smooth

No, I am not sacrificing anything. We seem to be speaking at cross-purposes. You are operating under the assumption (reasonable, granted) that quantitative, raw scores are an accurate measure of one's ability. From that premise you extrapolate that one's ability will translate to quality of education on campus.

The problem we find with that view, however, is that it fails to recognize that qualitative factors are subjective. In this circumstance, students are attempting to analyze whether administrators should or should not use qualities they deem as relevant to increasing the quality of the learning environment they are creating--factors only they are qualified to ascertain. At the graduate level, as is the case of the law school, cohort interation creates the learning environment--not merely (one could argue, least of all) the professors.

That doesn't even address the ramifications of allowing a court to gainsay the educators' expertise nor does it touch the ridiculousness of laypersons arguing against the positions of numerous experts on the subject.

I need to point out my position is that the most intelligent people in our country are at the helm of our intellectual institutions; one would hope so, anyway, seeing as we are arguing over one's right to learn from those people.

I've read the evidence for their position (and I've probably written some of it) and, as a social scientist, I both believe it to be strong and support it. If you aren't aware of the strong scientific evidence in support of Bollinger's position I believe you have an obligation to avail yourself of it before reaching a final conclusion.

IIRC, you are some sort of poli-sci major? You might remember a study out of--could be Harvard business--regarding X and O interaction. If you don't know what I'm talking about then let me know and I'll pull it out of my book. You can also ask some people in business managment or theory of organizations courses.