Is Peter Stuyvesant having the same problems as TJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Their demographics are very different, with something like 50% of the kids being first gen, and nearly as many FARMS. I would be surprised if their college admissions results are substantially different than in the past.

This. I think it's business as usual over there. Stuy will always send a large number to schools like Cooper Union (which offers merit/tuition to every student), Baruch (part of the city system), and NYU with merit aid due to its student population. Not unusual for kids to pick those schools over MIT, Ivies, etc. A lot of those kids are not only extremely poor first-gen, they have to stay at home due to family obligations such as helping run the family business, plus the kids are often the only ones in the entire family that speak English.

Economic demographics are very diverse among the Asians, even within the same ethnicity. It’s not unusual to see young kids working at their parents’ family restaurants after school. But those kids don’t complain about race or “social injustice”. They just work their rears off to succeed.

Bitterness is not a good look. Bless your heart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sty? lots of mit and caltech and totally miserable asian students there. they cannot wait to get to college, any college.

it's Stuy, since you're so familiar with it. You can look at their instagram page. The kids do great, which isn't a big shock, although money is often a big consideration. Every major college visits the school - some make pretty crazy announcements. UChicago said their director of admissions personally handles the Stuy file and reads all the essays.

Admissions is always 100% honest. Everything they tell you is gospel. LOL. They are professional bs artists. They tell every crowd what they want to hear.

Agree. College admissions are the worst con artists. If they were publicly traded companies they should serve hard time at Club Fed for fraud.

Do all schools get things like this every year?

JUNIOR FAMILIES;
Our colleagues at the University of Chicago are hosting a virtual event exclusively for Stuyvesant High School juniors and their families on Wednesday, May XX, at 7:00pm. Juniors and parents/guardians who are registered on Naviance have received an emal with the registration link from Mr. Makris. If you did not receive it, you may contact [e-mail] or the college office for the link.

Hosted for Stuyvesant by Jim Nondorf, Dean of College Admissions and Financial Aid at the University of Chicago, we will discuss frequently asked questions about the highly selective admissions process, how students’ experiences might translate to their college applications, and also share some information about UChicago’s response to the pandemic. Stuyvesant HS and UChicago alumnus David Axelrod will also be making a special appearance.

Before registering, please consider the following:

How is this allowed in 2023?

Aww, look at all the UMC white families suddenly crying about unfairness!

Stuy is a special school with special kids, many of whom are poor or working class, have long commutes on subways to get to school, work their butts off, don't have nannies or tutors or a SAH parent, and you're going to complain that colleges are falling over themselves to recruit them?

NP.
I’ve work with lots of grads from stuy, by and large they all hated their four years of high school and loved college. So they weren’t totally broken down.

But as for PP’s attempt at a comment. Kids are competing for a seat within their sex, race and geography. So a white boy will not be in the same “pool” as an Asian girl when applying to the same program at the same college. They just won’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sty? lots of mit and caltech and totally miserable asian students there. they cannot wait to get to college, any college.

it's Stuy, since you're so familiar with it. You can look at their instagram page. The kids do great, which isn't a big shock, although money is often a big consideration. Every major college visits the school - some make pretty crazy announcements. UChicago said their director of admissions personally handles the Stuy file and reads all the essays.

Admissions is always 100% honest. Everything they tell you is gospel. LOL. They are professional bs artists. They tell every crowd what they want to hear.

So .. I think we can agree, you are wrong about this and the AO does treat Stuy just a little differently.

The UChicago Director also comes to top privates in NYC. Nondorf came specifically to my kids' school and also said the same thing - he is the one who reads the essays and looks at their application.

*crickets*

Why does the “unfair treatment” of Stuy piss white people off but the $$$$ private schools don’t?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll be really sorry I asked this, but what “problems” is TJ having?

As far as I can tell as an outsider, the "problem" is that TJ realized it's a public school and is taking steps to find and include smart Black and brown students who had previously been overlooked, perhaps because their test scores aren't as good or because their parents didn't know how to best position then from early childhood. DCUM parents think that is ruining the school because it is taking spots away from their brilliant children.

FYI, TJ classes of 2025 (the first year they implemented admission “reform”) and beyond are less competent than previous years. Many more have to take remedial classes in math. TJ teachers are quitting. There’s a reason why TJ has been admitting 550 instead of 500 before the “reform” and allows for a longer waiting list. Just to be prepared for weeding out some of the admittees and allow those more competent ones (e.g. AAP from Carson or Longfellow) to get in. Stop using race as an excuse for the lack of preparedness.

Much better if those kids never get a chance. It's their fault they haven't been tutored and prepped since pre-school. If they wanted to go to TJ, they should have made sure their parents had better jobs.

My DD didn’t prep at all. Not at AAP at Longfellow or Carson either. Just took the two rounds of tests and got in. That was before the “reform.” BTW, those two rounds TJ admission test beforehand the “reform” were piece of cake compared to many other schools’ admission tests. Davidson Academy, a magnet school in Reno NV, takes only top 0.1% in IQ scores. Btw, those parents who did prepare for TJ—what’s wrong with that? You don’t complain about parents preparing young kids for sports, do you?

They can prep all the want, but the school can choose to not care. You can send your kid to trainers for years, but coaches can choose to take raw athleticism and cut your kid.

Years of watching coaches selecting players has taught me that when a coach picks a kid with athletic "potential," over a kid with demonstrated skills, "potential" is a euphamism for "white."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll be really sorry I asked this, but what “problems” is TJ having?

As far as I can tell as an outsider, the "problem" is that TJ realized it's a public school and is taking steps to find and include smart Black and brown students who had previously been overlooked, perhaps because their test scores aren't as good or because their parents didn't know how to best position then from early childhood. DCUM parents think that is ruining the school because it is taking spots away from their brilliant children.

FYI, TJ classes of 2025 (the first year they implemented admission “reform”) and beyond are less competent than previous years. Many more have to take remedial classes in math. TJ teachers are quitting. There’s a reason why TJ has been admitting 550 instead of 500 before the “reform” and allows for a longer waiting list. Just to be prepared for weeding out some of the admittees and allow those more competent ones (e.g. AAP from Carson or Longfellow) to get in. Stop using race as an excuse for the lack of preparedness.

Much better if those kids never get a chance. It's their fault they haven't been tutored and prepped since pre-school. If they wanted to go to TJ, they should have made sure their parents had better jobs.

My DD didn’t prep at all. Not at AAP at Longfellow or Carson either. Just took the two rounds of tests and got in. That was before the “reform.” BTW, those two rounds TJ admission test beforehand the “reform” were piece of cake compared to many other schools’ admission tests. Davidson Academy, a magnet school in Reno NV, takes only top 0.1% in IQ scores. Btw, those parents who did prepare for TJ—what’s wrong with that? You don’t complain about parents preparing young kids for sports, do you?

They can prep all the want, but the school can choose to not care. You can send your kid to trainers for years, but coaches can choose to take raw athleticism and cut your kid.

That proves my point. My DD didn’t prepare anything for TJ admission (before the “reform”) and got in. Some need a lot of effort and preparation to get in and that’s perfectly fine with me. But I do have an issue with incompetent kids getting in because of their race.

I have an issue with kids getting in solely because their parents can afford to prep them.

What do you think test prep is?
Beyond things like process of elimination and familiarity with the test format, most of the "prep" is what you might otherwise call "studying"
Do you have a problem with kids that study more in after school programs doing better than kids that don't?
Would it matter if the after school programs cost $250-$300/month if the kids are putting in the work to learn?

That's what it comes down to.
Should effort make a difference.
And if it shouldn't make a difference, how do you screeen out the effects of effort in a selection process?

Does it matter if you decide effort should not be rewarded because it results in a racial disparity?
Is the answer to level the amount of effort or to level the results irrespective of effort.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what "problem" the OP was referring to, but I heard this year's college admission results are much worse comparing to prior years. These students were admitted to TJ before the "reform" FWIW.

EXACTLY!!! Such freaking ignorant people. The new admissions policies did not impact the GRADUATING SENIORS. Get a grip. Think People. Just stop and think.

So in retrospect, it looks like TJ college admissions are about the same as the past.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure what "problem" the OP was referring to, but I heard this year's college admission results are much worse comparing to prior years. These students were admitted to TJ before the "reform" FWIW.

College admission results have been more unpredictable i recent years for many reasons. It's not because of the high school someone goes to.

Actually going to TJ or highly ranked magnet or Big 3 prep is a DISadvantage. Colleges do a lot of economic balancing and geographic balancing. I would say it’s even more insidious than racial balancing.

You're delusional. Look at the big 3 college admissions and compare them to any random public school. Do you want to compare TJ results with all those super advantaged poor kids at MVHS?

The fact of life is that any bottom feeder at Big 3 is academically superior to the valedictorian of a “random” public HS.

The bottom 10% are wealthy idiots who don't actually even need a college degree or career to be set for life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll be really sorry I asked this, but what “problems” is TJ having?

As far as I can tell as an outsider, the "problem" is that TJ realized it's a public school and is taking steps to find and include smart Black and brown students who had previously been overlooked, perhaps because their test scores aren't as good or because their parents didn't know how to best position then from early childhood. DCUM parents think that is ruining the school because it is taking spots away from their brilliant children.

FYI, TJ classes of 2025 (the first year they implemented admission “reform”) and beyond are less competent than previous years. Many more have to take remedial classes in math. TJ teachers are quitting. There’s a reason why TJ has been admitting 550 instead of 500 before the “reform” and allows for a longer waiting list. Just to be prepared for weeding out some of the admittees and allow those more competent ones (e.g. AAP from Carson or Longfellow) to get in. Stop using race as an excuse for the lack of preparedness.

Much better if those kids never get a chance. It's their fault they haven't been tutored and prepped since pre-school. If they wanted to go to TJ, they should have made sure their parents had better jobs.

My DD didn’t prep at all. Not at AAP at Longfellow or Carson either. Just took the two rounds of tests and got in. That was before the “reform.” BTW, those two rounds TJ admission test beforehand the “reform” were piece of cake compared to many other schools’ admission tests. Davidson Academy, a magnet school in Reno NV, takes only top 0.1% in IQ scores. Btw, those parents who did prepare for TJ—what’s wrong with that? You don’t complain about parents preparing young kids for sports, do you?

They can prep all the want, but the school can choose to not care. You can send your kid to trainers for years, but coaches can choose to take raw athleticism and cut your kid.

Years of watching coaches selecting players has taught me that when a coach picks a kid with athletic "potential," over a kid with demonstrated skills, "potential" is a euphamism for "white."

Or it's a euphemism for height and weight trajectory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m really impressed with Stuy’s college admissions. The major difference between the students at Stuy and a school line Sidwell is that the Sidwell kids are almost all hooked. Sidwell students are legacy and parents have likely donated $. Stuy kids are not hooked, not legacy and has a very large first gen and FARMs population. Not only are they not rich, they are poor, like they have to help support their families poor.

Come on, being First gen and low income IS hooked. It's a different kind of hook.

I'm a NYer and I think you overestimate how many Stuy kids are first gen. It's a small minority. Low-ish income: yes, many, but not Pell eligible. Second gen: sure, many, but that gets you thinking college-wise.

Stuy is 40-50 percent FARMS.

Lots have parents who were university-educated in their home country.

Impressive how many top-educated Chinese will throw away their income for a chance for their children in USA. Or they are FIRE retirees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

The more competitive UC schools like UCLA and Berkeley became more asian.
The overall percentage of blacks in the UC system did not really move much after California banned affirmative action. Half the black kids that would have gotten into Berkeley ended up at UCLA, the UCLA black kids ended up at UCSD and so on down the line and overall, the reduction at the UC/calstate level was a statistical insignificant.
This remains true to this day.
There is no real good proxy for race besides race.
You look for poverty and you pick up a bunch of immigrants.
You look for zip code and you will still find immigrants.
What really helped was going test optional and then test blind.
Once you remove objective indicators of merit, you have wide latitude to pick the students you want.
When they got rid of testing, things moved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

The more competitive UC schools like UCLA and Berkeley became more asian.
The overall percentage of blacks in the UC system did not really move much after California banned affirmative action. Half the black kids that would have gotten into Berkeley ended up at UCLA, the UCLA black kids ended up at UCSD and so on down the line and overall, the reduction at the UC/calstate level was a statistical insignificant.
This remains true to this day.
There is no real good proxy for race besides race.
You look for poverty and you pick up a bunch of immigrants.
You look for zip code and you will still find immigrants.
What really helped was going test optional and then test blind.
Once you remove objective indicators of merit, you have wide latitude to pick the students you want.
When they got rid of testing, things moved.

And even then it’s a fail. TO/Test blind did nothing for black Americans who are descendants of slaves, nor are first gen low income. It just boosts the numbers of rich private pre school students or students who are poor but from privileged education backgrounds. One of my biggest gripes with AA is it doesn’t help the people it’s designed for, but the Nigerian immigrant kids of surgeons and wealth managers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m sure I’ll be really sorry I asked this, but what “problems” is TJ having?

Where everyone is annoyed at the amount of asians. That’s also an issue at Stuyvesant IIRC.

It's not just that they are annoyed at the high number of asians, they are annoyed at less than 10 blacks in a class of 480 freshmen at TJ.
It helps that the asians have beern crowding out white kids so interest covergence led to white people moving the goal posts to catch maybe 12 more black kids per year (and in the process catching about 50 more white kids per year), all by removing some merit from the process.

At stuy the argument was harder because the asian kids were poorer than the rest of the students (asians frequently have the highest poverty level of all racial groups in NYC).
It was also a tougher argument because top black students were being scooped up by private schools like Dalton (10% black today, about 0% black in the 1980s) which has much better college results than stuyvesant has.
Also the test is required by state law so it is harder to remove merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

You'd expect a kid whose family has resources to have a more substantial application that a kid whose family did not have resources. People seem really upset that being UMC is not a protected class

The rate of poor students at ivy+ has not really moved much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think a lot of people get it. Even before the Harvard case more and more colleges were already getting away from using race as an explicit factor, but were trending towards “socioeconomic” factors in college admissions. Some state schools like UC and U. Mich were doing it because of states’ ban on AA. But there is no ban on using “socioeconomic” factors.

A friend of mine is a law firm partner in an upscale area of San Diego. His own family was first generation immigrants from Eastern Europe and he grew up in a not-so-good area of NYC. He’s the typical American Dream success story—pulled himself up from bootstraps, worked hard and got an education. But he’s the one who told me that UC looks at applicant’s zip code and practices economic and geographic discrimination, even for in-state. Why should children be punished because their parents are hard working, successful, and live in a nice neighborhood?

Why should children be punished because they live in a bad neighborhood? They had no say in that.

Right. So we should just look at merit. Everyone gets what they earned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When equality feels like oppression (or “punishment”).

Because when there are a limited number of seats increasing the number of kids fighting for those seats means your kid's odds of getting it go down

If you choose to live in a highly segregated, rich neighborhood, that’s your choice. Just be aware that public universities exist to serve kids from every nook & cranny of the state.

Assuming merit still matters and the flagship colleges like UVA should still be for the most competitive students in the state, a lot of the students at UVA will be from northern Virginia, not from every nook and cranny of the state. The weak students from the nooks and crannies can go to one of the less selective state colleges.