What are the new TJ feeders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you give a preference to low income kids, asian kids are likely to dominate that group.
The asian faith in education is an advantage in wealthy neighborhoods but it's not a huge advantage because everyone values education in wealthy neighborhoods enough to dedicate their plentiful resources towards education. Asians just do it at a higher rate.
But in poorer neighborhoods, not everyone values education enough to dedicate scarce resources. Poor asian families are far more inclined to make the painful sacrifices necessary to compete with their more affluent peers.

If you think social mobility is an important aspect of TJ's mission then this is good.
But if you think that academic excellence and serving the rare academic talents is also a part of their mission then you should support reinstating standardized tests.
I remember in 2020, the test optional or test blind movement sin colleges was an argument for why TJ should get rid of the test.
By that logic, shouldn't the recent move back to rest required (especially in light of the research regarding highly competitive environments) compel us to reinstate standardized testing?

Keep the FARM preference if you must. But adjust the 1.5% to account for center schools like Twain and Edison and reinstate the test. Once you do that you will see that a lot of the qualified poor kids are going to the center schools and penalizing them for challenging themselves in middle school is exactly the wrong thing to do.

[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%

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

There is no question that the admissions change was driven by a racial discrimination.
You might think of it as benign racial discrimination by racially balancing the school to look more like the county but it is racial discrimination nonetheless.

[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

Except the number of Asian students enrolled at TJ has not decreased.

If you look at the four years before the admissions change and the four years after, there are on average MORE Asian students at TJ today.



It wasn't about reducing the number of Asian students; it was about adding others. It wasn't zero sum - they added seats to open up access to kids from across the county. There are just as many Asian students there today as there were before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the number of Asian students enrolled at TJ has not decreased.

If you look at the four years before the admissions change and the four years after, there are on average MORE Asian students at TJ today.



It wasn't about reducing the number of Asian students; it was about adding others. It wasn't zero sum - they added seats to open up access to kids from across the county. There are just as many Asian students there today as there were before.

What about the percentages?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the number of Asian students enrolled at TJ has not decreased.

If you look at the four years before the admissions change and the four years after, there are on average MORE Asian students at TJ today.



It wasn't about reducing the number of Asian students; it was about adding others. It wasn't zero sum - they added seats to open up access to kids from across the county. There are just as many Asian students there today as there were before.

What about the percentages?

from another thread:

Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1200+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the number of Asian students enrolled at TJ has not decreased.

If you look at the four years before the admissions change and the four years after, there are on average MORE Asian students at TJ today.



It wasn't about reducing the number of Asian students; it was about adding others. It wasn't zero sum - they added seats to open up access to kids from across the county. There are just as many Asian students there today as there were before.

What about the percentages?

from another thread:

Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1200+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

As has been posted countless times, the numbers in this chart are WRONG (not to mention meaningless). Stop pushing false data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the number of Asian students enrolled at TJ has not decreased.

If you look at the four years before the admissions change and the four years after, there are on average MORE Asian students at TJ today.



It wasn't about reducing the number of Asian students; it was about adding others. It wasn't zero sum - they added seats to open up access to kids from across the county. There are just as many Asian students there today as there were before.

Get better at reading graphs. The relative decline resembles a free fall. What you called "increase" represent 5% of the baseline 7 years ago, where non-Asian increased by bugging 46%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the number of Asian students enrolled at TJ has not decreased.

If you look at the four years before the admissions change and the four years after, there are on average MORE Asian students at TJ today.



It wasn't about reducing the number of Asian students; it was about adding others. It wasn't zero sum - they added seats to open up access to kids from across the county. There are just as many Asian students there today as there were before.

What about the percentages?

from another thread:

Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1200+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

As has been posted countless times, the numbers in this chart are WRONG (not to mention meaningless). Stop pushing false data.

You have hard time accepting facts. "the proportion of Asian Americans decreased from 73.05% to 54.36%", TJ wikipedia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the number of Asian students enrolled at TJ has not decreased.

If you look at the four years before the admissions change and the four years after, there are on average MORE Asian students at TJ today.



It wasn't about reducing the number of Asian students; it was about adding others. It wasn't zero sum - they added seats to open up access to kids from across the county. There are just as many Asian students there today as there were before.

Get better at reading graphs. The relative decline resembles a free fall. What you called "increase" represent 5% of the baseline 7 years ago, where non-Asian increased by bugging 46%.

This chart is homebrew. They made it themselves.The numbers are wrong.

The asian admits for the last 20 years are:

2024: 315
2023: 340
2022: 330
2021: 299
2020: 355
2019: 360
2018: 316
2017: 367
2016: 335
2015: 346
2014: 323
2013: 317
2012: 308
2011: 273
2010: 276
2009: 260 Asian admissions exceeds 50% of the entering class
2008: 219 This is the first year when Asian admissions exceeded white admissions of 205 (and black admissions of 9 and hispanic admissions of 10)
2007: 188
2006: 192
2005: 160
2004: 143

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you give a preference to low income kids, asian kids are likely to dominate that group.
The asian faith in education is an advantage in wealthy neighborhoods but it's not a huge advantage because everyone values education in wealthy neighborhoods enough to dedicate their plentiful resources towards education. Asians just do it at a higher rate.
But in poorer neighborhoods, not everyone values education enough to dedicate scarce resources. Poor asian families are far more inclined to make the painful sacrifices necessary to compete with their more affluent peers.

If you think social mobility is an important aspect of TJ's mission then this is good.
But if you think that academic excellence and serving the rare academic talents is also a part of their mission then you should support reinstating standardized tests.
I remember in 2020, the test optional or test blind movement sin colleges was an argument for why TJ should get rid of the test.
By that logic, shouldn't the recent move back to rest required (especially in light of the research regarding highly competitive environments) compel us to reinstate standardized testing?

Keep the FARM preference if you must. But adjust the 1.5% to account for center schools like Twain and Edison and reinstate the test. Once you do that you will see that a lot of the qualified poor kids are going to the center schools and penalizing them for challenging themselves in middle school is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Even low-income Asians benefit from unearned Asian privilege. Which is why Asians, specifically, must be excluded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you give a preference to low income kids, asian kids are likely to dominate that group.
The asian faith in education is an advantage in wealthy neighborhoods but it's not a huge advantage because everyone values education in wealthy neighborhoods enough to dedicate their plentiful resources towards education. Asians just do it at a higher rate.
But in poorer neighborhoods, not everyone values education enough to dedicate scarce resources. Poor asian families are far more inclined to make the painful sacrifices necessary to compete with their more affluent peers.

If you think social mobility is an important aspect of TJ's mission then this is good.
But if you think that academic excellence and serving the rare academic talents is also a part of their mission then you should support reinstating standardized tests.
I remember in 2020, the test optional or test blind movement sin colleges was an argument for why TJ should get rid of the test.
By that logic, shouldn't the recent move back to rest required (especially in light of the research regarding highly competitive environments) compel us to reinstate standardized testing?

Keep the FARM preference if you must. But adjust the 1.5% to account for center schools like Twain and Edison and reinstate the test. Once you do that you will see that a lot of the qualified poor kids are going to the center schools and penalizing them for challenging themselves in middle school is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Even low-income Asians benefit from unearned Asian privilege. Which is why Asians, specifically, must be excluded.

must be excluded? Of course, the process is race aware, and needs applicant to fill in race to exclude certain kind.

[Anonymous]

Those of you who are saying kids run out of math classes - don't a lot of these kids start taking college level math NOVA at this point? I honestly don't know. Seems like the logical next step?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those of you who are saying kids run out of math classes - don't a lot of these kids start taking college level math NOVA at this point? I honestly don't know. Seems like the logical next step?

Here are the NOVA DE math classes, https://www.fcps.edu/academics/dual-enrollment

But if more are needed, student can register directly with NOVA. They ask for HS Counselor only if student is not in at least junior year yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the number of Asian students enrolled at TJ has not decreased.

If you look at the four years before the admissions change and the four years after, there are on average MORE Asian students at TJ today.



It wasn't about reducing the number of Asian students; it was about adding others. It wasn't zero sum - they added seats to open up access to kids from across the county. There are just as many Asian students there today as there were before.

What about the percentages?

from another thread:

Along with the admissions change, the total number of seats were expanded by 100 seats, but Asian students were solely excluded from participating in the expanded seat assignment. There are consistently 1200+ declined Asian applicants each year, largest among all ethnicities, and none of them are allowed to receive a single seat from the expanded seat quota.

As has been posted countless times, the numbers in this chart are WRONG (not to mention meaningless). Stop pushing false data.

You have hard time accepting facts. "the proportion of Asian Americans decreased from 73.05% to 54.36%", TJ wikipedia.

The graph is wrong. Fix it or delete it.

Here are the correct numbers:

2016 69%
2017 75%
2018 65%
2019 71%
2020 73%
2021 54%
2022 60%
2023 62%
2024 57%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If you give a preference to low income kids, asian kids are likely to dominate that group.
The asian faith in education is an advantage in wealthy neighborhoods but it's not a huge advantage because everyone values education in wealthy neighborhoods enough to dedicate their plentiful resources towards education. Asians just do it at a higher rate.
But in poorer neighborhoods, not everyone values education enough to dedicate scarce resources. Poor asian families are far more inclined to make the painful sacrifices necessary to compete with their more affluent peers.

If you think social mobility is an important aspect of TJ's mission then this is good.
But if you think that academic excellence and serving the rare academic talents is also a part of their mission then you should support reinstating standardized tests.
I remember in 2020, the test optional or test blind movement sin colleges was an argument for why TJ should get rid of the test.
By that logic, shouldn't the recent move back to rest required (especially in light of the research regarding highly competitive environments) compel us to reinstate standardized testing?

Keep the FARM preference if you must. But adjust the 1.5% to account for center schools like Twain and Edison and reinstate the test. Once you do that you will see that a lot of the qualified poor kids are going to the center schools and penalizing them for challenging themselves in middle school is exactly the wrong thing to do.

Even low-income Asians benefit from unearned Asian privilege. Which is why Asians, specifically, must be excluded.

must be excluded? Of course, the process is race aware, and needs applicant to fill in race to exclude certain kind.

I guess you have to resort to lying when you don't have a valid argument to make.

The admissions process is race blind.