University of Texas Supreme Court case

[pinapple]

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by pinapple

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.

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

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.