Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it acceptable, within the applicants for a particular school, to rank based on extracurriculars like MathCounts, AMC 8, AMC 10, Science Olympiad, Robotics, FLL, etc?

We live in a different jurisdiction, but I cannot process why choice of EC would be a factor? Almost nobody in the top academic classes at our school does those contests. It's a "thing" with some kids who don't have otherwise busy schedules, but it is not a marker of the brightest students by a long shot. It a choice about how to spend your free time.

DP. The trouble here is that many of those specific ECs have been historically seen as tickets to TJ because they theoretically provide evidence of “passion for STEM”. They were part of a very narrow path that families could rely on to position their children for the TJ admissions process as well as possible.

But when you have a very narrow path that is successful, you end up with a significant percentage of the students who enter TJ with VERY similar backgrounds and resumes because so many families have tried to optimize their child’s application in the same way.

It might make some sense to have this sort of process for a class of 100-150, like at a Blair in Maryland. But for a class of 550, you have to have more diverse interests and goals and backgrounds or you end up with a hyper-competitive environment where too many students are pursuing the same endpoint.

Exactly. We benefit from having diverse STEM talent from across the county, not just cookie-cutter applicants who are all following the same TJ checklist.

By definition, all candidates selected based on some set of criteria are going to conform to such criteria and are "cookie-cutter" in that respect. Therefore, one can only conclude that you don't like the current set of "cookie-cutter" candidates because you don't like the color of their skin.

There is not a single criteria for admissions so that is faulty logic. And an incorrect conclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it acceptable, within the applicants for a particular school, to rank based on extracurriculars like MathCounts, AMC 8, AMC 10, Science Olympiad, Robotics, FLL, etc?

We live in a different jurisdiction, but I cannot process why choice of EC would be a factor? Almost nobody in the top academic classes at our school does those contests. It's a "thing" with some kids who don't have otherwise busy schedules, but it is not a marker of the brightest students by a long shot. It a choice about how to spend your free time.

Mere participation in STEM ECs shouldn't matter. High levels of success in a STEM based EC should. Kids who qualify for AIME in middle school, win first place at Science Olympiad states, or the like are showing that they are elite talents.

OR, that they have parents willing to supply enormous amounts of time, energy, and money who also have the right connections to match their kids up with amazing mentors.

Nope. That doesn't amount to much if the kids themselves don't spend incredible amounts of time and energy on getting better.

At some point America (mainly the lazy white population who tends to believe in innate IQ) will have to come to terms with the fact that hard work vastly outperforms any kind of innate ability or economical advantage. Face it ladies: Your kids will have to make a choice whether to work hard or not, if they want to truly compete, if they choose not to work hard, they will be held back. If they want to do travel and do sports, great, that's their choice. If they want to become great at academics, wonderful. If both, fantastic.. if they can handle it. But what they can't do is pretend that they are awesome without putting in an iota of effort.

Your argument might be relevant if there were more white families pushing for TJ. But less than half of eligible white 8th graders even both applying (compared to 90+% of eligible Asian and black students).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it acceptable, within the applicants for a particular school, to rank based on extracurriculars like MathCounts, AMC 8, AMC 10, Science Olympiad, Robotics, FLL, etc?

We live in a different jurisdiction, but I cannot process why choice of EC would be a factor? Almost nobody in the top academic classes at our school does those contests. It's a "thing" with some kids who don't have otherwise busy schedules, but it is not a marker of the brightest students by a long shot. It a choice about how to spend your free time.

DP. The trouble here is that many of those specific ECs have been historically seen as tickets to TJ because they theoretically provide evidence of “passion for STEM”. They were part of a very narrow path that families could rely on to position their children for the TJ admissions process as well as possible.

But when you have a very narrow path that is successful, you end up with a significant percentage of the students who enter TJ with VERY similar backgrounds and resumes because so many families have tried to optimize their child’s application in the same way.

It might make some sense to have this sort of process for a class of 100-150, like at a Blair in Maryland. But for a class of 550, you have to have more diverse interests and goals and backgrounds or you end up with a hyper-competitive environment where too many students are pursuing the same endpoint.

Exactly. We benefit from having diverse STEM talent from across the county, not just cookie-cutter applicants who are all following the same TJ checklist.

By definition, all candidates selected based on some set of criteria are going to conform to such criteria and are "cookie-cutter" in that respect. Therefore, one can only conclude that you don't like the current set of "cookie-cutter" candidates because you don't like the color of their skin.

There is not a single criteria for admissions so that is faulty logic. And an incorrect conclusion.

Did you mean "single criterion"? I don't think your kids will survive TJ since TJ is known for their emphasis on writing skills and foreign languages in addition to STEM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it acceptable, within the applicants for a particular school, to rank based on extracurriculars like MathCounts, AMC 8, AMC 10, Science Olympiad, Robotics, FLL, etc?

We live in a different jurisdiction, but I cannot process why choice of EC would be a factor? Almost nobody in the top academic classes at our school does those contests. It's a "thing" with some kids who don't have otherwise busy schedules, but it is not a marker of the brightest students by a long shot. It a choice about how to spend your free time.

Mere participation in STEM ECs shouldn't matter. High levels of success in a STEM based EC should. Kids who qualify for AIME in middle school, win first place at Science Olympiad states, or the like are showing that they are elite talents.

OR, that they have parents willing to supply enormous amounts of time, energy, and money who also have the right connections to match their kids up with amazing mentors.

Nope. That doesn't amount to much if the kids themselves don't spend incredible amounts of time and energy on getting better.

At some point America (mainly the lazy white population who tends to believe in innate IQ) will have to come to terms with the fact that hard work vastly outperforms any kind of innate ability or economical advantage. Face it ladies: Your kids will have to make a choice whether to work hard or not, if they want to truly compete, if they choose not to work hard, they will be held back. If they want to do travel and do sports, great, that's their choice. If they want to become great at academics, wonderful. If both, fantastic.. if they can handle it. But what they can't do is pretend that they are awesome without putting in an iota of effort.

Your argument might be relevant if there were more white families pushing for TJ. But less than half of eligible white 8th graders even both applying (compared to 90+% of eligible Asian and black students).

They don't apply because they don't want to work (or study in this case) too hard. Scared to compete against Asians. You just reinforced PP's point inadvertently. I think white parents on these threads are actually dumb.

[Anonymous]

Yes, I realized it was wrong right as I hit submit.

Corrected:
"There is not a single criterion for admissions so that is faulty logic. And an incorrect conclusion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it acceptable, within the applicants for a particular school, to rank based on extracurriculars like MathCounts, AMC 8, AMC 10, Science Olympiad, Robotics, FLL, etc?

We live in a different jurisdiction, but I cannot process why choice of EC would be a factor? Almost nobody in the top academic classes at our school does those contests. It's a "thing" with some kids who don't have otherwise busy schedules, but it is not a marker of the brightest students by a long shot. It a choice about how to spend your free time.

Mere participation in STEM ECs shouldn't matter. High levels of success in a STEM based EC should. Kids who qualify for AIME in middle school, win first place at Science Olympiad states, or the like are showing that they are elite talents.

OR, that they have parents willing to supply enormous amounts of time, energy, and money who also have the right connections to match their kids up with amazing mentors.

Nope. That doesn't amount to much if the kids themselves don't spend incredible amounts of time and energy on getting better.

At some point America (mainly the lazy white population who tends to believe in innate IQ) will have to come to terms with the fact that hard work vastly outperforms any kind of innate ability or economical advantage. Face it ladies: Your kids will have to make a choice whether to work hard or not, if they want to truly compete, if they choose not to work hard, they will be held back. If they want to do travel and do sports, great, that's their choice. If they want to become great at academics, wonderful. If both, fantastic.. if they can handle it. But what they can't do is pretend that they are awesome without putting in an iota of effort.

Your argument might be relevant if there were more white families pushing for TJ. But less than half of eligible white 8th graders even both applying (compared to 90+% of eligible Asian and black students).

They don't apply because they don't want to work (or study in this case) too hard. Scared to compete against Asians. You just reinforced PP's point inadvertently. I think white parents on these threads are actually dumb.

Why do you think it's OK to say racist crap like this?

Why do you assume I'm white?

[Anonymous]

Where is the "anti racist trope" poster?

Why aren't you reporting all of these racist attacks against white people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it acceptable, within the applicants for a particular school, to rank based on extracurriculars like MathCounts, AMC 8, AMC 10, Science Olympiad, Robotics, FLL, etc?

We live in a different jurisdiction, but I cannot process why choice of EC would be a factor? Almost nobody in the top academic classes at our school does those contests. It's a "thing" with some kids who don't have otherwise busy schedules, but it is not a marker of the brightest students by a long shot. It a choice about how to spend your free time.

Mere participation in STEM ECs shouldn't matter. High levels of success in a STEM based EC should. Kids who qualify for AIME in middle school, win first place at Science Olympiad states, or the like are showing that they are elite talents.

OR, that they have parents willing to supply enormous amounts of time, energy, and money who also have the right connections to match their kids up with amazing mentors.

Nope. That doesn't amount to much if the kids themselves don't spend incredible amounts of time and energy on getting better.

At some point America (mainly the lazy white population who tends to believe in innate IQ) will have to come to terms with the fact that hard work vastly outperforms any kind of innate ability or economical advantage. Face it ladies: Your kids will have to make a choice whether to work hard or not, if they want to truly compete, if they choose not to work hard, they will be held back. If they want to do travel and do sports, great, that's their choice. If they want to become great at academics, wonderful. If both, fantastic.. if they can handle it. But what they can't do is pretend that they are awesome without putting in an iota of effort.

Your argument might be relevant if there were more white families pushing for TJ. But less than half of eligible white 8th graders even both applying (compared to 90+% of eligible Asian and black students).

This isn't just relevant to TJ, but to the toxic college arms race that puts grades and being superficial ahead of actual curiosity and learning, FCPS with their watered down AAP program is an enabler of this parent attitude. Instead of focusing on delivering high quality academics, they abscond responsibility by watering everything down, even going so far as to eliminate direct instruction and promote interminable amounts of computer time that barely passes as learning. The fact is that learning things outside of school has never been more critical than now. The proof is in all the kids who did not do that during pandemic DL and are now significantly behind, in contrast to the wise parents who realized how much of a farce DL is and how critical it was to help their kids continue to learn. Many here are constantly complaining about "prep" yet fail to realize how important it is to NOT rely on schools as a guarantee to having taught your child very much.

[Anonymous]

The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is the more fair system (a simplification):

System A: Students take a test to get into a school. The top 550 students get in. There is no consideration for geographic diversity. There is no consideration for SES diversity. Test prepping is rampant, and reserved for those that can afford it.

System B: Students take a test. Prior to the test, the school makes a decision on what scores are likely to result in "successful" students. Everyone who scores in that range is put into a pool. 750 students make the cut. The student population is then selected with various factors in mind, including geographic and SES diversity. Students that are ranked from 450-550 are left out.

You are stupidly assuming that all of the System A students will pay for expensive prep. Some students take the test cold. Others study on their own with free or low-cost resources online. Some even study with the help of their brilliant parents. So racist to assume that one demographic is wealthy while another is poor!

Hear hear. -signed parent of Bx Sci and Stuyvesant students who prepped by buying cheap study materials off Amazon and downloading previous years SHSAT tests via google search. Answer explanations are always in the back of the books. It's not rocket science people.

Here's a psychological fact - when someone works very hard for a reward, they value that reward when it is earned. When someone is simply handed that same coveted item, it's not as valued and its treatment corresponds with its ease of access.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm reading all this as the parent of an elementary student.

Grades are very subjective as well, and also can vary widely based on the teacher a student gets. We have teachers assign above grade level status to kids doing well in on grade level work in one class while the class next door must actually take different tests to get thia distinction. Or a teacher who gives above grade level status and then straight 3s in the subject, putting kid gradewise on par with kids doing less challenging work..

Waiting to see how this all shakes out in AAP process.

True. Standardized testing will take away teacher bias. But many are opposed to it since tests can be subject to extreme prepping and not everyone can afford it either. Grades and teacher recommendations are probably the fair compromise without quotas that punish specific groups.

Standardized testing removes one type of bias and introduces another. There’s no single criteria alone that is the answer, a variety of factors ought to be considered. Some people are so invested in standardized testing though, they see it as some sort of merit-based silver bullet and have full blinders towards this sort of reliance on an ostensibly objective measure. I trust teachers more than a test to identify the kids most qualified and would benefit from TJ, but would prefer not to rely on teachers alone either. Multiple data points is a good thing, which goes for AAP, TJ, college, job hiring, or almost any sort of human selection process really.

Right, so the best plan would be a holistic evaluation including grades, teacher recommendations, essays, and a standardized test. The old system was bad because the standardized test was too strongly used as a gatekeeper for semifinalist status. The new system is bad because it is too sparse. Thankfully, there is a pretty broad middle ground between the old system and the new one.

This is basically what colleges do and it seems to be working well for them! I agree that old system needs to be changed, but the new system is full of holes and glaring apparent who they intended to penalize right from the start - academic focused kids, going to aap centers and living specific neighborhoods. No matter where your politics land, its not fair to these kids. However on the plus side, its easier to stand out in the base school, which helps in college admissions.

Elite colleges are moving away from standardized exams as a requirement. An approach that could work for TJ is optional exam submission - there are no end of excellent exams that students can take on their own that could be used as a piece of a portfolio. SSAT comes to mind, in addition to all of the competitions. This would allow TJ to set aside a few spaces for the kids who truly are phenomenal test takers, as a few of them would have significant value to the school environment.

"Test Optional" does not mean Test Blind.
Someone who tests well is still at a distinct advantage over someone who doesn't test. The non-tester really has to burnish his/her other traits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when they decide on a straight up lottery for this year….everyone on this board will be really mad, right?

Let’s go lottery.

Either lottery or existing test results/GPA. Too late for other options.

They would probably have to roll back the "historically under represented schools" part. The top 1.5 percent per school is likely something that can be kept because that is still merit based.

Honestly, that sounds fine to me.

Yea, now we see whether they have the will to do something like this or will they stick to their racist guns as the chairwoman of the school board has already vowed to do.

The top 1.5% was not determined on the basis of merit, but on a holistic process which favored some racial groups over others. At each of these schools, there will be a plethora of children with a 4.0 GPA. There is no way around this without a test. What would make sense would be to award a seat to the top student, score included, from each BASE school, for children enrolled in AAP.

They have GPA and the test results. Pick the top X% from each base middle school to fill the school. If there are still too many kids from a middle school then lottery to get the X%.

I wish this was the process and no one would have had any issue with it as it would be completely fair and no implicit discrimination against any particular group. Distribute half of the available to equally among top students in all the BASE schools or school pyramids (not 'attending' schools to avoid discriminating against kids going to AAP centers) and put the other half in an open pool and select the top students from the remaining students provided some min criteria is met. I wish they consider teacher recommendations as they know kids who are truly deserved, but might have missed an A in some course etc. I wouldn't give too much attention to portrait sheet etc (as its subjective and tests language skills more than STEM focus) and instead focus on fully middle school GPA, regular courses taken (not 'paid' summer courses), teacher input etc.

What will happen with this model is that the school will end up with 2-3 different tiers of courses - Advanced, middling and remedial. The kids will be intellectually segregated within the school. Although by all appearances the demographics will please those on the lookout for equity, the actual mechanics of the school coursework will distinguish the high performing cohorts from the low performing ones. On a daily basis, these groups will silently waft by each other, each on their own academic track.
My Arlington County High public high school was like this. Believe me, here is no sense of community in this model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, when they decide on a straight up lottery for this year….everyone on this board will be really mad, right?

Let’s go lottery.

Either lottery or existing test results/GPA. Too late for other options.

They would probably have to roll back the "historically under represented schools" part. The top 1.5 percent per school is likely something that can be kept because that is still merit based.

Honestly, that sounds fine to me.

Yea, now we see whether they have the will to do something like this or will they stick to their racist guns as the chairwoman of the school board has already vowed to do.

The top 1.5% was not determined on the basis of merit, but on a holistic process which favored some racial groups over others. At each of these schools, there will be a plethora of children with a 4.0 GPA. There is no way around this without a test. What would make sense would be to award a seat to the top student, score included, from each BASE school, for children enrolled in AAP.

They have GPA and the test results. Pick the top X% from each base middle school to fill the school. If there are still too many kids from a middle school then lottery to get the X%.

I wish this was the process and no one would have had any issue with it as it would be completely fair and no implicit discrimination against any particular group. Distribute half of the available to equally among top students in all the BASE schools or school pyramids (not 'attending' schools to avoid discriminating against kids going to AAP centers) and put the other half in an open pool and select the top students from the remaining students provided some min criteria is met. I wish they consider teacher recommendations as they know kids who are truly deserved, but might have missed an A in some course etc. I wouldn't give too much attention to portrait sheet etc (as its subjective and tests language skills more than STEM focus) and instead focus on fully middle school GPA, regular courses taken (not 'paid' summer courses), teacher input etc.

What will happen with this model is that the school will end up with 2-3 different tiers of courses - Advanced, middling and remedial. The kids will be intellectually segregated within the school. Although by all appearances the demographics will please those on the lookout for equity, the actual mechanics of the school coursework will distinguish the high performing cohorts from the low performing ones. On a daily basis, these groups will silently waft by each other, each on their own academic track.
My Arlington County High public high school was like this. Believe me, here is no sense of community in this model.

This is inevitable. No matter how selective you can be, you can always keep on sub-dividing further and further into smaller and smaller intellectual groups until you are left with one person each.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it acceptable, within the applicants for a particular school, to rank based on extracurriculars like MathCounts, AMC 8, AMC 10, Science Olympiad, Robotics, FLL, etc?

We live in a different jurisdiction, but I cannot process why choice of EC would be a factor? Almost nobody in the top academic classes at our school does those contests. It's a "thing" with some kids who don't have otherwise busy schedules, but it is not a marker of the brightest students by a long shot. It a choice about how to spend your free time.

DP. The trouble here is that many of those specific ECs have been historically seen as tickets to TJ because they theoretically provide evidence of “passion for STEM”. They were part of a very narrow path that families could rely on to position their children for the TJ admissions process as well as possible.

But when you have a very narrow path that is successful, you end up with a significant percentage of the students who enter TJ with VERY similar backgrounds and resumes because so many families have tried to optimize their child’s application in the same way.

It might make some sense to have this sort of process for a class of 100-150, like at a Blair in Maryland. But for a class of 550, you have to have more diverse interests and goals and backgrounds or you end up with a hyper-competitive environment where too many students are pursuing the same endpoint.

Exactly. We benefit from having diverse STEM talent from across the county, not just cookie-cutter applicants who are all following the same TJ checklist.

Right, we don't need cookie-cutter applicants. We need to accept the best and the brightest period.

Objective criteria and a transparent process results in cookie-cutter applicants. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand how admissions processes work and how they incentivize problematic behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is the more fair system (a simplification):

System A: Students take a test to get into a school. The top 550 students get in. There is no consideration for geographic diversity. There is no consideration for SES diversity. Test prepping is rampant, and reserved for those that can afford it.

System B: Students take a test. Prior to the test, the school makes a decision on what scores are likely to result in "successful" students. Everyone who scores in that range is put into a pool. 750 students make the cut. The student population is then selected with various factors in mind, including geographic and SES diversity. Students that are ranked from 450-550 are left out.

You are stupidly assuming that all of the System A students will pay for expensive prep. Some students take the test cold. Others study on their own with free or low-cost resources online. Some even study with the help of their brilliant parents. So racist to assume that one demographic is wealthy while another is poor!

Hear hear. -signed parent of Bx Sci and Stuyvesant students who prepped by buying cheap study materials off Amazon and downloading previous years SHSAT tests via google search. Answer explanations are always in the back of the books. It's not rocket science people.

Here's a psychological fact - when someone works very hard for a reward, they value that reward when it is earned. When someone is simply handed that same coveted item, it's not as valued and its treatment corresponds with its ease of access.

Thank you, that was my post. Signed, mom of kid who took Oct 2019 ACT, got a 35, first try