THAT CLAIM IS BACK, THIS TIME IN VOX.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/9/9880914/fisher-v-texas-affirmative-action

"As ProPublica reported in 2013, although some students with lower grades and test scores than Fisher were admitted that year, the vast majority were white, and more than 150 black and Latino students with roughly the same or better grades and test scores were turned away."

NOTICE HOW THEY CITE TO THE INCORRECT PROPUBLICA ARTICLE AND MAKE NO EFFORT TO VERIFY THE ANALYSIS.

whoooooooooooly fucking shit. FUCK THIS GAY EARTH.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29343895)

tbf, is anybody besides you on this story?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29344191)

There is a serious error in Libby Nelson's article about Fisher v. Texas (http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2015/12/9/9880914/fisher-v-texas-affirmative-action) that bespeaks a cut-and-paste style of "reporting" and "analysis". It's also a textbook example of confirmation bias---because Nelson disagrees with Fisher's claim, she makes less of an attempt to verify factual claims that portray Fisher's claim negatively.

The problem is in this paragraph:

"As ProPublica reported in 2013, although some students with lower grades and test scores than Fisher were admitted that year, the vast majority were white, and more than 150 black and Latino students with roughly the same or better grades and test scores were turned away."

If Nelson had investigated ProPublica's claim, rather than merely accept it because she favors Texas's position, she would have realized that ProPublica's claim that "more than 150 black and Latino students with roughly the same or better grades and test scores [than Fisher were rejected]" (emphasis added) has no basis in fact. The truth is that the students had higher AI/PAI scores, which are NOT based only on "grades and test scores". These scores are based in part on race. See Respondent's Brief at 15-16 (http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/Brief%20for%20Respondents.pdf). These errors are egregious because PAI scores are based in part on an applicant's race. See Respondent's Brief at 13 ("An applicant's PAI score is based on . . . a Personal Achievement Score . . . . The PAS score ranges from 1 to 6 . . . and is based on holistic consideration of six equally-weighted factors: [other factors], and special circumstances. The 'special circumstances' factor is broken down into seven attributes, including . . . an applicant's race.")

So while those minority students may have had higher AI/PAI scores, it is simply and utterly misleading to say, as Nelson does, that those students had "roughly the same or better grades and test scores". The fact is, Nelson has no idea whether those students had higher, lower, or equal grades and test scores to Fisher. It's entirely possible that Fisher's AI/PAI scores would have been higher than most or all of those minority students had race not been a component of those scores.

Nelson's misrepresentation leads a reader to think that Fisher was less academically qualified than many minority students who were rejected, something obviously designed to skew opinion against Fisher's legal claim.

I paste below/forward an email I sent to Slate regarding the exact same issue in another article about the case. How this error continues to be repeated without BASIC FACT CHECKING is absurd. And if Vox attempts to excuse this error by saying, "But, but, but we just said ProPublica, a different publication, reported this claim!", then you are bankrupt in journalistic principles.

I hope this error is corrected promptly.

Thank you,

A concerned law student

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29344205)

Throughout her now seven-year campaign to make the school pay for not letting her in, Fisher has never been able to produce any evidence that the school tossed her application to make room for a less qualified minority applicant. That’s because, as UT Austin has maintained throughout this ordeal, Fisher was never getting in to their school. Fisher’s GPA and SAT scores weren’t high enough, and she didn’t have enough external accomplishments to convince the school to give her a shot otherwise. As Pro Publica explained at the time:

It’s true that the university, for whatever reason, offered provisional admission to some students with lower test scores and grades than Fisher. Five of those students were black or Latino. Forty-two were white.

Neither Fisher nor Blum mentioned those 42 applicants in interviews. Nor did they acknowledge the 168 black and Latino students with grades as good as or better than Fisher’s who were also denied entry into the university that year.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/09/abigail_fisher_deserves_an_f_for_her_race_baiting_supreme_court_case_aimed_at_boosting_subpar_white_students/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29345113)

You should write a short editorial and Rach should publish it on a "front page" of XO.

http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066601&mc=1&forum_id=2

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29345143)

That stat is wrong. It suggests that Fisher had lower scores (grades; SATs) than the others, but in reality it is referring to the fact that *once UT added points based upon the applicant's race* she had lower scores. That is, the "lower scores" are really "lower race-adjusted scores."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29345259)

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-texas-austin/569013-how-ut-chooses-its-not-top-10-students-2007-report.html

The UT Austin admissions routine for students not automatically admitted is elaborate and entails a broad concept of merit. Beginning with the entering class of 1997, for those not automatically admitted, the idea of merit was expanded from class rank and test scores exclusively to the inclusion of the following factors:

The Academic Index (AI)

High School Record:

o Class rank

o Completion of UT required high school curriculum

o Extent to which students exceed the UT required units

o SAT/ACT score

The Personal Achievement Index (PAI)

o Scores on two essays

o Leadership

o Extracurricular Activities

o Awards/honors

o Work experience

o Service to school or community

o Special circumstances:

- Socio-economic status of family

- Single parent home

- Language spoken at home

- Family responsibilities

- Socio-economic status of school attended

- Average SAT/ACT of school attended in relation to student's own SAT/ACT

- Race (addition approved by the UT Board of Regents in 2003)

Thus, merit includes the ambition to tackle rigorous high school coursework, the production of quality prose, and the desire to make a difference in one’s school, home, or community. Evidence of employability (work), and some sense of having excelled in any number of areas are also considered. Moreover, admissions officials place these attributes in the context of the circumstances under which the student lived.

The Academic Index (AI) is determined by a multiple regression equation utilizing a high school percentile derived from an explicit class rank [1-(class rank/class size)]*100, and verbal and math test scores from the ACT Assessment or the SAT I: Reasoning Test. The equation produces a predicted freshman year grade point average.

After a review of the high school transcript, an applicant can be “awarded” a tenth of a point if he/she exceeded UT’s required high school curriculum. Thus, AI values range from 4.10-0.00.

The Personal Achievement Index (PAI) is UT Austin’s holistic approach to admissions. Admissions officers are trained each year to conduct comprehensive reviews of every application from students not automatically admitted. All applicants are required to submit two essays. Each are read and scored on a scale of 1-6. The application itself, and any attachments an applicant chooses to include, is then reviewed. A “personal achievement” score on a scale of 1-6 is then assigned to the application.

From the three scores, two essays and a personal achievement score, a PAI is computed. The equation reflects a 1997 faculty decision to give slightly more weight to the personal achievement score than the essays:

PAI = [(personal achievement score * 4) + (mean essay * 3)] / 7.

AIs and PAIs of applicants not automatically admitted are then plotted on an admissions decision grid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29345524)

i feel bad about my MAF emails though cause she responded cordially.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29358300)

because part of what made them "more qualified" was their race, which completely obliterates their point

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#29358827)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/12/11/staymadabby-african-american-graduates-respond-to-supreme-court-affirmative-action-case-with-humor-pride/

zoidberg's doing admirable work in the comments, but other commentators are confusing the issue even more.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/abigail-fisher-5-things-to-know_us_56719717e4b0dfd4bcc026a4

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/09/abigail_fisher_deserves_an_f_for_her_race_baiting_supreme_court_case_aimed_at_boosting_subpar_white_students/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#30084287)

i question whether these writers even know how to think critically about the stats and the arguments in the brief. it's possible they wouldn't have even been able to correct the propublica article on their own.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#30084343)

it's like 15 bucks on amazon. really, go get it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3066465&forum_id=2#30087025)