Borg wrote:MarkinKansasCity wrote:LexLeon wrote:Borg wrote:
That was meant to be tongue in cheek. In all seriousness though, I really doubt that it matters what you write as long as it is coherent. Admissions officer sees that you check the box for black or latino or another URM and it doesn't really matter, they get to check their diversity box. They "read" 15,000 applications, but what that actually means is that they have their assistants create four piles - one with scores in the typical range, another with applicants that are borderline numerically, a third that are not admissible based on numbers, and a fourth relatively small pile that consists of URM applicants. The students in that fourth pile will largely be admitted unless they have egregiously low numbers. For example, a 3.5 and a 163 was good enough to get into Harvard this cycle. They aren't going to care much about the content of the diversity essay, they only care that it is coherent, shows that you're diverse, and they can pump up their URM numbers.
Have you read any Supreme Court opinions on diversity in higher education?
Have you looked at lawschoolnumbers.com or mylsn.info? Because regardless of what the Supreme Court says, reality seems to support his assertion.
Seriously. What I'm saying is consistent with Grutter v. Bollinger. It's not a quota system, and can easily fit within the framework of a "holistic" system of evaluation. The school doesn't necessarily assign points or attempt to meet a specific threshold. When I say "pump up their URM numbers," it's in reference to US News/public opinion, not some internal metric. I guarantee this is the way things actually work in practice, regardless of point systems or any other ultimately irrelevant issue SCOTUS has tackled.
Please bear in mind that "a quota system," or "assigning points," or setting "a specific threshold," are, indeed, inconsistent with
Grutter. But
Grutter requires more from race-conscious admissions policies than the absence of those features.
I'm not saying that you're definitely incorrect.
But
"As Justice Powell made clear in
Bakke, truly individualized
consideration demands that race be used in a flexible,
nonmechanical way. It follows from this mandate that
universities cannot...put members of [certain racial] groups on
separate admissions tracks."
539 U.S. at 334; See: 438 U.S. at 315 - 316
And I was thinking that Justice O'Connor wrote that
"[A] university's admissions program must remain flexible enough to
ensure that each applicant is evaluated as an individual and
not in a way that makes an applicant's race or ethnicity
the defining feature of his or her application. The importance
of this individualized consideration...is paramount."
539 U.S. at 339; See: 438 U.S. at 318
So I thought that dividing some applicants into a pile, because of their races, and admitting them by virtue of their status in this pile, "unless they have egregiously low numbers," (you, above) would make race "the defining feature of" (539 U.S. at 339) an application, and put the members of "that fourth pile" (you, above) and members of the other three piles "on separate admissions tracks" (539 U.S. at 334).
