• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court punts on affirmative action case

Μολὼν λαβέ;1061973625 said:
And others with less achievement/accomplishment were admitted, yet she was denied admission.
Click to expand...

Students with lower SAT scores than her were admitted. It might be fair to say they got in because of a higher GPA (I can't correlate GPA and SAT scores with the data the UT provides), better extracurricular's, AP scores, etc.

I'm not arguing that myself, just putting her application in perspective.
 
repeter said:
You're right, my analysis was incorrect. But thankfully, the previous link has numbers for those who were not admitted by the 10% rule, so it isn't meaningless, it was just wrong.

By the correct numbers, more than 65% of the applicants had scores higher than her.
Click to expand...

And in the secondary phase of the admission process race garners applicants extra credit when considering applicants for particular colleges which was the issue...
 
AlabamaPaul said:
And in the secondary phase of the admission process race garners applicants extra credit when considering applicants for particular colleges which was the issue...
Click to expand...

My point is that when you're in the bottom portion of the applicant pool, other factors such as AP's, extracurricular's, leadership activities and the like play a larger role. It's too much to say that race was the deciding factor. I haven't seen her entire application, and I'm by no means an expert, but I don't think you can say that race was why she didn't get in. It's just as likely, and perhaps more likely, that the rest of her application wasn't strong enough.
 
repeter said:
My point is that when you're in the bottom portion of the applicant pool, other factors such as AP's, extracurricular's, leadership activities and the like play a larger role. It's too much to say that race was the deciding factor. I haven't seen her entire application, and I'm by no means an expert, but I don't think you can say that race was why she didn't get in. It's just as likely, and perhaps more likely, that the rest of her application wasn't strong enough.
Click to expand...

I never implied race was the sole determining factor, but the fact is it was used as one of those used, and that is why the court sent it back to the lower court for review...
 
repeter said:
You're right, my analysis was incorrect. But thankfully, the previous link has numbers for those who were not admitted by the 10% rule, so it isn't meaningless, it was just wrong.

By the correct numbers, more than 65% of the applicants had scores higher than her.
Click to expand...

That's not what this is all about now is it?

What about those who had lower scores and were accepted, yet she was denied admission?
 
repeter said:
My point is that when you're in the bottom portion of the applicant pool, other factors such as AP's, extracurricular's, leadership activities and the like play a larger role. It's too much to say that race was the deciding factor. I haven't seen her entire application, and I'm by no means an expert, but I don't think you can say that race was why she didn't get in. It's just as likely, and perhaps more likely, that the rest of her application wasn't strong enough.
Click to expand...

Let me guess, you vote democrat?
 
repeter said:
My point is that when you're in the bottom portion of the applicant pool, other factors such as AP's, extracurricular's, leadership activities and the like play a larger role. It's too much to say that race was the deciding factor. I haven't seen her entire application, and I'm by no means an expert, but I don't think you can say that race was why she didn't get in. It's just as likely, and perhaps more likely, that the rest of her application wasn't strong enough.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Her claim was not that race was a decisive factor, but rather that race was an illegitimate factor. :cool:
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061973625 said:
And others with less achievement/accomplishment were admitted, yet she was denied admission.
Click to expand...

Yes they let in a white kid from kermit cause he was in the top 10%
 
Jack Hays said:
Those admissions are fully constitutional and not at issue. Nor is it likely those students were the only ones getting in with lower scores.
Click to expand...

Wow apparently so many bad students get into UT no wonder the text book writers they graduate think the earth is 6000 years old.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061973743 said:
Let me guess, you vote democrat?
Click to expand...

I vote for the best candidate. It so happens that most of the candidates I vote for are Democrats.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
I never implied race was the sole determining factor, but the fact is it was used as one of those used, and that is why the court sent it back to the lower court for review...
Click to expand...

With her being in the lower portions of the applicant pool, unless she had something extraordinary to make up for her deficiencies, her application would've been tossed out before they even got to race.

From what I know of the application process, its approximately a look at the numbers, then the essays/EC's/Leadership and then a look at the personal information. Now, that's the universities I applied to, but I applied to a wide-range, and for pretty much all of them, if you didn't have the test scores/grades, then didn't have the wow factor in the essays/EC's and then still didn't have anything in their application, it was a resounding no.

This girl hit the numbers, and then was likely filtered into the lower subsequent section. I wouldn't doubt that the UT system is even more brutal about that, like the UC system, because of the 10% rule. California has a similar thing, where they guarantee the top of each CA graduating class a place in at least one UC. If you're not in that percentile, or are out of state, the competition is cutthroat.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1061973511 said:
1180 out of 1600 SAT is "crappy?" A 3.59 GPA is "average?"
Click to expand...

At a school where half the applicants get rejected, yes, quite average. It's a B+ average student, trying to get into a notoriously picky school.

Yet some who had lower scores and averages than her were admitted based on their race, not their achievements. And you find fault in her feeling discriminated against?
Click to expand...

Who? She failed to show proof of said discrimination.

Typical hypocritical liberal. You would have blown a gasket had she been black or Hispanic and denied admission with white students being accepted with lower scores.
Click to expand...

Lol, UT has a history of pro-white admittance. She's more likely to get in because she is white.
 
Deuce said:
But if you remove the "compensatory mandates" while the glass ceiling is still in place, you're just back to unopposed discrimination.
Click to expand...

If there is no element of race in their criteria, there is no glass ceiling. The glass ceiling is imposed by using race as an element of selection, not by eliminating it as an element of selection.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom