Summary of 80+ pages: ITT, a bunch of parents try to make themselves feel better about their families' outcomes by blaming others for studying hard and preparing ("cheating"). They criticize the parents that enable such abominable behavior ("privilege"). They justify policies that plainly water down academic standards out of self-interest ("equality" and "diversity"). And they laud the increasingly mediocre results ("inclusivity" and "not toxic"). God help us.
Anonymous wrote:Summary of 80+ pages: ITT, a bunch of parents try to make themselves feel better about their families' outcomes by blaming others for studying hard and preparing ("cheating"). They criticize the parents that enable such abominable behavior ("privilege"). They justify policies that plainly water down academic standards out of self-interest ("equality" and "diversity"). And they laud the increasingly mediocre results ("inclusivity" and "not toxic"). God help us.
If by studying hard you mean buying access to test answers then sure.
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
Looking at the actual data used by USN, it will be interesting to see how this changes next year.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”
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.
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.
Literally no one said that.
I guess you have to fabricate a narrative to fit your political motives.
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.
It is not a straight penalty. US News compares a school's assessment scores with what they project for a school with similar demographics in the state. The new admissions process leads to a worse outcome here because, without standardized test scores, there is no objective way to ascertain that TJ is admitting those URM and low-income students with the strongest academic foundation. Unless a student has a strong foundation, they are going to struggle more in an advanced magnet school than they would in their base school, thus opening up a gap between their SOL score and the US News projection.
That's why some colleges are bringing back standardized test scores in their admissions process. It is the way that talented URM and low-income students can distinguish themselves in the admissions process, ensuring that students admitted have the type of strong foundation needed to thrive at TJ; this would also lead to an improved US News State Assessment Performance Rank.
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.
I looked at all 83 pages and there are no links to a story about anyone buying tests.
Are you sure you're not one of those racists that think that the only reason asians outperform whites is because they cheat.
Because there are peer reviewed studies that say asians outperform whites because they spend more time studying.
So maybe you are conflating studying with cheating so you can feel better about yourself.
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.
The number one school on the list has 6.1% hispanic and 5% black compared to this year's entering class at TJ with 7.4% hispanic and 3.4% black.
It's OK to hold black and hispanic kids to high academic standards, in fact it is probably critical to their success.
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.
Literally no one said that.
I guess you have to fabricate a narrative to fit your political motives.
This was covered earlier in this thread. To find those links and numerous first hand accounts you just have to go back a few pages.
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.
The number one school on the list has 6.1% hispanic and 5% black compared to this year's entering class at TJ with 7.4% hispanic and 3.4% black.
It's OK to hold black and hispanic kids to high academic standards, in fact it is probably critical to their success.
Then US News believes TJ is not doing right by these kids.
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.
It is not a straight penalty. US News compares a school's assessment scores with what they project for a school with similar demographics in the state. The new admissions process leads to a worse outcome here because, without standardized test scores, there is no objective way to ascertain that TJ is admitting those URM and low-income students with the strongest academic foundation. Unless a student has a strong foundation, they are going to struggle more in an advanced magnet school than they would in their base school, thus opening up a gap between their SOL score and the US News projection.
That's why some colleges are bringing back standardized test scores in their admissions process. It is the way that talented URM and low-income students can distinguish themselves in the admissions process, ensuring that students admitted have the type of strong foundation needed to thrive at TJ; this would also lead to an improved US News State Assessment Performance Rank.
Is this a test that some people can buy an advanced copy of for a few thousand dollars to advantage their children?
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.
I looked at all 83 pages and there are no links to a story about anyone buying tests.
Are you sure you're not one of those racists that think that the only reason asians outperform whites is because they cheat.
Because there are peer reviewed studies that say asians outperform whites because they spend more time studying.
So maybe you are conflating studying with cheating so you can feel better about yourself.
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.
Literally no one said that.
I guess you have to fabricate a narrative to fit your political motives.
This was covered earlier in this thread. To find those links and numerous first hand accounts you just have to go back a few pages.
False.
No one said “Indians only got in at higher rates because they bought the tests ahead of time”.
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.
I looked at all 83 pages and there are no links to a story about anyone buying tests.
Are you sure you're not one of those racists that think that the only reason asians outperform whites is because they cheat.
Because there are peer reviewed studies that say asians outperform whites because they spend more time studying.
So maybe you are conflating studying with cheating so you can feel better about yourself.
+1. No matter how many times people point this out, the dolts here will keep saying BUT THEY BOUGHT THE TESTS!!! Just look at the long post recently that provides "hard data." It provides exactly two links purporting to be evidence of students buying test questions in advance: https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/students-divided-on-proposed-changes-to-admissions-process/ & https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/. That sure sounds bad, so we should actually read them. And if anyone did -- instead of engaging in self-pleasing group think -- they'd see that neither of these articles say a single thing about buying test questions. The articles bemoan that some have exposure to "frequent practice exams and sample prompts" to "allow them to gain experience"; that some have the "best pre books" and "best teachers"; and that some "pay money [for] tutoring organizations to each their chidlre test-taking skills."
That's life. Diligence and preparation SHOULD pay off. But we live in a strange time when people are made to feel bad about merit and excellence. So sad.
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.
I looked at all 83 pages and there are no links to a story about anyone buying tests.
Are you sure you're not one of those racists that think that the only reason asians outperform whites is because they cheat.
Because there are peer reviewed studies that say asians outperform whites because they spend more time studying.
So maybe you are conflating studying with cheating so you can feel better about yourself.
+1. No matter how many times people point this out, the dolts here will keep saying BUT THEY BOUGHT THE TESTS!!! Just look at the long post recently that provides "hard data." It provides exactly two links purporting to be evidence of students buying test questions in advance: https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/students-divided-on-proposed-changes-to-admissions-process/ & https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/. That sure sounds bad, so we should actually read them. And if anyone did -- instead of engaging in self-pleasing group think -- they'd see that neither of these articles say a single thing about buying test questions. The articles bemoan that some have exposure to "frequent practice exams and sample prompts" to "allow them to gain experience"; that some have the "best pre books" and "best teachers"; and that some "pay money [for] tutoring organizations to each their chidlre test-taking skills."
That's life. Diligence and preparation SHOULD pay off. But we live in a strange time when people are made to feel bad about merit and excellence. So sad.
PP again to get in before someone rehashes the same lame and tired claim that Quant-Q test prep materials are somehow available only to the wealthy. I took ten seconds to Google. Guess what? You can find prep materials for $20 on Amazon. It's not like that test is somehow vastly different than any number of similar tests for which there are dozens (hundreds, likely) of books with close example quesions. If kids who wanted to go to TJ -- or parents who wanted to go to TJ -- didn't take the time and $20 to study, that's on them.
Forum Index
»
Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
