Anonymous wrote:I like the idea of giving disadvantaged students a leg-up, but simply limiting it to race is wrong. Also 25% of admits is not a trivial number.

Instead, of going strictly by race, they could intentionally increase admits from poor state schools. This would effectively accomplish the same thing as race-oriented AA, but it would also allow for poor students of other races. UT Austin's 10% rule seems to have this affect, which is a good thing.

Choosing more students from poor schools would have the side effect of providing a disincentive for affluent parents sending their children to elite private K-12 schools, which is ruining public schools. Suddenly, there would be an incentive for affluent families to take an interest in poor schools. This would reduce segregation between school districts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've noticed that many left-leaning papers now use terms like "exploitation" and "plantations" to describe college football programs, with the obvious race-baiting implications. The narrative is that those poor black football players are apparently being duped by Big Bad Whitey into playing football for free.

The NCAA really should ban colleges from allowing academic concessions for athletes. That would instantly solve the "exploitation" problem by limiting athletics to real students, like the ivy's do. Most of these football players wouldn't even be able to get into the school to begin with.

The Ivy League makes "concessions" for athletes like all other schools. Their "academic index" is quite formulaic. There are scores of athletes at Ivies, playing everything from baseball to LAX, many of them white males, with 1160 SATs. No one is complaining about them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I would have less issue with SES based affirmative action. It seems nuts to me that the sons and daughters of AA senior executives, surgeons and Big Law partners get a "URM" preference in college admissions. (President Obama said as much in 2008, when he said kids like his shouldn't get affirmative action.) If affirmative action were SES based, it would still pull in a large number of racial minority students.

This is, essentially, what the top 10% policy at UT Austin is designed to do...level the playing field. A poor inner city or rural school kid in the top of their class can get in as an auto admit, even if the rigor of their school is not as intense as some schools with more advantaged populations.

Exactly. And that's why that part of UT's admission policies is not in question.

What's in question if the parallel "holistic" process apparently designed to bypass that top 10% policy to get in more "diversity"

Anonymous wrote:I've noticed that many left-leaning papers now use terms like "exploitation" and "plantations" to describe college football programs, with the obvious race-baiting implications. The narrative is that those poor black football players are apparently being duped by Big Bad Whitey into playing football for free.

The NCAA really should ban colleges from allowing academic concessions for athletes. That would instantly solve the "exploitation" problem by limiting athletics to real students, like the ivy's do. Most of these football players wouldn't even be able to get into the school to begin with.

If UT is using the holistic process to admit (primarily) black athletes, they are misleading the Supreme Court by not saying so, and likely going to pay for that silence.

And rightly so.

You don't make fun of the Constitution in order to get a good college team.

Anonymous wrote:

What's in question if the parallel "holistic" process apparently designed to bypass that top 10% policy to get in more "diversity"

But the holistic review process, which by the way, makes up less than 25% of the incoming students each year (and in the year Abigail Fisher applied, made up 8% of the incoming class) privileges a lot of other things aside from race/diversity. A lot of athletes are admitted under holistic review. Students in the music school and the school of arts who have outstanding auditions or portfolios but are not the most academically competitive are often admitted through holistic review, and faculty in these departments claim the strength of the performing arts would decrease significantly otherwise. All out of state students. Kids at top tier magnet schools who have won national awards, but are only in the top, say 15% due to having a competitive class.

Also, although a PP posted that many non-Asian minorities admitted through holistic review have lower SAT scores, there are also a very high number of athletes who are black who are admitted via "holistic review." What is the comparison between non-athlete minorities admitted between holistic review and athelete minorities in terms of SAT scores? Athletics play a pretty oversized role at UT, especially football.

Given the actual raw numbers on the number of blacks and latinos with higher SAT scores and grades than Abigail Fisher (168) who were denied as well as the fact that only two students who were minorities with lower scores (as opposed to the 40 white students), it seems that at least in her case, race was not a factor.

What's in question if the parallel "holistic" process apparently designed to bypass that top 10% policy to get in more "diversity"

Anonymous wrote:

I would have less issue with SES based affirmative action. It seems nuts to me that the sons and daughters of AA senior executives, surgeons and Big Law partners get a "URM" preference in college admissions. (President Obama said as much in 2008, when he said kids like his shouldn't get affirmative action.) If affirmative action were SES based, it would still pull in a large number of racial minority students.

This is, essentially, what the top 10% policy at UT Austin is designed to do...level the playing field. A poor inner city or rural school kid in the top of their class can get in as an auto admit, even if the rigor of their school is not as intense as some schools with more advantaged populations.

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?

I would have less issue with SES based affirmative action. It seems nuts to me that the sons and daughters of AA senior executives, surgeons and Big Law partners get a "URM" preference in college admissions. (President Obama said as much in 2008, when he said kids like his shouldn't get affirmative action.) If affirmative action were SES based, it would still pull in a large number of racial minority students.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average black student gets admission to the University of Texas with a score hundreds of points lower than white or Asian students.

Then upon entering the University of Texas, they often flounder. The graduation rate for UT as a whole is 78%, but for black students it is about 60%. And undoubtedly, the black students that do graduate do so with lower grades. Given either the lack of graduation or graduating with poor grades, these black students then face an uncertain career.

How is this good for anybody?

Mostly, we do just fine in our careers, given the same access to opportunities that others have (still not a given). I was an "Affirmative Action" baby at a top private university. Though I graduated at the top of my mostly Black high school class and had the 2nd highest SAT score in that class, I was about 120 points below the average SAT of my university. Even though the acceptance rates then (20 plus years ago) weren't as nearly as absurd as they are now, I surely got in with an AA boost (and probably got "points" for coming from my geographical region). My high school science background was woefully inadequate; I had not read novels in my English classes, I had not written research papers; I had not traveled to Europe like a lot of my peers; my father's friends and associates didn't represent an array of professions for me to aspire to or learn about... and none were wealthy. I struggled for sure and nearly flunked out. But slowly, with SUPPORT systems (from curiously enough, a number of white female professors), I did graduate in a field that I was interested in and afforded me some post-graduate options I might not have otherwise had. For sure I sometimes agonize had a I gone to a "slower paced" school that I might have been better positioned to get into a top graduate program (which I wasn't able to do with my record. Contrary to the notions, AA is not just opening the floodgates wide open). And maybe I could have been positioned for more lucrative positions earlier in my career. But in the end the experience was good for me in a couple of ways. 1). The mystery of supposed white (or Asian) supremacy was revealed. I saw what it took to compete in the highest of environments. 2) I got exposed to like-minded students of all races who had struggles similar to my own. 3) I discovered career and life options that I never knew existed. When I entered the work world, I realized, frankly, how largely mediocre the world is at large (and frankly, how mediocre white men still had the advantage over me, no matter where they went to school or if they went to school at all). I was and am a confident and fearless professional in part because I was thrown into the fire. What we don't get sometimes, is how such a meager allowance to right past wrongs causes so much rancor amongst detractors.

Thank you. It's clear how you see this, it's all about me me me me me me me me me.

What others pointed above--and you completely ignored--is, what happened to the person whose spot you filled? If he or she deserved it more, based on academic scores and/ or socioeconomic background, why did it get to you? Why did YOU exclude HER, just because of her race?

Sorry, but I am not persuaded when college admissions want to play God.

Really? I don't believe for one minute any of you are really concerned about the person that missed his spot. If they were worthy of that spot, then they probably got a spot somewhere else equally as good. AA is probably coming to an end and maybe it's time, but I'm not crying for all the supposed missed spots by Asians, whites or anyone else (Hispanics, perhaps?] for that matter. What I am concerned about is the injustices that lead up to non-white students being in this position to begin with.

It seems pretty clear that you do not care about any "non-whites" except African Americans...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The average black student gets admission to the University of Texas with a score hundreds of points lower than white or Asian students.

Then upon entering the University of Texas, they often flounder. The graduation rate for UT as a whole is 78%, but for black students it is about 60%. And undoubtedly, the black students that do graduate do so with lower grades. Given either the lack of graduation or graduating with poor grades, these black students then face an uncertain career.

How is this good for anybody?

Mostly, we do just fine in our careers, given the same access to opportunities that others have (still not a given). I was an "Affirmative Action" baby at a top private university. Though I graduated at the top of my mostly Black high school class and had the 2nd highest SAT score in that class, I was about 120 points below the average SAT of my university. Even though the acceptance rates then (20 plus years ago) weren't as nearly as absurd as they are now, I surely got in with an AA boost (and probably got "points" for coming from my geographical region). My high school science background was woefully inadequate; I had not read novels in my English classes, I had not written research papers; I had not traveled to Europe like a lot of my peers; my father's friends and associates didn't represent an array of professions for me to aspire to or learn about... and none were wealthy. I struggled for sure and nearly flunked out. But slowly, with SUPPORT systems (from curiously enough, a number of white female professors), I did graduate in a field that I was interested in and afforded me some post-graduate options I might not have otherwise had. For sure I sometimes agonize had a I gone to a "slower paced" school that I might have been better positioned to get into a top graduate program (which I wasn't able to do with my record. Contrary to the notions, AA is not just opening the floodgates wide open). And maybe I could have been positioned for more lucrative positions earlier in my career. But in the end the experience was good for me in a couple of ways. 1). The mystery of supposed white (or Asian) supremacy was revealed. I saw what it took to compete in the highest of environments. 2) I got exposed to like-minded students of all races who had struggles similar to my own. 3) I discovered career and life options that I never knew existed. When I entered the work world, I realized, frankly, how largely mediocre the world is at large (and frankly, how mediocre white men still had the advantage over me, no matter where they went to school or if they went to school at all). I was and am a confident and fearless professional in part because I was thrown into the fire. What we don't get sometimes, is how such a meager allowance to right past wrongs causes so much rancor amongst detractors.

Thank you. It's clear how you see this, it's all about me me me me me me me me me.

What others pointed above--and you completely ignored--is, what happened to the person whose spot you filled? If he or she deserved it more, based on academic scores and/ or socioeconomic background, why did it get to you? Why did YOU exclude HER, just because of her race?

Sorry, but I am not persuaded when college admissions want to play God.

Really? I don't believe for one minute any of you are really concerned about the person that missed his spot. If they were worthy of that spot, then they probably got a spot somewhere else equally as good. AA is probably coming to an end and maybe it's time, but I'm not crying for all the supposed missed spots by Asians, whites or anyone else (Hispanics, perhaps?] for that matter. What I am concerned about is the injustices that lead up to non-white students being in this position to begin with.