What are the new TJ feeders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decisions are not race blind, there wouldn’t be a box for race if they were.

As for the comment about playing basketball for 5 hours… Basketballs are inexpensive and there are free courts all around. You don’t need the internet or transportation. Lots of kids are playing basketball, not many are doing math for fun. A smart kid is not seeing other kids doing math in that neighborhood. Environment matters and we all know it.

Race is considered and the most important factor under the current admissions system.

Considering race sounds illegal. I'm pretty sure they CAN'T do that and if they did there would be lawsuits.

There was a lawsuit filed by parents of Asian students.

They won, initially.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversed. After that, the parents sought certiori to the S.Ct.

Unlike the misinformation distributed by FCPS, the county DID NOT “WIN” AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

The court denied certiori, which they can do for myriad reasons. Those reasons are rarely divulged.

For all we know, the Court agreed with the Asian parents claim FCPS unlawfully discriminated against TJ applicants on the basis of race.

IMO, what FCPS has done is, at best, employ “proxies” for race, meaning FARMS kids are more likely to be URMs (LatinX / Black), and that capping the big 3 at 1.5% would more likely yield kids from MS with fewer Asian / Indian kids.

Using proxies can achieve the same or similar racial outcomes, but it would allow FCPS to make misleading claims it did not directly consider race (not individually, anyway).

It would be quite a staggering indictment of this Court if they believed that the petitioner in a very high-profile case was in the right on a matter of civil rights and declined to hear the case.

The far more likely explanation is that the petitioners didn't do enough to make their case for anyone other than Alito and Thomas.

Once the case got in front of a real judge they laughed it out of court.

That is misinformation, but you knew that.

As for the denial of certiori, it is more likely the Court felt the issue was already addressed by Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, and therefore best resolved by application of existing precedent rather than a decision specifically addressing selective race-based admission to a small number of public high schools, such as TJ.

I thought the decision was earlier than the Harvard case, and since TJ admissions were already race blind that wasn't really a factor.

[Anonymous]

Didn't the new admissions policy have the biggest gains for economically disadvantaged Asian students?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't the new admissions policy have the biggest gains for economically disadvantaged Asian students?

No, it did great disserve to economically disadvantaged students by making selection within their category based on essay lottery instead of merit. Now, the unqualified disadvantaged students are struggling at TJ and the more hardworking merit disadvantaged student is denied their opportunity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would much rather send a kid to Langley, McLean, Chantilly or Oakton, the pyramids that sent the most kids to TJ, than TJ now. Have you seen how the TJ parents are fighting with each other over PTA seats? If some claimed it was a toxic environment before, they should buckle in for the coming years.

You sound bitter. Sour grapes is not a good look.

WTF are you talking about? How are they "fighting" over PTA seats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For the 1.5% that are admitted, do MS tell students they are in that 1.5%? Does TJ tell? Meaning, if 10 kids from a school get accepted, does little Larlo know was accepted as part of automatic 1.5% and Layla knows she wasn’t and was part of the other selection step?

I can't imagine they would ever do something like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decisions are not race blind, there wouldn’t be a box for race if they were.

As for the comment about playing basketball for 5 hours… Basketballs are inexpensive and there are free courts all around. You don’t need the internet or transportation. Lots of kids are playing basketball, not many are doing math for fun. A smart kid is not seeing other kids doing math in that neighborhood. Environment matters and we all know it.

Race is considered and the most important factor under the current admissions system.

Considering race sounds illegal. I'm pretty sure they CAN'T do that and if they did there would be lawsuits.

There was a lawsuit filed by parents of Asian students.

They won, initially.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversed. After that, the parents sought certiori to the S.Ct.

Unlike the misinformation distributed by FCPS, the county DID NOT “WIN” AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

The court denied certiori, which they can do for myriad reasons. Those reasons are rarely divulged.

For all we know, the Court agreed with the Asian parents claim FCPS unlawfully discriminated against TJ applicants on the basis of race.

IMO, what FCPS has done is, at best, employ “proxies” for race, meaning FARMS kids are more likely to be URMs (LatinX / Black), and that capping the big 3 at 1.5% would more likely yield kids from MS with fewer Asian / Indian kids.

Using proxies can achieve the same or similar racial outcomes, but it would allow FCPS to make misleading claims it did not directly consider race (not individually, anyway).

I'm on your side on this but considering the decision in Fisher 1 still stands and Fisher 2 has now been overturned by SFFA. Aren't we saying that it is OK to create suboptimal admissions methods that might affect racial distributions as long as there is no racial preference even if the intent behind the change was racially drven? I can imagine a situation like the literacy exams of the jim crow era that would fail this standard but if we apply strict scrutiny to any change that affect racial distributions, we would never be able to change any policies at all.

If motivation alone is enough to overturn a policy change then how do you feel about the changes to the discovery program in NYC? They deliberately tried to reduce the asian admissions to the science high schools by carving out 20% of the seats for students that attended certain middle schools (with high FARM rates). The cutoff for these seats was set so it excluded schools with large asian populations. However the program did not end up selecting fewer asians, instead it selected the asians that attended the selected middle schools and the asian population at the science high schools did not change much.

If we need a combination of racist intent and racial effect, why wasn't Fisher 1 overturned?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decisions are not race blind, there wouldn’t be a box for race if they were.

As for the comment about playing basketball for 5 hours… Basketballs are inexpensive and there are free courts all around. You don’t need the internet or transportation. Lots of kids are playing basketball, not many are doing math for fun. A smart kid is not seeing other kids doing math in that neighborhood. Environment matters and we all know it.

Race is considered and the most important factor under the current admissions system.

Considering race sounds illegal. I'm pretty sure they CAN'T do that and if they did there would be lawsuits.

There was a lawsuit filed by parents of Asian students.

They won, initially.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversed. After that, the parents sought certiori to the S.Ct.

Unlike the misinformation distributed by FCPS, the county DID NOT “WIN” AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

The court denied certiori, which they can do for myriad reasons. Those reasons are rarely divulged.

For all we know, the Court agreed with the Asian parents claim FCPS unlawfully discriminated against TJ applicants on the basis of race.

IMO, what FCPS has done is, at best, employ “proxies” for race, meaning FARMS kids are more likely to be URMs (LatinX / Black), and that capping the big 3 at 1.5% would more likely yield kids from MS with fewer Asian / Indian kids.

Using proxies can achieve the same or similar racial outcomes, but it would allow FCPS to make misleading claims it did not directly consider race (not individually, anyway).

It would be quite a staggering indictment of this Court if they believed that the petitioner in a very high-profile case was in the right on a matter of civil rights and declined to hear the case.

The far more likely explanation is that the petitioners didn't do enough to make their case for anyone other than Alito and Thomas.

It happens all...the...time.
They don't just grant certiori to overturn cases, they also grant it to uphold a lower court's ruling.

I think it is likely that if they did take the case, they would have overturned the lower court and reason I believe this is because a dissent was filed to the denial of cert.
Alito and Thomas aren't mad because the court didn't accept the case and then uphold the TJ admissions process. They are mad because they are pretty sure that if they did take the case, the court would have overturned the lower court and they felt the other conservative members of the court were being... well... too conservative. They were not willing to adopt sweeping change in the TJ case on the heels of sweeping change in the SFFA case.

Taking a case like this so close to SFFA before they see how SFFA changes the landscape might be premature. The issue may not be ripe enough for many members of the court regardless of how they would rule if forced to do so right now. They simply didn't want to do so right now.
If they thought the court was likely to support FCPS, it would be Jackson and Sotomayor writing a dissent to the denial of cert and calling the rest of the court cowards for not taking the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decisions are not race blind, there wouldn’t be a box for race if they were.

As for the comment about playing basketball for 5 hours… Basketballs are inexpensive and there are free courts all around. You don’t need the internet or transportation. Lots of kids are playing basketball, not many are doing math for fun. A smart kid is not seeing other kids doing math in that neighborhood. Environment matters and we all know it.

Race is considered and the most important factor under the current admissions system.

Considering race sounds illegal. I'm pretty sure they CAN'T do that and if they did there would be lawsuits.

There was a lawsuit filed by parents of Asian students.

They won, initially.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversed. After that, the parents sought certiori to the S.Ct.

Unlike the misinformation distributed by FCPS, the county DID NOT “WIN” AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

The court denied certiori, which they can do for myriad reasons. Those reasons are rarely divulged.

For all we know, the Court agreed with the Asian parents claim FCPS unlawfully discriminated against TJ applicants on the basis of race.

IMO, what FCPS has done is, at best, employ “proxies” for race, meaning FARMS kids are more likely to be URMs (LatinX / Black), and that capping the big 3 at 1.5% would more likely yield kids from MS with fewer Asian / Indian kids.

Using proxies can achieve the same or similar racial outcomes, but it would allow FCPS to make misleading claims it did not directly consider race (not individually, anyway).

It would be quite a staggering indictment of this Court if they believed that the petitioner in a very high-profile case was in the right on a matter of civil rights and declined to hear the case.

The far more likely explanation is that the petitioners didn't do enough to make their case for anyone other than Alito and Thomas.

Once the case got in front of a real judge they laughed it out of court.

That is misinformation, but you knew that.

As for the denial of certiori, it is more likely the Court felt the issue was already addressed by Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, and therefore best resolved by application of existing precedent rather than a decision specifically addressing selective race-based admission to a small number of public high schools, such as TJ.

Asian admissions were at historic highs. The group that benefited most from the changes was Asians. The largest cohort at TJ is Asian. They couldn't show harm done, which was summarily laughed out of court.

None of this is true except that the most common race at TJ is asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't the new admissions policy have the biggest gains for economically disadvantaged Asian students?

Definitely in a bigly sort of way.

Asian population overall is lower.
Every other racial group is higher.

It is what it is. TJ will start sliding down the rankings and colleges will adjust their view of Tj students to match the new reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The decisions are not race blind, there wouldn’t be a box for race if they were.

As for the comment about playing basketball for 5 hours… Basketballs are inexpensive and there are free courts all around. You don’t need the internet or transportation. Lots of kids are playing basketball, not many are doing math for fun. A smart kid is not seeing other kids doing math in that neighborhood. Environment matters and we all know it.

Race is considered and the most important factor under the current admissions system.

Considering race sounds illegal. I'm pretty sure they CAN'T do that and if they did there would be lawsuits.

There was a lawsuit filed by parents of Asian students.

They won, initially.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, reversed. After that, the parents sought certiori to the S.Ct.

Unlike the misinformation distributed by FCPS, the county DID NOT “WIN” AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL.

The court denied certiori, which they can do for myriad reasons. Those reasons are rarely divulged.

For all we know, the Court agreed with the Asian parents claim FCPS unlawfully discriminated against TJ applicants on the basis of race.

IMO, what FCPS has done is, at best, employ “proxies” for race, meaning FARMS kids are more likely to be URMs (LatinX / Black), and that capping the big 3 at 1.5% would more likely yield kids from MS with fewer Asian / Indian kids.

Using proxies can achieve the same or similar racial outcomes, but it would allow FCPS to make misleading claims it did not directly consider race (not individually, anyway).

It would be quite a staggering indictment of this Court if they believed that the petitioner in a very high-profile case was in the right on a matter of civil rights and declined to hear the case.

The far more likely explanation is that the petitioners didn't do enough to make their case for anyone other than Alito and Thomas.

Once the case got in front of a real judge they laughed it out of court.

That is misinformation, but you knew that.

As for the denial of certiori, it is more likely the Court felt the issue was already addressed by Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard, and therefore best resolved by application of existing precedent rather than a decision specifically addressing selective race-based admission to a small number of public high schools, such as TJ.

I thought the decision was earlier than the Harvard case, and since TJ admissions were already race blind that wasn't really a factor.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard was issued by the Supreme Court on June 29, 2023, which was prior to the denial of cert in the TJ case on February 20, 2024:


From Wiki:

The Fourth Circuit, by a 2 to 1 vote, reversed the district court and restored the new admission plan. The Fourth Circuit's decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court rejected to review the case on February 20, 2024 with Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito dissenting from the denial.[46]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_High_School_for_Science_and_Technology#Demographics_and_exam_controversy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't the new admissions policy have the biggest gains for economically disadvantaged Asian students?

Yes.

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”

page 16
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."




And...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students.

The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ by school year (fall):


The data also shows that Asian students were still accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students. The acceptance rate for Asian students drives the mean since they comprise such a large % of applicants and acceptances.

Asian 19%
Black 14% (5% lower)
Multiracial/Other* 13% (6% lower)
Hispanic 21%
White 17%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Didn't the new admissions policy have the biggest gains for economically disadvantaged Asian students?

Yes, low-income Asians were the largest beneficiaries of the admission changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't the new admissions policy have the biggest gains for economically disadvantaged Asian students?

Yes.

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”

page 16
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."




And...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students.

The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ by school year (fall):


The data also shows that Asian students were still accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students. The acceptance rate for Asian students drives the mean since they comprise such a large % of applicants and acceptances.

Asian 19%
Black 14% (5% lower)
Multiracial/Other* 13% (6% lower)
Hispanic 21%
White 17%

All this talk about discrimination is just nonsense. These people ought to be ashamed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't the new admissions policy have the biggest gains for economically disadvantaged Asian students?

Yes.

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”

page 16
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."




And...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students.

The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ by school year (fall):


The data also shows that Asian students were still accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students. The acceptance rate for Asian students drives the mean since they comprise such a large % of applicants and acceptances.

Asian 19%
Black 14% (5% lower)
Multiracial/Other* 13% (6% lower)
Hispanic 21%
White 17%

Can you update the chart?

Because the only group that seems to have decreased is asians while every other group increased.
That really seems like an attempt to racially balance the school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Didn't the new admissions policy have the biggest gains for economically disadvantaged Asian students?

Yes.

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/221280.P.pdf
Pg 7
“we are satisfied that the challenged admissions policy does not disparately impact Asian American students”

page 16
"Nevertheless, in the 2021 application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."




And...

There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students.

The number of Asian students enrolled at TJ by school year (fall):


The data also shows that Asian students were still accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students. The acceptance rate for Asian students drives the mean since they comprise such a large % of applicants and acceptances.

Asian 19%
Black 14% (5% lower)
Multiracial/Other* 13% (6% lower)
Hispanic 21%
White 17%

Can you update the chart?

Because the only group that seems to have decreased is asians while every other group increased.
That really seems like an attempt to racially balance the school

Why don't you do it? Why do people assert something and then expect others to do the work?