Replies

I admit the policies are not perfect, but at the same time, I am not convinced that they are flawed.

They penalize smart kids who happen to live in school districts with a lot of other smart kids, and reward kids who live in school districts with a lot of dumb kids. A minority kid who wants to go to college will be far better off living in a minority area, where the competition is weaker. And people will figure out how to work the system; e.g. take a lot of courses for 3 years in a very good school district, and then enroll in a lousy one for a lazy senior year where you take weak courses to get into the top 10%. In a state like Nebraska, where there are very few 'majority minority' schools, they'll fail to deliver the requisite quotas. And they'll cause a lot of underqualified studetns to be admitted, of all races, lowering standards still further.

I agree though, they're not unconstitutional. And they're so bad they won't last long.

I see. Still, it's a good faith effort - and if it doesn't work, someone can go back and reassess them for an even more merit-based policy down the road. They are improvements over the corrupt quota systems like the University of Michigan's, and should be seen as a step towards a purely color-blind admissions policy.

All your scenarios have some merit. However, let's get real: for most kids, particularly at the undergraduate level, getting into college is not a problem. They can get into college, somewhere.

A kid who is sets going to college as a goal can get there admissions-wise. Now tuition, travel money, etc., that's another story.