University of Texas Supreme Court case

[shirley1929]

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

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?

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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

This is just silliness. I hate when people use this argument because there are so many people from all ethnic backgrounds who come from disadvantaged homes who still prove to be successful. Affirmative action is not necessary in order to achieve diversity. There are many people from all cultures, races, and backgrounds who are able to get in on the merits.

College admissions should not be based on race or background. It should be based on qualifications.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

This is just silliness. I hate when people use this argument because there are so many people from all ethnic backgrounds who come from disadvantaged homes who still prove to be successful. Affirmative action is not necessary in order to achieve diversity. There are many people from all cultures, races, and backgrounds who are able to get in on the merits.

College admissions should not be based on race or background. It should be based on qualifications.

Well, take this example. Susie and Jenny are both applying to Wawa U. Both of them have the same GPA. Susie's extracurriculars include Mu Alpha Theta, swim team, flag squad and National honor society. Jenny was in NHS, that's it. Obviously Susie is a better choice, right?

Well - what doesn't show on the application is that the average family at Susie's school makes 5 times more than the average family at Jenny's school, and Jenny's school doesn't even HAVE those first three things because the district barely has money to keep the school open.

If you get an assurance that college admissions people are going to take these things into account - that would be one thing - but I seriously doubt that is always the case.

[adpimiz]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Well, take this example. Susie and Jenny are both applying to Wawa U. Both of them have the same GPA. Susie's extracurriculars include Mu Alpha Theta, swim team, flag squad and National honor society. Jenny was in NHS, that's it. Obviously Susie is a better choice, right?

Well - what doesn't show on the application is that the average family at Susie's school makes 5 times more than the average family at Jenny's school, and Jenny's school doesn't even HAVE those first three things because the district barely has money to keep the school open.

If you get an assurance that college admissions people are going to take these things into account - that would be one thing - but I seriously doubt that is always the case.

Well, isn't that in part of what college essays are for?

I went to a very small high school that did not have much money, and had few extracurriculars to choose from. But, I highly doubt, that at any high school, NHS would be the only available extracurricular activity. Also, there are activities to do outside of school that do not involve having money - volunteering, church youth groups, etc.

I appreciate your example and I realize that this is a problem, but I do not and will not ever believe that affirmative action is a successful solution.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Well, take this example. Susie and Jenny are both applying to Wawa U. Both of them have the same GPA. Susie's extracurriculars include Mu Alpha Theta, swim team, flag squad and National honor society. Jenny was in NHS, that's it. Obviously Susie is a better choice, right?

Well - what doesn't show on the application is that the average family at Susie's school makes 5 times more than the average family at Jenny's school, and Jenny's school doesn't even HAVE those first three things because the district barely has money to keep the school open.

If you get an assurance that college admissions people are going to take these things into account - that would be one thing - but I seriously doubt that is always the case.

I totally get and agree with what you're saying. However, (re: the bolded) keep in mind that Texas is a Robin Hood state...Susie's district has sent MILLIONS to Jenny's to keep the scales closer to balanced. Although Susie's parents pay outrageous property taxes, 50% of that leaves their district - POOF - to go to Jenny's.

Not saying they're balanced...just saying they're not as far off as you're making it seem.

[GeorgiaGreek]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Jenny's school doesn't even HAVE those first three things because the district barely has money to keep the school open.

Both admissions officers and college counselors have indicated that the availability of classes and programs at your school is considered. Example: Big Rich High School has an IB program, 17 AP classes to choose from, and 8 sports teams. Small Rural High School has only 4 AP classes to choose from, and one boys' sport and one girls' sport each season.

Tim from Big School may have taken 5 AP classes and played football and soccer, but Johnny from Small School who took 4 AP classes and only played basketball might be considered equal or even at an advantage based on these aspects. It's not just about the the opportunities you're given, it's about the ones you take. Big state schools are especially aware of this when they have to compare applicants from different levels of opportunity.

[ADPi95]

Originally Posted by adpimiz

This is just silliness. I hate when people use this argument because there are so many people from all ethnic backgrounds who come from disadvantaged homes who still prove to be successful. Affirmative action is not necessary in order to achieve diversity. There are many people from all cultures, races, and backgrounds who are able to get in on the merits.

College admissions should not be based on race or background. It should be based on qualifications.

I agree with adpimiz. I would like to think I was accepted into Texas A&M on my own merits. I'm Hispanic, but my parents instilled in me the notion that I am not special...I'm just like everybody else. You have to work hard for the things that you want. Again, that's how I was brought up.

That being said, I was in NHS, involved in drama, Student Council, and debate. When I applied to Texas A&M, I applied to the Agriculture department. I was also involved in 4H for 10 years (raised livestock, 4H State, 4H Congress, etc). My acceptance could have been based on my ethnicity, but again, I'd like to think that good grades, hard work, and achievements in the area in which decided to major in, was enough to get me in. Then again, that was 17 years ago!

After college, I earned two master's degrees in which I neither asked for, nor received, any scholarships or aid because my ethnicity (I didn't for undergrad either).

[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.

[Kevin]

Life isn't fair?

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Life isn't fair?

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?

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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

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?

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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

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.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

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.