why they were left out and what their “scores” were?</p>
<p>momofthreeboys:</p>
<p>I am an out of state student at Michigan. I grew up in Minnesota and was also accepted, with in-state tuition, to both the University of Minnesota and the University of Wisconsin-Madison (Minnesota and Wisconsin residents can attend college in either state with in state tuition). I wanted to study business in college and Michigan’s Ross school, which I was accepted to after my freshman year, is a far better business program with significantly better recruiting than the business schools at Minnesota or Wisconsin. My parents had the means to send me to Michigan, and with that reasoning they were happy to let me go. I have zero intention of staying in Michigan after I graduate.</p>
<p>Am I supposed to feel bad for making some kid from Michigan go to State because I got in? I worked hard enough in high school to get accepted to Michigan. Just because my home state doesn’t house a world class public institution doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be afforded the opportunity to attend one when I’m academically qualified to do so. I don’t care that Johnny from Novi goes to State now. This is a competitive world and the school is not just limited to in-state kids. U of M isn’t even the state’s land grant college, that would be MSU.</p>
<p>I guess I just don’t understand the negative sentiment towards the increasing number of out of state kids that go to Michigan. To say that we could have stayed in state, gone to our public school, and left college with similar career opportunities is completely naive and ridiculous. I get that a ton of in state kids dream of going to Michigan and can actually afford it as opposed to a lot of privates, but honestly tough luck. There’s still State. And California has the other UC’s and CSU’s. And Virginia has the three other solid virginia publics. And North Carolina has NC State. And Texas has A&M. There are other options. There’s no Minnesota or Wisconsin State (well there is a Minnesota State but it barely qualifies as higher education). A lot of students need to look out of state and there needs to be spots for them too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And so each student’s score is averaged between the 2-3 readers, or whatever. I still predict different schools winding up with different scores for the same student.</p>
<p>That’s not even getting into recruited (or rather, NOT recruited) students for athletic or musical or other non-academic ability. I can imagine what those rejection letters could say… “well you knew you didn’t have the GPA and scores to get in on academic merits but the truth is if you’d been a great outfielder instead of a good pitcher we still would have taken you…we had too many good pitchers this year”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My D, a HS student, applied to a math program for this summer. The app involved problem sets that took several hours to complete and asked her to write down all of her thinking in solving them. The accept/reject email explained that they had too many applicants this year so they used a LOTTERY system to choose amongst the applications. Let me tell you she was angry…she spent a long time on those problems and came out feeling like she might as well have just sent in some half-assed work and gotten the same result. I actually emailed the program back and they clarified that they weeded out kids who didn’t meet certain basic criteria and THEN did the lottery on the rest. Still, it seemed just lazy to me. Use whatever criteria you want to use and pick the students you want, don’t toss names into a hat.</p>
<p>It removes the incentive to do well in school, study for tests, excel in ECs…whatever.</p>