Va. committee passes bill banning admissions discrimination

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

+100

No, it’s more like… all basketball nets should be automatically lowered when an Asian or Hispanic too comes up to take a shot, then returned back to normal for other races. To equalize inherent height privileges. This will allow for Asians and Hispanics to be recruited in greater numbers by colleges and professional teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

Not to mention there are characteristics beyond just height and even skill set that contribute to a good team. Very few high school team sports coaches simply select the best players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

Not to mention there are characteristics beyond just height and even skill set that contribute to a good team. Very few high school team sports coaches simply select the best players.

Ok then. It's settled. URMS don't need any "boost/preferences" in the academic space. You made a very good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

Not to mention there are characteristics beyond just height and even skill set that contribute to a good team. Very few high school team sports coaches simply select the best players.

Ok then. It's settled. URMS don't need any "boost/preferences" in the academic space. You made a very good point.

And the “failure to grasp analogies” bug bites again.

[Anonymous]

If you are a very good athlete with a cooperative attitude, you'll play. Sports do vary as to tge degree of subjectivity but again if you are really good you will play. I was a 4:07 miler in high school in the 70's and never worried about making any team. I ran shorter events as well which were largely dominated by black athletes and frankly athletes from all over the globe, and knew of no Division 1 school that recruited me for scholarships cared about my race. Be good enough ia racket and results will obtain.

My kid went to TJ and went on to graduate from Princeton in three years. I came from a poor dumb jock single mother background and wouldn't have ever thought of test prep or anything like it. My focus was just as with athletics - support your kid and instill them with confidence and let them succeed or fail. One problem with TJ - and no one likes to talk about it - is that it is not a place to go if you struggle to get in. It won't just be difficult and trying, but results will not be that great. This is not addressed to any racial group but to all students. I am not sure some parents quite get this. And it applies to colleges, too. Go to a place that is suitable for your skills and prep level - the enterprise of getting into reach schools is a racket. I saw this in undergrad days - my school was the only top 10 school on the east of the Mississippi which gave athletic scholarships, and the offspring of millionaires who bought their way in did not prosper. I thought the chase for prestige very limiting.. TJ`s historical math profiency is daunting- my kid took calcium in 9th grade and was far from alone. The county can dilute the curriculum but you will still have a cadre of high achievers which pressurizes everyone. Achievement is not a zero sum game - certain groups do better than others. The East African athletes I competed against were just beginning to dominate, and not at my expense. They were simply better. And as a generalization they were great students as they knew the value of an American athletic scholarship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are a very good athlete with a cooperative attitude, you'll play. Sports do vary as to tge degree of subjectivity but again if you are really good you will play. I was a 4:07 miler in high school in the 70's and never worried about making any team. I ran shorter events as well which were largely dominated by black athletes and frankly athletes from all over the globe, and knew of no Division 1 school that recruited me for scholarships cared about my race. Be good enough ia racket and results will obtain.

My kid went to TJ and went on to graduate from Princeton in three years. I came from a poor dumb jock single mother background and wouldn't have ever thought of test prep or anything like it. My focus was just as with athletics - support your kid and instill them with confidence and let them succeed or fail. One problem with TJ - and no one likes to talk about it - is that it is not a place to go if you struggle to get in. It won't just be difficult and trying, but results will not be that great. This is not addressed to any racial group but to all students. I am not sure some parents quite get this. And it applies to colleges, too. Go to a place that is suitable for your skills and prep level - the enterprise of getting into reach schools is a racket. I saw this in undergrad days - my school was the only top 10 school on the east of the Mississippi which gave athletic scholarships, and the offspring of millionaires who bought their way in did not prosper. I thought the chase for prestige very limiting.. TJ`s historical math profiency is daunting- my kid took calcium in 9th grade and was far from alone. The county can dilute the curriculum but you will still have a cadre of high achievers which pressurizes everyone. Achievement is not a zero sum game - certain groups do better than others. The East African athletes I competed against were just beginning to dominate, and not at my expense. They were simply better. And as a generalization they were great students as they knew the value of an American athletic scholarship.

Hopefully, LWNJs will read your informed and considered information with open mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:…to ensure that each public middle school that is eligible to send students to attend such Governor's school offers coursework, curriculum, and instruction that is comparable in content and in rigor in order to provide each student in each such middle school with the opportunity to gain admission to and excel academically at such Governor's school. [

Does this mean that all MSs have to offer the exact same course offerings?

Read one way, this clause could represent a big win for progressives.

No, it certainly isn't. Progressives want equitable outcomes regardless of individual choices. Offering these classes only avail the students to the classes. It would still be up to the students to meet the prerequisites and take the actual classes.

False. Progressives want equitable opportunities. Which is precisely what this is.

But misrepresenting the goals of progressives is probably a good strategy for winning points from the folks here who think that only Asians care about education.

That's not what equity means in progressive parlance. Equity is *what you have*, meaning privileges. They are not just after equal opportunity. Here it is straight for the horse's mouth:

http://www.theinclusionsolution.me/equity-vs-equality-eliminating-opportunity-gaps-education/

As shown in the illustrative cartoon at the top, it's not that they want to give every child the opportunity to build their own box if they need it. No. It's that they want two boxes to be provided to that one child, at the expense of the other child.

If you can look at that picture and not conclude that the best thing to do is give two boxes to the short kid so everyone can see, no one should ever let you anywhere near children. That’s Child Protective Services level of psychopathy.

The problem is - what do you do if there are only two boxes? In your world, you give it to the short kid and the expense of the taller kid because he has "height privilege" and so did his ancestors so tough luck for him even though now he can't see because we are taking his box away.

If there are two boxes, you do what you can to make sure that at least one additional kid can see. In this example, there's no inherently greater value to helping either of the two other kids, so you pick one and try to find another box.

Advocates for the previous status quo would give the tallest kid a box and save the other two in case more tall kids showed up.

If they own the box, they should keep it and not have it taken away because some SJWs decide otherwise.

Ah... but they do not own the box. They just historically have received the vast majority of the boxes. And they've recognized that the boxes are probably more useful to the short kids than the tall kids, whose outcomes won't be impacted nearly as much.

Hey, Asians are the shortest on average and whites/blacks are the tallest on average.

Under PP's logic, Asians should get automatic 10 inches added to their height for selecting of basketball teams. They need it the most and would have the greatest impact.

+100

Some of the greatest point guards are relatively short.

Even in basketball there are different skill sets and different positions that come together to make a better team. They aren’t all super tall defenders.

Not to mention there are characteristics beyond just height and even skill set that contribute to a good team. Very few high school team sports coaches simply select the best players.

Ok then. It's settled. URMS don't need any "boost/preferences" in the academic space. You made a very good point.

And the “failure to grasp analogies” bug bites again.

LOL. Are they really that dumb or do they just like throwing out random hysterical comments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are a very good athlete with a cooperative attitude, you'll play. Sports do vary as to tge degree of subjectivity but again if you are really good you will play. I was a 4:07 miler in high school in the 70's and never worried about making any team. I ran shorter events as well which were largely dominated by black athletes and frankly athletes from all over the globe, and knew of no Division 1 school that recruited me for scholarships cared about my race. Be good enough ia racket and results will obtain.

My kid went to TJ and went on to graduate from Princeton in three years. I came from a poor dumb jock single mother background and wouldn't have ever thought of test prep or anything like it. My focus was just as with athletics - support your kid and instill them with confidence and let them succeed or fail. One problem with TJ - and no one likes to talk about it - is that it is not a place to go if you struggle to get in. It won't just be difficult and trying, but results will not be that great. This is not addressed to any racial group but to all students. I am not sure some parents quite get this. And it applies to colleges, too. Go to a place that is suitable for your skills and prep level - the enterprise of getting into reach schools is a racket. I saw this in undergrad days - my school was the only top 10 school on the east of the Mississippi which gave athletic scholarships, and the offspring of millionaires who bought their way in did not prosper. I thought the chase for prestige very limiting.. TJ`s historical math profiency is daunting- my kid took calcium in 9th grade and was far from alone. The county can dilute the curriculum but you will still have a cadre of high achievers which pressurizes everyone. Achievement is not a zero sum game - certain groups do better than others. The East African athletes I competed against were just beginning to dominate, and not at my expense. They were simply better. And as a generalization they were great students as they knew the value of an American athletic scholarship.

PP responding. Your narrative is quite compelling and extremely important for parents who feel like they need to invest serious resources to optimize their chances in the TJ admissions process.

I would only make one point in reply - you participated in a largely individual sport: track and field. My analogy was expressly for team sports, which I consider to be a much more relevant analogy to the elite classroom environment. In a place like TJ, collaborative problem-solving is the mark of a truly successful student able to maximize their contributions to and their dividends from the TJ experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you are a very good athlete with a cooperative attitude, you'll play. Sports do vary as to tge degree of subjectivity but again if you are really good you will play. I was a 4:07 miler in high school in the 70's and never worried about making any team. I ran shorter events as well which were largely dominated by black athletes and frankly athletes from all over the globe, and knew of no Division 1 school that recruited me for scholarships cared about my race. Be good enough ia racket and results will obtain.

My kid went to TJ and went on to graduate from Princeton in three years. I came from a poor dumb jock single mother background and wouldn't have ever thought of test prep or anything like it. My focus was just as with athletics - support your kid and instill them with confidence and let them succeed or fail. One problem with TJ - and no one likes to talk about it - is that it is not a place to go if you struggle to get in. It won't just be difficult and trying, but results will not be that great. This is not addressed to any racial group but to all students. I am not sure some parents quite get this. And it applies to colleges, too. Go to a place that is suitable for your skills and prep level - the enterprise of getting into reach schools is a racket. I saw this in undergrad days - my school was the only top 10 school on the east of the Mississippi which gave athletic scholarships, and the offspring of millionaires who bought their way in did not prosper. I thought the chase for prestige very limiting.. TJ`s historical math profiency is daunting- my kid took calcium in 9th grade and was far from alone. The county can dilute the curriculum but you will still have a cadre of high achievers which pressurizes everyone. Achievement is not a zero sum game - certain groups do better than others. The East African athletes I competed against were just beginning to dominate, and not at my expense. They were simply better. And as a generalization they were great students as they knew the value of an American athletic scholarship.

Agree with this perspective. Unfortunately, those who prep tell their kids they are smart and the testing process does a poor job of identifying those who are actually smart. What ends up happening is that there are a lot of kids at TJ that probably wouldn't have gotten in without the prep. As an aside, I don't think a "dumb" kid will get in with prep.

When my son went there, i was fully expecting to see a lot of those preppers fail. It was my son who suffered in 9th grade. He was not used to the rigor of a MS like Rachel Carson, the competitive environment and the extra work those kids were accustomed to during their prep years. Not many of them dropped out. I think the prep discipline helped them continue to do well for the rest of their time at TJ.

This leads me to conclude that most of the kids that do make it through prep into TJ are those on the borderline - Smart, but not geniuses. I don't think anything else can explain their success at TJ and later on in college. Unlike in sports, there is not a single medal winner at the end of the day, so everyone who makes it through the grind has a successful outcome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a very good athlete with a cooperative attitude, you'll play. Sports do vary as to tge degree of subjectivity but again if you are really good you will play. I was a 4:07 miler in high school in the 70's and never worried about making any team. I ran shorter events as well which were largely dominated by black athletes and frankly athletes from all over the globe, and knew of no Division 1 school that recruited me for scholarships cared about my race. Be good enough ia racket and results will obtain.

My kid went to TJ and went on to graduate from Princeton in three years. I came from a poor dumb jock single mother background and wouldn't have ever thought of test prep or anything like it. My focus was just as with athletics - support your kid and instill them with confidence and let them succeed or fail. One problem with TJ - and no one likes to talk about it - is that it is not a place to go if you struggle to get in. It won't just be difficult and trying, but results will not be that great. This is not addressed to any racial group but to all students. I am not sure some parents quite get this. And it applies to colleges, too. Go to a place that is suitable for your skills and prep level - the enterprise of getting into reach schools is a racket. I saw this in undergrad days - my school was the only top 10 school on the east of the Mississippi which gave athletic scholarships, and the offspring of millionaires who bought their way in did not prosper. I thought the chase for prestige very limiting.. TJ`s historical math profiency is daunting- my kid took calcium in 9th grade and was far from alone. The county can dilute the curriculum but you will still have a cadre of high achievers which pressurizes everyone. Achievement is not a zero sum game - certain groups do better than others. The East African athletes I competed against were just beginning to dominate, and not at my expense. They were simply better. And as a generalization they were great students as they knew the value of an American athletic scholarship.

Agree with this perspective. Unfortunately, those who prep tell their kids they are smart and the testing process does a poor job of identifying those who are actually smart. What ends up happening is that there are a lot of kids at TJ that probably wouldn't have gotten in without the prep. As an aside, I don't think a "dumb" kid will get in with prep.

When my son went there, i was fully expecting to see a lot of those preppers fail. It was my son who suffered in 9th grade. He was not used to the rigor of a MS like Rachel Carson, the competitive environment and the extra work those kids were accustomed to during their prep years. Not many of them dropped out. I think the prep discipline helped them continue to do well for the rest of their time at TJ.

This leads me to conclude that most of the kids that do make it through prep into TJ are those on the borderline - Smart, but not geniuses. I don't think anything else can explain their success at TJ and later on in college. Unlike in sports, there is not a single medal winner at the end of the day, so everyone who makes it through the grind has a successful outcome.

Yup it's telling that some anecdotes from TJ are extremely long hours and some are it's nothing out of the ordinary

The long hours folks are from the smart and work hard group, those folks should not really be at TJ but they are willing to put in the work. There are plenty of folks in FCPS that could make it at TJ if they worked 2,3,4 hours plus a day on STEM.

[Anonymous]

End of the day, we need hard work and discipline in addition just being smart. I am sure we all have seen really smart people don’t end up doing much in life because they are lazy or isolate themselves from others.

Prepping is scorned upon, but it does test if someone is willing to put an effort and prepare well for the challenge. As others said prepping doesn’t take you very far unless you have the capacity to absorb and apply the knowledge. Realistically, the test should be hard enough that simple prep isn’t sufficient and clearly isolates the talented kids from prepped for the test kids - similar to math/science Olympiad or entrance exams to some prestigious universities across the world. Open some free prep to kids who can’t afford it but have talent. I know this will never be implemented, but this is how o think kids should be selected to magnet schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:End of the day, we need hard work and discipline in addition just being smart. I am sure we all have seen really smart people don’t end up doing much in life because they are lazy or isolate themselves from others.

Prepping is scorned upon, but it does test if someone is willing to put an effort and prepare well for the challenge. As others said prepping doesn’t take you very far unless you have the capacity to absorb and apply the knowledge. Realistically, the test should be hard enough that simple prep isn’t sufficient and clearly isolates the talented kids from prepped for the test kids - similar to math/science Olympiad or entrance exams to some prestigious universities across the world. Open some free prep to kids who can’t afford it but have talent. I know this will never be implemented, but this is how o think kids should be selected to magnet schools.

FCPS board members are not interested in any tests especially difficult variety. Those tests will likely increase Asians instead of decrease them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://wtop.com/virginia/2022/03/va-senate-passes-bill-banning-admissions-discrimination/amp/
“The bottom line is the (TJ) policy was adopted in order to, frankly, reduce the number of Asian Americans that were attending Thomas Jefferson,” Sen. Chap Petersen said. “And all you have to do is look at all the public comments that were being made at the time.”

Where does this bill stand presently ? 5/6/22.