Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
4. TJ STUDENTS ACKNOWLEDGED UNFAIR ADVANTAGE
TH students and others have acknowledged the unfair advantage that money can buy.
https://www.tjtoday.org/29411/features/students-divided-on-proposed-changes-to-admissions-process/
“ “Personally, TJ admissions was not a challenge to navigate. I had a sibling who attended before me. However, a lot of resources needed to navigate admissions cost money. That is an unfair advantage given to more economically advantaged students,” junior Vivi Rao said. ”
5. TJ STUDENTS ADMIT SHARING QUANT-Q QUESTIONS
TJ students admitted both on DCUM and on Facebook, anonymously and with real name, that they shared quant-q test questions with a test prep company or they saw nearly identical questions on the test.
https://www.facebook.com/tjvents
Thread started July 11, 2020
I have screenshots but won’t share because they have student names on them.
https://www.tjtoday.org/23143/showcase/the-children-left-behind/
“ Families with more money can afford to give children that extra edge by signing them up for whatever prep classes they can find. They can pay money to tutoring organizations to teach their children test-taking skills, “skills learned outside of school,” and to access a cache of previous and example prompts, as I witnessed when I took TJ prep; even if prompts become outdated by test changes, even access to old prompts enables private tutoring pupils to gain an upper edge over others: pupils become accustomed to the format of the writing sections and gain an approximate idea of what to expect.”
6. COURT RULED THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ASIAN STUDENTS
https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”
SCOTUS left ruling in place:
https://virginiamercury.com/2024/02/20/supreme-court-wont-hear-thomas-jefferson-admissions-case/
I guess that settles it.
For now.
There is a difference between SCOTUS no granting certiori and SCOTUS saying this is permissible.
But to be fair, SCOTUS does seem to be deferring to all race blind processes, even when the intent and purpose behind the process was racist. See voter ID laws, literacy exams, poll taxes, grandfather clauses.
Yes, SCOTUS dismissed the TJ case since it was laughable even to them and people using the term discrimination seem confused.
* Asians make up the majority of TJ students
* Selection is race blind
* The changes to the process mainly benefited low-income Asians.
* The court ruled there was no discrimination.
SCOTUS does not usually divulge the reason for not taking a case, but not taking a case is never a comment on the merits and it certainly doesn't imply that the case is laughable. In this case there was a rare dissent from the denial of cert by justice alito (joined by thomas).
By the standards of the 4th circuit, intentional racial discrimination against a racial group would be permissible as long as the discrimination did not result in reducing their success rate below other racial groups. This is pretty clearly an error in law but SCOTUS seemed reluctant to take on another affirmative action case so soon after the harvard case which created so much acrimony between the justices on the court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-170_7l48.pdf
Alito is quite skilled at misrepresenting judicial opinions. Heytens' opinion in the Fourth Circuit appeal correctly asserted that the burden laid with the Coalition to prove intentional discrimination, and that they failed to do so. He also noted as a matter of settled fact that the policy failed to discriminate against Asian-Americans even if it was FCPS' intent to do so.
Heyton's opinion isn't the co7urt's opinion, it is a concurring opinion and is no more consequential than Rushing's dissenting opinion.
I certainly don't see how it has any more weight than Alito's dissent to granting certiori.
And it is incorrect in light of the SFFA opinion.
SFFA teaches us that discrimination in favor of one race is necessarily discrimination against others.
He also noted (again, correctly) that there was far greater evidence to suggest that the previous policy was discriminatory to Black, Hispanic, and low-income students and that disallowing the removal of such disparate impact would amount to nullifying any attempt to rectify existing injustices on the grounds that they disparately impacted the previously privileged group.
The test was racist? Testing is unjust?
FCPS created a process that discriminated against black hispanic
AND WHITE students and in favor of asian students?
You expect anyone to believe that?
An example I hear frequently is that it would be tantamount to a men's rights group suing the University of Virginia back in 1970 for beginning to admit women on the grounds that men would be disproportionately impacted.
And that would be a horrible analogy. Because removing discrimination to admit more women is qualitatively different from imposing discrimination to admit more black/hispanic students (despite the fact that it mostly admits more white students).
FCPS made a change in admissions policy that ended the effective embargo against economically disadvantaged students -
If tests really excluded poor kids then schools like stuyvesant/bronx science/brooklyn tech wouldn't be majority FARM students. Of the FARM students at these schools, 90% of them are asian.
If this was in fact about poor kids, we could have implemented the preference for poor kids without removing testing. But I suspect it would be mostly at the expense of white kids and increase the asian population even more.
and whaddya know, the rich folks came in and tried to turn it into the second coming of Massive Resistance. Shameful.
Liberal racists are just as capable of massive resistance as conservative racists.
The same liberal racists that went after the poor asian kids at stuyvesant are going after wealthy asians here.
You think you are on the side of the angels because you think there is such a thing as good racism and bad racism. And you are wise enough to know the difference. You aren't and you don't.
You are just another white person assuaging your white guilt at the expense of asians.
Asians who never owned slaves, who couldn't become naturalized citizens until 1952, who were interned during WWII, who were subject to mass lynchings by white and hispanic mobs, and succeeded despitethat history of racism in this country.
And that is what is what makes the hopes and dreams of our children expendable in the eyes of liberals.
If we were poorer than whites, liberals would love us as much as they love anyone else that they pity.
Aaaaand here we go again.
1) Yes, Heytens' opinion matters more. And so does King's. Their votes became policy. Rushing's didn't and Alito's didn't. And the SFFA decision was not relevant in the TJ case because SFFA dealt with race as an explicit factor in admissions process - something that does not exist in the TJ case. You'll note that CJ Roberts, who wrote the "indirectly" poison pill in the SFFA opinion that everyone thought was going to weigh in on the TJ case, voted NOT to grant cert. These things matter, and pretending they don't makes you look ill-informed.
What law school did you go to that taught you that a concurring opinion carried any more weight than a dissenting opinion? They are both minority viewpoints and in this case a minority of one. We know that anything that is in the Heyton opinion that was not in the King opinion was rejected by King otherwise it would be in the majority opinion. Does Thomas' concurring opinion in Dobbs or SFFA carry any more weight than Sotomayor's dissents? Don't most lawyers learn this in the first week of law school?
The fact that you are reading this much into a failure to grant cert without reading anything into the dissent to denying cert makes me wonder how informed you are. A dissent to denial of cert is pretty rare. We usually see it in those cases where the dissenter thinks that their opinion (or something close to it) would have prevailed.
2) Yes, testing absolutely can be unjust if it is used as a gatekeeper in admissions processes. Because standardized testing - because of the existence and prevalence of the boutique test-prep industry - discriminates against students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and those students are disproportionately Black and Hispanic. Remember how much better low-income Asian students are doing now that the admissions process was updated?
If test prep really was what kept out poor kids, you would have expected to see a surge in poor students in the first year quant q was implemented, before anyone knew what the test looked like.
But we didn't see a surge in poor kids because test prep isn't what is keeping poor kids out.
It is a combination of the accumulated human capital invested in these children and the gentrifying effects of holistic admissions.
And even if all of that is wrong, how would a test combined with farm preference and 1.5% not be a better filter?
Even if you think that going from 10 black kids a year to 19 black kids a year is worth this drop in academic standards, how would a test be unjust if you kept the 1.5% and the various preferences?
And no one said anything about white students. White students have largely been able to get in to TJ at the rate of their applications for as long as they've been applicants to TJ. But go on, misrepresent the argument in an attempt to make it seem like this is about white people. How very Harry Jackson of you.
The last year of the old system 86 white studwents. The most recent year of the new system 140 white students. Black students went from 10 to 19, a larger increase percentage-wise but, C'mon!
Even if we use that rolling average that someone else wanted to use, we still see larger absolute gains for whites than blacks.
3) I already dealt with your misleading claims about FARMS students in a previous posting. But, unlike the Coalition 4 TJ, I'm actually a big fan of low-income Asian students having access to TJ for the first time in its history. Are you?
I am not a fan of anyone getting in that doesn't deserve it. We should not be in the business of picking the winners and losers, that should be an objective merit based process.
But I would shut up about the 1.5% and the preferences if we brought back the test so at least we would get the smartest kids from each of the school and the smartest kids that get a preference instead of a cross section of the applicant pool. The current state of affairs is pretty bleak and either you can't see it, refuse to see it or don't care.
4) That whole screed at the bottom of your post is word salad nonsense. Yes, Asians were treated horribly in the middle part of the last century in America. Honestly, most of those folks were of Japanese extraction, and their story is largely irrelevant to TJ because TJ has never had a Japanese population of significance. The explosion of the Asian population at TJ over the last two decades has consistent almost entirely of children of upper-middle class and wealthy families of South Asian descent - and these folks have no access point whatsoever to the claims of racism against Asian-Americans at basically any point in America's history. Indeed, they have crowded out Korean and Vietnamese middle- and lower-middle class families from the TJ population where there had previously been a much larger cohort.
The lynchings were of Chinese men in California, Oregon and Washington. The point is that this is just the liberal version of racist massive resistance compelled by white liberal guilt to take from one group they have wronged to give to another group they feel more guilty about having wronged. And it is not just coincidence that white kids benefit, this is what Derrick Bell called interest convergence.
They are a highly successful and an extremely powerful minority in Northern Virginia. And their hard work is to be commended, especially among those who came to America with relatively little beyond an education from India's outstanding technical colleges. But what they want today is for their children to reap the rewards of their own hard work and success by maintaining an admissions process at TJ that pretty explicitly favored both their cultural approach to education and their well-earned resources and connections. It is the literal definition of resource- and opportunity-hoarding. Their children are already being rewarded with opportunities and resources beyond their wildest dreams when they were children themselves. And their response appears to be to insulate their children from having to go to school with what I'm sure some of them would call "untouchables". It's ugly and it's gross.
I have already addressed how the quant q experiment undermines the claim about the insurmountable test prep advantage being the driving exclusionary force.
I have also seen the point raised that if resources were really the driving force, then there would be more white kids at TJ.
You seem to be saying that Indians have had as much success as you think they deserve and indians should stop trying to take the opportunities that you want to give to black people, not because they've earned it but because white people feel guilty about what white people did to black people.
As for the untouchables comment, that is a pretty despicable comment. Which is it? Are Indians so racist that they don't want to see black kids at TJ or are we so greedy that we don't want to share opportunity with black kids at TJ. Meanwhile this change increase the population of white kids more than black kids.
Only a mean and uneducated people would hold the attitudes you seem to impute on Indians. You must hold Indians in such contempt to say these sort of things when all they want is fairness and equality in the eyes of our government.
Forum Index
»
Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
