The number of perfect CR+M is over 2,000 for Class of 2015 according to CB which is a lot greater than the number of 2400s. I would bet that is what the schools are referring to, as the writing has never been quite considered in the same way.
I thought the point of the Amici was to show that other factors are being considered by schools than simply SAT scores and grades. That is, while Fisher may argue that her stats are better than some other kids being admitted, the amici are saying that they do not automatically admit all the perfect candidates and may well admit a kid with lesser stats over a 4.0/1600 student due to other factors.
Is there any data on how well kids admitted to UT with lower SAT scores do in comparison to the kids from well-off suburban high schools? Is there any difference?
@mom2and “Is there any data on how well kids admitted to UT with lower SAT scores do in comparison to the kids from well-off suburban high schools? Is there any difference?”
I am sure that data exists, but the goal has never been to admit the students that will do the best. They are focused on constructing the best class from many perspectives, including athletes, students with talents, top students, diverse students, students who get involved in community etc. There is a lot more to the college experience than sitting in classes and studying.
It is relevant how many of them were GPA over 4.0 (and how many from schools where a very large number are over 4.0), and how many were valedictorians (and of these, how many were sole valedictorians in a class, not one of 50).
FWIW, a newly released study by UC Berkeley on SAT’s racial impact concludes race has a
stronger correlation to SAT scores than family income or education level of parents.
@GMTPlus7 You and I are talking about two different things. The study by UC Berkley is on how different races score on the test. My point was that the SAT itself is less of a predictor of success than income is- at least in UT.
I don’t want to rehash the discussion of the Princeton decision from the other thread (linked earlier), but the results of that federal investigation suggests to me that it is very, very unlikely that actions against Harvard or similar schools will succeed.
Yes, they are unlikely to succeed, but will the publicity caused by these lawsuits be impacting HYP’s admission practice somehow in the future? On the other thread, it was noted that Princeton had increased its Asian student population over the course of the lawsuit.
Note that the issue of what steps a college may take to provide advantages to URMs in admission is different from the issue of whether a college is discriminating against Asian students in favor of white students. With respect to URMs, colleges admit they are practicing affirmative action, and the issue is about how, exactly, they are legally allowed to carry that out. With respect to Asians, colleges deny that they are discriminating, and it will be very difficult to obtain proof that will be enough to sustain a claim that they are.
The Fisher case is about affirmative action for URMs. I suspect that private colleges are interested in it because it could change what is acceptable in terms of running an affirmative action program. The case is unlikely to be significant on the question of claimed discrimination against Asians.
@Swimkidsdad, why do you feel the need to inject that misleading statistic into yet another thread, which isn’t really even about that topic? As I just posted, the Fisher case isn’t about that in the first place.
Harvard filed its own amicus brief that answers some of the questions earlier in the thread.
“Although Harvard is a private institution and therefore not directly subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Harvard does receive federal financial assistance and so is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq. Harvard has therefore looked to this Court’s decisions concerning the use of race in higher education admissions at public universities—Bakke, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 133 S. Ct. 2411 (2013)— as a guide in shaping its admissions policies. Moreover, Harvard is currently defending a lawsuit brought under Title VI alleging that Harvard’s undergraduate admissions policies are inconsistent with this Court’s equal protection precedents.2 Harvard therefore has a substantial educational and legal interest in ensuring that the Court adheres to the established framework for assessing the permissibility of race-conscious admissions established by Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher.”
“Grutter involved a state university subject to the Equal Protection Clause. This Court has never been directly presented with a case involving the consideration of race in admissions by a private university covered by Title VI, and has therefore not directly addressed whether different considerations and criteria might be appropriate in that context. Because UT is also a state university, this case does not present that question.”