Should AAP demographics represent FCPS as a whole

[Anonymous]

The young scholars program is supposed to identify underrepresented races already. Why is that not enough?

[Anonymous]

Admittance into any advanced program whether aap or TJ, should be double blind. No name, no sex, no race. Just the numbers. I would be incredibly offended if I were given special treatment based on my race or cultural heritage. It's extremely insulting. Double blind truly is the only way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The young scholars program is supposed to identify underrepresented races already. Why is that not enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The young scholars program is supposed to identify underrepresented races already. Why is that not enough?

Because not all elementary schools have YS. Ours doesn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Admittance into any advanced program whether aap or TJ, should be double blind. No name, no sex, no race. Just the numbers. I would be incredibly offended if I were given special treatment based on my race or cultural heritage. It's extremely insulting. Double blind truly is the only way to go.

It's more insulting to be gifted and not identified due to racial and cultural biases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The young scholars program is supposed to identify underrepresented races already. Why is that not enough?

Because not all elementary schools have YS. Ours doesn't.

Neither does ours.

[Anonymous]

Clarify something for me. I hear the comments that intelligence tests are biased against certain groups. I hear that teachers don't notice intelligence among certain groups. And I found the "Whistling Vivaldi" book that says certain demographics underperform tests even when they are intelligent because of cultural expectations.

At what point is it fair to say maybe someone just isn't intelligent, as opposed to everything and everyone is unfair to them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clarify something for me. I hear the comments that intelligence tests are biased against certain groups. I hear that teachers don't notice intelligence among certain groups. And I found the "Whistling Vivaldi" book that says certain demographics underperform tests even when they are intelligent because of cultural expectations.

At what point is it fair to say maybe someone just isn't intelligent, as opposed to everything and everyone is unfair to them?

At the point when an instrument is created that can fairly measure intelligence regardless of culture. We aren't there yet.

[Anonymous]

This is the difference between discrimination theory and distribution theory.

Both have advocates and merits, but to believe discrimination theory you have to believe all traits exists in equal frequency among all cultures, populations, races, etc.

Just take a look at the NBA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clarify something for me. I hear the comments that intelligence tests are biased against certain groups. I hear that teachers don't notice intelligence among certain groups. And I found the "Whistling Vivaldi" book that says certain demographics underperform tests even when they are intelligent because of cultural expectations.

At what point is it fair to say maybe someone just isn't intelligent, as opposed to everything and everyone is unfair to them?

At the point when an instrument is created that can fairly measure intelligence regardless of culture. We aren't there yet.

*slow clap*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No.

But fcps should qualify AAP by cluster, so that the top 1% of each cluster is at least served. This would help with demographics.

Agreed. This is the only solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the difference between discrimination theory and distribution theory.

Both have advocates and merits, but to believe discrimination theory you have to believe all traits exists in equal frequency among all cultures, populations, races, etc.

Just take a look at the NBA.

No, we just haven't created an instrument which can fairly measure those short white people's hidden basketball ability. Or we need to accept they just weren't raised by parents that played hoops with them for 3 hours a night.

It can't possibly be that people are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is the difference between discrimination theory and distribution theory.

Both have advocates and merits, but to believe discrimination theory you have to believe all traits exists in equal frequency among all cultures, populations, races, etc.

Just take a look at the NBA.

Blacks are better at basketball primarily because they play it more often and take it up as a hobby at very young ages. And the large proportion of black people in the NBA encourages more black kids to participate in the sport and this effectively snowballs over time. There is also much to the self-fulfilling prophecy / halo effect is in play for Black athletes. For instance, if you remind an Asian student and a Black student of their race prior to an examination (through a demographic questionnaire, for example), the Asian kid will score higher and the Black kid will score lower than what they would have scored without the reminder. Likewise, if you remind an Asian Girl she's Asian prior to a math exam, she'll score higher; while if you remind her she's a girl, she'll score lower. All this to say, because society has stereotypes for different races of kids, they will lead to self-fulfilling feedback loops. When everyone believes Black kids should be great at basketball, it will lead to more confidence and positive feedback (and shaming on the other end of the spectrum), which leads to more practice and competition, which then leads to better athletes. Bias also comes into play. In football quarterbacks are disproportionally white, receivers and RB's black and there are differences in how players are used. A white RB will typically have a fullback role and white receiver typically tasked to short routes even though their measurables indicate they are suited to take larger roles. Black QB's are typically found in spread offenses where they are expected to run more and not called on to run more complicated pass schemes even though the evidence may show the player could run a traditional drop back pass offense. These differences can only be explained by the bias of coaches. It starts at the junior high or youth level as players get slotted into roles often based on a quick perception early in practice.
A white player who would likely be a guard is often steered into baseball.

Thinking of it another way. Are Hispanics/Latinos genetically predisposed to play Baseball well? Nope. But young boys all over central America and the Caribbean play it constantly, at a high level, to best their friends/opponents and neighbors for fun. They become good, they become great - and many wind up in a academy/training/recruiting system which eventually fills the ranks of professional baseball (wherever it is played). They simpler work harder and longer at it . Even weather is a factor; people who live in temperate climate zones are more likely to excel at outdoor sports.

[Anonymous]

Get rid of AAP are there special colleges or companies for AAP lol.

Another thing do college admission or employers take the "best candidate" or do they look at other factors like race, gender, income, but also background, interests, personality, there is more to life than a score on a test

A high score on a test does not equal the best thing for society in general

It would be interesting to track life outcomes for AAP vs non-AP kids

life outcomes (income sure but also happiness, emotional intelligence, concern for other people etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the difference between discrimination theory and distribution theory.

Both have advocates and merits, but to believe discrimination theory you have to believe all traits exists in equal frequency among all cultures, populations, races, etc.

Just take a look at the NBA.

Blacks are better at basketball primarily because they play it more often and take it up as a hobby at very young ages. And the large proportion of black people in the NBA encourages more black kids to participate in the sport and this effectively snowballs over time. There is also much to the self-fulfilling prophecy / halo effect is in play for Black athletes. For instance, if you remind an Asian student and a Black student of their race prior to an examination (through a demographic questionnaire, for example), the Asian kid will score higher and the Black kid will score lower than what they would have scored without the reminder. Likewise, if you remind an Asian Girl she's Asian prior to a math exam, she'll score higher; while if you remind her she's a girl, she'll score lower. All this to say, because society has stereotypes for different races of kids, they will lead to self-fulfilling feedback loops. When everyone believes Black kids should be great at basketball, it will lead to more confidence and positive feedback (and shaming on the other end of the spectrum), which leads to more practice and competition, which then leads to better athletes. Bias also comes into play. In football quarterbacks are disproportionally white, receivers and RB's black and there are differences in how players are used. A white RB will typically have a fullback role and white receiver typically tasked to short routes even though their measurables indicate they are suited to take larger roles. Black QB's are typically found in spread offenses where they are expected to run more and not called on to run more complicated pass schemes even though the evidence may show the player could run a traditional drop back pass offense. These differences can only be explained by the bias of coaches. It starts at the junior high or youth level as players get slotted into roles often based on a quick perception early in practice.
A white player who would likely be a guard is often steered into baseball.

Thinking of it another way. Are Hispanics/Latinos genetically predisposed to play Baseball well? Nope. But young boys all over central America and the Caribbean play it constantly, at a high level, to best their friends/opponents and neighbors for fun. They become good, they become great - and many wind up in a academy/training/recruiting system which eventually fills the ranks of professional baseball (wherever it is played). They simpler work harder and longer at it . Even weather is a factor; people who live in temperate climate zones are more likely to excel at outdoor sports.

So a short, fat white guy can be an NBA center if he just works hard enough.

It has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with any genetic differences.