TJ Admin Test & Walls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:come on, your kid doesn't get into Harvard doesn't mean a van down by the river. None of our DCPS kids are gonna go to TJ and yet somehow they aren't gonna go to Don Juan's school of enchiladas and tax prep.

Are you drunk?
No where in this post is anyone saying that not going to TJ/Walls is going to have a long-term impact on kids.

We're talking about a change in the admissions process selects the same kids or not. Period.

[Anonymous]

Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For every "great kid" who gets into TJ, another "great kid" is declined. That's the nature of super selective schools no matter the admissions process. No need to vilify parents on either side. The parents bringing the lawsuit aren't bigots, they are (mostly) Asian parents whose kids were disproportionately negatively impacted by the change in the admissions process. They think the test based admission was fairer while other parents and administrators think admissions methods designed to boost black and hispanic enrollment are fairer. There isn't a right answer, and it's reasonable for the parents who think the change is unfair to go to court. It's really their only avenue to reverse the change. They may or may not win, we'll see, but try to give each side the benefit of belief that they making a fair and honest argument.

+100 your perspective is very different when it is your own child directly affected vs a societal change.

I think that’s the rub. The other child admitted wasn’t purely because of societal change. Your kid wasn’t accepted to TJ, it doesn’t mean he won’t do well at other schools. Your child isn’t ENTITLED to go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


I think that’s the rub. The other child admitted wasn’t purely because of societal change. Your kid wasn’t accepted to TJ, it doesn’t mean he won’t do well at other schools. Your child isn’t ENTITLED to go there.

That applies equally to every child at TJ, no one is ENTITLED to go to a magnet school, they all have to follow the admission process. One is ENTITLED to an opinion about whether or not that admission process is fair and lawful, and ENTITLED to litigate if they believe it is not. Whether or not a child is admitted "purely" because of societal change is irrelevant, since no one on either side believes the change in admissions resulted in children being admitted solely for that reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I think that’s the rub. The other child admitted wasn’t purely because of societal change. Your kid wasn’t accepted to TJ, it doesn’t mean he won’t do well at other schools. Your child isn’t ENTITLED to go there.

That applies equally to every child at TJ, no one is ENTITLED to go to a magnet school, they all have to follow the admission process. One is ENTITLED to an opinion about whether or not that admission process is fair and lawful, and ENTITLED to litigate if they believe it is not. Whether or not a child is admitted "purely" because of societal change is irrelevant, since no one on either side believes the change in admissions resulted in children being admitted solely for that reason.

But you will never accept that your kid was rejected because of your kid’s factors, not a policy change!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you?

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the Post going to interview the kids of the parents who are suing as well?

No this article focuses on the great kids. Not the bigots with an axe to grind.

Sometimes, as here, bigotry is in the eye of the beholder.

The plaintiffs convinced a federal judge that TJ engaged in a rushed and ill-thought-out effort to dump the admissions test because it wanted a more "racially balanced" school, i.e., one that was less Asian. They pointed to the fact that some Fairfax school officials had voiced racist stereotypes about Asians and immigrant parents during the decision making process.

In their view, you are the bigot with the axe to grind.

It will be interesting to see what we get from the FOIA request to Walls regarding its similar dumping of the admissions test.

I'm torn on the entire topic. I understand why testing could be problematic and I also understand how what Walls appears to have gone with instead (a wholly undefined standard) also creates problems. That said, PP makes an excellent point that is worth considering. These issues are challenging and every decision has winners and losers and intended and unintended outcomes. It is far too easy to simply accuse someone with whom you don't agree of bigotry. As PP said, the court actually found the school to be engaging in racial stereotypes and found evidence of bigotry and bias in the policy creation.

This stuff is hard. Name calling doesn't help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I think that’s the rub. The other child admitted wasn’t purely because of societal change. Your kid wasn’t accepted to TJ, it doesn’t mean he won’t do well at other schools. Your child isn’t ENTITLED to go there.

That applies equally to every child at TJ, no one is ENTITLED to go to a magnet school, they all have to follow the admission process. One is ENTITLED to an opinion about whether or not that admission process is fair and lawful, and ENTITLED to litigate if they believe it is not. Whether or not a child is admitted "purely" because of societal change is irrelevant, since no one on either side believes the change in admissions resulted in children being admitted solely for that reason.

But you will never accept that your kid was rejected because of your kid’s factors, not a policy change!

I've actually heard parents tell kids "You were denied because they wanted more kids from X background or kids that played sports." This doesn't help the kid at all. But it does make the parent feel better I suppose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is the Post going to interview the kids of the parents who are suing as well?

No this article focuses on the great kids. Not the bigots with an axe to grind.

Sometimes, as here, bigotry is in the eye of the beholder.

The plaintiffs convinced a federal judge that TJ engaged in a rushed and ill-thought-out effort to dump the admissions test because it wanted a more "racially balanced" school, i.e., one that was less Asian. They pointed to the fact that some Fairfax school officials had voiced racist stereotypes about Asians and immigrant parents during the decision making process.

In their view, you are the bigot with the axe to grind.

It will be interesting to see what we get from the FOIA request to Walls regarding its similar dumping of the admissions test.

i'd be surprised if there is a FOIA request. Keyboard anger is a lot easier than the work required for actual results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I think that’s the rub. The other child admitted wasn’t purely because of societal change. Your kid wasn’t accepted to TJ, it doesn’t mean he won’t do well at other schools. Your child isn’t ENTITLED to go there.

That applies equally to every child at TJ, no one is ENTITLED to go to a magnet school, they all have to follow the admission process. One is ENTITLED to an opinion about whether or not that admission process is fair and lawful, and ENTITLED to litigate if they believe it is not. Whether or not a child is admitted "purely" because of societal change is irrelevant, since no one on either side believes the change in admissions resulted in children being admitted solely for that reason.

But you will never accept that your kid was rejected because of your kid’s factors, not a policy change!

I've actually heard parents tell kids "You were denied because they wanted more kids from X background or kids that played sports." This doesn't help the kid at all. But it does make the parent feel better I suppose.

It just feed resentment and bigotry. Those statements are why we have problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you? [/quote

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

That's a hypothesis. Not a particularly strong one given the limited effect of multiple, free SHSAT courses on admissions to the selective high schools in New York. But regardless, it probably wasn't the application fee that was the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you? [/quote

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

That's a hypothesis. Not a particularly strong one given the limited effect of multiple, free SHSAT courses on admissions to the selective high schools in New York. But regardless, it probably wasn't the application fee that was the issue.

Oh it’s you! The NY example poster. Welcome back!