Supreme Court revisits Texas affirmative action in new case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Texas 75% of a class is admitted using class rank, eg top 10 percent (now it is less than 10 percent). The remaining 25% is admitted holistically including a long list of factors. Race is one of those factors. Ms Fisher, a double legacy, did not meet the 10 percent threshold. To me the facts matter.

In addition, test scores are not everything. I don't think going to a system where test scores are the only factors considered. People successfully matriculate from colleges without perfect or even high test scores.

Thanks for bringing it back to this. This case has bugged me for a while because her standing is so tenuous. She was not a competitive candidate to UT Austin, period, regardless of her race given aspects of her application. It was a reach school for her and she did not get in.

So you've concluded she was "not a competitive candidate" because she did not meet the top 10% threshold. But, minority applicants who did exactly as well as she did should be considered competitive specifically because the are not white? Really?

The top 10% policy is a transparent policy that has been on the books for years now, and the year Abigail Fisher applied, in accounted for 92% of the spots for the incoming class. The remaining 8% was admitted under "holistic review." As far as the rest of the holistic admits, if you look it up:

" Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse AI/PAI scores (a combination of the holistic measure, grades, and test scores) than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s."
[url]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/fisher_v_university_of_texas_the_supreme_court_might_just_gut_affirmative.html[/url]

So basically, white or not, she was in the middle of the pack for the holistic review admits, and getting into UT under the current admissions criteria was a total crapshoot.

This is the key - she sued over FIVE students. FIVE. 168 minority students with better scores got rejected. Should they have sued too, instead of accepting that UT was a reach and they didn't get in? She was WAY at the bottom of the pack and sued. Only 47 people accepted had worse scores than she did and 89% of them were white. OMG. I can't with the entitlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Texas 75% of a class is admitted using class rank, eg top 10 percent (now it is less than 10 percent). The remaining 25% is admitted holistically including a long list of factors. Race is one of those factors. Ms Fisher, a double legacy, did not meet the 10 percent threshold. To me the facts matter.

In addition, test scores are not everything. I don't think going to a system where test scores are the only factors considered. People successfully matriculate from colleges without perfect or even high test scores.

Thanks for bringing it back to this. This case has bugged me for a while because her standing is so tenuous. She was not a competitive candidate to UT Austin, period, regardless of her race given aspects of her application. It was a reach school for her and she did not get in.

So you've concluded she was "not a competitive candidate" because she did not meet the top 10% threshold. But, minority applicants who did exactly as well as she did should be considered competitive specifically because the are not white? Really?

The top 10% policy is a transparent policy that has been on the books for years now, and the year Abigail Fisher applied, in accounted for 92% of the spots for the incoming class. The remaining 8% was admitted under "holistic review." As far as the rest of the holistic admits, if you look it up:

" Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse AI/PAI scores (a combination of the holistic measure, grades, and test scores) than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s."
[url]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/fisher_v_university_of_texas_the_supreme_court_might_just_gut_affirmative.html[/url]

So basically, white or not, she was in the middle of the pack for the holistic review admits, and getting into UT under the current admissions criteria was a total crapshoot.

This is the key - she sued over FIVE students. FIVE. 168 minority students with better scores got rejected. Should they have sued too, instead of accepting that UT was a reach and they didn't get in? She was WAY at the bottom of the pack and sued. Only 47 people accepted had worse scores than she did and 89% of them were white. OMG. I can't with the entitlement.

I am so glad PP posted this, because it really shows how weak her case is. The anti holistic review people waited YEARS to get the right plaintiff and this was the best they came up with. It really goes to show that qualified white kids are not being passed over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Texas 75% of a class is admitted using class rank, eg top 10 percent (now it is less than 10 percent). The remaining 25% is admitted holistically including a long list of factors. Race is one of those factors. Ms Fisher, a double legacy, did not meet the 10 percent threshold. To me the facts matter.

In addition, test scores are not everything. I don't think going to a system where test scores are the only factors considered. People successfully matriculate from colleges without perfect or even high test scores.

Thanks for bringing it back to this. This case has bugged me for a while because her standing is so tenuous. She was not a competitive candidate to UT Austin, period, regardless of her race given aspects of her application. It was a reach school for her and she did not get in.

So you've concluded she was "not a competitive candidate" because she did not meet the top 10% threshold. But, minority applicants who did exactly as well as she did should be considered competitive specifically because the are not white? Really?

The top 10% policy is a transparent policy that has been on the books for years now, and the year Abigail Fisher applied, in accounted for 92% of the spots for the incoming class. The remaining 8% was admitted under "holistic review." As far as the rest of the holistic admits, if you look it up:

" Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse AI/PAI scores (a combination of the holistic measure, grades, and test scores) than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s."
[url]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/fisher_v_university_of_texas_the_supreme_court_might_just_gut_affirmative.html[/url]

So basically, white or not, she was in the middle of the pack for the holistic review admits, and getting into UT under the current admissions criteria was a total crapshoot.

This is the key - she sued over FIVE students. FIVE. 168 minority students with better scores got rejected. Should they have sued too, instead of accepting that UT was a reach and they didn't get in? She was WAY at the bottom of the pack and sued. Only 47 people accepted had worse scores than she did and 89% of them were white. OMG. I can't with the entitlement.

I am so glad PP posted this, because it really shows how weak her case is. The anti holistic review people waited YEARS to get the right plaintiff and this was the best they came up with. It really goes to show that qualified white kids are not being passed over.

As always, Asians are always left out or should it be excluded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Texas 75% of a class is admitted using class rank, eg top 10 percent (now it is less than 10 percent). The remaining 25% is admitted holistically including a long list of factors. Race is one of those factors. Ms Fisher, a double legacy, did not meet the 10 percent threshold. To me the facts matter.

In addition, test scores are not everything. I don't think going to a system where test scores are the only factors considered. People successfully matriculate from colleges without perfect or even high test scores.

Thanks for bringing it back to this. This case has bugged me for a while because her standing is so tenuous. She was not a competitive candidate to UT Austin, period, regardless of her race given aspects of her application. It was a reach school for her and she did not get in.

So you've concluded she was "not a competitive candidate" because she did not meet the top 10% threshold. But, minority applicants who did exactly as well as she did should be considered competitive specifically because the are not white? Really?

The top 10% policy is a transparent policy that has been on the books for years now, and the year Abigail Fisher applied, in accounted for 92% of the spots for the incoming class. The remaining 8% was admitted under "holistic review." As far as the rest of the holistic admits, if you look it up:

" Of the 841 students admitted under these criteria, 47 had worse AI/PAI scores (a combination of the holistic measure, grades, and test scores) than Fisher, and 42 of them were white. On the other end, UT rejected 168 black and Latino students with scores equal to or better than Fisher’s."
[url]
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/06/fisher_v_university_of_texas_the_supreme_court_might_just_gut_affirmative.html[/url]

So basically, white or not, she was in the middle of the pack for the holistic review admits, and getting into UT under the current admissions criteria was a total crapshoot.

This is the key - she sued over FIVE students. FIVE. 168 minority students with better scores got rejected. Should they have sued too, instead of accepting that UT was a reach and they didn't get in? She was WAY at the bottom of the pack and sued. Only 47 people accepted had worse scores than she did and 89% of them were white. OMG. I can't with the entitlement.

I am so glad PP posted this, because it really shows how weak her case is. The anti holistic review people waited YEARS to get the right plaintiff and this was the best they came up with. It really goes to show that qualified white kids are not being passed over.

As always, Asians are always left out or should it be excluded.

Sorry, PP, but you are completely right. And oblivious messages like the one above don't help.

Someone earlier posted this, proving that there's likely MANY qualified Asian kids (and white kids too) being passed over:

"ACT Scores by Race:

Year White Black Asian
2009 22.2 16.9 23.2
2010 22.3 16.9 23.4
2011 22.4 17.0 23.6
2012 22.4 17.0 23.6
2013 22.2 16.9 23.5

Source: ACT, Inc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

As always, Asians are always left out or should it be excluded.

Sorry, PP, but you are completely right. And oblivious messages like the one above don't help.

Someone earlier posted this, proving that there's likely MANY qualified Asian kids (and white kids too) being passed over:

"ACT Scores by Race:

Year White Black Asian
2009 22.2 16.9 23.2
2010 22.3 16.9 23.4
2011 22.4 17.0 23.6
2012 22.4 17.0 23.6
2013 22.2 16.9 23.5

Source: ACT, Inc.



Then why aren't the Asian students suing up to the Supreme Court? The point is that Ms. Fisher's claim is asinine, because white students with lower scores than hers were admitted, and Black students with higher scores were denied admission.

Her entire case rests on the premise that she was denied admission because of her race, but the truth is that she just wasn't that great of a candidate.

[Anonymous]

Have you seen #StayMadAbby trending on Twitter?


Link: http://theculture.forharriet.com/2015/12/staymadabby-black-girls-are-clapping.html?m=1#axzz3tw710t6i

[Anonymous]

what is stunning is the degree to which the elitist justices make such a fetish out of elite schools. O'Connor, especially, fell into this trap. Scalia too. The fact is that, for these folks and probably most of the others besides Thomas, they can't fathom not getting into a top school, and they must think that any white applicant who gets rejected is a complete moron. Thomas made the point that, if your grades match with Wayne State but not Michigan, go to Wayne State. But O'Connor and others have seemingly no respect for the "lesser" schools. O'Connor did say that aa will sunset 25 years from whatever the date of the MI decision was. Yeah, right. Proponents will shrug that off as mere dicta and keep at it for hundreds more years, as Thurgood Marshall envisioned. This is it for opponents, other than ballot initiatives in states, because there will never be a Republican president again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless the outcome, private colleges like Harvard, Princeton, etc, will continue holistic admissions. Good for them.

Private universities may be affected and (bound) by the US Supreme Court ruling since they receive federal funds from the Federal Government unless they give up all federal funds.

I think it's time to end this racial discrimination based on race. This is shameful and unconstitutional to allow racial discrimination to continue. All citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law.

So what do we do about the fact that with few exceptions the standards for admissions for a white male and lower than they are for a white female. The rationale is that colleges prefer gender parity for a variety of reasons. But is that fair to girls? I think it's time to end discrimination based on gender. It is shameful. All citizens are guaranteed equal protections under the law. And please don't ask me to cite sources. Look it up yourself.

Depends on the criteria used. Grades? Yes. SAT scores? No. In any case, the differences are slight compared to racial preferences.

No, girls and Asians (boys and girls) have both higher grades and SAT scores than white boys in general. Why do white boys get a pass? If a meritocracy is so damned important to people then they shouldn't be so quick to drop it when it comes to white boys. This is anecdotal but several boys in my daughter's classes at a SLAC have come right out and said if they were a girl they would have never be admitted. Tell a girl who had been weeded out based on gender that the differences are slight. Time for lazy white boys to face the music.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless the outcome, private colleges like Harvard, Princeton, etc, will continue holistic admissions. Good for them.

Private universities may be affected and (bound) by the US Supreme Court ruling since they receive federal funds from the Federal Government unless they give up all federal funds.

I think it's time to end this racial discrimination based on race. This is shameful and unconstitutional to allow racial discrimination to continue. All citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law.

So what do we do about the fact that with few exceptions the standards for admissions for a white male and lower than they are for a white female. The rationale is that colleges prefer gender parity for a variety of reasons. But is that fair to girls? I think it's time to end discrimination based on gender. It is shameful. All citizens are guaranteed equal protections under the law. And please don't ask me to cite sources. Look it up yourself.

Depends on the criteria used. Grades? Yes. SAT scores? No. In any case, the differences are slight compared to racial preferences.

No, girls and Asians (boys and girls) have both higher grades and SAT scores than white boys in general. Why do white boys get a pass? If a meritocracy is so damned important to people then they shouldn't be so quick to drop it when it comes to white boys. This is anecdotal but several boys in my daughter's classes at a SLAC have come right out and said if they were a girl they would have never be admitted. Tell a girl who had been weeded out based on gender that the differences are slight. Time for lazy white boys to face the music.

Not true. White males have higher SAT scores than white females by about 40 points. There are almost twice as many males with SAT math scores above 700, and slightly more with Reading scores above 700. Females have higher grades. All the details are here:

http://media.collegeboard.com/digitalServices/pdf/research/2013/TotalGroup-2013.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless the outcome, private colleges like Harvard, Princeton, etc, will continue holistic admissions. Good for them.

Private universities may be affected and (bound) by the US Supreme Court ruling since they receive federal funds from the Federal Government unless they give up all federal funds.

I think it's time to end this racial discrimination based on race. This is shameful and unconstitutional to allow racial discrimination to continue. All citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law.

So what do we do about the fact that with few exceptions the standards for admissions for a white male and lower than they are for a white female. The rationale is that colleges prefer gender parity for a variety of reasons. But is that fair to girls? I think it's time to end discrimination based on gender. It is shameful. All citizens are guaranteed equal protections under the law. And please don't ask me to cite sources. Look it up yourself.

Depends on the criteria used. Grades? Yes. SAT scores? No. In any case, the differences are slight compared to racial preferences.

No, girls and Asians (boys and girls) have both higher grades and SAT scores than white boys in general. Why do white boys get a pass? If a meritocracy is so damned important to people then they shouldn't be so quick to drop it when it comes to white boys. This is anecdotal but several boys in my daughter's classes at a SLAC have come right out and said if they were a girl they would have never be admitted. Tell a girl who had been weeded out based on gender that the differences are slight. Time for lazy white boys to face the music.

Time for lazy ANYONE to face the music. There are too many super qualified kids, and too few spots, to play the affirmative action roulette.

Set up objective and relevant criteria, rank everyone, let the top go in.

Done.

[Anonymous]

asian people can't sue in the supreme court because suing an elite private college (on the basis it gets federal money) is a non-starter when suing public schools hasn't been successful.

grutter, bakke, gratz and every other major affirmative action case took public schools to trial.

an asian suing a public school on the basis of not getting in would be super embarrassing to the asian plaintiff and the asian community.

If you could get a suit against HYPSMW to the scotus to strike down affirmative action, you would have tons of asian plaintiffs willing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:asian people can't sue in the supreme court because suing an elite private college (on the basis it gets federal money) is a non-starter when suing public schools hasn't been successful.

grutter, bakke, gratz and every other major affirmative action case took public schools to trial.

an asian suing a public school on the basis of not getting in would be super embarrassing to the asian plaintiff and the asian community.

Nailed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:asian people can't sue in the supreme court because suing an elite private college (on the basis it gets federal money) is a non-starter when suing public schools hasn't been successful.

grutter, bakke, gratz and every other major affirmative action case took public schools to trial.

an asian suing a public school on the basis of not getting in would be super embarrassing to the asian plaintiff and the asian community.

Nailed it.

Asians are suing UNC for racial discrimination in college admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regardless the outcome, private colleges like Harvard, Princeton, etc, will continue holistic admissions. Good for them.

Private universities may be affected and (bound) by the US Supreme Court ruling since they receive federal funds from the Federal Government unless they give up all federal funds.

I think it's time to end this racial discrimination based on race. This is shameful and unconstitutional to allow racial discrimination to continue. All citizens are guaranteed equal protection under the law.

Really: UT is 46.9 percent white, 19.9 percent Hispanic, 17.3 percent Asian, and 4.4 percent African-American. AAs are really taking spots away from white students.

We do not live in a race neutral society. If we did, there would not be so much uproar over police brutality right now.

You live in la la land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm a liberal but I'm so ready for affirmative action to be over.

Me too, but our society is not ready.