Top Law Schools

.

wert3813 wrote:Mods if you aren't comfortable with this please shut it down.

Posters PLEASE don't debate the merits of AA ITT. Just please.

Question: If the supreme court bans LS AA in Fisher v. Texas will it make a material difference on acceptance rates for non--AA applicants next cycle?

The answer would seem to be yes but the reasons for no that I'm unsure of:

URM are a relatively small part of the pool.
Schools can do whatever they want below median so it won't necessarily change anything for people at or above median.
Schools will continue to want to be diverse and so will be inclined to take URMs in the same way they take LGBT students.
Even if the SC rules for Fisher it will take a few years for the admissions process to change.

Before responding please ask yourself "is this discussing the merits of AA or Fisher v. Texas as a case?" If so please don't post.

It depends on how broadly they write the ban, how motivated schools are to engage in AA, and how good they are at doing it under the table (see California, Michigan).

.

wert3813 wrote: All good points. How do Cal and Michigan do it?

UCs: socioeconomic background.

.

The effect on normal and URM admissions will very likely be minimal.

Check out the following for analysis on why I'm saying that:
1.) This thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 4&t=201394
2.) Pages 27-28 of this thread: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... &start=650 (starting from my post and beyond, midway down pg 27)

Both those threads have relevant analysis and links as to why the holding in Fisher will probably be narrow-ish (almost certainly won't gut Grutter and AA altogether), why its implication on LS admissions will be negligible, why the LSAC, schools, and ABA have a vested interest in diversity, and how California and Michigan (post-Grutter reactions) prove that.

For example, CA and MI passed and signed into law explicit propositions against using race as a factor in education admissions and yet any analysis of LSN post-2003 will show that URMs receive the same boost at Stanford, Berk, UCLA/USC, and Michigan that they do at the other T14s. Whether this simply proves an extremely strong correlation between struggling SES amongst URMs or shows the insistence on law schools to hold onto the statutes in Grutter, in however roundabout a way (the latter seems more likely) remains to be seen.

These propositions were direct and unambiguous in their intent and still their impact has been nil. The issue at hand in Fisher is less direct state specific instance (using race as "one factor among many" for applicants who dont qualify for the top HS 10% rule in Texas for undergraduate admissions to UT). The three Justices heavily opposed to AA would have to do a lot of work to get Roberts and Kennedy to apply any ruling broadly. If it didn't happen in Family, it won't happen here.

Tl;dr - non-URM candidates probably still won't be directly competing with URM candidates next cycle no matter what happens in Fisher. Negligible impacts all around.

HTH.

P.S. This analysis is brought to you by a know-nothing 0L also applying next cycle. lol

when is it supposed to be decided?

oaken wrote:when is it supposed to be decided?

Probably June.