University of Texas Supreme Court case

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by momof4girls

UT does not limit their admission to only to top 10%. The top 10% has automatic admission, but that alone does not meet the freshman class quota. If you look at the statistics for Fall 2008, Ms. Fisher fell right in line statistically with the freshman class that year. She was not mediocre.

Except that lots of students don't get in whose stats fall in line statistically. She could have had egregious grammatical errors in her essays. She could have written bad essays. Nobody knows for sure why she didn't get in. Look at the stats of some of the kids who don't get into Michigan or UNC or any of the original 8 "Public Ivies". It isn't all about test scores and grades at selective schools. If it was, they'd have to admit more students than they can service.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

No, it's not, but why would you base admissions on a test knowing that those who can afford prep classes are going to do better than those who can't? Similarly, some students can afford tutors and extra resources to improve their grades. It is erroneous to think that a higher test score or class rank automatically means the student is harder working or naturally brighter without considering what advantages or disadvantages they have had in their own schooling.

Originally Posted by ASUADPi

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.

Nice strawman.

Originally Posted by AGDee

Except that lots of students don't get in whose stats fall in line statistically. She could have had egregious grammatical errors in her essays. She could have written bad essays. Nobody knows for sure why she didn't get in. Look at the stats of some of the kids who don't get into Michigan or UNC or any of the original 8 "Public Ivies". It isn't all about test scores and grades at selective schools. If it was, they'd have to admit more students than they can service.

Also, some of us believe that diversity is a good thing, and trying to structure a freshman class to include students from a variety of backgrounds is a legitimate goal of a public university.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Also, some of us believe that diversity is a good thing, and trying to structure a freshman class to include students from a variety of backgrounds is a legitimate goal of a public university.

But some people don't. And some people feel it to be an inappropriate use of their tax dollars. No one answered me about UT's ownership, by the bye.

Re the bolded, no one would give a shit about this 10% rule if it was Baylor (or any other private school).

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

But some people don't. And some people feel it to be an inappropriate use of their tax dollars. No one answered me about UT's ownership, by the bye.

Re the bolded, no one would give a shit about this 10% rule if it was Baylor (or any other private school).

Right, that's why I said upthread that this case has a lot to do with what you really think the mission of a public university is, and how to best fulfill that mission. Why do public universities exist in the first place?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, that's why I said upthread that this case has a lot to do with what you really think the mission of a public university is, and how to best fulfill that mission. Why do public universities exist in the first place?

That's why I wanted to know if they were wholly state-owned or just state afilliated. Honestly, in this case, I think that's for the taxpayers to at least partially decide.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by 33girl

That's why I wanted to know if they were wholly state-owned or just state afilliated. Honestly, I think that's for the taxpayers to at least partially decide.

Serious question -- are there any non-Pennsylvania schools that are state affiliated?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

Serious question -- are there any non-Pennsylvania schools that are state affiliated?

LOL. I don't know. We may be the only whackadoodles out there with the system we have (heaven knows CA is still confusing the heck out of me). I'm just saying that if it's owned by the state, taxpayer dollars are going into it and taxpayers should have a say.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Right, that's why I said upthread that this case has a lot to do with what you really think the mission of a public university is, and how to best fulfill that mission. Why do public universities exist in the first place?

And I think this question is the crux of the whole discussion. One where I get discomboobolated (misspelled on purpose!) when it comes to this topic...

Is it to educate the masses in an affordable and academically excellent way? Absolutely yes.

Is it to spit out the smartest/best/brightest into the Texas workforce? Yes, again.

They're not mutually exclusive, but going back to the example I had up thread of the 13% of her class person coming from a competitive high school is not the same as 7%er from a less competitive high school. The 13%er is probably more prepared for that level of study.

It's unfortunate that there's no perfect answer. CAP is a good answer academically, but it tends to be sniffed down upon from people who want a full college experience...same place/friends/connections/clubs all 4 years.

Back in the day (pre-10% rule, but when admission was based upon a combo of class rank and SAT scores only), someone coming from a competitive high school could apply as a "provisional" student. They would go to summer school at UT the summer before their freshman year. They would take 12 hours in summer school of core classes, and the faculty was pretty much mandated to fail half of them. IIRC, "passing" was a 3.0. You passed, you were enrolled for the fall. You failed, you either went to Austin Community College, or wherever your "back up" was. IMO, it was a good alternative to see who was ready for that level of academic pressure...lots was on the line if you didn't pass.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

Is it to spit out the smartest/best/brightest into the Texas workforce? Yes, again.

Is it? Or is it to spit out what the Texas workforce most needs? It would be nice if they were one and the same, but the fact is, I wouldn't take that for granted.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Is it? Or is it to spit out what the Texas workforce most needs? It would be nice if they were one and the same, but the fact is, I wouldn't take that for granted.

Fair enough. I guess I was blindly seeing them as one and the same. Chicken or egg? Maybe if we always spit out the best & brightest into the workforce, that WOULD be what the workforce most needed.

<rose colored glasses>

[momof4girls]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Except that lots of students don't get in whose stats fall in line statistically. She could have had egregious grammatical errors in her essays. She could have written bad essays. Nobody knows for sure why she didn't get in. Look at the stats of some of the kids who don't get into Michigan or UNC or any of the original 8 "Public Ivies". It isn't all about test scores and grades at selective schools. If it was, they'd have to admit more students than they can service.

I wasn't trying to make an argument for why she didn't get. I was merely trying to dispel the mediocre statement. The whole bases of her case is UT is choosing students based race/ethnicity that fall outside the top 10% rule, which she doesn't believe should be the universities right. She believes the 10% rule provides enough diversity in and unto itself that race/ethnicity should be stricken when considering the balance of the freshman class.