
In what way are they better? In what way is TJ less toxic? |
And yet peer reviewed research says otherwise. https://opportunityinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/SAT_ACT_on_Grades.pdf https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12959901/colleges-harmed-minority-students-axing-sats-equality.html The university of chicago study you may be referring to doesn't say what you think it says. |
Previously a bunch of average kids were prepped to present as gifted but often struggled once at TJ. Some of the newer kids have less preparation but by virtue of being at the top of their respective schools just seem to pick things up more quickly. There have been numerous firsthand accounts about the toxicity posted here, but my personal experience is that many of the students admitted under the old system were willing to do anything to get ahead. The newer crop of students seems more collegial and less competitive than before. |
Yes, I can also find numerous studies that have my preferred conclusion too, but none of that really matters because universities do what's in their best interests and they prioritize GPA. |
Noone bought test answers. The allegation is that they made 3000 12/13 year olds sign non-disclosure agreements to not talk about the test and some of them talked. In fact, enough of them talked that you can buy books about the test on amazon. Then, apparently, the test maker used the same questions over and over again from year to year. This is all based on some social media posts my 8th graders. This aversion to testing is liberal white supremacy. When asians outperform whites it's because they cheat and deserve our disdain, so we can discriminate against them. When blacks underperform whites it's because they are incapable of doing well on tests, so we should pity them and give them a few seats at the table. Only white people are both capable and honorable. This aversion to testing and attraction to holistic admissions didn't arise until asians started crowding out white kids. |
You are glossing right over the lack of integrity. In this country, integrity and honor have a particular meaning. In school, integrity is important. Out of school, it is extremely important. |
Wait. Why don't you want the most motivated and best prepared students to be over-represented? Isn't that exactly what you should be selecting for? Oh wait, that's right the students in question are brown. |
You are absolutely allowed to lower your standards to improve diversity as long as the lowered standards are equally applied to everyone. If harvard decided to go to lottery admissions like FCPS wanted to do with TJ or if harvard decided to go test blind like FCPS actually did with TJ (and the UC system did with undergrad admissions) you likely would not win a lawsuit. Places like harvard will never do this because they still want successful graduates. |
There is absolutely an ideologically driven aversion to testing. They de-emphasize testing because of the racial disparity in test results. The papers saying testing is a better predictor of college performance at selective colleges are peer reviewed. You might as well say you don't believe in global warming because you didn't do the study yourself. |
Most of the best education systems in the world use tests almost to the exclusion of all other considerations. The reason they do this is because it is very clear in homogenous countries that holistic admissions favors wealthier but less academically accomplished kids. It might be different if those wealthier less academically accomplished kids turned out to be good students but on average, the best students are the ones with the best test scores. |
All of that is an opinion. It is not the truth. Incidentally, mediocrity sucks out competitiveness. If you are trying to stay afloat, you are not focused on winning. Kinda the story here. But keep spinnning it. ![]() |
Most of the countries with the good education systems rely predominantly on a single standardized test or a series of standardized tests to determine college admissions. Diversity does nothing to improve education. The point behind diversity is social engineering not enhancing education. Perhaps this is a reasonable goal but lets not pretend that every other country in the world has a deficient education because almost their entire student body is of a single race. |
DP. What is your point, then, on the newer crop of students? Their collegiality, competitiveness, successfulness, and/or mediocrity? Do you have an opinion, based upon first or second hand experience? Or do you just post disagreement? |
There are more kids struggling at Tj than ever before in the history of TJ. They aren't even picking the top kids at every school, it's pretty random. You can't prep a mediocre kid to present as gifted. White people have been trying to do this with their mediocre kids for years to little effect. My personal experience is that preserving a place where only excellence matters without regard to skin color has value. Introducing less academically gifted students into an environment where the gifted kids are already drinking from a firehose just turns into waterboarding for them. |
No you can't. That is why only one side of this argument is linking studies and your side is confidently stating that you know better. The closest thing you have is the chicago study that did things like compare kids with 1.5 gpa to kids with 3.75 gpa at non-selective colleges. Test scores are the best predictor of academic performance at selective colleges like the ivy+ |