TJ Falls to 14th in the Nation Per US News

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

High school SOL testing for math and science occurs in 9th and 10th grade, not in 11th or 12th. Thus, the majority of the math and science SOL scores that US News used were from students (freshman and some sophomores) that were admitted under the new admissions policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Or families from a lower caste?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

High school SOL testing for math and science occurs in 9th and 10th grade, not in 11th or 12th. Thus, the majority of the math and science SOL scores that US News used were from students (freshman and some sophomores) that were admitted under the new admissions policies.

So because it used 50% freshmen from the new process and mainly sophmores who got in under the old process you're attempting to attribute this to the changes? Give me a break already. Their college readiness score was the highest in the state. They were dinged on the diversity metric which mainly punishes diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

High school SOL testing for math and science occurs in 9th and 10th grade, not in 11th or 12th. Thus, the majority of the math and science SOL scores that US News used were from students (freshman and some sophomores) that were admitted under the new admissions policies.

So because it used 50% freshmen from the new process and mainly sophmores who got in under the old process you're attempting to attribute this to the changes? Give me a break already. Their college readiness score was the highest in the state. They were dinged on the diversity metric which mainly punishes diversity.

State assessment data accounts for 50% of the US News ranking. SOL performance has come off and SOL failures have emerged post-admissions changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

High school SOL testing for math and science occurs in 9th and 10th grade, not in 11th or 12th. Thus, the majority of the math and science SOL scores that US News used were from students (freshman and some sophomores) that were admitted under the new admissions policies.

So because it used 50% freshmen from the new process and mainly sophmores who got in under the old process you're attempting to attribute this to the changes? Give me a break already. Their college readiness score was the highest in the state. They were dinged on the diversity metric which mainly punishes diversity.

State assessment data accounts for 50% of the US News ranking. SOL performance has come off and SOL failures have emerged post-admissions changes.

Roughly half of those scores were from students admitted under the old system.

Anyhow TJ is tied for #1 on state assessment proficiency Rank which just looks at test scores. It's the State Assessment Performance Rank where they fall to #138. This is the index that looks specifically at performance of black, Hispanic students and low-income students. Schools with out many students (like TJ used to be) who meet this are simply given a pass. Consider it the diversity tax. It's kind of unfortunate they penalize diversity like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
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.

So you agree with all the court's rulings? Good to know.

[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?

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.

And STILL no links to stories about anyone buying a test.
This sums up the entirety of your side of the argument:
Indians only got in at higher rates because they bought the tests ahead of time so they didn't earn it any more than the kids, so why is it unjust to select a more diverse group of undeserving kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that is why it only dropped 14 spots instead of 100 spots.

[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?

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.

And yet you are still wrong.
TJ used to select the best and brightest and now it selects a cross section of the above average.
The benefit of TJ that are mediocre students are almost non-existent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And that is why it only dropped 14 spots instead of 100 spots.

Asian students are preventing the free fall?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

High school SOL testing for math and science occurs in 9th and 10th grade, not in 11th or 12th. Thus, the majority of the math and science SOL scores that US News used were from students (freshman and some sophomores) that were admitted under the new admissions policies.

So because it used 50% freshmen from the new process and mainly sophmores who got in under the old process you're attempting to attribute this to the changes? Give me a break already. Their college readiness score was the highest in the state. They were dinged on the diversity metric which mainly punishes diversity.

State assessment data accounts for 50% of the US News ranking. SOL performance has come off and SOL failures have emerged post-admissions changes.

Roughly half of those scores were from students admitted under the old system.

Anyhow TJ is tied for #1 on state assessment proficiency Rank which just looks at test scores. It's the State Assessment Performance Rank where they fall to #138. This is the index that looks specifically at performance of black, Hispanic students and low-income students. Schools with out many students (like TJ used to be) who meet this are simply given a pass. Consider it the diversity tax. It's kind of unfortunate they penalize diversity like this.

Why would this be punishing diversity?
Don't you think black, hispanic and low income students are capable of doing well on tests?
Schools like stuyvesant exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

High school SOL testing for math and science occurs in 9th and 10th grade, not in 11th or 12th. Thus, the majority of the math and science SOL scores that US News used were from students (freshman and some sophomores) that were admitted under the new admissions policies.

So because it used 50% freshmen from the new process and mainly sophmores who got in under the old process you're attempting to attribute this to the changes? Give me a break already. Their college readiness score was the highest in the state. They were dinged on the diversity metric which mainly punishes diversity.

State assessment data accounts for 50% of the US News ranking. SOL performance has come off and SOL failures have emerged post-admissions changes.

Roughly half of those scores were from students admitted under the old system.

Anyhow TJ is tied for #1 on state assessment proficiency Rank which just looks at test scores. It's the State Assessment Performance Rank where they fall to #138. This is the index that looks specifically at performance of black, Hispanic students and low-income students. Schools with out many students (like TJ used to be) who meet this are simply given a pass. Consider it the diversity tax. It's kind of unfortunate they penalize diversity like this.

Why would this be punishing diversity?
Don't you think black, hispanic and low income students are capable of doing well on tests?
Schools like stuyvesant exist.

Stuy is ranked #26 this year

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

High school SOL testing for math and science occurs in 9th and 10th grade, not in 11th or 12th. Thus, the majority of the math and science SOL scores that US News used were from students (freshman and some sophomores) that were admitted under the new admissions policies.

So because it used 50% freshmen from the new process and mainly sophmores who got in under the old process you're attempting to attribute this to the changes? Give me a break already. Their college readiness score was the highest in the state. They were dinged on the diversity metric which mainly punishes diversity.

State assessment data accounts for 50% of the US News ranking. SOL performance has come off and SOL failures have emerged post-admissions changes.

Roughly half of those scores were from students admitted under the old system.

Anyhow TJ is tied for #1 on state assessment proficiency Rank which just looks at test scores. It's the State Assessment Performance Rank where they fall to #138. This is the index that looks specifically at performance of black, Hispanic students and low-income students. Schools with out many students (like TJ used to be) who meet this are simply given a pass. Consider it the diversity tax. It's kind of unfortunate they penalize diversity like this.

Why would this be punishing diversity?
Don't you think black, hispanic and low income students are capable of doing well on tests?
Schools like stuyvesant exist.

Stuy is ranked #26 this year

Their average SAT score is 1510.
They are 40% free reduced lunch
These poor kids do pretty good on tests

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

And STILL no links to stories about anyone buying a test.
This sums up the entirety of your side of the argument:
Indians only got in at higher rates because they bought the tests ahead of time so they didn't earn it any more than the kids, so why is it unjust to select a more diverse group of undeserving kids.

There were tons posted. Just scroll back a few pages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

High school SOL testing for math and science occurs in 9th and 10th grade, not in 11th or 12th. Thus, the majority of the math and science SOL scores that US News used were from students (freshman and some sophomores) that were admitted under the new admissions policies.

So because it used 50% freshmen from the new process and mainly sophmores who got in under the old process you're attempting to attribute this to the changes? Give me a break already. Their college readiness score was the highest in the state. They were dinged on the diversity metric which mainly punishes diversity.

State assessment data accounts for 50% of the US News ranking. SOL performance has come off and SOL failures have emerged post-admissions changes.

Roughly half of those scores were from students admitted under the old system.

Anyhow TJ is tied for #1 on state assessment proficiency Rank which just looks at test scores. It's the State Assessment Performance Rank where they fall to #138. This is the index that looks specifically at performance of black, Hispanic students and low-income students. Schools with out many students (like TJ used to be) who meet this are simply given a pass. Consider it the diversity tax. It's kind of unfortunate they penalize diversity like this.

Why would this be punishing diversity?
Don't you think black, hispanic and low income students are capable of doing well on tests?
Schools like stuyvesant exist.

Because schools with diversity are always docked points, whereas schools without diversity are not penalized. Diverse goals rankings dropped when they introduced this new metric.