University of Texas Supreme Court case

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

At least you're up-front about having a closed mind on the subject.

I'm not saying you're wrong about affirmative action in general or about this case. (I'm not saying you're right, either.) But I will say that I think that unwillingness to consider the possibility that one might be wrong is rarely a good way to approach things.

I respect your point, but I don't think that refusing to admit applicants to college based solely on race is a bad thing.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

I respect your point, but I don't think that refusing to admit applicants to college based solely on race is a bad thing.

Has anybody ever suggested admitting applicants to college solely on the basis of race?

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Has anybody ever suggested admitting applicants to college solely on the basis of race?

I stand corrected, but I firmly believe that race/ethnicity should not be a deciding factor at all.

What I do not believe in is this:
Two students have the exact same GPA, went to the equally difficult high schools, both played two sports and were on National Honor Society and were class president. The minority student gets accepted simply for being a minority.

OR:
One student had a 4.0, was class president, played three varsity sports, was on NHS, etc.
One student had a 3.5 and played one sport.

However, the student with the 3.5 was a minority, so they let that student in over the student with a 4.0 who was clearly more qualified. It happens more often than people think. I just don't see how anyone can see that as fair.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

What I do not believe in is this:
Two students have the exact same GPA, went to the equally difficult high schools, both played two sports and were on National Honor Society and were class president. The minority student gets accepted simply for being a minority.

Or because s/he wrote a better essay.
Or because his/her guidance counselor(s) gave better recommendations.
Or because s/he had a better in-person interview.
Or...

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

However, the student with the 3.5 was a minority, so they let that student in over the student with a 4.0 who was clearly more qualified.

The problem here is the phrase "more qualified". Is an athlete "more qualified" than a non-athlete? Is an in-state student "more qualified" than an out-of-state student? If we give admissions professionals the right to decide who best makes up their campus community in these situations, we can't suddenly decide they don't know what they are doing when it comes to race, gender, physical limitations, etc.