TJHSST Director of Admissions leaves FCPS after 25 years

[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:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

This is the poster who want everybody to believe that 1:1 tutor at $180 per hour rate in the comfort of fancy home, is the same with self study (while also babysitting 3 little sibling) from $20 prep books from amazon.

The idea was not to take a way the first, but, only hope to at least give a chance to the latter.

That’s a fair point, but the real solution is to provide early support rather than guaranteeing outcomes in high school, especially at a place like TJ. I’m even okay with tax-funded tutoring and mentoring at the elementary level, but forcing guaranteed outcomes through DEI at high schools or TJ is not the answer. And smearing hardworking middle-class parents for investing in their children's education is utter nonsense.

DP

1) That's a false choice for multiple reasons, first because no one is guaranteeing outcomes at all, and second because there's no reason for us to choose between providing additional support AND evaluating students' merit based on the context of their circumstances. We can and should be doing both.

2) No one is smearing hard-working middle class parents for investing in their children's education. What we're smearing about you is your insistence that admissions processes should be tailored to incentivize an imbalanced childhood. By all means, raise your kid however you want to and streamline their educational process to be STEM-focused for their own sake - just stop expecting that elite schools are going to reward you for doing so. And by the way, they shouldn't punish you for it either - and they're not.

DP

Life does not grade on a curve.

What you consider an imbalanced childhood is the typical childhood of 90% of the rest of the world outside of the USA.

No elite school is punishing any individual asian kid for studying too hard but they are punishing asian kids in general for being a member of a race that is disproportionately hardworking and academically successful. We live in a world where our country really can't afford to elevate mediocrity in an effort to equalize outcomes based or race. We have to become more merit based. There's a place for everyone but those places should not be allocated based on race in an effort to equalize racial outcomes.

There’s no sense in which Asian kids are being “punished”. They’re just not being rewarded to the same extent for their parents’ emphasis on testing.

It’s easy to confuse removal of an advantage with introduction of discrimination, but that doesn’t make you right.

Of course asian kids are being punished. They are being punished with discrimination for being too successful.

Almost everybody understands this now. Only the true believers deny that asians are discriminated against in this way

If you are one of the people that think asians are not being discriminated against then nothing will change your mind, so I will not try.

If there were discrimination, you would expect Asians to get in at:

1) A significantly lower rate per applicant than other cohorts;

2) A significantly lower percentage than their total applicants.

Neither is true - in fact the reverse is true.

What has instead happened is that a piece of the application that gave a statistically significant advantage to Asian students - that being a requirement that applicants reach certain percentile thresholds (not absolute scores) on a battery of standardized exams to even be considered at the semifinal level - was removed. You're calling that discrimination because you think that the advantage that the exam gave to the Asian students was correct and appropriate, and there is an argument for that.

But you have no evidence that the current process in a vacuum actively discriminates against Asian students. It just doesn't discriminate in favor of them anymore.

Exactly.

There is no discrimination against Asian students. There is less discrimination against black/Hispanic students now, but not entirely eliminated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

First of all, no, they really don't have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. When the most successful prep company releases their list of admits three years in a row and literally every single name of the nearly 300 on those lists is of South Asian descent, you don't have equality of opportunity. When access to bespoke prep courses that are narrowly tailored to the TJ admissions process costs $5,000 and requires hundreds of hours of additional time, you don't have equality of opportunity. And when communities of parents build their child's entire elementary and middle school career on optimizing their applications, using tips and tricks cobbled together from their WhatsApp chats and Facebook groups, you don't have equality of opportunity.

People like you get strangely quiet when confronted with the record of Stuyvesant High - very selective, very Asian and very poor.

FCPS isn't NYC.

Expensive prep programs give kids a leg up on admissions. Period.

The % FRE at TJ before the change was ridiculous. Less than 1% of the class of 2024. There is no defending that.

But you are strangely accepting of white availing themselves of these prep programs? You reserve your special wrath for the Asians?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

You can't possibly believe this. Opportunity includes access to resources. Freedom of time. Food security. A heightened sense of safety in and around the home. Supports, academic and otherwise, as needed, often from a parent who is not overworked and/or commuting extensively and/or who can afford to hire help. Early childhood exposure to language. Kids have absolutely no control over these things for the vast majority of their lives prior to 8th grade when they apply to TJ. Are there other aspects of effort and achievement and hard work they CAN control? Absolutely! But that doesn't negate that there are other opportunity factors with gross imbalances.

Putting kids at different starting points on the track before you yell "go" and claiming they all have equal opportunity to run as fast as they can within their lanes to the finish line is willfully ignoring some realities to focus only on others, usually the ones that benefit you and whatever you perceive your in-group to be.

If equal resources are necessary for equal opportunity then equal opportunity is not possible.

Everyone does not have equal ability to compete, but everyone has the same opportunity to compete.

Everyone in this country has the ability to improve their circumstances to the point where their children will be able to do better than them.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are missing a key piece of the mindset of this immigrant community.

A friend family had their child in all the prep classes since early elementary school. They even took the TJ exam prep classes.

They had no intention of attending TJ as they went back to India.

Why spend thousands of dollars and years of effort on something that they have no plan of attending?

The thinking is that if the kids spend time learning all the material, it would be good for them, it would help them in academics, it would prepare them well for college, keeps the kids away from distractions (phones, drugs, etc.) and so on.

This attitude is quite common in the community. I strongly disagree with this approach and think this is harmful in other more subtle ways.

Some of the other "distractions" that they "keep the kids away from" are actually quite healthy. Sports, collective participation in the arts, random unstructured play with friends, and the like. In this mindset, anything a child does that can't go on their TJ or college app is a "waste of time". We'll let you do music, but only if it's an instrument for which you can receive status or an award.

And by the way, this isn't okay when families do it with respect to sports either. Parents who yoke their kids into year-round travel sports at the age of 10, 11, or 12 aren't doing their kids any favors either. It's the exact same damn thing but both groups tend to think of themselves as superior to the other.

That's totally fine too. It's just not what TJ was meant for. If you raise a musician, why do you expect them to go to medical school so to speak?

+1

[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:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

This is the poster who want everybody to believe that 1:1 tutor at $180 per hour rate in the comfort of fancy home, is the same with self study (while also babysitting 3 little sibling) from $20 prep books from amazon.

The idea was not to take a way the first, but, only hope to at least give a chance to the latter.

That’s a fair point, but the real solution is to provide early support rather than guaranteeing outcomes in high school, especially at a place like TJ. I’m even okay with tax-funded tutoring and mentoring at the elementary level, but forcing guaranteed outcomes through DEI at high schools or TJ is not the answer. And smearing hardworking middle-class parents for investing in their children's education is utter nonsense.

DP

1) That's a false choice for multiple reasons, first because no one is guaranteeing outcomes at all, and second because there's no reason for us to choose between providing additional support AND evaluating students' merit based on the context of their circumstances. We can and should be doing both.

2) No one is smearing hard-working middle class parents for investing in their children's education. What we're smearing about you is your insistence that admissions processes should be tailored to incentivize an imbalanced childhood. By all means, raise your kid however you want to and streamline their educational process to be STEM-focused for their own sake - just stop expecting that elite schools are going to reward you for doing so. And by the way, they shouldn't punish you for it either - and they're not.

DP

Life does not grade on a curve.

What you consider an imbalanced childhood is the typical childhood of 90% of the rest of the world outside of the USA.

No elite school is punishing any individual asian kid for studying too hard but they are punishing asian kids in general for being a member of a race that is disproportionately hardworking and academically successful. We live in a world where our country really can't afford to elevate mediocrity in an effort to equalize outcomes based or race. We have to become more merit based. There's a place for everyone but those places should not be allocated based on race in an effort to equalize racial outcomes.

There’s no sense in which Asian kids are being “punished”. They’re just not being rewarded to the same extent for their parents’ emphasis on testing.

It’s easy to confuse removal of an advantage with introduction of discrimination, but that doesn’t make you right.

Of course asian kids are being punished. They are being punished with discrimination for being too successful.

Almost everybody understands this now. Only the true believers deny that asians are discriminated against in this way

If you are one of the people that think asians are not being discriminated against then nothing will change your mind, so I will not try.

If there were discrimination, you would expect Asians to get in at:

1) A significantly lower rate per applicant than other cohorts;

2) A significantly lower percentage than their total applicants.

Neither is true - in fact the reverse is true.

What has instead happened is that a piece of the application that gave a statistically significant advantage to Asian students - that being a requirement that applicants reach certain percentile thresholds (not absolute scores) on a battery of standardized exams to even be considered at the semifinal level - was removed. You're calling that discrimination because you think that the advantage that the exam gave to the Asian students was correct and appropriate, and there is an argument for that.

But you have no evidence that the current process in a vacuum actively discriminates against Asian students. It just doesn't discriminate in favor of them anymore.

Wait, you think the ability to do well on standardized tests is unique to Asians?

Hmmm.

It demonstrably is. But the problem is that the ability to do well on standardized exams has no relevance to anything except admissions to schools. There is no other situation in life where it has any value whatsoever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

First of all, no, they really don't have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. When the most successful prep company releases their list of admits three years in a row and literally every single name of the nearly 300 on those lists is of South Asian descent, you don't have equality of opportunity. When access to bespoke prep courses that are narrowly tailored to the TJ admissions process costs $5,000 and requires hundreds of hours of additional time, you don't have equality of opportunity. And when communities of parents build their child's entire elementary and middle school career on optimizing their applications, using tips and tricks cobbled together from their WhatsApp chats and Facebook groups, you don't have equality of opportunity.

Second of all, framing the admissions process as a competition or as a contest/prize to be won is problematic as well. TJ doesn't exist for the purpose of giving a small group of Northern Virginia parents something to brag about - it exists to serve and enhance the STEM community writ large. And you cannot tell me that STEM is better served by TJ admitting the 80th strongest kid at Carson, with the same relative profile as the kids ahead of them but just weaker, rather than the 2nd or 3rd strongest kid at Poe.

You think there is such a bigger delta between those two than there really is and it's just not the case.

I'm lilywhite and I'm in these Whatsapp chats and FB groups. Literally the only thing you need to do to join is to want and be able to join.

I'm betting you're not in the ones that are written in Hindi, Korean, and Mandarin, though.

Your original post mentioned only South Asians. Now you're expanding this to Korean and Mandarin? lol okay.

Are you sure it was my post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are missing a key piece of the mindset of this immigrant community.

A friend family had their child in all the prep classes since early elementary school. They even took the TJ exam prep classes.

They had no intention of attending TJ as they went back to India.

Why spend thousands of dollars and years of effort on something that they have no plan of attending?

The thinking is that if the kids spend time learning all the material, it would be good for them, it would help them in academics, it would prepare them well for college, keeps the kids away from distractions (phones, drugs, etc.) and so on.

This attitude is quite common in the community. I strongly disagree with this approach and think this is harmful in other more subtle ways.

Some of the other "distractions" that they "keep the kids away from" are actually quite healthy. Sports, collective participation in the arts, random unstructured play with friends, and the like. In this mindset, anything a child does that can't go on their TJ or college app is a "waste of time". We'll let you do music, but only if it's an instrument for which you can receive status or an award.

And by the way, this isn't okay when families do it with respect to sports either. Parents who yoke their kids into year-round travel sports at the age of 10, 11, or 12 aren't doing their kids any favors either. It's the exact same damn thing but both groups tend to think of themselves as superior to the other.

That's totally fine too. It's just not what TJ was meant for. If you raise a musician, why do you expect them to go to medical school so to speak?

Specialization at an early age is a good idea for an exceedingly narrow subset of pre-teens.

Axiomatically, the overwhelming majority of parents who think it is a good idea for their kid are incorrect in a manner that will damage their kid’s future prospects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

First of all, no, they really don't have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. When the most successful prep company releases their list of admits three years in a row and literally every single name of the nearly 300 on those lists is of South Asian descent, you don't have equality of opportunity. When access to bespoke prep courses that are narrowly tailored to the TJ admissions process costs $5,000 and requires hundreds of hours of additional time, you don't have equality of opportunity. And when communities of parents build their child's entire elementary and middle school career on optimizing their applications, using tips and tricks cobbled together from their WhatsApp chats and Facebook groups, you don't have equality of opportunity.

People like you get strangely quiet when confronted with the record of Stuyvesant High - very selective, very Asian and very poor.

No, I don’t. The applicant pool at Stuyvesant is exceedingly poor, especially when compared to the applicant pool for TJ. The kids who get into Stuy wouldn’t have a prayer of getting in to TJ - they’ve been shut out of TJ for generations in favor of the Asians that have money.

Until now. In a backwards way, you managed to make my point for me.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

This is the poster who want everybody to believe that 1:1 tutor at $180 per hour rate in the comfort of fancy home, is the same with self study (while also babysitting 3 little sibling) from $20 prep books from amazon.

The idea was not to take a way the first, but, only hope to at least give a chance to the latter.

That’s a fair point, but the real solution is to provide early support rather than guaranteeing outcomes in high school, especially at a place like TJ. I’m even okay with tax-funded tutoring and mentoring at the elementary level, but forcing guaranteed outcomes through DEI at high schools or TJ is not the answer. And smearing hardworking middle-class parents for investing in their children's education is utter nonsense.

DP

1) That's a false choice for multiple reasons, first because no one is guaranteeing outcomes at all, and second because there's no reason for us to choose between providing additional support AND evaluating students' merit based on the context of their circumstances. We can and should be doing both.

2) No one is smearing hard-working middle class parents for investing in their children's education. What we're smearing about you is your insistence that admissions processes should be tailored to incentivize an imbalanced childhood. By all means, raise your kid however you want to and streamline their educational process to be STEM-focused for their own sake - just stop expecting that elite schools are going to reward you for doing so. And by the way, they shouldn't punish you for it either - and they're not.

DP

Life does not grade on a curve.

What you consider an imbalanced childhood is the typical childhood of 90% of the rest of the world outside of the USA.

No elite school is punishing any individual asian kid for studying too hard but they are punishing asian kids in general for being a member of a race that is disproportionately hardworking and academically successful. We live in a world where our country really can't afford to elevate mediocrity in an effort to equalize outcomes based or race. We have to become more merit based. There's a place for everyone but those places should not be allocated based on race in an effort to equalize racial outcomes.

There’s no sense in which Asian kids are being “punished”. They’re just not being rewarded to the same extent for their parents’ emphasis on testing.

It’s easy to confuse removal of an advantage with introduction of discrimination, but that doesn’t make you right.

Of course asian kids are being punished. They are being punished with discrimination for being too successful.

Almost everybody understands this now. Only the true believers deny that asians are discriminated against in this way

If you are one of the people that think asians are not being discriminated against then nothing will change your mind, so I will not try.

If there were discrimination, you would expect Asians to get in at:

1) A significantly lower rate per applicant than other cohorts;

2) A significantly lower percentage than their total applicants.

Neither is true - in fact the reverse is true.

What has instead happened is that a piece of the application that gave a statistically significant advantage to Asian students - that being a requirement that applicants reach certain percentile thresholds (not absolute scores) on a battery of standardized exams to even be considered at the semifinal level - was removed. You're calling that discrimination because you think that the advantage that the exam gave to the Asian students was correct and appropriate, and there is an argument for that.

But you have no evidence that the current process in a vacuum actively discriminates against Asian students. It just doesn't discriminate in favor of them anymore.

Wait, you think the ability to do well on standardized tests is unique to Asians?

Hmmm.

It demonstrably is. But the problem is that the ability to do well on standardized exams has no relevance to anything except admissions to schools. There is no other situation in life where it has any value whatsoever.

Luckily, this thread is focused on that exact thing - admissions to schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are missing a key piece of the mindset of this immigrant community.

A friend family had their child in all the prep classes since early elementary school. They even took the TJ exam prep classes.

They had no intention of attending TJ as they went back to India.

Why spend thousands of dollars and years of effort on something that they have no plan of attending?

The thinking is that if the kids spend time learning all the material, it would be good for them, it would help them in academics, it would prepare them well for college, keeps the kids away from distractions (phones, drugs, etc.) and so on.

This attitude is quite common in the community. I strongly disagree with this approach and think this is harmful in other more subtle ways.

Some of the other "distractions" that they "keep the kids away from" are actually quite healthy. Sports, collective participation in the arts, random unstructured play with friends, and the like. In this mindset, anything a child does that can't go on their TJ or college app is a "waste of time". We'll let you do music, but only if it's an instrument for which you can receive status or an award.

And by the way, this isn't okay when families do it with respect to sports either. Parents who yoke their kids into year-round travel sports at the age of 10, 11, or 12 aren't doing their kids any favors either. It's the exact same damn thing but both groups tend to think of themselves as superior to the other.

That is your perception. In our middle school, the same kids who took the TJ test are the kids who are first violins and cellos in the school orchestra, AND the are the same kids fronting Science Olympiad and CTA meets, AND they have As in all classes, not just math. It's an approach that demands excellence and tells parents it's OK to insist on excellence because the kids are capable of it. If you think this approach confers an unfair privilege...well okay.

All of the things you described are status items. You are selecting things like the violin and cello for your child because all they have to do is rely on themselves and practice by themselves and follow the stick and they will get rewarded by being “first chair”.

They’ll get solid first jobs out of college, and they will be passed up for elite opportunities and promotions in favor of kids who grew up learning to work with other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

First of all, no, they really don't have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. When the most successful prep company releases their list of admits three years in a row and literally every single name of the nearly 300 on those lists is of South Asian descent, you don't have equality of opportunity. When access to bespoke prep courses that are narrowly tailored to the TJ admissions process costs $5,000 and requires hundreds of hours of additional time, you don't have equality of opportunity. And when communities of parents build their child's entire elementary and middle school career on optimizing their applications, using tips and tricks cobbled together from their WhatsApp chats and Facebook groups, you don't have equality of opportunity.

People like you get strangely quiet when confronted with the record of Stuyvesant High - very selective, very Asian and very poor.

No, I don’t. The applicant pool at Stuyvesant is exceedingly poor, especially when compared to the applicant pool for TJ. The kids who get into Stuy wouldn’t have a prayer of getting in to TJ - they’ve been shut out of TJ for generations in favor of the Asians that have money.

Until now. In a backwards way, you managed to make my point for me.

No, not really - because Stuy is regularly under fire for admitting too many Asians. It magically stop mattering that they're poor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are missing a key piece of the mindset of this immigrant community.

A friend family had their child in all the prep classes since early elementary school. They even took the TJ exam prep classes.

They had no intention of attending TJ as they went back to India.

Why spend thousands of dollars and years of effort on something that they have no plan of attending?

The thinking is that if the kids spend time learning all the material, it would be good for them, it would help them in academics, it would prepare them well for college, keeps the kids away from distractions (phones, drugs, etc.) and so on.

This attitude is quite common in the community. I strongly disagree with this approach and think this is harmful in other more subtle ways.

Some of the other "distractions" that they "keep the kids away from" are actually quite healthy. Sports, collective participation in the arts, random unstructured play with friends, and the like. In this mindset, anything a child does that can't go on their TJ or college app is a "waste of time". We'll let you do music, but only if it's an instrument for which you can receive status or an award.

And by the way, this isn't okay when families do it with respect to sports either. Parents who yoke their kids into year-round travel sports at the age of 10, 11, or 12 aren't doing their kids any favors either. It's the exact same damn thing but both groups tend to think of themselves as superior to the other.

That is your perception. In our middle school, the same kids who took the TJ test are the kids who are first violins and cellos in the school orchestra, AND the are the same kids fronting Science Olympiad and CTA meets, AND they have As in all classes, not just math. It's an approach that demands excellence and tells parents it's OK to insist on excellence because the kids are capable of it. If you think this approach confers an unfair privilege...well okay.

All of the things you described are status items. You are selecting things like the violin and cello for your child because all they have to do is rely on themselves and practice by themselves and follow the stick and they will get rewarded by being “first chair”.

They’ll get solid first jobs out of college, and they will be passed up for elite opportunities and promotions in favor of kids who grew up learning to work with other people.

Wait, you think being first cello doesn't require working with other people? That first cellos don't lead sections?

You have a very strange understanding of how orchestras work..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are missing a key piece of the mindset of this immigrant community.

A friend family had their child in all the prep classes since early elementary school. They even took the TJ exam prep classes.

They had no intention of attending TJ as they went back to India.

Why spend thousands of dollars and years of effort on something that they have no plan of attending?

The thinking is that if the kids spend time learning all the material, it would be good for them, it would help them in academics, it would prepare them well for college, keeps the kids away from distractions (phones, drugs, etc.) and so on.

This attitude is quite common in the community. I strongly disagree with this approach and think this is harmful in other more subtle ways.

Some of the other "distractions" that they "keep the kids away from" are actually quite healthy. Sports, collective participation in the arts, random unstructured play with friends, and the like. In this mindset, anything a child does that can't go on their TJ or college app is a "waste of time". We'll let you do music, but only if it's an instrument for which you can receive status or an award.

And by the way, this isn't okay when families do it with respect to sports either. Parents who yoke their kids into year-round travel sports at the age of 10, 11, or 12 aren't doing their kids any favors either. It's the exact same damn thing but both groups tend to think of themselves as superior to the other.

That is your perception. In our middle school, the same kids who took the TJ test are the kids who are first violins and cellos in the school orchestra, AND the are the same kids fronting Science Olympiad and CTA meets, AND they have As in all classes, not just math. It's an approach that demands excellence and tells parents it's OK to insist on excellence because the kids are capable of it. If you think this approach confers an unfair privilege...well okay.

All of the things you described are status items. You are selecting things like the violin and cello for your child because all they have to do is rely on themselves and practice by themselves and follow the stick and they will get rewarded by being “first chair”.

They’ll get solid first jobs out of college, and they will be passed up for elite opportunities and promotions in favor of kids who grew up learning to work with other people.

There are no non-partnered competitions in Science Olympiad or CTA, dummy. It wins as a team and it fails as a team.

[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:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

First of all, no, they really don't have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. When the most successful prep company releases their list of admits three years in a row and literally every single name of the nearly 300 on those lists is of South Asian descent, you don't have equality of opportunity. When access to bespoke prep courses that are narrowly tailored to the TJ admissions process costs $5,000 and requires hundreds of hours of additional time, you don't have equality of opportunity. And when communities of parents build their child's entire elementary and middle school career on optimizing their applications, using tips and tricks cobbled together from their WhatsApp chats and Facebook groups, you don't have equality of opportunity.

Second of all, framing the admissions process as a competition or as a contest/prize to be won is problematic as well. TJ doesn't exist for the purpose of giving a small group of Northern Virginia parents something to brag about - it exists to serve and enhance the STEM community writ large. And you cannot tell me that STEM is better served by TJ admitting the 80th strongest kid at Carson, with the same relative profile as the kids ahead of them but just weaker, rather than the 2nd or 3rd strongest kid at Poe.

You think there is such a bigger delta between those two than there really is and it's just not the case.

I'm lilywhite and I'm in these Whatsapp chats and FB groups. Literally the only thing you need to do to join is to want and be able to join.

I'm betting you're not in the ones that are written in Hindi, Korean, and Mandarin, though.

Your original post mentioned only South Asians. Now you're expanding this to Korean and Mandarin? lol okay.

Are you sure it was my post?

I can't be sure - I just go by the uniquely pompous writing style.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t think sound middle path at all, PP. you sound wholly in the camp of those who wanted to select certain people for TJ based on factors other than STEM interest and aptitude.

That is literally the definition of a middle path. It's balancing STEM interest and aptitude (which are critical!) and the essential need for STEM to be an aspirational field for students from all walks of life.

It is true that academic aptitude is not evenly balanced across demographics, but it is also true that no racial or socioeconomic demo has a monopoly on it. But when it comes to TJ admissions, there have been populations that had been almost entirely excluded prior to the updates to the process, and that needed to change.

I don't want to select people for TJ based on factors *other than* STEM interest and aptitude. I want to select them based on factors *in addition to* STEM interest and aptitude. And there's more work to be done to get there.

"Undervalued communities" is just a doushebag of bullsheet. Nobody can undervalue you except yourself. Don't blame others when you haven't worked hard enough.

Presuming that folks haven't worked hard enough just because they're poor, Black, or Hispanic isn't really a good look. It's also not a good look when the "work" they've had access to isn't narrowly tailored to success on a specific exam or in a specific admissions process.

You want to protect the advantages of groups that already have advantages. Just own up to that and be fine with it - it is a legitimate political position that I happen to disagree with.

When people start questioning DEI, you immediately think of Black and Hispanic. Do you see the problem with this kneejerk? You choose to stay in your pit and never get out. Or you see it as a privilege or entitlement that you don't want to lose.

Those are the communities that have been undervalued. Until that is no longer the case, it's good policy to create an atmosphere where everyone has a chance to compete and have input. Full stop.

They have the same opportunity to compete as anyone else. Full stop.

This is the poster who want everybody to believe that 1:1 tutor at $180 per hour rate in the comfort of fancy home, is the same with self study (while also babysitting 3 little sibling) from $20 prep books from amazon.

The idea was not to take a way the first, but, only hope to at least give a chance to the latter.

That’s a fair point, but the real solution is to provide early support rather than guaranteeing outcomes in high school, especially at a place like TJ. I’m even okay with tax-funded tutoring and mentoring at the elementary level, but forcing guaranteed outcomes through DEI at high schools or TJ is not the answer. And smearing hardworking middle-class parents for investing in their children's education is utter nonsense.

DP

1) That's a false choice for multiple reasons, first because no one is guaranteeing outcomes at all, and second because there's no reason for us to choose between providing additional support AND evaluating students' merit based on the context of their circumstances. We can and should be doing both.

2) No one is smearing hard-working middle class parents for investing in their children's education. What we're smearing about you is your insistence that admissions processes should be tailored to incentivize an imbalanced childhood. By all means, raise your kid however you want to and streamline their educational process to be STEM-focused for their own sake - just stop expecting that elite schools are going to reward you for doing so. And by the way, they shouldn't punish you for it either - and they're not.

DP

Life does not grade on a curve.

What you consider an imbalanced childhood is the typical childhood of 90% of the rest of the world outside of the USA.

No elite school is punishing any individual asian kid for studying too hard but they are punishing asian kids in general for being a member of a race that is disproportionately hardworking and academically successful. We live in a world where our country really can't afford to elevate mediocrity in an effort to equalize outcomes based or race. We have to become more merit based. There's a place for everyone but those places should not be allocated based on race in an effort to equalize racial outcomes.

There’s no sense in which Asian kids are being “punished”. They’re just not being rewarded to the same extent for their parents’ emphasis on testing.

It’s easy to confuse removal of an advantage with introduction of discrimination, but that doesn’t make you right.

Of course asian kids are being punished. They are being punished with discrimination for being too successful.

Almost everybody understands this now. Only the true believers deny that asians are discriminated against in this way

If you are one of the people that think asians are not being discriminated against then nothing will change your mind, so I will not try.

If there were discrimination, you would expect Asians to get in at:

1) A significantly lower rate per applicant than other cohorts;

2) A significantly lower percentage than their total applicants.

Neither is true - in fact the reverse is true.

What has instead happened is that a piece of the application that gave a statistically significant advantage to Asian students - that being a requirement that applicants reach certain percentile thresholds (not absolute scores) on a battery of standardized exams to even be considered at the semifinal level - was removed. You're calling that discrimination because you think that the advantage that the exam gave to the Asian students was correct and appropriate, and there is an argument for that.

But you have no evidence that the current process in a vacuum actively discriminates against Asian students. It just doesn't discriminate in favor of them anymore.

Wait, you think the ability to do well on standardized tests is unique to Asians?

Hmmm.

It demonstrably is. But the problem is that the ability to do well on standardized exams has no relevance to anything except admissions to schools. There is no other situation in life where it has any value whatsoever.

Luckily, this thread is focused on that exact thing - admissions to schools.

And that’s exactly why it makes no sense to rely heavily on a non-transferable skill in admissions processes. You folks keep helping me out and I appreciate it greatly.