<p>Not misguided, but sending the wrong signals–if the intent is to get a student admitted. Adcoms are likely to wonder: Is this the most that can be said in favor of this applicant?
My best friend and I used to vie for top spots in most subjects. But our report cards (really booklets as this was a French school) said very different things. I used to come home with top or near top spots in most classes, but get scolded by my parents because teachers would write "could do even better; daydreams in class; is careless). My girlfriend, however, got comments such as "works hard; is very conscientious; good student…) We knew that I spent half the time she did studying.<br>
I was pretty worried about all the comments in my school report when applying to American colleges; they sounded so damning! But I was admitted. My girlfriend found that her work ethic was not quite enough to succeed in college; I hit my stride in college classes where I could no longer get a good grade while zoning out.
Last year, there was a thread about how to advise teachers to write effective recs. Words like “diligent, conscientious, hardworking” were to be avoided because they gave readers the sense that the student had reached his or her limits and might not have anything left over to devote to the more challenging college curriculum.</p>
<p>“Nope, higherlead. That wouldn’t happen. The only thing the denied applicant is entitled to know is they didn’t fit in this year’s quilt. They have no right to a specific reason. And certainly not a quantifiable one to a process that by its very nature is not quantifiable, and not intended to be. Try again.”</p>
<p>What does the quilt you got look like cur? What does the quilt you were aiming for look like? What does next year quilt look like? How do you know when you have the quilt you want? Does your business have no measure of success? How many admissions officers do you have? Are they all looking for the same quilt? Or are they each looking for their own quilt? How would you know?</p>
<p>Cur you would look like what you are on the stand a stonewaller with a hidden agenda you don’t want to divulge.</p>
<p>“But the deliberations on speficic candidates are supposed to be kept confidential.
Not to mention that adcoms read hundreds of folders and would have a very hard time reconstituting their thought processes even a week after the decisions were made.”</p>
<p>This is all true but I haven’t asked Adcom Cur about any particular candidates application and he can’t even articulate what he or the school are looking for in general let alone in particular. I could allege I was discriminated againts because he is biased against Estonians. Of course I couldn’t prove that but there is my word his word and no articulatable admission standard. I have a draw at least.</p>
<p>I feel like it would be a better case if you’d applied to ALL the state schools, and gotten rejected from all of them, and then into another state school. You could perhaps claim that having finished high school competantly (I am guessing in this case above average) you should be guaranteed admission at <em>a</em> state school, but one specific school, much less the hardest one to get into, is a worse case. </p>
<p>You could probably argue a lot of things were at play, and you might be successful based on the judge you get, but you would have to be really committed to the principle IMO because you would spend so much pursuing this.</p>
<p>A draw gets you nothing. Colleges can admit whomever they please. They need not have any criteria at all–it could be a lottery. Just so there is no discrimination against protected groups. So what if you could even prove they were arbitrary–it’s just like speeding tickets, lots of people do it but only a few get tickets. They don’t throw those out because lots of other people should have gotten them too.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Higherlead:</p>
<p>Your statement makes no sense. On the one hand, you say you are not asking about a particular candidate. But you go on to argue that you could allege that you were discriminated against because Adcom Cur had a bias against Estonians. The second sentence makes it a particular case. You would have to prove that Adcom Cur had such a bias. Adcom Cur does not have to prove that he is not biased.
In order to prove your point, however, one single case won’t do. You would have to prove that every single Estonian got rejected. Could you do it?
The OP’s sole point does not have to do with URM, gender, geographic diversity, etc… just that some students from the OP’s school got in while the OP’s kid did not. To prove that the OP’s son was as good a candidate as those who were admitted, the OP would have to adduce more than just GPA and board scores. The whole dossier would need to be considered–and in context. Which means asking the school to break confidentiality in order to reveal that the admitted students had either better or worse recs, better or worse essays, better or worse resumes. Would a court compel the school to do so?</p>
<p>It’s even easier than that. Higherlead would not get by a motion for summary judgment on the facts presented by the OP. There is a better chance that a court would impose sanctions against his client for making a baseless claim than that he’d even get to a “my word, his word” hearing, much less win such a hearing.</p>
<p>I’ve litigated cases like this in the employment area, and counseled clients for many years who wish to make such claims. Barrons is right–the school could make admission decisions by lottery as long as it doesn’t discriminate against a protected class or violate a clear, written policy. Period.</p>
<p>“The second sentence makes it a particular case. You would have to prove that Adcom Cur had such a bias. Adcom Cur does not have to prove that he is not biased.”</p>
<p>Read the post marite. The point is in a civil case the side with the preponderence of evidence wins. If one side presents no evidence and the other presents even minimal evidence then the side with any evidence wins. It is not an innocent until proven guilty thing like in criminal law.</p>
<p>You do however have to have a cause for action and if you can get passed that the door is open to ask a lot of questions tat have to be aswered under oath. </p>
<p>If Adcom Cur cannot articulate what he is looking for in general let alone in particular or how he knows when he has it then as a witness he appears to either be an idiot or a dissembler. If he is lucky his lawyer will make him look like an idiot because juries don’t like dissemblers.</p>
<p>If I have no evidence Adcom Cur discriminated against me because I am Estonian and he has not evidence he didn’t, and more importantly no discernable standard upon which to make a decision we have at worst a tie. If I have even a semblance of evidence he better at least be able to show what standard he does use as that would be a defence against my allegation. </p>
<p>Now honestly I don’t think this thing would ever get to trial for a varety of reasons not the least of which is that I think most adcoms and deans of admission would make terrible witnesses - arrogant, deceitful, and dissembling all at the same time and most schools have good legal counsel who would say just admit the kid and make this go away. We will win in the end but it will cost the school time and money and make us look like asses.</p>
<p>Now would it be financially worth it to the OP to pursue this? I doubt it but then may a lawsuit has been brought on principle with no thought to the cost by those who can afford to have principles.</p>
<p>BTW I would not have to “prove that every single Estonian got rejected.”
The standard is disparate outcomes. I don’t need to see a single name attached to an application. If you admit 40% of applicants but only 10% of Estonians I have presented credible evidence. Hiring a token Estonian isn’t going to keep you from being sued.</p>
<p>Yeah getting to trial would be the hard part. That is one of the reasons for the overweening arrogance and self-righteousness in all those ivy covered walls. Never explain never apologize. We are the gatekeepers.</p>
<p>My honest advice if you really want to get your kid in is to make a nice campaign cintribution to the right state legislator and ask him to write a letter. I think your application would get a second look. The only people more arrogant and self-impostant than college admiistrators are politicians.</p>
<p>
Hey dadtimes3. I don’t think HL is trying real hard. You put the period in the right place. I’ll put it there, too.;)</p>
<p>look up UC Davis (regents) v. Bakke or any of the umich cases</p>
<p>So basically cur, dadtimes3, and barrons are arguing that the arbitrary application of arbitrary standards is hunky dory in the absence of any written policy and that any equal protection claims would face summary dismissal.</p>
<p>I am just curious why you think in the absence of any defence the judge would assume that you had a rational basis for your decisions and were advancing a legitimate state purpose.</p>
<p>Higherlead:</p>
<p>But in any case, it is the plaintiff who has to present “the preponderance of evidence.” What evidence would the plaintiff has, besides the fact that one kid did not get admitted but some other kids did, whose total application folder the plaintiff has not seen and cannot force the adcom to disgorge under confidentiality laws? </p>
<p>UC-Davis has very clear and published criteria. Some may not like the list of criteria or how much weight is given to specific ones. But they are not arbitrary. Other schools may not have so detailed a list of criteria, but most people know roughly what they are (GPA, board scores, class rank, rigor of curriculum, recs, essays, ECs, leadership qualities, and so on). Absent evidence— which the plaintiff must produce–, I do not see how the plaintiff can build a case that the application of the school’s criteria was arbitrary.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, higherlead, this is incorrect. It is not true that the side with minimal evidence wins. You misunderstand the concept of “preponderance of the evidence.” The concept is that the side with the burden of proof must show that it is more likely than not that the situation is as he says. In civil cases, the defense can sit down without presenting a single piece of evidence and still win. I’ve seen it happen (and I’ve done it). The judge can dismiss the case at the end of plaintiff’s evidence, or the jury can still find for the defendant, even in a civil trial.</p>
<p>Your difficulty here is that you insist that there must be an objective, easily articulated reason for admissions decisions. You’re wrong. Unless you are a member of a protected class (and that’s where your “equal protection” case would come in), you can be rejected for any reason or no reason. You can be admitted the same way. (Barrons, I think I’ve litigated the same employment cases you have!)</p>
<p>Oh, one more thing - equal protection claims are brought on the basis of statistics, not anecdotes. Individual cases don’t prove discrimination. And being a student at a particular high school is not a protected class.</p>
<p>We’ve taken our kids on college visits. A college looks perfect on paper. The kid goes and says, “Nope. Don’t like it. Won’t go here.” You ask why. Kid says, “Don’t know. It just doesn’t feel right.” Kid can’t articulate an objective reason for the feeling.</p>
<p>A job applicant goes for an interview. Interviewer says, “Not a good fit. Wouldn’t fit in here with our culture.” Interviewer can’t articulate an objective reason for the feeling.</p>
<p>Same thing with admissions counselors. Sometimes it’s the best they can do to get a “feeling” for how well a kid would fit into the class they’re trying to build. If they were required to articulate an objective reason for a decision, then all subjective criteria (depth of EC’s, passion, “quirkiness”, fit, recommendations, interview) would go out the window and admissions would be on stats only. The legislature could insist that admissions be on stats only. It didn’t. Sometimes the only answer, and a perfectly legitimate one, is “We believe that the students we accepted were a better fit for our university than the one we didn’t.”</p>
<p>And the fact that the student got into an equally selective out of state public university is pretty much irrelevant. Public universities love out of staters; they pay more.</p>
<p>I don’t know if it has been mentioned, but the Supreme Court is about to issue a decision that could change the admissions landscape. Look for the decision “MEREDITH V. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION” in the next week or two.</p>
<p>
</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Oral arguments were heard in the case in November of last year. There must be plenty of discussion within the court for the opinions to be delayed so long.</p>
<p>StAndrews:
I do not believe the OP made a case that the students who were admitted while the OP’s kid was not were African-Americans. But thanks for pointing out that
Holistic Review in this particular case is seen as a plus rather than a tool for discrimination against majority kids.</p>
<p>Higherlead, there is no equal protection claim unless you’re a member of a protected class–being a student applying to a state University is not a protected class unless, for example, you’re discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, etc. The state (University) doesn’t need to advance a rational basis or legitimate state purpose unless such a claim is advanced. And, even if such a claim is advanced, the individual would first need to make a prima facie showing of discrimination (by presenting evidence, not just a claim) before the burden would shift to the University to deny the allegations, present a rational reason for the decision, or show a compelling state interest justifying the conduct.</p>
<p>That’s the law.</p>
<p>Chedva - I didn’t say “there must be an objective, easily articulated reason for admissions decisions”. I said there had to be A reason that COULD be articulated. If you are creating this alleged quilt then you ought to be able to tell us what the pattern is and why it serves a legitimate state purpose to build it. The University of Michigan Law School won their case precisely bevause they were able to do that. Good thing too because the statistics killed them.</p>
<p>We are not talking a private club or a private employer or even a private institutio here but a state institution. And no the equal protection clause does not just apply to certain defined classes. They just get greater scrutiny and require lower levels of “proof”. In fact in the case of protected classes they don’t require proof at all beyond the statistics.</p>
<p>So, Higherlead, you go into court and sue because your kid was rejected. The school argues “we had more qualified applicants than we could admit.” It happens to be true in 99% of the cases. Where does that leave you?</p>
<p>You folks seem to mistake holistic for inexplicable. Every coach in every sport in the world makes holistic decisions every day of the week o who they recruit and who they play and none of them will have a darn bit of trouble telling you what they are lookng for in a player to build the team they envision or why the team they envision is the right mix. One coach might want hitting ad another defense while a third is looking for speed or position players or those alleged intangibles like leadership, work ethis, discipline, dedication, selflessness etc etc.</p>
<p>Cur the adcom of state u cannot or will not tell what he is looking for or why. I haven’t even</p>