Welcome to the DailyDose of Higher Education from BreakDrink.com. This is the Tuesday, October 9th edition and I’m Shawn Brackett bringing you today’s news in colleges and universities.
“Hong Kong Family Sues Consultant Over Quest for Admission to University”
The Chow family from Hong Kong is suing an educational consultant for breach of contract stemming from years of payments designed to help their sons gain admission to an ivy-league institution. Mark Zimny allegedly took more than $2.2 million dollars in payments for extensive tutoring services, personal networking, and promised donations to institutions. Gerald and Lily Chow argue that Zimny’s work was fraudulent, that he overcharged for services rendered, and that he failed to make donations on their behalf.
Moving to the west coast,
“Progress Stalled for Many at California Community Colleges”
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-college-one-class-20121004,0,2519199,full.story [story]
The California Community College system serves 2.4 million students across 112 institutions. Many of those students make adequate progress toward a credential, but 470,000 students are on wait lists for classes–more than the entire California State University system. Catastrophic cuts, representing 33% of the CCC’s annual budget, are forcing students to scramble for any open classes and “crashing” others in hopes of being admitted later in the term. In the institutions designed specifically for open admission and to serve all residents of California, the community colleges are becoming increasingly closed to many.
And, lastly,
“Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Fisher v. Texas”
http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Fisher-V-Texas.html [case documents]
Tomorrow, October 10th, oral arguments before the US Supreme Court begin in the case Fisher v. Texas. This case bears special significance in that the plaintiff is challenging the legality of University of Texas at Austin’s inclusion of race into undergraduate admission decisions. In 2003, the US Supreme Court found in twin cases Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger that institutions of higher education (and the states that funded them) had a compelling interest in ensuring diverse student bodies through the use of affirmative actions. The outcome of this case, as it is being heard at the highest level, will likely have a strong impact on American higher education.
That’s it for today–make tomorrow a good one. Join us on Thursday with Sue Caulfield!
