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

[Anonymous]

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

Given how impressive Jackson is, I would not assume she will go a certain way on affirmative action.

[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.

Bingo.

[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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

[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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

It isn't necessarily tied to that as in 100% correlated, but it is the strongest predictor that we have and the strongest predictor should be the one that is used to screen.

[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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

8th graders are 14-ish. Not 12-ish. Don't distort facts to try to bolster your argument.

Also, I don't think anyone wants tests to be the end-all-and-be-all. Test scores, grades, letters of recommendation, comprehensive essays, lists of achievements, courses taken, etc. should all have a role in a holistic process. Kids with lower test scores who are still amazing and have a unique perspective should be able to show that through essays and letters of recommendation.

[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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

8th graders are 14-ish. Not 12-ish. Don't distort facts to try to bolster your argument.

Also, I don't think anyone wants tests to be the end-all-and-be-all. Test scores, grades, letters of recommendation, comprehensive essays, lists of achievements, courses taken, etc. should all have a role in a holistic process. Kids with lower test scores who are still amazing and have a unique perspective should be able to show that through essays and letters of recommendation.

Well said. Wasn't that the earlier admissions process now?

[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

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.

Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.

[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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

It isn't necessarily tied to that as in 100% correlated, but it is the strongest predictor that we have and the strongest predictor should be the one that is used to screen.

No, tests alone aren't the strongest predictor, and using them as the main criteria only reinforces biased outcomes that favor those who had the privilege of growing up advantageous environments. Absolutely should NOT be the one that is used to screen. A part of the package? Sure. But you're putting way too much emphasis on it.

[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

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.

Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.

And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.

[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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

8th graders are 14-ish. Not 12-ish. Don't distort facts to try to bolster your argument.

Also, I don't think anyone wants tests to be the end-all-and-be-all. Test scores, grades, letters of recommendation, comprehensive essays, lists of achievements, courses taken, etc. should all have a role in a holistic process. Kids with lower test scores who are still amazing and have a unique perspective should be able to show that through essays and letters of recommendation.

Well said. Wasn't that the earlier admissions process now?

My DC will be 12 when school starts for 8th grade, but yeah, will turn 13 within a month. 8th grade doesn't become majority 14-yos until sometime into the second semester, for most of the year it's majority 13-yos.

Agree that all of those relevant factors should be considered, and likewise tests should be normed against relevant factors (i.e. compared to similar age, economic background, etc.) to determine if they have highest potential amongst their peers, not using absolute score which is biased towards those who come from an advantaged background and/or are in the older range for their grade (esp. if redshirted).

[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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

8th graders are 14-ish. Not 12-ish. Don't distort facts to try to bolster your argument.

Also, I don't think anyone wants tests to be the end-all-and-be-all. Test scores, grades, letters of recommendation, comprehensive essays, lists of achievements, courses taken, etc. should all have a role in a holistic process. Kids with lower test scores who are still amazing and have a unique perspective should be able to show that through essays and letters of recommendation.

Well said. Wasn't that the earlier admissions process now?

Almost, but not quite. There were three main issues with the earlier admissions process. 1. The Quant-Q was especially vulnerable to prep. 2. Scores were used as a baseline that prevented kids from having their entire files viewed holistically. 3. The application fee may have been cost prohibitive for lower income kids. They could have addressed all of these issues without gutting the entire application process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

8th graders are 14-ish. Not 12-ish. Don't distort facts to try to bolster your argument.

Also, I don't think anyone wants tests to be the end-all-and-be-all. Test scores, grades, letters of recommendation, comprehensive essays, lists of achievements, courses taken, etc. should all have a role in a holistic process. Kids with lower test scores who are still amazing and have a unique perspective should be able to show that through essays and letters of recommendation.

Well said. Wasn't that the earlier admissions process now?

My DC will be 12 when school starts for 8th grade, but yeah, will turn 13 within a month. 8th grade doesn't become majority 14-yos until sometime into the second semester, for most of the year it's majority 13-yos.

Agree that all of those relevant factors should be considered, and likewise tests should be normed against relevant factors (i.e. compared to similar age, economic background, etc.) to determine if they have highest potential amongst their peers, not using absolute score which is biased towards those who come from an advantaged background and/or are in the older range for their grade (esp. if redshirted).

The TJ applications are done in January or February. The vast majority of 8th graders at that point in time are in the range of 13.5 years old - 14.5 years old. Hence, they are "14-ish."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.

And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.

And? Someone with that kind of adversity in the background, who benefited from attempts to level the playing field, would not have a problem with it for someone else's kids. At least, I hope not.

[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

And the ability to do any of those things optimally as an adult isn't necessarily closely tied to someone's absolute academic performance to date as of age 12-ish... let alone said performance devoid of any context as to how/why they are performing at that level at that age.

8th graders are 14-ish. Not 12-ish. Don't distort facts to try to bolster your argument.

Also, I don't think anyone wants tests to be the end-all-and-be-all. Test scores, grades, letters of recommendation, comprehensive essays, lists of achievements, courses taken, etc. should all have a role in a holistic process. Kids with lower test scores who are still amazing and have a unique perspective should be able to show that through essays and letters of recommendation.

Well said. Wasn't that the earlier admissions process now?

No. Kids with lower test scores in the previous process didn’t make the semifinalist round because the prep complex inflated other scores and they were graded on a curve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

Happens to be true. She struggled in college initially because of language issues; she learned in the local language, and had to translate everything to it from the texts written in English. I helped translate, although not successfully all the time, because I didn’t know names of even some of the simple scientific terms (we were in the science track) in local language. I left for the US before I finished out the year. We corresponded by mail for a few years before I lost touch. She was going into a nursing program with the intent to move abroad once finished, and that would’ve been a huge accomplishment for her. If she had better supports, she could’ve gone even further. She was a lovely person, dignified in the face of a lot of adversity.

And her kids would be openly discriminated against if her kids applied to TJ.

Her kids didn’t overcome the adversity. She did.

Parents have got to stop with this tired narrative that their children should get credit for their struggles, or that they should get credit for their children’s achievements.