Fisher vs UT Ruling

(BLS, URM status, non-traditional, GLBT)
User avatar
BigTex
Posts: 125
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2016 11:49 am

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby BigTex » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:16 am

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.)

Famous
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 2:15 am

Re: Fisher vs UT Ruling

Postby Famous » Fri Jul 15, 2016 11:31 am

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.)


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.




Return to “Under Represented Law Student Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests