TJ Falls to 14th in the Nation Per US News

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, people using the term discrimination for a group which

* Makes up the majority of TJ students
* Selection is race blind
* The changes to the process mainly benefited low-income Asians.

This isn't a good look since it's clearly not the case.

[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.

So you think test buying is merit? When they put an end to the test buying it did have a small impact but overall TJ is a much better school because of this,.

[Anonymous]

The truth is that before the changes only kids from a handful of wealthy schools were getting in because of the impact that prep had on selection but after students from all over the county had a shot. People who would've previously never bothered to apply did and had a fair shot for once. Not only did it make TJ more diverse but it also helped reduce the toxicity by reducing the number of hypercompetitive students who would do anything to succeed regardless of the ethical considerations.

[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.

DP Compare Class of 2024, Class of 2025, and Class of 2028 statistics to see the impact of admissions changes. Black and Hispanic enrollment has increased relative to Class of 2024, although to a lesser extent recently.

Class of 2024, 2025, and 2028, # students admitted & share of students admitted
Class 2024: Black TS (N/A), Hispanic 16 (3%), White 86 (18%), Asian 355 (73%)
Class 2025: Black 39 (7%), Hispanic 62 (11%), White 123 (22%), Asian 299 (54%)
Class 2028: Black 19 (3%), Hispanic 41 (7%), White 140 (25%), Asian 315 (57%)

Change Class 2024/2025: Black +30 to 39 (+5 to +7%), Hispanic +46 (+8%), White +37 (+4%), Asian -56 (-19%)
Change Class 2024/2028: Black +10 to 19 (+1 to 3%), Hispanic +25 (+4%), White +54 (+7%), Asian -40 (-16%)

Class 2024: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-486-students
Class 2025: https://www.fcps.edu/news/tjhsst-offers-admission-550-students-broadens-access-students-who-have-aptitude-stem
Class 2028: https://www.fcps.edu/news/offers-extended-thomas-jefferson-high-school-science-and-technology-class-2028

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the unfortunate issue here are the academic results that are rolling in with the new process. Scores are much lower on SOLs and PSATs and achieved Math.

It also shows the new system isn’t selecting for geniuses that were left out because rich kids gamed the admissions. It actually confirms that the previous admits were just academically better students… in many areas.

They were better test takers, no doubt about it - because the previous process overselected for test taking ability. It's no more complicated than that.

Doesn't mean they are necessarily smarter or more deserving of the opportunities that TJ provides, and it certainly doesn't mean that TJ was a better academic environment before.

A lot of those kids did more than just take tests.

And id venture that it does mean they are smarter. Maybe the new process shows it selected for smarter kids as defined by some other metric that isn’t performance and knowledge displayed through curriculum and scores or competitions. I don’t know what that metric is though.

The school/process isn’t selecting the best anymore as commonly defined by standard academic performance. It’s selecting who they want. Two totally different things. And that’s fine.

I think many want to pretend they can have both, the performance of the previous reputation and the diversity that many want. The current selection process is over selecting URMs who perform poorly compared to non-URMs. A test and experience factors might give you both.

I don’t know which optics are worse however. Dropped academic results in the current approach or lopsided admissions scores in a test based approach that gives URM points.

The largest increase was to white kids. More than all other groups combined.
Pre-change white admits 86, most recent class 140 up by 54
Pre change black admits 7, most recent class 19, up by 12
Prechange hispanic admits16, most recent class 41, up by 25
Asian admits went down by 40 from 355 to 315

Do you have a breakdown of numbers of kids in each group from lower income homes? As long as we’re pulling in more kids from families that don’t have financial/educational advantages, what race the kids happen to be doesn’t really matter.

I care about seeing opportunities going to kids from less advantaged families.

I don't have the racial breakdown of disadvantaged kids but here is where I'm puilling the info from:

https://www.fcps.edu/news/offers-extended-thomas-jefferson-high-school-science-and-technology-class-2028
It shows 16.36% disadvantaged (it used to be 2%).
I'm with you. If you want to discriminate based on wealth, that's fine. I think we all understand there is an inherent unearned advantage to wealth.
It would not be offensive to correct for that at least a bit.

As long as they use some sort of objective, standardized metric to assess foundational skills in the admissions process. SOL, Math Inventory, something. With rampant grade inflation, GPA is no longer a reliable certification of solid foundational skills. It is undoubtedly stressful for the TJ students who are failing their SOLs; those gaps should have been identified earlier.

I’d prefer not to see standardized tests added back to the process. There was a time that they were useful for identifying bright kids from families with fewer advantages, but that is unfortunately no longer true. The proliferation of test prep businesses has distorted the scores to the point where the tests become essentially of little to no worth to the TJ application process.

The new system is doing a good job of pulling in more kids from financially less advantaged families; let’s hope this trend continues and increases. The kids who need an opportunity like TJ are the kids from families who are not advantaged financially/educationally. Kids whose parents are well educated and financially comfortable will have no trouble doing well in this world. The kids whose parents didn’t go to college and have lower incomes are the ones for whom TJ can really make a difference.

Setting a minimum SOL pass level is not distortionary. It doesn't matter how many other students pass or how one passing score compares to another; it is just a question as to whether that one student has met minimum grade level proficiency. Determining that fact has large value; it signals if a student has gaps that need to be remediated. Admitting a student with significant gaps in grade level content is setting them up for a very challenging and stressful time at TJ.

PP looks at TJ as a charity while simultaneously implying that NOVA base high schools are some place that can’t make a difference. We are not in some extreme poverty stricken inner city school district. Every FCPS HS is sending kids to Top 20s etc… the same poor kid will be fine just like the same rich kid will be fine. These kids were already getting 3.9s and taking Algebra in MS.

The current system is identifying kids that can’t even take some classes at TJ and PP knows any test will reveal these discrepancies. The reputation of TJ is going to continue to slide and then the difference it makes will be what exactly? A kid went somewhere and took one or two unique science class and Calc AB?

Nonsense. TJ today is stronger than a few years ago when people were buying their way in. Today at least they choose the top students from these schools not just those who can afford to buy the test answers.

The ranking, SOLs, recidivism rate, remedial math participation all say different.
Who bought test answers? Test prep is not buying test answers. If Quant Q used the same test or test questions year after year, then FCPS should get its money back.

Paying $$$$ to have access to previous test questions on an NDA-protected test provides an unfair advantage to wealthy kids in admissions for a public school program.

DP

And that advantage can be eliminated by doing what every other standardized test does and not use the exact same questions over again.
Why the f0ck was fcps paying someone to use the same test questions over and over again? Was he somebody's cousin?

It’s more than the specific questions - even similar questions skew the results.

The issue here wasn’t the test; it was the ability of some wealthy kids to unethically obtain an unfair advantage.

The DEI been trying to malign objective measures of merit for a long time and for a brief shining moment in 2020 to 20223, they succeeded but then everyone realized that merit matters and now we are all going back to testing. if one of the arguments for getting rid of the TJ test was elimination of the test by top colleges, wouldn't the reintroduction of testing by these colleges indicate that TJ should do the same?

“The DEI”? It isn’t the boogeyman.

Public schools have different stakeholders and different objectives than top colleges.

The issue with the old admissions process for TJ, a public school magnet, was that it gave too much room for wealthy kids to unethically obtain an unfair advantage.

DEI is absolutely the problem here.
They didn't make the chabnges because of some testing advantage. They made the changes to achieve racial policy goals.
You already know this and keep pretending it was about test prep. You are convincing noone, not even yourself.

DEI is a good thing.

I never said it was just about test prep.

Here is what I said:

1. CHANGES TO TJ ADMISSIONS PROCESS
FCPS has changed the TJ admissions process multiple times over the years to address systemic inequalities.

https://www.boarddocs.com/vsba/fairfax/Board.nsf/files/8W9QET68F25B/$file/Changes%20to%20TJHSST%20Admissions%20Since%202004.pdf

https://www.fcag.org/tjadmissions.shtml

https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/20/supreme-court-wont-hear-thomas-jefferson-admissions-case/

Before the most recent change, the class of 2024 had less than 1% (0.6%) of the students came from economically-disadvantaged families. There was also very little representation from the less affluent schools.



2. CONCERN ABOUT TJ PREP INDUSTRY
There was also public concern about the TJ test prep industry that led, in part, to changes in the admissions process. By reverse engineering the admissions criteria/process, prep companies offered kids an unfair advantage in admissions. In fact, back in 2017 the SB switched to quant-q, which intentionally didn’t share prep, in an effort to reduce this unfair advantage.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“ “Is it gonna once again advantage those kids whose parents can pay to sign them up for special prep camps to now be prepping for science testing as well?” Megan McLaughlin asked when presented with the new plan.

Admissions director Jeremy Shughart doesn’t think so. The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”

This has all been discussed countless times on DCUM. Feel free to go read old threads for more details.

It was well known in my affluent area that you could greatly improve chances of admissions by paying $$$ for prep classes.



3. QUANT-Q DOESN’T RELEASE MATERIALS
The company that offers Quant-Q intentionally does NOT release materials to the public - it’s very different than SAT, ACT, etc. They want to “measure your natural ability”. And test takers agreed to not share any parts of the test.

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”

Based on the NDAs, any test prep books or companies that obtain and share example quant-q test questions may have been unethically, or even potentially illegally, produced.

https://insightassessment.com/policies/
“Test Taker Interface User Agreement
In this agreement, each person who accesses this interface is called a “user,” and whatever a user accesses is called an “instrument.”
Copyright Protected: The user acknowledges that this online interface and everything in it are proprietary business property of the California Academic Press LLC and are protected by international copyrights. Except as permitted by purchased use licenses, the user agrees not to reproduce, distribute, hack, harm, limit, alter, or edit this interface or any part of any instrument or results report, table or analysis stored in, generated by, or delivered through this interface.

Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement: The user agrees not to copy, disclose, describe, imitate, replicate, or mirror this interface or this instrument(s) in whole or in part for any purpose. The user agrees not to create, design, develop, publish, market, or distribute any comparable or competitive instrument or instruments for a period of up to four years from the date of the user’s most recent access.


Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement
By accessing the Insight Assessment online testing interface or purchasing a preview pack or instrument use licenses, all clients acknowledge that the on-line interface and the testing instrument(s) it contains or displays include proprietary business information, such as but not limited to the structure of test questions or the presentation of those questions and other information displayed in conjunction with the use of this testing interface. In the absence of a specific written agreement between the client and Insight Assessment, the client agrees that by purchasing a preview pack or testing licenses, the client and their organization, shall not disclose, copy, or replicate this testing interface or this testing instrument(s) in whole or in part in comparable or competitive product or interface of any kind. In the absence of a specific written agreement between the client and Insight Assessment, the client agrees that by accessing the testing instrument(s) for any purpose, including but not limited to previewing the instrument(s), the client and the client’s organization shall not create, design, develop, publish, market, or distribute any comparable or competitive testing instrument(s).

By clicking the “Agree” button, the user acknowledges reading, understanding, and agreeing to abide by the statements above and by all the policies and notices posted on Insight Assessment public website(s).”


"Remember that the goal of a critical thinking assessment is to measure your natural ability to think critically, so there’s no need for extensive preparation. Just be yourself and approach the assessment with a clear mind."



4. TJ STUDENTS ACKNOWLEDGED UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
TH students and others have acknowledged the unfair advantage that money can buy.

https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/students-divided-on-proposed-changes-to-admissions-process/
“ “Personally, TJ admissions was not a challenge to navigate. I had a sibling who attended before me. However, a lot of resources needed to navigate admissions cost money. That is an unfair advantage given to more economically advantaged students,” junior Vivi Rao said. ”



5. TJ STUDENTS ADMIT SHARING QUANT-Q QUESTIONS
TJ students admitted both on DCUM and on Facebook, anonymously and with real name, that they shared quant-q test questions with a test prep company or they saw nearly identical questions on the test.
https://www.facebook.com/tjvents
Thread started July 11, 2020

I have screenshots but won’t share because they have student names on them.

https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/
“ Families with more money can afford to give children that extra edge by signing them up for whatever prep classes they can find. They can pay money to tutoring organizations to teach their children test-taking skills, “skills learned outside of school,” and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the writing sections and gain an approximate idea of what to expect.”




6. COURT RULED THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIAN STUDENTS
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”

SCOTUS left ruling in place:
https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/20/supreme-court-wont-hear-thomas-jefferson-admissions-case/



7. THE DATA BACKS THIS UP:

There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students. More than all other groups, combined.

And Asian students are still accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students (class of 25).

The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ by school year (fall):


The data also shows that Asian students were accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students.

Asian 19%
Black 14%
Hispanic 21%
White 17%
Multiracial/Other* 13%
ALL 18%



8. LOW-INCOME ASIAN STUDENTS BENEFITED THE MOST FROM CHANGES
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
page 16
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

This post needs to be pinned because it covers this topic thoroughly and backs up each point with hard data. In #6 the court ruled there was no discrimination. All the fakenews in the world can't change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, people using the term discrimination for a group which

* Makes up the majority of TJ students
* Selection is race blind
* The changes to the process mainly benefited low-income Asians.

This isn't a good look since it's clearly not the case.

It is entirely possible to discriminate against people and have them still be successful despite the discrimination.
This is what liberals hate most about asians.
They succeed despite discrimination and THAT isn't supposed to happen.
Discrimination is supposed to be an insurmountable barrier that minorities can only overcome with the help of liberal white people.

If race blind systems are free from racism then this would argue in favor of testing and against the existence of systemic racism.
But of course we all know that facially neutral things can still be racist.

The worst kind of racist is the self righteous racist.
They think are on the side of the angels when they are just being racist.

[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?

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.

So you think test buying is merit? When they put an end to the test buying it did have a small impact but overall TJ is a much better school because of this,.

Did someone buy tests? Do you have a cite?
Or are you one of those white people that think that the only reason asians outperform white people is because they cheat?

It must make a white supremacists feel good to finally understand that the only reason asians are outperforming whites is because asians cheat.
Asians are outperforming whites because asians spend more time studying.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1406402111
I don't know if that explains the entire difference but regression analysis suggests that it might explain almost all academic differences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

So you think test buying is merit? When they put an end to the test buying it did have a small impact but overall TJ is a much better school because of this,.

Did someone buy tests? Do you have a cite?
Or are you one of those white people that think that the only reason asians outperform white people is because they cheat?

It must make a white supremacists feel good to finally understand that the only reason asians are outperforming whites is because asians cheat.
Asians are outperforming whites because asians spend more time studying.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1406402111
I don't know if that explains the entire difference but regression analysis suggests that it might explain almost all academic differences.

There were pages and pages of links and testimony in this very thread. Just go back a few pages and you can find it.

Basically, some parents paid thousands of dollars so their kids could get access to a question bank which gave them an unfair advantage.

It's a well established fact at this point. Please try and keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Having access to a strong high school program is paramount for students as they face an ever-changing world,” Liana Loewus, the managing editor of education at U.S. News & World Report, said in a press release. “Making data on our high schools available helps parents ensure their child is in the educational environment that best sets them up to thrive.”

The slide in the rankings for Thomas Jefferson High School comes after it changed its admissions process.

In 2020, Fairfax County’s school board voted to overhaul the admissions process to eliminate some testing requirements and implement an essay lottery system in a bid to increase the number of black and Hispanic students attending the school.

But the changes resulted in a substantially lower level of Asian students being admitted to the school.

By lower-level you mean poor? I'd read the largest beneficiary of the change were low-income Asians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It really is a shame that TJ's overall rating from US News and World Report slipped from a 100 to a 99.92.

Absolutely devastating. /s

LOL so that's what this is all about! I'll take the 0.08% drop if it means the toxicity and cutthroat culture of cheating is gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Additionally, the data used for the US News and World Report Rankings was from the 2021-22 school year. It would have only been the freshmen class that year who would have been admitted under the new admissions process.

I know but the C4TJ crowd loves to twist this around to push their false narrative.

[Anonymous]

The US News data also included sophomores who were admitted under the new test optional policy. Thus, both freshman and sophomore classes in 2021-22 contained students who were admitted under the new admissions policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The US News data also included sophomores who were admitted under the new test optional policy. Thus, both freshman and sophomore classes in 2021-22 contained students who were admitted under the new admissions policies.

So it included mostly sophmores who were admitted from before the change and Juniors and Seniors who were also admitted under the old system. In short, this ranking mainly relied on students who were admitted by the old admission process.

[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?

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.

So you think test buying is merit? When they put an end to the test buying it did have a small impact but overall TJ is a much better school because of this,.

I guess that depends on what you consider better.
If you think of better being: less stressful, more economically diverse, more racially representative of the catchment area, then yes, it is better in these ways.
If you think of better being: more academically competitive, higher academic standards, providing an exceptionally talented peer group, then no, it is not better in those ways.

So if you are trying to build a micro-society that is reflective of overall society then your way is better, if you are trying to build an institution that will produce people that will provide the innovation and advances that will ultimately help society advance then your way is not better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

So you think test buying is merit? When they put an end to the test buying it did have a small impact but overall TJ is a much better school because of this,.

I guess that depends on what you consider better.
If you think of better being: less stressful, more economically diverse, more racially representative of the catchment area, then yes, it is better in these ways.
If you think of better being: more academically competitive, higher academic standards, providing an exceptionally talented peer group, then no, it is not better in those ways.

So if you are trying to build a micro-society that is reflective of overall society then your way is better, if you are trying to build an institution that will produce people that will provide the innovation and advances that will ultimately help society advance then your way is not better.

That's a complete load. Simply admitting students of wealthy families is hardly a recipe for innovation. The fact is those kids will be fine anywhere and likely go on to do the exact same things. However, taking bright kids who might otherwise not have the same advantages and giving them an opportunity is life-changing, and will have a larger impact.