TJ Falls to 14th in the Nation Per US News

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

The laws are examples of how racists circumvented the 14th amendment by creating race neutral laws during segregation (and the bush administration) to suppress black votes.
The TJ test is an example of how modern day anti-racists circumvent the 14th amendment by creating race neutral laws today to suppress asian dreams.
That's the thing. You give zero fux about asian hopes and aspirations because we are not people to you, we are a race. You don't care how it affects asian kids to feel like they have to hide their asian heritage to get the same opportunities as white kids, purely because too many of their fellow asians are doing well academically.

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

And how was it objectively discriminatory?
Was it designed to reduce members of one race and increase the admissions of other races like the current TJ process?

Or do you mean that the racial disparity in results is proof of racial discrimination?
Isn't it possible that asians are just better at academics that other groups?
Or is no group allowed to be better at academics than other groups?
That is reserved for sports only?

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

The products of the civil rights movement? What product of the civil rights movement.?
What discriminatory process against poor people is being defended?
You think tests disadvantage poverty?
In NYC, asians have a higher poverty rate than blacks, whites and usually pretty close to hispanics and yet the population of asians at stuyvesant is even higher than at TJ.
Stuyvesant is over 70% asian
Stuyvesant is 40% free and reduced lunch.
Of the kids on free and reduced lunch, 90% are asian
Being poor doesn't seem to keep poor asians out of the best schools when a single test is used to determine admission.
This is why places like brown and harvard think that the best way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to bring back the SAT

You may not like what racial equality brings you in the short term but you will certainly dislike what permissive racial discrimination will bring you in the long term.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

And how is this treating the reader like they are stupid?
Do you think only stupid people would disagree with you?

DP. Because you are so transparently biased and misrepresenting what happened. Your post is also dripping with racism.

If you’re trying to make the C4TJ types look even more depraved and politically motivated it’s working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

This is factually inaccurate and relies on the assertion that once the semifinalist pool was selected, the exam scores and GPA were not considered.

The facts, shared by the Admissions Office at their information sessions, are that there was a huge delta between the mean exams scores of the semifinalist pool and the mean exam scores of the eventual offer pools. And the biggest delta was on the Quant-Q, which is the purported "secured" exam that was compromised by the actions of students at Curie Learning Centers.

It wasn't the essays or the teacher recs keeping the Twain kids out and the Carson and Stone Hill kids in. It was the exam scores. Full stop.

Do you have a cite for that?
Because at one time test scores were only 20% of the decision to pull kids out of the pool.
Are you saying they increased the weighting on test scores when they made it more holistic to increase diversity in 2013?
Adding full stop to a sentence doesn't make your speculations any more convincing without a cite of some sort.

Yes, at one time exam scores were a much smaller piece of the discussion. I'm not referring to that.

What I'm referring to is the transition beginning with the Class of 2022 to the process that gatekept the semifinalist pool to those scoring above certain percentile threshholds on the suite of three exams given - the Quant-Q and the ACT-Aspire English and Science exams.

Believe it or not, under this old process, a student could achieve a literal perfect score on the "math" and "science" exams, but if their English score was in the 74th percentile, they would not be considered for admission in the semifinalist pool. Staggering.

When you design an admissions process in this manner, you make it functionally impossible for a brilliant student who for whatever reason doesn't perform quite as well on an exam as peers who have spent years in expensive boutique enrichment courses preparing for those exams to get into TJ.

The above should be common knowledge among people who discuss the TJ admissions process, but evidently based on your comments it is now. I apologize for my assumption.

TJ semifinalist pool was always gatekept behind test scores in some way. This didn't start with the class of 2022.
For the class of 2022, in order to qualify for the pool you had to be at least at the 50th national percentile in math and at least 75th national percentile in reading and science AND you had to have a 75% in math or 90% science. So if you are at the 74th national percentile in reading, you didn't get into the pool. You don't need expensive boutique enrichment for that. The average pool candidate had 82% math, 92% reading and 95% science. The average admit that year had 88% math, 94% reading, and 96% science.

And once again, if wealth could get you into TJ, then TJ would be a lot whiter than it is.

Also, in what way is setting a reading test score cutoff unfair?

A lot to unpack here...

1) We're not talking about absolute scores here - we're talking about percentile scores. Which means that the boutique enrichment services are wrecking the curve and putting those percentile threshholds even further out of reach for some students.

The percentiles are based on the national curve not the fairfax curve and certainly not the curie curve.

2) You can see the delta between the average pool candidate and the average admit on the Quant-Q. This supports the hypothesis that the scores were indeed used heavily in the process of getting from semifinalist to admit.

Wait, you think going from 82%/92%/95% to 88%/94%/96% (an increase of 6%/2%/1%) is a big delta that supports the notion that test scores were "heavily" weighted in getting from semifinalist to admit?

3) Wealth did get you into TJ when white people were interested in sending their kids to TJ. Fact is, you can't get into TJ unless you apply to TJ, and white applications plummeted from over 2,000 in the late 90s and early 2000s to less than 600 (compared to over 1,500 Asian applications) in the years leading up to the admissions changes. The evidence that wealth got you into TJ under the most recent version of the old admissions process is the staggering dominance of South Asians, who are by far the wealthiest sub-demographic in Northern Virginia - even surpassing whites.

Yes the wealthiest asians are wealthier than the average whites but the wealthiest whites are wealthier than the wealthiest asians.
You can't compare the wealthiest with the average whites and think you've made a point about wealth?
The median and mean incomes of whites in fairfax is higher than it is for asians.
Also, the white/asian disparity precedes the large influx of indians to this area.

Are you trying to imply that the reason more white kids aren't getting in is because white people are no longer interested in attending the most competitive high school in the area? Really?!?
It's not disinterest, it's self selection.

If money got you in, there would be more white kids, but there weren't because money is not enough, you still need to study hard.
Somehow under the new system, asian admission went from 355 to 315 and white admission went form 86-140. Black admissions went from under 11 to 19.
It's funny now all these things that are supposed to help black people end up helping white people even more.

False. Wealthy white people don’t want to send their kids to grind away at an unnecessarily rigorous high school that will only diminish their kids’ ability to get into top colleges.

It was well known in wealthy white circles what you need to do to get your kid into TJ: expensive test prep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

The laws are examples of how racists circumvented the 14th amendment by creating race neutral laws during segregation (and the bush administration) to suppress black votes.
The TJ test is an example of how modern day anti-racists circumvent the 14th amendment by creating race neutral laws today to suppress asian dreams.
That's the thing. You give zero fux about asian hopes and aspirations because we are not people to you, we are a race. You don't care how it affects asian kids to feel like they have to hide their asian heritage to get the same opportunities as white kids, purely because too many of their fellow asians are doing well academically.

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

And how was it objectively discriminatory?
Was it designed to reduce members of one race and increase the admissions of other races like the current TJ process?

Or do you mean that the racial disparity in results is proof of racial discrimination?
Isn't it possible that asians are just better at academics that other groups?
Or is no group allowed to be better at academics than other groups?
That is reserved for sports only?

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

The products of the civil rights movement? What product of the civil rights movement.?
What discriminatory process against poor people is being defended?
You think tests disadvantage poverty?
In NYC, asians have a higher poverty rate than blacks, whites and usually pretty close to hispanics and yet the population of asians at stuyvesant is even higher than at TJ.
Stuyvesant is over 70% asian
Stuyvesant is 40% free and reduced lunch.
Of the kids on free and reduced lunch, 90% are asian
Being poor doesn't seem to keep poor asians out of the best schools when a single test is used to determine admission.
This is why places like brown and harvard think that the best way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to bring back the SAT

You may not like what racial equality brings you in the short term but you will certainly dislike what permissive racial discrimination will bring you in the long term.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

And how is this treating the reader like they are stupid?
Do you think only stupid people would disagree with you?

DP. Because you are so transparently biased and misrepresenting what happened. Your post is also dripping with racism.

If you’re trying to make the C4TJ types look even more depraved and politically motivated it’s working.

It's not hard since the C4TJ thesis is racist depraved and politically motivated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

DP. Just came here to point out that your White male, never-been-persecuted, self-righteous lecturing of those who very well might have been is one of the reasons that it's hard to take you seriously. Just from reading your comments, I can 100% guarantee that I know more about what it's like than you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

The C4TJ crowd asserts that the new process discriminates against Asians, but the facts paint a different picture.

* TJ's Asian demographic made up a majority of its students before and after the change
* Selection for both new and old process is race blind
* The largest beneficiary of the change was low-income Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

The laws are examples of how racists circumvented the 14th amendment by creating race neutral laws during segregation (and the bush administration) to suppress black votes.
The TJ test is an example of how modern day anti-racists circumvent the 14th amendment by creating race neutral laws today to suppress asian dreams.
That's the thing. You give zero fux about asian hopes and aspirations because we are not people to you, we are a race. You don't care how it affects asian kids to feel like they have to hide their asian heritage to get the same opportunities as white kids, purely because too many of their fellow asians are doing well academically.

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

And how was it objectively discriminatory?
Was it designed to reduce members of one race and increase the admissions of other races like the current TJ process?

Or do you mean that the racial disparity in results is proof of racial discrimination?
Isn't it possible that asians are just better at academics that other groups?
Or is no group allowed to be better at academics than other groups?
That is reserved for sports only?

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

The products of the civil rights movement? What product of the civil rights movement.?
What discriminatory process against poor people is being defended?
You think tests disadvantage poverty?
In NYC, asians have a higher poverty rate than blacks, whites and usually pretty close to hispanics and yet the population of asians at stuyvesant is even higher than at TJ.
Stuyvesant is over 70% asian
Stuyvesant is 40% free and reduced lunch.
Of the kids on free and reduced lunch, 90% are asian
Being poor doesn't seem to keep poor asians out of the best schools when a single test is used to determine admission.
This is why places like brown and harvard think that the best way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to bring back the SAT

You may not like what racial equality brings you in the short term but you will certainly dislike what permissive racial discrimination will bring you in the long term.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

And how is this treating the reader like they are stupid?
Do you think only stupid people would disagree with you?

DP. Because you are so transparently biased and misrepresenting what happened. Your post is also dripping with racism.

If you’re trying to make the C4TJ types look even more depraved and politically motivated it’s working.

I definitely have an opinion.
I think racial discrimination is bad.
I think tests are valid measures of academic ability... even standing on their own without any other holistic factors.
I support my opinion with peer reviewed research and cites.
I don't just claim that there is well established science supporting me, like you do and then fail to provide any of the cites that I claim would support my views.

Your strategy seems to be to insult people who disagree with you for their disagreement.
C4TJ are fighting racial discrimination.
Why are you supporting racial discrimination?
I suspect you think that the majority of people are on your side but you would be wrong.
You suffer from consensus bias. It is a psychological tendency for people to believe that their own views are common and typical.
Your views are not rare but the overwhelming majority of americans want a merit based society.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

This is factually inaccurate and relies on the assertion that once the semifinalist pool was selected, the exam scores and GPA were not considered.

The facts, shared by the Admissions Office at their information sessions, are that there was a huge delta between the mean exams scores of the semifinalist pool and the mean exam scores of the eventual offer pools. And the biggest delta was on the Quant-Q, which is the purported "secured" exam that was compromised by the actions of students at Curie Learning Centers.

It wasn't the essays or the teacher recs keeping the Twain kids out and the Carson and Stone Hill kids in. It was the exam scores. Full stop.

Do you have a cite for that?
Because at one time test scores were only 20% of the decision to pull kids out of the pool.
Are you saying they increased the weighting on test scores when they made it more holistic to increase diversity in 2013?
Adding full stop to a sentence doesn't make your speculations any more convincing without a cite of some sort.

Yes, at one time exam scores were a much smaller piece of the discussion. I'm not referring to that.

What I'm referring to is the transition beginning with the Class of 2022 to the process that gatekept the semifinalist pool to those scoring above certain percentile threshholds on the suite of three exams given - the Quant-Q and the ACT-Aspire English and Science exams.

Believe it or not, under this old process, a student could achieve a literal perfect score on the "math" and "science" exams, but if their English score was in the 74th percentile, they would not be considered for admission in the semifinalist pool. Staggering.

When you design an admissions process in this manner, you make it functionally impossible for a brilliant student who for whatever reason doesn't perform quite as well on an exam as peers who have spent years in expensive boutique enrichment courses preparing for those exams to get into TJ.

The above should be common knowledge among people who discuss the TJ admissions process, but evidently based on your comments it is now. I apologize for my assumption.

TJ semifinalist pool was always gatekept behind test scores in some way. This didn't start with the class of 2022.
For the class of 2022, in order to qualify for the pool you had to be at least at the 50th national percentile in math and at least 75th national percentile in reading and science AND you had to have a 75% in math or 90% science. So if you are at the 74th national percentile in reading, you didn't get into the pool. You don't need expensive boutique enrichment for that. The average pool candidate had 82% math, 92% reading and 95% science. The average admit that year had 88% math, 94% reading, and 96% science.

And once again, if wealth could get you into TJ, then TJ would be a lot whiter than it is.

Also, in what way is setting a reading test score cutoff unfair?

A lot to unpack here...

1) We're not talking about absolute scores here - we're talking about percentile scores. Which means that the boutique enrichment services are wrecking the curve and putting those percentile threshholds even further out of reach for some students.

The percentiles are based on the national curve not the fairfax curve and certainly not the curie curve.

2) You can see the delta between the average pool candidate and the average admit on the Quant-Q. This supports the hypothesis that the scores were indeed used heavily in the process of getting from semifinalist to admit.

Wait, you think going from 82%/92%/95% to 88%/94%/96% (an increase of 6%/2%/1%) is a big delta that supports the notion that test scores were "heavily" weighted in getting from semifinalist to admit?

3) Wealth did get you into TJ when white people were interested in sending their kids to TJ. Fact is, you can't get into TJ unless you apply to TJ, and white applications plummeted from over 2,000 in the late 90s and early 2000s to less than 600 (compared to over 1,500 Asian applications) in the years leading up to the admissions changes. The evidence that wealth got you into TJ under the most recent version of the old admissions process is the staggering dominance of South Asians, who are by far the wealthiest sub-demographic in Northern Virginia - even surpassing whites.

Yes the wealthiest asians are wealthier than the average whites but the wealthiest whites are wealthier than the wealthiest asians.
You can't compare the wealthiest with the average whites and think you've made a point about wealth?
The median and mean incomes of whites in fairfax is higher than it is for asians.
Also, the white/asian disparity precedes the large influx of indians to this area.

Are you trying to imply that the reason more white kids aren't getting in is because white people are no longer interested in attending the most competitive high school in the area? Really?!?
It's not disinterest, it's self selection.

If money got you in, there would be more white kids, but there weren't because money is not enough, you still need to study hard.
Somehow under the new system, asian admission went from 355 to 315 and white admission went form 86-140. Black admissions went from under 11 to 19.
It's funny now all these things that are supposed to help black people end up helping white people even more.

False. Wealthy white people don’t want to send their kids to grind away at an unnecessarily rigorous high school that will only diminish their kids’ ability to get into top colleges.

It was well known in wealthy white circles what you need to do to get your kid into TJ: expensive test prep.

I can't pretend to be able to read the minds of all wealthy white people but if we are talking about white people with the same level of wealth as the "wealthy" asian people that are sending their kids to TJ, then you would be wrong.

But I am curious, if wealthy white people know better than to send their kids to TJ because it will diminish their kids' chances of getting into top colleges, why are you so intent on sending non-wealthy non-white kids there if it's such a bad idea?

The fact of the matter is, truly wealthy people of all races don't generally send their kids to public schools at all... but the affluent middle class (which is what you seem to be calling wealthy) white, asian or otherwise will send their kids to a place like TJ if they can.

And frankly, it really doesn't sound like you know anything about wealthy white circles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

The laws are examples of how racists circumvented the 14th amendment by creating race neutral laws during segregation (and the bush administration) to suppress black votes.
The TJ test is an example of how modern day anti-racists circumvent the 14th amendment by creating race neutral laws today to suppress asian dreams.
That's the thing. You give zero fux about asian hopes and aspirations because we are not people to you, we are a race. You don't care how it affects asian kids to feel like they have to hide their asian heritage to get the same opportunities as white kids, purely because too many of their fellow asians are doing well academically.

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

And how was it objectively discriminatory?
Was it designed to reduce members of one race and increase the admissions of other races like the current TJ process?

Or do you mean that the racial disparity in results is proof of racial discrimination?
Isn't it possible that asians are just better at academics that other groups?
Or is no group allowed to be better at academics than other groups?
That is reserved for sports only?

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

The products of the civil rights movement? What product of the civil rights movement.?
What discriminatory process against poor people is being defended?
You think tests disadvantage poverty?
In NYC, asians have a higher poverty rate than blacks, whites and usually pretty close to hispanics and yet the population of asians at stuyvesant is even higher than at TJ.
Stuyvesant is over 70% asian
Stuyvesant is 40% free and reduced lunch.
Of the kids on free and reduced lunch, 90% are asian
Being poor doesn't seem to keep poor asians out of the best schools when a single test is used to determine admission.
This is why places like brown and harvard think that the best way to increase socioeconomic diversity is to bring back the SAT

You may not like what racial equality brings you in the short term but you will certainly dislike what permissive racial discrimination will bring you in the long term.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

And how is this treating the reader like they are stupid?
Do you think only stupid people would disagree with you?

DP. Because you are so transparently biased and misrepresenting what happened. Your post is also dripping with racism.

If you’re trying to make the C4TJ types look even more depraved and politically motivated it’s working.

It's not hard since the C4TJ thesis is racist depraved and politically motivated.

Right because the people pushing racial discrimination aren't depraved and politically motivated.
Seriously if your only argument is insults then you don't have much of an argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

DP. Just came here to point out that your White male, never-been-persecuted, self-righteous lecturing of those who very well might have been is one of the reasons that it's hard to take you seriously. Just from reading your comments, I can 100% guarantee that I know more about what it's like than you.

Statistically, they're probably female.
They are not being self righteous. They are being defensive.
White liberal guilt is a defensive instinct.
They assuage their guilt at the expense of asian kids because that seems to make sense to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

The C4TJ crowd asserts that the new process discriminates against Asians, but the facts paint a different picture.

* TJ's Asian demographic made up a majority of its students before and after the change
* Selection for both new and old process is race blind
* The largest beneficiary of the change was low-income Asians.

That majority went from 70%+ to about 60%
A lot of racist things are race blind (see literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, legacy admissions, voter ID laws, athletic preferences, etc.)
The biggest increase in admissions went to above average but ultimately mediocre students.
Of these the biggest racial increase went to white kids by a fairly wide margin.

If you want to cherry-pick data to try and tell a particular story, it is possible to tell pretty much any story you want but ultimately standards went down in an attempt to increase diversity and the diversity increased only a tiny bit (unless you consider more white kids =more diversity) in exchange for the almost abandonment of merit.

[Anonymous]

Only 13 spots? I thought it would be well worse. Give it a couple of years of no entrance exams and affinity group safe spaces math 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

DP. Just came here to point out that your White male, never-been-persecuted, self-righteous lecturing of those who very well might have been is one of the reasons that it's hard to take you seriously. Just from reading your comments, I can 100% guarantee that I know more about what it's like than you.

You haven’t been persecuted you mediocre chicken

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’d be more helpful to include the two years prior and the two years following. And add a few more schools that are more representative of FCPS.

Just comparing two data points for affluent schools isn’t incredibly meaningful.

DP.

The link to all the data is above but here it is again.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/data-policy-funding/data-reports/statistics-reports/sol-test-pass-rates-other-results
There is nothing for the 2019/2020 school year, SOLs were cancelled that year because of COVID

If you think I'm cherry-picking data, you can look at the data yourself, I picked to two largest feeder pyramids that were likely to see the effects of students that were left behind under the new system.

“Students left behind”

JFC. No one is entitled to a seat at TJ. It’s a community resource; it’s not just for wealthy kids from Langley/McLean.

It is a community resource meant for the most academically gifted kids that need that rigor to get an education that meets their needs.
Whether they are all from carson or all from twain.
If you have a problem with the academic results of students at twain, you should address that problem at twain or the elementary schools that feed into it.

Frankly if you get rid of holistic admissions and relied entirely on the test, you would get fewer kids from carson and more kids from and more kids from places like twain.
The percentage of kids that get into the pool that go on to get offers is higher at wealthier schools and lower at less wealthy schools.
In a recent year twain had 20 kids get into the pool based on test scores and other objective metrics and ZERO get offers because none of them had the compelling essays describing the fantastic life experiences their parents purchased for them. They just studied and played outside with their friends.

This is factually inaccurate and relies on the assertion that once the semifinalist pool was selected, the exam scores and GPA were not considered.

The facts, shared by the Admissions Office at their information sessions, are that there was a huge delta between the mean exams scores of the semifinalist pool and the mean exam scores of the eventual offer pools. And the biggest delta was on the Quant-Q, which is the purported "secured" exam that was compromised by the actions of students at Curie Learning Centers.

It wasn't the essays or the teacher recs keeping the Twain kids out and the Carson and Stone Hill kids in. It was the exam scores. Full stop.

Do you have a cite for that?
Because at one time test scores were only 20% of the decision to pull kids out of the pool.
Are you saying they increased the weighting on test scores when they made it more holistic to increase diversity in 2013?
Adding full stop to a sentence doesn't make your speculations any more convincing without a cite of some sort.

Yes, at one time exam scores were a much smaller piece of the discussion. I'm not referring to that.

What I'm referring to is the transition beginning with the Class of 2022 to the process that gatekept the semifinalist pool to those scoring above certain percentile threshholds on the suite of three exams given - the Quant-Q and the ACT-Aspire English and Science exams.

Believe it or not, under this old process, a student could achieve a literal perfect score on the "math" and "science" exams, but if their English score was in the 74th percentile, they would not be considered for admission in the semifinalist pool. Staggering.

When you design an admissions process in this manner, you make it functionally impossible for a brilliant student who for whatever reason doesn't perform quite as well on an exam as peers who have spent years in expensive boutique enrichment courses preparing for those exams to get into TJ.

The above should be common knowledge among people who discuss the TJ admissions process, but evidently based on your comments it is now. I apologize for my assumption.

TJ semifinalist pool was always gatekept behind test scores in some way. This didn't start with the class of 2022.
For the class of 2022, in order to qualify for the pool you had to be at least at the 50th national percentile in math and at least 75th national percentile in reading and science AND you had to have a 75% in math or 90% science. So if you are at the 74th national percentile in reading, you didn't get into the pool. You don't need expensive boutique enrichment for that. The average pool candidate had 82% math, 92% reading and 95% science. The average admit that year had 88% math, 94% reading, and 96% science.

And once again, if wealth could get you into TJ, then TJ would be a lot whiter than it is.

Also, in what way is setting a reading test score cutoff unfair?

A lot to unpack here...

1) We're not talking about absolute scores here - we're talking about percentile scores. Which means that the boutique enrichment services are wrecking the curve and putting those percentile threshholds even further out of reach for some students.

The percentiles are based on the national curve not the fairfax curve and certainly not the curie curve.

2) You can see the delta between the average pool candidate and the average admit on the Quant-Q. This supports the hypothesis that the scores were indeed used heavily in the process of getting from semifinalist to admit.

Wait, you think going from 82%/92%/95% to 88%/94%/96% (an increase of 6%/2%/1%) is a big delta that supports the notion that test scores were "heavily" weighted in getting from semifinalist to admit?

3) Wealth did get you into TJ when white people were interested in sending their kids to TJ. Fact is, you can't get into TJ unless you apply to TJ, and white applications plummeted from over 2,000 in the late 90s and early 2000s to less than 600 (compared to over 1,500 Asian applications) in the years leading up to the admissions changes. The evidence that wealth got you into TJ under the most recent version of the old admissions process is the staggering dominance of South Asians, who are by far the wealthiest sub-demographic in Northern Virginia - even surpassing whites.

Yes the wealthiest asians are wealthier than the average whites but the wealthiest whites are wealthier than the wealthiest asians.
You can't compare the wealthiest with the average whites and think you've made a point about wealth?
The median and mean incomes of whites in fairfax is higher than it is for asians.
Also, the white/asian disparity precedes the large influx of indians to this area.

Are you trying to imply that the reason more white kids aren't getting in is because white people are no longer interested in attending the most competitive high school in the area? Really?!?
It's not disinterest, it's self selection.

If money got you in, there would be more white kids, but there weren't because money is not enough, you still need to study hard.
Somehow under the new system, asian admission went from 355 to 315 and white admission went form 86-140. Black admissions went from under 11 to 19.
It's funny now all these things that are supposed to help black people end up helping white people even more.

False. Wealthy white people don’t want to send their kids to grind away at an unnecessarily rigorous high school that will only diminish their kids’ ability to get into top colleges.

It was well known in wealthy white circles what you need to do to get your kid into TJ: expensive test prep.

Ambiguous criteria so they can be accept who they want. Bad practice to exclude Asian kids who would have gotten in. Call it what it is. Racism against Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

The C4TJ crowd asserts that the new process discriminates against Asians, but the facts paint a different picture.

* TJ's Asian demographic made up a majority of its students before and after the change
* Selection for both new and old process is race blind
* The largest beneficiary of the change was low-income Asians.

That majority went from 70%+ to about 60%
A lot of racist things are race blind (see literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, legacy admissions, voter ID laws, athletic preferences, etc.)
The biggest increase in admissions went to above average but ultimately mediocre students.
Of these the biggest racial increase went to white kids by a fairly wide margin.

If you want to cherry-pick data to try and tell a particular story, it is possible to tell pretty much any story you want but ultimately standards went down in an attempt to increase diversity and the diversity increased only a tiny bit (unless you consider more white kids =more diversity) in exchange for the almost abandonment of merit.

Excellent points. This post should be pinned at the top of the forum as required reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Claims of “discrimination” are laughable.

The process itself is facially neutral.
Just like literacy tests, poll taxes, and voter ID laws were facially neutral.
It is the intent behind the changes that was racially discriminatory.

But just like the supreme court's decision not to overturn voter ID laws despite the racist intent behind them, they didn't do anything about this facially neutral admissions process either.
You are in good company with the promoters of facially neutral voter ID laws that were passed specifically to suppress black votes in philadelphia.

I'm sorry - you're really going to sit here and claim that three Jim Crow measures are comparable to ... removing a standardized exam from an admissions process?

What amazes me about these arguments is the complete lack of realization that - by any measure of statistical significance - the old admissions process was facially neutral but objectively racially discriminatory!

You don't get to co-opt the products of the Civil Rights Movement to defend a process that discriminated against poor people, and therefore against Black people.

When you attempt to do that, you insult people's intelligence.

The C4TJ crowd asserts that the new process discriminates against Asians, but the facts paint a different picture.

* TJ's Asian demographic made up a majority of its students before and after the change
* Selection for both new and old process is race blind
* The largest beneficiary of the change was low-income Asians.

That majority went from 70%+ to about 60%
A lot of racist things are race blind (see literacy tests, poll taxes, grandfather clauses, legacy admissions, voter ID laws, athletic preferences, etc.)
The biggest increase in admissions went to above average but ultimately mediocre students.
Of these the biggest racial increase went to white kids by a fairly wide margin.

If you want to cherry-pick data to try and tell a particular story, it is possible to tell pretty much any story you want but ultimately standards went down in an attempt to increase diversity and the diversity increased only a tiny bit (unless you consider more white kids =more diversity) in exchange for the almost abandonment of merit.

+1