Justice Scalia's comments

When the top end of the scale is 4.3, I'm not surprised.

 

Lots of 'em went to Lake Woebegone High ... You gotta bring it to crack the top decile there ...

 

I went to (1) a small, woodwork private school with almost no racial diversity, though I was personally enriched being around people diverse from my own area - it was a good ol' boy student body, and I was a suburbanite; (2) a BCS school that has been at the center of some of these cases. I believe the diversity - both racial and geographic - was personally enriching ; (3) a well-known private school that falls somewhere in between, unless you include Asians. It was the best educational experience of the three, mostly because of the diversity of thought and ideas, which the BCS school lacked.

 

It can as high as 5.0 in some systems. Part of going soft on the youth, same as suing a school because an unexceptional student wasn't let in. (I know that's mostly a distraction)

 

In a twisted way, this is true. I worked on the affirmative action admissions committees both in undergrad and law school. The point is not some pure race based point system where minorities get admitted at "lower" scores.

The point is to give credence to those who are less fortunate and achieve notwithstanding the obstacles faced.

You think some suburbanite white kid who's never worked a day in his/her life, who has tutors at their beckon call and has a 4.0 is vastly superior to a minority kid with two uneducated working parents, who has to help raise his/her 4 siblings AND works 40 hours a week AND wrestles? That's affirmative action, giving kids credit for achieving in less traditional circumstances. Those are kids that I was proud to recommend for admission under affirmative action goals.

And no it wasn't purely race based criteria, we applied the same criteria to "others" who did not fit the traditional minority classes, which meant disadvantaged caucasians as well, as any affirmative action program should IMHO.

 

The university system doesn't give a crap about high-achieving, low-income white kids. Can't check off a box anywhere.

 

Why should any of that apply to Grad/Professional Schools? I understand the argument for undergrad to consider people who have been disadvantaged and may have to deal with issues that others not economically disadvantaged have not faced. I think discriminating against someone or in favor of someone to make the yearbook photos look like a Benetton catalogue is trash. But giving the disadvantaged a different look may have a place. As I said before, just make it plain. Tell the applicants the criteria.
But to get a doctorate in bio-chemistry or physics or a medical or law degree, you have a 4 year accredited University to determine, objectively, if they are the best candidate. What is the need for race based admissions in post-grad?

 

"Best" candidate isn't an objective measure.

 

Bring on the app from a wealthy kid saving the world by spending a week talking selfies in Central America

 

Upper and upper middle class black kids often benefit from these programs, while poor white kids are given no additional advantage.