Court: TJ's New Admission Policy Does Not Discriminate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

I think the issue is that the quotas don't consider that kids zoned for Whitmans and Stones are in centers at other schools. Its an oddly obvious error on the part of the new admission standard.

It's not an error at all. The point is that students who, for whatever reason, are not at the AAP centers should still have a chance to go to TJ.

Parents assume that any kid who is bright at all is automatically center-bound, and that's simply not the case.

Right and the number of kids that go to the centers should be deducted in the quota calculation for the non-center MS. AAP kids deserve the same chance that non-AAP kids have.

... that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that if the point is to ensure that the kids at each school have a chance to go to TJ?

And AAP kids absolutely do have the same chance that non-AAP kids have. Indeed, probably a greater one because they receive the vast majority of the spots that are unallocated. I'd argue that the kids who get the worst of it are probably the non-AAP kids who go to the center schools. Not everyone at Carson or Longfellow are center kids, but they have to compete with the center kids for the allocated spaces at those schools. Where is your concern for those kids?

If a kid is zoned for Whitman but goes to Sandburg, his/her acceptance, assuming its quota based selection and not at-large, should be counted against the 1.5% quota of Whitman.

Sandberg is sent 12 kids last year, Whitman too few to be noted https://www.fcps.edu/news/thomas-jefferson-high-school-continues-increase-access-all

Neither group is costing your Precious their spot at TJ

The point is that someone from Whitman's zone attending Sandberg for AAP would have missed out on a spot because they had to compete against other AAP kids at Sandberg, instead of for Whitman's quota. Students at Whitman who weren't able to get in to AAP got spots instead of these kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

They don't know the applicants' race or name. This means it's truly really truly race blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

It comes down to how people define merit. The old process had a limited and parochial view whereas the new process seems to look a little deeper by understanding the student's context.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

They don't know the applicants' race or name. This means it's truly really truly race blind.

The district court judge disagreed.

One judge out of the three judges on the 4th Circuit’s panel disagreed.

The Supreme Court, which is now more conservative than the 4th Circuit, may yet disagree.

And if the Supreme Court agrees with the 4th Circuit, Youngkin could have the VDOE create a new policy for Governor’s Schools.

This will continue to drag on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

If you’re concerned about resource hoarding, you should be more concerned about TJ not serving its community. Kids handed an increasingly arbitrary golden ticket attend a state of the art school while kids living within walking distance to TJ attend run down Annandale or have to cross 395 and 495 to get to Edison. You have no problem with resource hoarding or elitism as long as the seats are doled out under the spoils system you prefer.

Terrible point you tried to make there. First of all, TJ wouldn't be an elite, state of the art school if it were NOT supported by Governor's School funds and private capital to do exactly what it is doing...

and second, the new system has greatly INCREASED the number of students from the area surrounding TJ who actually get to attend it instead of going to Annandale or Edison.

It's also the opposite of resource hoarding when the students benefiting from a system that you refer to as "increasingly arbitrary" don't have resources to begin with.

Just failed embarrassingly on all fronts here.

I don’t see any thoughtful response there. You are iso enamored of the geographical tokenism promoted under the new policy that you’re blind to the ongoing second-class experience afforded the vast majority of kids who live in the areas closest to TJ.

1) Edison and Annandale both got renovated maybe 8-12 years ago. Their physical plant is no more "second-class" than TJ's is, and calling their experience "second-class" is a needless insult to two hard-working administrations and staffs.

2) What makes the TJ experience different is the priorities of the students who attend and the unique facilities afforded by TJ's status as a Governor's School and the private investment that's been inspired by its existence in this form. That goes away if TJ becomes a neighborhood school - something its physical plant is unprepared to handle.

Annandale’s last renovation was cheap and more than a dozen years ago and the students in parts of North Springfield required to cross both 395 and 495 to get to Edison. The Edison renovation was more recent but nothing like TJ’s.

TJ absolutely could become a community school again. You just don’t want that to ever happen because you enjoy privileges for a small number of kids at the expense of others, so long as it’s on your terms. You certainly have no basis to imply others are “privilege hoarders.”

TJ’s building could not host a community school without extensive renovations and retrofitting. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the differences between TJ and a community school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

I think the issue is that the quotas don't consider that kids zoned for Whitmans and Stones are in centers at other schools. Its an oddly obvious error on the part of the new admission standard.

It's not an error at all. The point is that students who, for whatever reason, are not at the AAP centers should still have a chance to go to TJ.

Parents assume that any kid who is bright at all is automatically center-bound, and that's simply not the case.

Right and the number of kids that go to the centers should be deducted in the quota calculation for the non-center MS. AAP kids deserve the same chance that non-AAP kids have.

... that doesn't make any sense. Why would you do that if the point is to ensure that the kids at each school have a chance to go to TJ?

And AAP kids absolutely do have the same chance that non-AAP kids have. Indeed, probably a greater one because they receive the vast majority of the spots that are unallocated. I'd argue that the kids who get the worst of it are probably the non-AAP kids who go to the center schools. Not everyone at Carson or Longfellow are center kids, but they have to compete with the center kids for the allocated spaces at those schools. Where is your concern for those kids?

If a kid is zoned for Whitman but goes to Sandburg, his/her acceptance, assuming its quota based selection and not at-large, should be counted against the 1.5% quota of Whitman.

Sandberg is sent 12 kids last year, Whitman too few to be noted https://www.fcps.edu/news/thomas-jefferson-high-school-continues-increase-access-all

Neither group is costing your Precious their spot at TJ

The point is that someone from Whitman's zone attending Sandberg for AAP would have missed out on a spot because they had to compete against other AAP kids at Sandberg, instead of for Whitman's quota. Students at Whitman who weren't able to get in to AAP got spots instead of these kids.

The faulty assumption that you are making when you repeat this point - and expect everyone to agree with you - is that every kid in AAP is more qualified to go to TJ than EVERY kid from the non-center schools. And that’s just not the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

The faulty assumption made with THIS line of thinking is that the OLD admissions process was without bias. It was not. The inherent bias within it was the reason why the racial imbalance was what it was, why females were deeply underrepresented, and why less than 2% of each incoming class since forever has been economically disadvantaged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

If you’re concerned about resource hoarding, you should be more concerned about TJ not serving its community. Kids handed an increasingly arbitrary golden ticket attend a state of the art school while kids living within walking distance to TJ attend run down Annandale or have to cross 395 and 495 to get to Edison. You have no problem with resource hoarding or elitism as long as the seats are doled out under the spoils system you prefer.

Terrible point you tried to make there. First of all, TJ wouldn't be an elite, state of the art school if it were NOT supported by Governor's School funds and private capital to do exactly what it is doing...

and second, the new system has greatly INCREASED the number of students from the area surrounding TJ who actually get to attend it instead of going to Annandale or Edison.

It's also the opposite of resource hoarding when the students benefiting from a system that you refer to as "increasingly arbitrary" don't have resources to begin with.

Just failed embarrassingly on all fronts here.

I don’t see any thoughtful response there. You are iso enamored of the geographical tokenism promoted under the new policy that you’re blind to the ongoing second-class experience afforded the vast majority of kids who live in the areas closest to TJ.

1) Edison and Annandale both got renovated maybe 8-12 years ago. Their physical plant is no more "second-class" than TJ's is, and calling their experience "second-class" is a needless insult to two hard-working administrations and staffs.

2) What makes the TJ experience different is the priorities of the students who attend and the unique facilities afforded by TJ's status as a Governor's School and the private investment that's been inspired by its existence in this form. That goes away if TJ becomes a neighborhood school - something its physical plant is unprepared to handle.

Annandale’s last renovation was cheap and more than a dozen years ago and the students in parts of North Springfield required to cross both 395 and 495 to get to Edison. The Edison renovation was more recent but nothing like TJ’s.

TJ absolutely could become a community school again. You just don’t want that to ever happen because you enjoy privileges for a small number of kids at the expense of others, so long as it’s on your terms. You certainly have no basis to imply others are “privilege hoarders.”

TJ’s building could not host a community school without extensive renovations and retrofitting. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the differences between TJ and a community school.

I understand your desire to claim TJ would be wasted on the unwashed masses. It’s just not persuasive. There are also ongoing costs associated with not using it to benefit those living closest to the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

The faulty assumption made with THIS line of thinking is that the OLD admissions process was without bias. It was not. The inherent bias within it was the reason why the racial imbalance was what it was, why females were deeply underrepresented, and why less than 2% of each incoming class since forever has been economically disadvantaged.

You seem to be operating on the faulty premise that two wrongs make a right. That’s not how courts typically consider Constitutional challenges to actions by government actors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It was sheer idiocy to encourage high achieving kids to attend AAP centers and then have the same 1.5% quota for Carson and a bottom-feeder like Poe or Whitman. Even if it wasn’t illegal it was sure as hell stupid.

Why? The kids at Carson, Rocky Run, and Longfellow had plenty of other spaces to compete for after the quotas were filled and ended up doing very well. They're still getting 30-50 kids into TJ every year while the Whitmans of the world are getting 5. Is that really so awful in exchange for every student in the catchment area feeling like they have a shot at TJ?

If your answer is yes, you're engaging in a behavior called "resource hoarding".

If you’re concerned about resource hoarding, you should be more concerned about TJ not serving its community. Kids handed an increasingly arbitrary golden ticket attend a state of the art school while kids living within walking distance to TJ attend run down Annandale or have to cross 395 and 495 to get to Edison. You have no problem with resource hoarding or elitism as long as the seats are doled out under the spoils system you prefer.

Terrible point you tried to make there. First of all, TJ wouldn't be an elite, state of the art school if it were NOT supported by Governor's School funds and private capital to do exactly what it is doing...

and second, the new system has greatly INCREASED the number of students from the area surrounding TJ who actually get to attend it instead of going to Annandale or Edison.

It's also the opposite of resource hoarding when the students benefiting from a system that you refer to as "increasingly arbitrary" don't have resources to begin with.

Just failed embarrassingly on all fronts here.

I don’t see any thoughtful response there. You are iso enamored of the geographical tokenism promoted under the new policy that you’re blind to the ongoing second-class experience afforded the vast majority of kids who live in the areas closest to TJ.

1) Edison and Annandale both got renovated maybe 8-12 years ago. Their physical plant is no more "second-class" than TJ's is, and calling their experience "second-class" is a needless insult to two hard-working administrations and staffs.

2) What makes the TJ experience different is the priorities of the students who attend and the unique facilities afforded by TJ's status as a Governor's School and the private investment that's been inspired by its existence in this form. That goes away if TJ becomes a neighborhood school - something its physical plant is unprepared to handle.

Annandale’s last renovation was cheap and more than a dozen years ago and the students in parts of North Springfield required to cross both 395 and 495 to get to Edison. The Edison renovation was more recent but nothing like TJ’s.

TJ absolutely could become a community school again. You just don’t want that to ever happen because you enjoy privileges for a small number of kids at the expense of others, so long as it’s on your terms. You certainly have no basis to imply others are “privilege hoarders.”

TJ’s building could not host a community school without extensive renovations and retrofitting. If you don’t understand that, you don’t understand the differences between TJ and a community school.

I understand your desire to claim TJ would be wasted on the unwashed masses. It’s just not persuasive. There are also ongoing costs associated with not using it to benefit those living closest to the school.

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m telling you that the building is inadequate to host a community school. The cafeteria would have to be massively expanded, the research wing and science labs would have to be demolished and retrofitted to improve capacity or else exist as wasted space, and that’s just the beginning of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

I don't know, but it's a race-blind process that somehow always picks more Asians than anyone else, so not sure on which planet that is discrimination.

Whether it’s truly a race-blind process is something with which the courts may continue to grapple. If a process is facially race-blind, but was adopted to make it comparatively more difficult for one racial group to gain admission, the Supreme Court may yet end up determining that it violates the Constitution. It’s not simply a question of whether Asian students are “over-represented” relative to their overall percentage of the student population.

The faulty assumption made with THIS line of thinking is that the OLD admissions process was without bias. It was not. The inherent bias within it was the reason why the racial imbalance was what it was, why females were deeply underrepresented, and why less than 2% of each incoming class since forever has been economically disadvantaged.

You seem to be operating on the faulty premise that two wrongs make a right. That’s not how courts typically consider Constitutional challenges to actions by government actors.

Under the new admissions process, it remains easier for Asian students to gain admission to the school than students from any other demographic. Asian students have a higher admission rate per 100 students applying than any other demographic.

The new process DOES discriminate somewhat against one group - students who are not under-resourced. It does NOT discriminate against Asian students. To argue otherwise is either to ignore basic statistical analysis or to engage in Asian supremacy. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh boy, this is really going to piss off all the Annandale Asians.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/23/thomas-jefferson-admissions-policy-upheld/

You don’t know much about Asian Americans in the DMV. The Asians living in Annandale are lower SES/economically diverse and lower SES Asians do much better under the new policy than they did. If it upsets anyone, it might be some Langley/McLean and Centreville Asians.

Do they do better in Annandale, or are they now giving out spots to lower income Asians at Centerville/Langley/McLean?

They allocated seats proportionally throughout the county so all students can participate not just those able to afford the best test prep.