Federal judge rules that admissions changes at nation’s top public school discriminate against Asian

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which is the more fair system (a simplification):

System A: Students take a test to get into a school. The top 550 students get in. There is no consideration for geographic diversity. There is no consideration for SES diversity. Test prepping is rampant, and reserved for those that can afford it.

System B: Students take a test. Prior to the test, the school makes a decision on what scores are likely to result in "successful" students. Everyone who scores in that range is put into a pool. 750 students make the cut. The student population is then selected with various factors in mind, including geographic and SES diversity. Students that are ranked from 450-550 are left out.

A. I think as a state and as a larger society we need to have opportunities for the smartest students. I don’t see anything wrong with test prepping. They are still aceing the test. I went to a similar school and many of the students were very poor but spent all their free time on academics.

(My kids are not TJ kids)

Honestly I think the solution is to make the test much harder. The reason it’s so amenable to prep is because they watered it down years ago to try to diversify the school.

Absolutely correct. They tinkered with the admissions changes at lease 3 or 4 times that I remember in the past 17 years or so. This time they went all out and got spanked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the change mostly just get more privileged white kids into TJ?

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class (27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, from 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, from 6% to 13% (30% of FCPS)
> more white students, from 18% to 22% (38% of FCPS)
> more female students, from 42% to 46% (48% of FCPS)
> fewer Asian students, from 73% to 54% (20% of FCPS)
> fewer private school students, from 10% to 3%

So basically it sounds like the result was a much more representative class overall, but the primary problem is that Asians went from being >3.5x disproportionate representation to now only >2.5x disproportionate representation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the change mostly just get more privileged white kids into TJ?

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class (27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, from 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, from 6% to 13% (30% of FCPS)
> more white students, from 18% to 22% (38% of FCPS)
> more female students, from 42% to 46% (48% of FCPS)
> fewer Asian students, from 73% to 54% (20% of FCPS)
> fewer private school students, from 10% to 3%

So basically it sounds like the result was a much more representative class overall, but the primary problem is that Asians went from being >3.5x disproportionate representation to now only >2.5x disproportionate representation?

Why are you applying the proportionality only to TJ? Let’s make everything that is funded by taxpayers proportional. The police, prosecutors, judges, school board members, teachers, school administrators, board of supervisors etc. etc. etc. Asians make up about 18% of Fairfax county but make up maybe 1-2% of the positions mentioned so all those and everything funded by tax money should be proportional.

You would certainly support that right.

[Anonymous]

Not being a resident of VA, I wasn’t paying any attention to this scandal until I happened to see the texts. My God. Imagine believing you were voting on a plan that was racist and discriminated against Asians but still proceeding full steam ahead.

[Anonymous]

Just read the TJAAG response. This sentence was interesting.

“ The largest change prompted by new admissions standards was the drastic increase in economically disadvantaged students from less than 1% of the admitted class to 25%, much closer to the proportion of the draw districts. ”

Given that every child is eligible for free meals last year, the 25% is likely not accurate. Any parent could check yes if they wanted to.

I don’t think they have a strong appeal case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the change mostly just get more privileged white kids into TJ?

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class (27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, from 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, from 6% to 13% (30% of FCPS)
> more white students, from 18% to 22% (38% of FCPS)
> more female students, from 42% to 46% (48% of FCPS)
> fewer Asian students, from 73% to 54% (20% of FCPS)
> fewer private school students, from 10% to 3%

So basically it sounds like the result was a much more representative class overall, but the primary problem is that Asians went from being >3.5x disproportionate representation to now only >2.5x disproportionate representation?

Only one minor problem with this race based change:

"goal was “to have TJ reflect the demographics of the surrounding area, described primarily in racial terms.” Hilton wrote that this aim amounts to “racial balancing for its own sake,” and as such is “patently unconstitutional.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did the change mostly just get more privileged white kids into TJ?

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class (27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, from 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, from 6% to 13% (30% of FCPS)
> more white students, from 18% to 22% (38% of FCPS)
> more female students, from 42% to 46% (48% of FCPS)
> fewer Asian students, from 73% to 54% (20% of FCPS)
> fewer private school students, from 10% to 3%

FCPS is 10% black students and 6 percent mixed students, not 30%.

https://www.fcps.edu/about-fcps

[Anonymous]

Sorry typo on my phone.

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class
(27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, 6% to 13% (16%)
> more white students, 18% to 22% (38%)
> more female students, 42% to 46% (48%)
> fewer Asian students, 73% to 54% (20%)
> fewer private school students, 10% to 3%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry typo on my phone.

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class
(27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, 6% to 13% (16%)
> more white students, 18% to 22% (38%)
> more female students, 42% to 46% (48%)
> fewer Asian students, 73% to 54% (20%)
> fewer private school students, 10% to 3%

Socially engineered, Constitutionally invalid, and less qualified. Hats off to the liars and crooked politicians who played identity politics and lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry typo on my phone.

Here are the demographic changes from class or 2024 to 2025.
> more students from all over the county; every single MS is now represented
> more students from ED backgrounds, going from <1% to 25% of the freshman class
(27% of FCPS students are ED)
> more Hispanic students, 3% to 11% (27% of FCPS)
> more black/mixed students, 6% to 13% (16%)
> more white students, 18% to 22% (38%)
> more female students, 42% to 46% (48%)
> fewer Asian students, 73% to 54% (20%)
> fewer private school students, 10% to 3%

Socially engineered, Constitutionally invalid, and less qualified. Hats off to the liars and crooked politicians who played identity politics and lost.

They haven't lost. That judge has been hostile to any affirmative action for years. I appeared before him 15 years ago and he was hostile to affirmative action then. Surprised he's even still on the bench. Any other judge down there, it would have gone the other way. Reagan appointee.

[Anonymous]

This isn't going to stand if appealed. And I'm not going to lay out the brief for FCPS since I'm not getting paid, but they have a very winnable case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This isn't going to stand if appealed. And I'm not going to lay out the brief for FCPS since I'm not getting paid, but they have a very winnable case.

Keyboard warrior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't going to stand if appealed. And I'm not going to lay out the brief for FCPS since I'm not getting paid, but they have a very winnable case.

Keyboard warrior.

? it was just my opinion from someone who practices in this field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't going to stand if appealed. And I'm not going to lay out the brief for FCPS since I'm not getting paid, but they have a very winnable case.

Keyboard warrior.

I'll just tell you, you get a different judge than Claude Hilton and that case goes the other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This isn't going to stand if appealed. And I'm not going to lay out the brief for FCPS since I'm not getting paid, but they have a very winnable case.

Keyboard warrior.

I'll just tell you, you get a different judge than Claude Hilton and that case goes the other way.

Ok.