How about: “I believe affirmative action is wrong but I don’t have the money or the desire to sue, but this guy shows up and offers to pay and I’m happy to attach my name to it.”

For one of many possibilities: There may not be a legal framework to sue on the other holistic considerations.

Has she? Where?

No, I think your original interpretation was correct; at least, that’s how I read it. Pre-rescale total scores were 900, post-rescale total scores were 1000. “For example, verbal and math scores of 500 received before 1995 correspond to scores of 580 and 520, respectively, on the 1995 scale.”

In your view should the 10% auto-admission policy include a race-based adjustment? (which I haven’t looked up myself but will stipulate for the purposes of this convo).

Someone decided that 10% was the magic number. How was it arrived at? I don’t know, but depending on the answer it may have been “subjective” or “arbitrary”, but I don’t see a meaningful distinction as it relates to the discussion overall.

Well, it’s not what I think, because I’ve never heard a university say that, but that is how a lot of commenters are apparently viewing it.

So I guess it depends on specifically when you took the test.

Everything is possible. What is objectionable is that without any further evidence, most people here are assuming she sucks in every department, based on really no information except the suit.

It seems like universities as a whole are being two-faced, or are being perceived by some as having different goals than they actually do. If “provide a leg up to the disadvantaged student” is a prime goal of a university, it is not being clearly conveyed; it is not on equal footing with “do well in school” as a…

Actually 1180 would have gotten you pretty close for National Merit on the old 1600 scale, but that could be the “old” 1600 and not the redesigned “recentered” 1600.

That’s a fair system in the sense if we “admit by knowledge”, and measurement of that knowledge means getting those test answers correct.

AFAIK she was _sought out_ as a client by a lawyer who specializes in and had been hunting for a litigant to challenge AA, and arranged representation and funding for her. This is not a narrative of her throwing a hissy fit and stomping off to get the lawyers involved.

I’m on board with this; I do think grades and such are wildly subjective. It’s objective that you got a “B” but what that “B” means can be variable. In context of this article and original point, then, I’ll submit that it makes even _less_ sense to call someone a mediocre student.

Gotcha.

I assume she got this information during discovery. The suit wouldn’t make any sense if she only had lower scores than the minorities who were admitted.

At a base level, if I get points on an admissions scoresheet for “being black” or “growing up in a small town”, that is not necessarily evidence that I am well rounded. Keep in mind this doesn’t sound like it’s a bunch of people holistically evaluating all of this- It sounds like there is an actual point system…

You may not have noticed that I aped the parent comment. “The only difference between Ms. Fisher and her entire, exceedingly-average cohort is that she threw a well-funded tantrum. You’d better be exceptional if you’re going to take exception.”

What do you mean by “her claims as plaintiff don’t count for herself”?

That is what is called a circular argument.