Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Admissions Office was likely to release decisions within the next month before this ruling. Assuming the injunction stays the process for class of 2026, one wonders how the Admissions Office will proceed.

I am most interested in the answer to this question. What is going to happen to the kids who applied under the new system this year?

They have to scrap it and do the admissions process all over again for the class of 2026. The woke white racists lost this round. Maybe they will do it right and look at the Black & Hispanic kids in AAP instead of assuming that they all live in the hood.

The racists should give it up and stop wasting taxpayers' money - Jackson plans to recuse herself from Harvard affirmative action case if confirmed https://www.axios.com/ketanji-jackson-recuse-harvard-affirmative-action-feafb865-8bbe-4b07-91e9-181eec07f5fe.html

I agree, close the school now and stop wasting the money.

If they go beg Youngkeun for permission to do so.

I'll rephrase, withdraw FCPS from the school, repurpose the building, reassign the FCPS staff and let governor decide what to do with whatever is left.

Nah. FCPS cannot unilaterally withdraw from regional governor's school. It's not like "I am gonna take my toy and go home cause I can't bully no one around here."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Admissions Office was likely to release decisions within the next month before this ruling. Assuming the injunction stays the process for class of 2026, one wonders how the Admissions Office will proceed.

I am most interested in the answer to this question. What is going to happen to the kids who applied under the new system this year?

They have to scrap it and do the admissions process all over again for the class of 2026. The woke white racists lost this round. Maybe they will do it right and look at the Black & Hispanic kids in AAP instead of assuming that they all live in the hood.

The racists should give it up and stop wasting taxpayers' money - Jackson plans to recuse herself from Harvard affirmative action case if confirmed https://www.axios.com/ketanji-jackson-recuse-harvard-affirmative-action-feafb865-8bbe-4b07-91e9-181eec07f5fe.html

I agree, close the school now and stop wasting the money.

If they go beg Youngkeun for permission to do so.

I'll rephrase, withdraw FCPS from the school, repurpose the building, reassign the FCPS staff and let governor decide what to do with whatever is left.

Nah. FCPS cannot unilaterally withdraw from regional governor's school. It's not like "I am gonna take my toy and go home cause I can't bully no one around here."

Arlington already did so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

A Chinese scientist who escaped from an authoritarian regime and an Indian scientist from a lower caste is as diverse as a Black scientist and a Hispanic scientist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

A Chinese scientist who escaped from an authoritarian regime and an Indian scientist from a lower caste is as diverse as a Black scientist and a Hispanic scientist.

I don't disagree. That's what essays are for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

A Chinese scientist who escaped from an authoritarian regime and an Indian scientist from a lower caste is as diverse as a Black scientist and a Hispanic scientist.

I don't disagree. That's what essays are for.

None of these "diverse experiences" are going to improve the design of an internal combustion engine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

Perfect MCAT and listening to patients are not mutually exclusive. One can have both. You can also have a doctor with a low MCAT acting like a condescending prick

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

And we can apply the same rationale to increased awfully low Asians in County positions and grants and contracts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

Perfect MCAT and listening to patients are not mutually exclusive. One can have both. You can also have a doctor with a low MCAT acting like a condescending prick

I have seen them over compensating for their low scores and weak credentials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

And we can apply the same rationale to increased awfully low Asians in County positions and grants and contracts.

Hopefully they are applying! But we know that students from underrepresented communities and low socioeconomic status are applying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

This sounds like it was written by a doctor who had a perfect score on their MCATs but got fired for not listening to their patients.

Optimal processes are improved constantly over time through scrutiny from diverse minds from diverse perspectives.

And the best way to identify potential in any walk of life is to compare an individual's achievements to their circumstances.

Perfect MCAT and listening to patients are not mutually exclusive. One can have both. You can also have a doctor with a low MCAT acting like a condescending prick

Yes, but what I was responding to was written by a person who clearly believes in exams as perfect indicator of academic potential. Again.... just not picking up on how the argument works and therefore responding to it in a way that makes no logical sense. Not a good sign for your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem with TJ admissions is that the school board was hoping for a catch-all solution to a diverse set of problems. In the end, their motive turned into a desperate, flailing "Smart kids are the problem. Why can't everyone be the same?" The end result was that the primary metric for a "successful" strategy was good conformance to population distribution.

In reality, there are a number of different issues which have been raised, each of which varies in solution space and degree of seriousness:

Academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors. However, the idea that there's a fundamental difference in peak academic capability due to race should be rejected on principle. If merit-based measures are showing high sensitivity to race, then that suggests that either (a) the merit-based metrics we're using aren't as good as we'd hope at measuring merit, or (b) if the merit-based measures are good, then some kids are somehow falling off the radar for non-merit based reasons. Either is unjust.

There should be a greater commitment to ensuring income-neutral resources for kids that want to be challenged or who want to "get ahead."

We're concerned that there are some easy but very superficial steps that students can take which can significantly impact their appearance of merit, without being particularly reflective of actual merit. This is especially true if those steps are accessible to some students but not to others. (the "prep" argument)

The academic status quo is too rigid, and it's too easy for students to get locked into "elite" or "dumb" tracks. Once they're stuck in the wrong track, they lose access to opportunities, and also lose access to the financial and societal means to pursue those opportunities. The system should be a lot more flexible and forgiving.

Smart people are too intimidating to the majority of the population which is not especially smart. We should really take elite schools like TJ down a notch. At the very least, take away the mystique that being "elite" means anything more that having a high GPA and/or skills that can be bought.

We finally admit that we're racist, but there are so many Asians, and honestly it makes us uncomfortable.

If admissions to elite education is entirely merit-based, what's to stop the Russians from infiltrating our elite institutions?

If we do not give the school board the utmost control and flexibility in deciding educational outcomes, how will our great and glorious leaders be able to ensure that they have relatively the best possible education for their children?

If you allow that academic aptitude may vary in race due to cultural or societal factors, then it's irrational to claim that it is unjust for merit-based metrics to identify candidates that reflect this variance.

The idea that academic aptitude (natural ability) varies by race is *drumroll* racist. Societal and cultural factors might impact academic *performance*, though even there it’s BOTH race and class/income (and other factors) that affect a child’s ability to perform up to potential in their schooling. I’d rather we focus more on identifying and cultivating academic potential, and focus less on “absolute performance to date” and preppable test taking skills as those conveniently paper over and perpetuate the systemic issues that give certain groups significant disadvantages in those supposedly objective measures of “merit” (yuck).

No one is arguing for the bolded part. Per your recommendation that we focus on identifying and cultivating academic potential, how do you go about doing that if measuring academic performance through tests is off the table? In other words, show me a test that you can't prepare for in advance.

Actually the PP said exactly the bolded part in their argument, so yes, someone is.

As to your question, I'm not arguing tests should be wholesale off the table, but likewise they shouldn't be elevated as some sort of objective county-wide gold standard. They should be used appropriately, and a singular test for all students regardless of background and circumstances is simply incorporating those disparities into the outcomes. If we compare a students academic performance against other students who have experienced generally similar circumstances (rather than "everyone in the entire county"), we might at least take one step towards identifying the highest potential students within each cohort. Given the economic/racial housing segregation we have, taking top x% per ES is a reasonable (albeit imperfect) better-than-nothing proxy for that. You could also do at least some small degree of age-norming (like CogAT and other standardized tests do) since there can be over a year's delta amongst students within a given grade, so that the oldest students in the grade don't inherit an artificial advantage.

The optimal way to build a rocket doesn't depend on the whether the engineer was a poor black kid from the inner city. The optimal way to write a software program doesn't depend on whether the programmer is a first generation hispanic DACA recipient. The optimal way to perform neural surgery doesn't depend on whether the doctor is the first BIPOC woman from her family to go to college. And the best way to test for academic potential doesn't depend on childrens' backgrounds

I grew up in India, and started college at a time and a place where college started in 11th grade. The day we went for enrollment (in person), they had us ordered by grades. The girl in front of me had scored fewer points on the test than me, but was ahead, because of other factors, in her case, caste. We got to talking, and it turned out that she was an orphan, raised by her older brother, who was a subsistence farmer. She had no electricity in her home, and studied under street lights. I would say that someone like her, who grew up in serious poverty, with so much motivation and the brains, is MUCH more likely to have what it takes to be successful as a rocket scientist or brain surgeon, than most of the rest of us there that day, that had every advantage.

Cool story bro.