Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
If that's true the only way to avoid discrimination would be to select strictly by the numbers. If group A is 50% of the applicants, they must be 50% of the selectees. Any other method, nomatter how facially neutral, will disparately impact somebody. Luckily we're not there yet, legal-wise.
LOL The TJ families opposing the new policy would lose their $!#@ if that happened. The number of slots for Asians would plummet.
I'm pretty sure that's illegal.
Actually it's the only way to avoid discrimination, other than selecting randomly such as a lottery.
Then since the former is llegal then lottery it is!
Fine. Each school draws it's 1.5% representation for the lottery and then they can have a general lottery for everyone not drawn out of their school pool.
Why not set the number of seats allotted to a high school based on the number of qualified applicants?
Because the applicants are in MS.
This clearly discriminates against center schools due high competition for a limited allotment. Extremely difficult for non-AAP kid from center school to make it, while local Level IV student from a non-center school will have much lower bar to clear. If the quotas are allocated based on base middle school or high school pyramid, then it evens out to some extent.
It’s still going to not fair to kids from north west fairfax as they experience higher competition and more infighting, but this is another discussion with pros and cons and wouldn’t want to dig into it now.
Also, the new process gives equal weight to single essay or portrait sheet (both are very subjective and tests writing skills more than STEM) as compared to entire middle GPA with no teacher or any other input, so it becomes very difficult to spot real stem talent. So, TJ selection, especially from center schools where there will be many kids with similar top grades, the process essentially boils down to lottery or familiarity of essay topic and/or writing ability. I know many of you will disagree here. Oh well!
Most Kids don’t have to go to Centers, it is a choice. If TJ is that important to you, choose a different MS.
I am not sure if you actually know AAP kids are automatically defaulted to centers. Most parents aren't even aware that there is a choice and go to an extra length to choose a different school. Also, very few parents will even think about TJ during the 6th grade and hardly anyone (except for few these forums) is aware how the middle school choice effects TJ. To be honest, we weren't even thinking about TJ during my kids 6th grade and we didn't even know we could choose base middle school. All we knew at the time that counselors from center school came to discuss course options and we/parents were invited to visit center school later. If this is our (involved parents) situation, how aware do you think less involved parents will be??
So, to have it YOUR WAY, every AAP student and parent MUST be communicated clearly in the 6th grade that how the school choice potentially affects future TJ admissions and properly advised to choose the base school if TJ is a priority for the kid. If this actually happens, I agree its really a choice. Otherwise, please shut up!
You are a charming person. People are discussing something and your response is to tell them to shut up if they don't see it they way you do. Great way to converse and exchange ideas. Very open minded.
I did not know that the Centers where the default school for AAP kids. I have to choose to send my kid to the Center for ES, I would have thought that parents would have to choose for their MS child. I think that should be changed and parents should have to opt into the Center.
I also don't think that parents should be putting pressure on their kids and making choices for kids entering MS based on attending a specific high school. I feel the same about the Private schools and the magnet schools. These are kids. Kids who are likely to do well regardless of what high school they go to because they are smart and they have involved parents. They have already "won" the educational lottery. TJ would be great but it is not the end all and be all that some of you think it is.
I know this because I have taught at the University level and have seen plenty of kids who have succeeded regardless of the high school that they came from. I know this because I am a fully functional adult who has worked in the STEM field and have seen plenty of other fully functional, successful adults who graduated from high schools and universities that were not in the top 50 or even 100. I know this because I have friends who have attended those elite schools who are not in a better place then me, and I graduated from a small liberal arts college. My PhD is from a top 20 school, that I went to straight from my small liberal arts college that you will never have heard of.
Starting an academic rat race in 7th grade, or sooner with the way some people treat AAP, is crazy. It is not good for the kids. I understand that some kids are very academically focused, I have one of those. He asks to do extra math so we do extra math. If he asks to stop, we will stop. We treat it the way we do a rec sport, he can do it as long as he is enjoying it and willing to do the extra work. Will he go to TJ, who knows? Probably not. Because if he does apply, he will be one of close to 3,000 kids for 500 spaces. If they do the test and the old application process, I think he will score well on it and he has a nice list of top place finishes in math competitions. If it is a lottery, then it is a lottery. His base MS is Carson.
I do think that TJ should reflect the County. I have no problem that every MS is represented at TJ, that is the way it should be. I think that the kids applying should be judged on an even playing field and that means the classes they take in MS and not extra curricular activities and events that a large percentage of families don't know about or can't afford and don't have the time to jump through the hoops for free participation. Why should my kid have a leg up because we could afford to send him to AoPS or RSM since he was in third grade? How is that fair to a family that didn't know about those programs or TJ or the need for those programs and who couldn't afford them or get their kid to those programs? This is a Public School, not a Private School. If you want the application process to be so exclusive, then feel free to apply to a Private School.
I am the PP and I apologize for for the last sentence. I have heard it mentioned quite a few times saying 'chose base school if you care so much about TJ' in a sarcastic way and its quite frustrating. However not many understand its not an obvious choice. My kid said 'one' person from his entire class chose base school because parent works there and until then I didn't know it was a choice. So, unless there is an obvious reason to chose different school, why would any AAP kid goes to base school when rest of the class goes to Center when the kid is already stressed about middle school, courses to choose etc. TJ was the last thing on our (and most kids and parents) minds as it should be.
I think their FCPS didn't really think through the new process or it was a deliberate action to limit AAP students. Its good that TJ needs to represent the entire county, which I have absolutely no problem with, but how does limiting the AAP helps it as there are centers evenly distributed in every school pyramid. Why can't the quotas based on base school or high school pyramid? I just don't understand it. If they really want to help out non-AAP kids, then those zoned for center schools are royally screwed - correct?
My kid goes to Carson and really wanted to go to TJ since last year, but very disappointed after learning our super smart neighbor kid, who he has always looks up to, didn't make it in spite of perfect GPA and apparently few others got in with less GPA though they weren't really expecting (no 'other experience' factors to skew the result in this case). He says 'everyone' of his school/class friends or kids he interacts with have either perfect near perfect GPA (max one or two A-) though actual academic skills and interest in STEM vary greatly. Carson has about 500 kids in AAP itself (total 800) and there will be at least 200-300 kids with GPA 3.8+ GPA and only about 20-30 kids get into TJ. So, the only differentiating factor is one 30min essay and student portrait sheet. Can you imagine 300 points for the entire MS GPA, 300 for single essay and another 300 for portrait sheet - how does this differentiates the talent? I would rather just drop the whole nonsense of 'merit' based selection, just do a lottery among qualified and at least it will be fair and uniform and I will be perfectly find with it. My kid isn't so good at writing (lazy), so he kind of understood that its now a really long shot for him and he is ok with it.
We are very involved with kids education, both having masters in STEM we can answer/research/explain pretty much every question my kids have at this age and so my kid should be fine at base school. Yeah, we didn't go to any gifted schools either. His base HS isn't so great, but still it may be better of not going to TJ as base school could be good for college admissions. He will be missing out courses exclusive to TJ (I hope they offer in all the schools), but not too much as base HS also have good course selection.
Haha.. there isn't really much to understand here. If FCPS doesn't limit center schools, they know that it works against their goal of cutting down the very demographic they want to cut down irrespective of the fact that center schools are about evenly distributed across the county and each center school already maps to a specific geographic area. I also agree, the lottery among the qualified candidates would have been better and fairer option - but for lottery to be effective, we might need to increase the min GPA to around 3.75 with all honors courses and may be in future make Geo HN required by 8th (open Algebra HN to all 7th graders).
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
It sounds like you're saying f the outcome isn't 100% Asians it's racist?
I went to an admissions information session at DS's middle school - Kilmer - back in 2017. The father of one of my son's friends stood up during the Q&A and said - in no uncertain terms - that the existence of any black kids at TJ is evidence of affirmative action.
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.
Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?
Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.
Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?
Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".
Agree and the evidence suggests the test they were using for admissions greatly favors some groups over others and was part of the problem. I'd like greater diversity and inclusion. I think all kids should have an equal shot at these opportunities.
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.
Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?
Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".
Agree and the evidence suggests the test they were using for admissions greatly favors some groups over others and was part of the problem. I'd like greater diversity and inclusion. I think all kids should have an equal shot at these opportunities.
But by definition race-neutral requires equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. There is no test that will ever be race neutral. That is the nature of testing.
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.
Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?
Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".
Agree and the evidence suggests the test they were using for admissions greatly favors some groups over others and was part of the problem. I'd like greater diversity and inclusion. I think all kids should have an equal shot at these opportunities.
But by definition race-neutral requires equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. There is no test that will ever be race neutral. That is the nature of testing.
Absolutely true true. Despite the best efforts of teams of Ph.D. test designers over many many years, there is no cognitive test that doesn't disparately impact some group.
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.
Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?
Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".
Agree and the evidence suggests the test they were using for admissions greatly favors some groups over others and was part of the problem. I'd like greater diversity and inclusion. I think all kids should have an equal shot at these opportunities.
But by definition race-neutral requires equality of outcome not equality of opportunity. There is no test that will ever be race neutral. That is the nature of testing.
Absolutely true true. Despite the best efforts of teams of Ph.D. test designers over many many years, there is no cognitive test that doesn't disparately impact some group.
Most of these Asian kids are children of immigrants who speak a non English language at home.
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
It sounds like you're saying f the outcome isn't 100% Asians it's racist?
I went to an admissions information session at DS's middle school - Kilmer - back in 2017. The father of one of my son's friends stood up during the Q&A and said - in no uncertain terms - that the existence of any black kids at TJ is evidence of affirmative action.
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
Well it means race blind which means they can't discriminate based on race but I guess you can imagine conspiriacies.
Not sure where you are headed with this. The prior process (at least to get to the semi-finals) was race blind and race neutral because it was an objective test that everyone took. Same test taken at the same time. That's as race blind and race neutral as you can get. The whole point of admissions changes is the conspiracy theory that someone Asians are gaming the system as opposed to working really hard to do their best. I'm not necessarily opposed to reforms if they are determined to be legal, but let's be honest about it. The success of Asians in the prior process has led to more and more reforms (subjective essays) until the FCPS decided they needed to scrap the process entirely and do something different if they wanted the demographics of the school to reflect more of that of the county. Not saying its right, wrong, legal, or illegal - but I am not denying why it was done and I am willing to live with the outcome of the court case. Why is that so hard for people to accept?
Standardized exams are race-blind but are NOT race-neutral. Believing that they are betrays a lack of understanding of the definition of "race-neutral".
Agree and the evidence suggests the test they were using for admissions greatly favors some groups over others and was part of the problem. I'd like greater diversity and inclusion. I think all kids should have an equal shot at these opportunities.
Bull. And what evidence are you alleging suggests the test greatly favored some groups over others? The NAACP sued FCPS and lost. The FCSB did not allege that the test "favored" certain groups. Unless what you mean by favored some groups you mean kids that are extremely bright and good at math versus kids that are not as bright and not as good as math, you are full of crap and creating your own strawman argument to attack for your self-righteous virtue signaling. #wokie
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
It sounds like you're saying f the outcome isn't 100% Asians it's racist?
I went to an admissions information session at DS's middle school - Kilmer - back in 2017. The father of one of my son's friends stood up during the Q&A and said - in no uncertain terms - that the existence of any black kids at TJ is evidence of affirmative action.
There are *many* of these people who secretly believe that, but oops, he said the quiet part out loud.
Anonymous wrote:So much for having black kids at TJ. It will be interesting to see how the board responds. Hopefully but just turning it into an academy.
Why? If they want a majority Black school, they can do what Asian families did back in the 80's and 90's. If the opportunity isn't there, you create it even if it's painful and parents have to work really hard. Same for hispanic parents, same with white parents,
This country was built on the backs of hardworking Black parents and the hard work and fighting so more Asians could come here in the 60’s, most of the Asian families you are speaking of wouldn’t ever have made it to the US.
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
It sounds like you're saying f the outcome isn't 100% Asians it's racist?
I went to an admissions information session at DS's middle school - Kilmer - back in 2017. The father of one of my son's friends stood up during the Q&A and said - in no uncertain terms - that the existence of any black kids at TJ is evidence of affirmative action.
sounds like fake news
It's not. My son still talks about it today. It was horrifying, and what was equally horrifying was the number of parents who nodded along as if to say "well, I'm glad SOMEONE finally said it".
Anonymous wrote:At least some people can see the obvious: the school board and Brabrand deliberately discriminated against Asian people in the county.
This isn’t over.
Yeah.... No they didn't.
Of the six schools that were most impacted by the admissions changes, they total about 32% Asian, far from a majority and indeed, not even a plurality as there are more white students at those six schools.
Of the remainder of the schools that theoretically benefited from the changes, those schools represent about 70% of the Asian population in FCPS. So far more Asian students actually benefited from the changes than were impacted negatively.
What's true is that a very small sub-segment of students were impacted, but the qualities that they share have very little to do with their race and therefore, the changes were NOT racially motivated.
The "very small sub-segment of students" that were impacted amounts to roughly 1/5 of a population of interest: the student who have been admitted to TJ.
The "qualities that they share have very little to do with their race," requires stronger justification when they do all happen to coincidentally share the same race.
Granting either of these points as valid, which they're not, it's still not clear how that would imply that "the changes were NOT racially motivated," especially when there's documented evidence that it was explicitly racially motivated.
Let's see....
1) It's still a very small sub-segment.
2) They certainly do NOT all happen to share the same race. There are PLENTY of AAP students in the six most impacted schools who are not Asian. Indeed, it might even be a majority of those students - those breakdowns are not as easily accessible as the total school breakdowns for obvious reasons.
3) There is NOT documented evidence that the changes were explicitly racially motivated - at least in the sense that the point was to reduce the proportion of Asian students. Wanting to increase the numbers of underrepresented groups and schools is NOT the same as wanting to decrease the numbers of Asians. The much-maligned "TJ Papers" don't achieve that goal - they only show that there was concern within the School Board's membership that the actions taken and the statements by Brabrand could be PERCEIVED as "anti-Asian".
1) Are you claiming that 1/5 is very small, or are you claiming that the percentage of students admitted to TJ is very small in the grand scheme of things? If it's the former, I'd accuse you of reductivism: 20% of a significant population is very sizeable. If it's the latter, I'd point out that if the population that gets into TJ was so negligible, there wouldn't be so much furor over the issue from all sides.
2) I'll grant that I worded it a bit unfairly, but another poster above me did a better job than me of pointing out why it would have hit Asians more squarely than other races.
3) I do realize that for every racist that makes ugly comments, there will always be others with similar interests who will easily shrug off their comments like it's no big deal. That's human nature, and I don't blame you for that, but let's not deceive ourselves into thinking that it wasn't a flat-out racist motive.
1) The number of students who were actually impacted by these changes represents a very small percentage of the total number of students who apply to the school in each year.
Seems incredibly myopic. The number of people who live in Ukraine is a very small percentage of the world's population, yet there's understandably considerable concern for them. If a team's star player is out with an injury, they represent an exceedingly small percentage of the community's population, yet they're a very significant absence on game day. The number of people who are qualified to give professional medical opinions if you need surgery is a very small amount of the population, but they're the ones who matter when it counts. I could go on, but it's not without reason why it makes sense to focus on the kids getting into TJ when we're talking about numbers.
2) I appreciate your recognizance, but the reasons why it would hit Asians more squarely have much more to do with the ubiquity of expensive exam prep within those communities. And the fact that Asian families choose to do expend their resources in that manner can't be held against a school system trying to reduce or remove the impact of one high-stakes exam.
You're wrongly assuming that the existence of one set of factors precludes other factors, and in particular, of the whole set of factors that apply to the situation, the only ones which are relevant are the ones you can cast in a negative light. It doesn't work like that.
3) I'm not sure what point you're making here. I will allow that a large portion of the motive was to increase access and opportunities for Black and Hispanic students, but as I've repeatedly said, had this school board accomplished that goal by reducing the white population, they'd have considered it just as large a victory - and therefore the motivation cannot have been derived from animus against Asians.
Circular argument - you're using the premise that there was no racial motive to prove that there was no racial motive.
Pssst - selection is race blind....
Pssst - facially neutral policies can still be racist. Help the world by ridding yourself of ignorance.
Facially neutral policies can also not be racist. Indeed many of them are, especially when they are seeking to remove the impacts of a policy that was very racially impactful.
That's beside the point. The PP thought that the selection process being race blind is somehow vindication of the process. It isn't.
It sounds like you're saying f the outcome isn't 100% Asians it's racist?
I went to an admissions information session at DS's middle school - Kilmer - back in 2017. The father of one of my son's friends stood up during the Q&A and said - in no uncertain terms - that the existence of any black kids at TJ is evidence of affirmative action.
sounds like fake news
It's not. My son still talks about it today. It was horrifying, and what was equally horrifying was the number of parents who nodded along as if to say "well, I'm glad SOMEONE finally said it".
What exactly is your point? It seems that in this forum that when white people are losing an argument, they get into a look how noble we are and how nasty those Asians imagined indignation story. Please..such fake hypocrites you are. I know your sorts.
Anonymous wrote:So much for having black kids at TJ. It will be interesting to see how the board responds. Hopefully but just turning it into an academy.
Why? If they want a majority Black school, they can do what Asian families did back in the 80's and 90's. If the opportunity isn't there, you create it even if it's painful and parents have to work really hard. Same for hispanic parents, same with white parents,
This country was built on the backs of hardworking Black parents and the hard work and fighting so more Asians could come here in the 60’s, most of the Asian families you are speaking of wouldn’t ever have made it to the US.
This country has been built by hardworking people of all colors, backgrounds, and religions.
Anonymous wrote:So much for having black kids at TJ. It will be interesting to see how the board responds. Hopefully but just turning it into an academy.
Why? If they want a majority Black school, they can do what Asian families did back in the 80's and 90's. If the opportunity isn't there, you create it even if it's painful and parents have to work really hard. Same for hispanic parents, same with white parents,
This country was built on the backs of hardworking Black parents and the hard work and fighting so more Asians could come here in the 60’s, most of the Asian families you are speaking of wouldn’t ever have made it to the US.
This country has been built by hardworking people of all colors, backgrounds, and religions.
Without the free, slave labor we would not have advanced to where we are today.
Forum Index
»
Advanced Academic Programs (AAP)
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}