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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

An interview where the interviewer has the freedom to ask different questions of each applicant based on their resume would be a good start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Seems like your statement comes from a place of deep ignorance and extreme small-mindedness - at best.

Cookie cutter applicants? Because all Asians look similar to you? Asians are a racially diverse group and the kids are far from cookie cutter. Just India and China alone have 2.5b people.

No, obviously Asians don't look the same to me. But the admissions process as it was previously constructed incentivized families to place their students on a very narrow path that resulted for many years in a TJ population - both Asian and otherwise - that had extremely similar resumes over the years. College admissions officers have disclosed to TJ Student Services personnel that they have difficulty discerning between TJ applications in many cases because they receive hundreds of profiles that look extremely similar on paper - not because they're Asian, but because the admissions process to get to TJ placed students on a treadmill that they were all jockeying for position on together.

Exactly. I made the initial "cookie cutter" comment and that is exactly what I meant by "cookie-cutter applicants who are all following the same TJ checklist".

Many students end up with resumes that look very similar because they are following the same TJ checklist.

Bingo. And the bottom line is, without that incentivizing behavior through the TJ application, it would be easier for them to follow a path that was more likely to get them to the best possible version of themselves - not just for college apps, but for their ability to serve society.

What if getting into a school like TJ is among the "best possible" versions of the students? Who are you to say that these students would be better off doing something else and attending some other school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

An interview where the interviewer has the freedom to ask different questions of each applicant based on their resume would be a good start.

So in your mind, answering questions during an interview is not something you can prepare for in advance? Really?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. Just change it to an academy similar to the LCPS academies where the kids go certain days of the week solely for STEM classes. Make the classes available to any child that qualifies.

What a horrible idea. I have zero interest in having my kids attend TJ and I can recognize that TJ is a top STEM high school. Let it continue to be a top school even if your child does not attend.

It's that or shuttering it. The school board isn't returning to an admissions regime where the number of black students was too small to be reported.

Maybe this school board, but they going to be voted out. Too many tech firms and businesses in Fairfax with an interest in TJ succeeding as it always has. Stop with the fake news.

Guess they have nothing to lose.

Certainly not. Shameless racists have no redeeming value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Seems like your statement comes from a place of deep ignorance and extreme small-mindedness - at best.

Cookie cutter applicants? Because all Asians look similar to you? Asians are a racially diverse group and the kids are far from cookie cutter. Just India and China alone have 2.5b people.

No, obviously Asians don't look the same to me. But the admissions process as it was previously constructed incentivized families to place their students on a very narrow path that resulted for many years in a TJ population - both Asian and otherwise - that had extremely similar resumes over the years. College admissions officers have disclosed to TJ Student Services personnel that they have difficulty discerning between TJ applications in many cases because they receive hundreds of profiles that look extremely similar on paper - not because they're Asian, but because the admissions process to get to TJ placed students on a treadmill that they were all jockeying for position on together.

Exactly. I made the initial "cookie cutter" comment and that is exactly what I meant by "cookie-cutter applicants who are all following the same TJ checklist".

Many students end up with resumes that look very similar because they are following the same TJ checklist.

Bingo. And the bottom line is, without that incentivizing behavior through the TJ application, it would be easier for them to follow a path that was more likely to get them to the best possible version of themselves - not just for college apps, but for their ability to serve society.

What if getting into a school like TJ is among the "best possible" versions of the students? Who are you to say that these students would be better off doing something else and attending some other school?

It certainly is for some! But it isn't for many, many others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. Just change it to an academy similar to the LCPS academies where the kids go certain days of the week solely for STEM classes. Make the classes available to any child that qualifies.

What a horrible idea. I have zero interest in having my kids attend TJ and I can recognize that TJ is a top STEM high school. Let it continue to be a top school even if your child does not attend.

It's that or shuttering it. The school board isn't returning to an admissions regime where the number of black students was too small to be reported.

Maybe this school board, but they going to be voted out. Too many tech firms and businesses in Fairfax with an interest in TJ succeeding as it always has. Stop with the fake news.

Guess they have nothing to lose.

Certainly not. Shameless racists have no redeeming value.

Their hands are tied because of the entitled racists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Seems like your statement comes from a place of deep ignorance and extreme small-mindedness - at best.

Cookie cutter applicants? Because all Asians look similar to you? Asians are a racially diverse group and the kids are far from cookie cutter. Just India and China alone have 2.5b people.

No, obviously Asians don't look the same to me. But the admissions process as it was previously constructed incentivized families to place their students on a very narrow path that resulted for many years in a TJ population - both Asian and otherwise - that had extremely similar resumes over the years. College admissions officers have disclosed to TJ Student Services personnel that they have difficulty discerning between TJ applications in many cases because they receive hundreds of profiles that look extremely similar on paper - not because they're Asian, but because the admissions process to get to TJ placed students on a treadmill that they were all jockeying for position on together.

Exactly. I made the initial "cookie cutter" comment and that is exactly what I meant by "cookie-cutter applicants who are all following the same TJ checklist".

Many students end up with resumes that look very similar because they are following the same TJ checklist.

Bingo. And the bottom line is, without that incentivizing behavior through the TJ application, it would be easier for them to follow a path that was more likely to get them to the best possible version of themselves - not just for college apps, but for their ability to serve society.

What if getting into a school like TJ is among the "best possible" versions of the students? Who are you to say that these students would be better off doing something else and attending some other school?

It certainly is for some! But it isn't for many, many others.

You don't know this. You need to show proof that many TJ students end up being a poor match for the school using some statistically valid methodology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

An interview where the interviewer has the freedom to ask different questions of each applicant based on their resume would be a good start.

So in your mind, answering questions during an interview is not something you can prepare for in advance? Really?

Of course you can, but it's a lot harder if a) you don't know what questions are coming, and b) you don't know what answers the interviewers are looking for.

Indeed, this is where many TJ students cripple themselves in the elite college interview process. Their answers come off as canned and rehearsed and that's why their personality scores struggle. Kids who would otherwise have a delightful personality overprep for the interview process, get too nervous, and devastate themselves when it comes time to sit down with an alum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Seems like your statement comes from a place of deep ignorance and extreme small-mindedness - at best.

Cookie cutter applicants? Because all Asians look similar to you? Asians are a racially diverse group and the kids are far from cookie cutter. Just India and China alone have 2.5b people.

No, obviously Asians don't look the same to me. But the admissions process as it was previously constructed incentivized families to place their students on a very narrow path that resulted for many years in a TJ population - both Asian and otherwise - that had extremely similar resumes over the years. College admissions officers have disclosed to TJ Student Services personnel that they have difficulty discerning between TJ applications in many cases because they receive hundreds of profiles that look extremely similar on paper - not because they're Asian, but because the admissions process to get to TJ placed students on a treadmill that they were all jockeying for position on together.

Exactly. I made the initial "cookie cutter" comment and that is exactly what I meant by "cookie-cutter applicants who are all following the same TJ checklist".

Many students end up with resumes that look very similar because they are following the same TJ checklist.

Bingo. And the bottom line is, without that incentivizing behavior through the TJ application, it would be easier for them to follow a path that was more likely to get them to the best possible version of themselves - not just for college apps, but for their ability to serve society.

What if getting into a school like TJ is among the "best possible" versions of the students? Who are you to say that these students would be better off doing something else and attending some other school?

It certainly is for some! But it isn't for many, many others.

You don't know this. You need to show proof that many TJ students end up being a poor match for the school using some statistically valid methodology.

Nah. It's enough for me to see nearly half of the senior class every year disillusioned because they invested four years into TJ and ended up somewhere they could have easily gotten from their base school - like a Virginia Tech.

[Anonymous]

What is FCPS planning to do now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG. Just change it to an academy similar to the LCPS academies where the kids go certain days of the week solely for STEM classes. Make the classes available to any child that qualifies.

What a horrible idea. I have zero interest in having my kids attend TJ and I can recognize that TJ is a top STEM high school. Let it continue to be a top school even if your child does not attend.

It's that or shuttering it. The school board isn't returning to an admissions regime where the number of black students was too small to be reported.

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

An interview where the interviewer has the freedom to ask different questions of each applicant based on their resume would be a good start.

So in your mind, answering questions during an interview is not something you can prepare for in advance? Really?

Of course you can, but it's a lot harder if a) you don't know what questions are coming, and b) you don't know what answers the interviewers are looking for.

Indeed, this is where many TJ students cripple themselves in the elite college interview process. Their answers come off as canned and rehearsed and that's why their personality scores struggle. Kids who would otherwise have a delightful personality overprep for the interview process, get too nervous, and devastate themselves when it comes time to sit down with an alum.

Interviews by top university alumni have absolutely "O" effect on the admission decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

Seems like your statement comes from a place of deep ignorance and extreme small-mindedness - at best.

Cookie cutter applicants? Because all Asians look similar to you? Asians are a racially diverse group and the kids are far from cookie cutter. Just India and China alone have 2.5b people.

No, obviously Asians don't look the same to me. But the admissions process as it was previously constructed incentivized families to place their students on a very narrow path that resulted for many years in a TJ population - both Asian and otherwise - that had extremely similar resumes over the years. College admissions officers have disclosed to TJ Student Services personnel that they have difficulty discerning between TJ applications in many cases because they receive hundreds of profiles that look extremely similar on paper - not because they're Asian, but because the admissions process to get to TJ placed students on a treadmill that they were all jockeying for position on together.

Exactly. I made the initial "cookie cutter" comment and that is exactly what I meant by "cookie-cutter applicants who are all following the same TJ checklist".

Many students end up with resumes that look very similar because they are following the same TJ checklist.

Bingo. And the bottom line is, without that incentivizing behavior through the TJ application, it would be easier for them to follow a path that was more likely to get them to the best possible version of themselves - not just for college apps, but for their ability to serve society.

What if getting into a school like TJ is among the "best possible" versions of the students? Who are you to say that these students would be better off doing something else and attending some other school?

It certainly is for some! But it isn't for many, many others.

You don't know this. You need to show proof that many TJ students end up being a poor match for the school using some statistically valid methodology.

Nah. It's enough for me to see nearly half of the senior class every year disillusioned because they invested four years into TJ and ended up somewhere they could have easily gotten from their base school - like a Virginia Tech.

Nah. Many TJ applicants want to attend TJ for rare opportunity at advanced courses, advanced labs, advanced research opportunities, better teachers, IBET etc. They know their gpa may be higher at base schools. Try again.

[Anonymous]

Not really seeing why they would appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not really seeing why they would appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

They can't help themselves. They love spending other people's money practicing racism.