Do y'all think there's any possibility that the c/o 2019 cycle saw better-than-normal URM results due to uncertainty about the ruling on this case and potential implications on future cases had they struck Affirmative Action down?
(To be clear I'm not sure if actual statistics even point to c/o 2019 being a better-than-normal cycle for URMs, just postulating the possibility.)
Fisher vs UT Ruling Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:15 am
Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling
Not sure why public T14s would admit a higher than usual amount of URMs in anticipation of AA being struck down. Also only 3 of the T14 are public, so even if there was a swing at these schools, the overall effect would not have been significant.BigTex wrote:Do y'all think there's any possibility that the c/o 2019 cycle saw better-than-normal URM results due to uncertainty about the ruling on this case and potential implications on future cases had they struck Affirmative Action down?
(To be clear I'm not sure if actual statistics even point to c/o 2019 being a better-than-normal cycle for URMs, just postulating the possibility.)