University of Texas Supreme Court case
 

Did the argument change anyone's mind? How will the justices rule?

Also, does anyone know whether the plaintiff, Abigail Fisher, was in a sorority at LSU?

While I'm against the straight up quotas that were outlawed in Bakke vs. California and the point system that gave underrepresented minorities a huge advantage in Michigan, I think what Texas has is a good start.

Abigail Fisher was, by anyone's definition, a marginal if not downright mediocre student. She received an 1220 (540V/680M/Writing not considered) on her SAT :eek::eek::eek:, had a 3.59 GPA, and was 82 in a high school class of 674. As someone who played a less-than-conventional instrument and was a legacy, Miss Fisher had a "hook," but it apparently wasn't enough to make up for her lackluster academic performance. I mean, really. My niece did better on her SATs when she took them in MIDDLE SCHOOL, and ol girl sued one of the best public schools in the country? Didn't her guidance counselor steer her from UT-Austin based on that abortion of an academic record?

In the future, will a non-legacy sue due to the fact that, at most schools, the median legacy GPA is lower than the overall?

That said, it's anybody's guess how this will turn out. The Supreme Court is a bit different from how it was in 2003.

Regarding sorority membership at LSU, I highly doubt it. If she sued a school for not getting in...imagine what she'd have been like at Recruitment!

Her SAT scores are not mediocre. The national average in 2011 for Reading was 497 and Math is 514. Total average including the writing section is 1500. She was slightly above average in reading and well above average in Math.

I could care less about her and the case, but I wouldn't dismiss her scores as mediocre.

She could be "average" on a national level, but she was applying for admission to one of the top public schools in the country and she wasn't in the top 10% of her class in order to receive guaranteed admission. That implies mediocre to me.

Good to know that above average is mediocre to you. Are you one of those people who makes a 99 on a test and is mad over missing a point?

I didn't say they were outstanding, but they were well within the range of accepted students at Texas. I also didn't say a word about her grades or class standing because that is wildly varying from school to school and is in no way a consistent yardstick by which to judge student achievement.

Ms. Fisher had a 3.59 on a 4.0 scale. Pertinent information since many schools have scales above a 4.0. She was classified in the top 13% just outside that 10%.

Understand UT's policy is guaranteed admission for those in the top 10% with GPA not considered. GPA isn’t considered, because there are students from West and South Texas that are Valedictorians of their class and have overall GPA’s below 3.5 on a 4.0 scale.

Here are the UT admission statistics for Fall 2008.
https://sp.austin.utexas.edu/sites/ut/rpt/Documents/IMA_PUB_CDS_2008_AY.pdf
If you look at her class ranking and SAT score she is well within the average admission of students for that year. That makes her anything but mediocre. It also builds a strong case for the bases of her Supreme Court case. Her point, there were students in her school with lower class ranking, fewer extracurricular activities and they were admitted to the university. The difference she saw was the color of their skin. Of course, the unknown is the SAT/ACT score.

I don't have much sympathy for her plight. If you are borderline, the school gets to put in a mix of borderline people who meet criteria of THEIR choosing since GPA and activities are only part of the story. Quit crying and apply to other law schools.

I don't have much sympathy for her either. Life isn't fair. The only way I would feel sympathetic would be if she had been completely denied post secondary education, which doesn't appear to be the case.

I don't know this particular woman's story, so I won't speak to that directly. What I will say about UT's 10% rule is that it is FAR from perfect. Super-competitive private high school =/= to podunk public high school (in many instances, anyway). If you're not in the top 10% of either...you're likely not in. However, when the top 10% of your class are all National Merit Finalists (at SCPHS) who are headed to Ivys and you just want to go to UT or A&M to pay in-state tuition...you're kinda stuck.

I have heard of SEVERAL cases where someone was attending a SCPHS (or a really competitive public HS) and their parents allowed them to go live at their ranch (or with friends or whatever) for their senior year so that they could be in the top 10% of the podunk HS class. Do I think it's right? No, of course not. It's akin to going to Ole Miss, not getting the sorority you wanted, and transferring before school starts (in the old days, of course). It happens, though.

If you are smart (and I mean more than above average smart) it's hard to get into your state's flagship schools these days if you live in Texas. Yes, you can go to other state flagship schools (thus the reason for Alabama, Arkansas, LSU and Ole Miss being popular), but then you're paying OOS tuition...

The top 10% thing only applies to undergraduate admission.

Yep. This is why I'm happy that the Texans for Tier 1 thing is gaining traction.

AAAAAAAA-freaking-MEN!!!!!

I think the argument has some merit, but I believe they chose the wrong plaintiff. She comes off whiney and entitiled in some interviews.

No different than transferring from Crappy Sports Team High to Prominent Football High so recruiters are more likely to come and look at you and sport you a scholarship. And we get that a LOT up here.

Good example.

***Warning*** Story below contains exaggerations to make a point. I don't condone this line of thinking at all, I just want us to see the world view of a smart, prepared 18 year old.


I'll tie this all back into some of our (seemingly?) super-special-snowflake PNM's and what their mindset is as a result of all this:

Say that, for all your life your parents have told you that you were going to be an XYZ at UT (back then, not realizing that it would be problematic to tell you such a thing). Mama and Grandma were, so naturally you would be as well. You're a solid A/B student with a ton of extra-curriculars (because you've been over-programmed since birth) at Super Competitive Private/Public High School. You're a good kid, and you've been told that all your life.

You're sitting at 13% of your class of 200 (that makes you number 26...not shabby at all at SCPHS). With your college guidance counselor's blessing, you apply to UT.

You don't get in.

WHAT??? How could that be??? You're destined to go to UT, right?

Ok, regroup, this isn't the worst thing ever. You're a good/smart kid...You'll go to Bama/Ark/LSU/Ole Miss/wherever your backup is and pledge XYZ or other strong sorority. You've got recs...this should be cake. You're having to apply for more grant/scholarship money, but that's OK. It will all work out fine in the end.

It doesn't go well there either. You're crushed and wondering why you've worked so hard all these years just to be shut out of both the school you love and the sorority you're supposed to be destined for. And, you're now far from home and don't know many people.

You later find out (via friends at UT or whatever) about someone attending UT who isn't prepared at all to be there. They came from podunk high and while they were #8 in their class of 100...#'s 9-100 are not attending college and are working on cars. Or so they heard.

You want justice in the world. You're clearly smarter than that person (in your mind) and you DESERVE to be at UT. How dare they take YOUR spot???

This is all to say - life isn't perfect or fair, but when life has treated you fairly for SO long and suddenly it's given you a double whammy at 18 - it's a tough pill to swallow....

The top 10% model probably does a better job at achieving real diversity than racial preferences or anything else I can think of off the top of my head. Especially considering the size of incoming classes. If what UT wants is diversity, rather than the absolute top academic performers, this seems like a good way to go about it.

Ok, this is probably showing my ignorance at college admissions (namely, giant college admissions)...but...

What happened to good ol' fashioned applying for college, and then leaving it up to the admissions counselors to decide your fate?

Can you write an essay?
You play the oboe?
Started a non-profit to feed starving children in your hometown?
Great test scores?
Varsity letter all four years?
Student Leadership?
Great teacher references?

Regular ol' need-blind admissions.

Is it because there are just TOO many applicants, so the easy way out is to have some random statistical information that they go by, not as a guideline, but as a hard-and-fast line?

I'm guessing that must be the reason.

Um, how about the fact that that would be totally unfair to students from less advantaged backgrounds?

Life isn't fair?

I think the main issue in this case is the culture of admissions in the State of Texas. When this girl applied, the Top Ten 10% rule was the rule. It has changed a bit, but only for the University of Texas at Austin, and now that percentage varies each admission year with a "projected percentage" (this year top 8%, next year it will be top 7%) that will fill 75% of the class, leaving 25% of new freshman coming from holistic admissions. The issue here is the "holistic" admissions side of UT's admission practices.

When she applied, the top ten percenters filled much more than 75% of the freshman class. Because the top 10% rule was put in place to create diversity in the first place (Top 10% in black high schools, hispanic schools, white high schools, etc...it does not discriminate) I believe her argument is why is race even being considered a factor during the holistic review? Should the university not be going after the best and brightest (not saying the girl is...) with no consideration to race, religion, male or female? Again, the creation of diversity is already achieved with the first measuring stick. It, in my opinion should not be a factor in the "second round."

If you study college admissions at all, most admissions "panels" give points to specific criteria. (The following is just an example) Why should a black female from Tyler be given 5 extra admission points just for being black, when the white girl from Sugarland might get 5 subtracted for being white. All things considered equal the Tyler student would be placed ahead of the Sugarland student on the admissions list. And just because she was born not white. I understand the importance and reasons behind making sure a campus is diverse. What I don't understand is bypassing a student because she is white or asian (frankly I think the asians have an even more difficult under holistic, "race matters" reviews) Why not just go after the smartest, highest achieving students you can get, ESPECIALLY when you created diversity under the top 10% rule.

Disclaimer: My debate only applies to the University of Texas and the unique circumstances the Top Ten Percent rule has on diversification of college admissions.

Good. Tell that to Miss Fischer.

I think the core of the argument comes down to this: what is the purpose of a state university?

You know what she DOES get for being born white? White privilege. Her entire life.

So to balance the scales the other way, you think the government should put a thumb on 'em? Why is it helpful for diversity's sake to grant admission points solely based on race. Race =/= always culture. IIRC, at one time, Michigan had an admissions process which favored race over a perfect SAT.

I guess institutions should be free to decide how they want to shape their classes, and I think UT's 10% (or whatever) is probably more likely if stuck to on its own to shape a diverse class as compared to other methods when dealing with classes of the huge size they deal with.

I see where you're going with this...but aren't there bands, sports, teachers, writing, leadership opportunities, etc... in almost every public school in America? And if they somehow missed your school, isn't that what your essay is for - to talk about who you are and how that affected you?

I'm curious as to how the other academically demanding/strict admissions state schools handle this (I'm thinking UVa, Michigan, etc...etc...)? Clearly this isn't an issue that is unique to UT/A&M?

I do think the Tier I situation will get better in Texas over the next decade or so (thus alleviating the pressures), but there's clearly no right answer here.

I hope so.

IIRC, UH has been named Tier 1 by one measure, and is likely to be the next "official" Tier 1 university in the state.

I know UTA, UTD, UNT, and Tech are all fighting hard to fill in the other spots. I hope we have another one pop up soon.

UH probably has an identity complex to overcome before the masses see it as a Tier I - definitely seen (to the general 18 year old population) as a commuter school. "Cougar High"! (speaking as a former Houstonian...:D)

In my mind, Tech is the next logical one. UTSA is working on it as well, but I think it still falls into the same commuter image bucket as UTD, UTA, UH, etc...

I should clarify by saying just because a school has a commuter image doesn't mean it can't be a Tier I (they are not mutually exclusive) but I do think an academically above average 18 year old looking for a true "college experience" would hone in on Austin and College Station before (near) downtown Houston.

FYI - The link I was talking about
http://www.uh.edu/about/tier-one/

I have heard the opposite about UH. Interesting.

I think UTSA should be last in line. I think it's the most "commuter" of the bunch (I think it has the lowest admissions criteria as well). If any of the others I listed make it anytime soon, though, I'll be pleased.

I'm not from Texas, so I'm not familiar with colleges there.

I can say that I support her lawsuit. I say this because I have been a victim of reverse discrimination. I applied for a scholarship while in college and I was told to not even bother turning the application in because I wasn't black or hispanic. Somehow because of my white skin it was assumed that I had money growing off a tree in my backyard and that I didn't need the scholarship. I was pissed.

I'm sorry admissions to college should be purely based off your merits, your skin color shouldn't even be a consideration. But instead it is. You get two people who have equal merits, grades, letters of rec, etc... most of the time the "minority" will get in over the white person because as DeltaBetaBaby so ignorantly pointed out "You know what she DOES get for being born white? White privilege. Her entire life."

That's exciting for UH!

That's great (I'm serious) that you've heard the opposite! It means the perception is changing. I haven't lived in Houston in over 10 years, but I can tell you that back then, there was not much over by UH (except TSU across the street, and it was a far more developed/active campus area) so people who went to school there, didn't live anywhere nearby.

Again goes back to perception. UTSA is playing DI sports now (joining Conference USA next year, I believe?), so they're getting much more press these days. I'm sure if I lived in DFW, I'd say the same about UTD and UTA, but I still see them as more commuter than UTSA.

Agreed that if ANY of them get Tier I soon, I'd be doing backflips...I already am about UH!

1. Why is minority in quotes?
2. I'm not a fan of discrimination, but you have to be naive if you think that what DBB said is inaccurate.

I think it is unique because of the 10% rule. However, after the Supreme Court case in 2003, the state of Michigan passed a ballot proposal (in 2006) stating that race cannot be a consideration for admissions to any state university.

I was flabbergasted when I heard about the 10% rule. Many kids in our top 10% do not get into Michigan. There would not be room for them all. Michigan is more selective than the top 10% for the average public school. Test scores are important as are extra-curricular activities and essays.

Oh, dear, please don't tell me you think white privilege is a myth. Bless your heart.

What DBB said.

This 10% thing is relatively new, and it's come to pass already that it will be the top 8%, then 9%, and then 7% in a few years. Michigan's just also a lot more competitive in terms of admission and has been for a long time, and its student body is smaller than that of UT.

Really? Reverse discrimination? Are you going to go there? Please don't be so boring.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here. The Tier 1 Carnegie classifications have to do with the number of graduate degrees given, research dollars brought in, etc.. It is not affected by quality of undergraduate education or the undergraduate experience. So UH could be doing top notch research though medical programs or a research institute but this may not affect their undgergrads much. Some of their ease of access and surge in research can be done through collaboration or funding from Houston companies (which might explain how they got there before Tech).
Look for UT-Arlington to be moving up fast in both areas though

Discriminating against better qualified applicants in university admissions does not count as getsies backsies for a DWB or workplace discrimination or some other white privilege related happening.

I guess according to you because I'm white I've had everything handed to me on a silver platter huh? Get a better argument sweetheart.

I think what she is trying to say is that in Arizona, Hispanics are often far from being a minority in some situations, even though the rest of the country might see them that way.

Is UT wholly state-owned or is it just state-affiliated?

Every university has their own definition of "qualified." A university whose sports teams have been utter shit and has a mortgage on a huge football stadium may choose to admit students who can't spell their own name but who can make 5 touchdowns per game. Different strokes for different folks. Unless they spell out that highest grades = highest possibility of admission, I can't see where anyone could bitch about it.

This whole thread is about what different folks think "qualified" means. Of course universities get the final say, well, at least except when a court orders otherwise.

If a school like UT limits their admission to only the top 10% (or, honestly, 7-9%) of applicants, how will they admit legacies or athletes, both groups whose GPA and SAT scores are lower than the rest of their class? This applies for state and private schools.

While a lawsuit against every AA program is bound to happen, I'm not sure Abigail Fisher is the best test case. While she may have been an average student, she was mediocre for the case of getting into one of the most competitive public universities.

When Miss Fisher was asked about exactly what it is she's missed out on by not attending UT, this was her reply:

"The only thing I missed out on was my post-graduation years," she said. "Just being in a network of U.T. graduates would have been a really nice thing to be in. And I probably would have gotten a better job offer had I gone to U.T."

Ironically, she's totally Googlable as the plaintiff in this case. Won't this hurt her chances in the job market in the long run? She's employed now, but as someone who just went through the job search, I can tell you that memories are long--especially when Google is involved. Fortunately, most of my results were related to races and charity events, not lawsuits that resulted from my not getting my way! Jennifer Gratz, the plaintiff in the Michigan case, has made a career out of being a mediocre whiner--maybe, if this case goes through, Abigail Fisher can do the same thing!

Also, couldn't she have transferred to UT, if going was so important to her? Or was this lawsuit more about one gigantic whine?

I will object to one item: "The university said the Top Ten program was a blunt instrument and that classes in many subjects have few or no minority students."

That has nothing to do with the Top Ten program, and more to do with the fact that some subjects simply do not attract students of underrepresented groups. My profession is one of them--in four years of undergrad and two years of grad school, I was always one of the only, if not THE only, non-Asian minority in architecture classes. Even at HBCUs, architecture programs are majority white or Asian.

Florida eliminated AA years ago, and they've done a good job of providing outreach programs to underrepresented minorities (which in Florida is black and Asian) and kids in rural areas of the state, letting them know as soon as Freshman year what they need to do in order to get into the flagship universities. Maybe this is something that Texas could expand...?