Race and TJ admissions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Diversity is great. Viciously targeting a group is not.

Thankfully, the group that was targeted was relatively small (as Judge Heytens indicated) and was targeted largely because of resource hoarding behavior.

I've read the opinion and dissent and I'm not sure what you're referring to?

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/221280R1.U.pdf

Ignorant and lazy progressives. Can't even be bothered to put in the effort to read That's exactly why they want a subjective process.

Umm, okay. If you're calling me a progressive, you're bonkers. You also cannot be bothered to back up your nonsense, so there's that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

I feel just the opposite. I strongly support giving all children a fair chance at these opportunities, not just those who prioritize expensive prep classes. It's clear-cut. Despite people screaming merit, what they mean is they want an unfair advantage. Now I don't think it's possible for any system to completely level the playing field but the changes seem like a good start.

No, seriously - we really do want objective merit. Why is that so hard for SJWs to grasp. So stop with the "experience factors" and life hurdles and non-traditional schools and get back to pure objective merit admissions. I am not looking for an unfair advantage for my kids, I just want an objective merit based admissions systems where being affluent and Asian are not considered. I am fine with resources to help kids get on the playing field, but when its time to play, I want a purely objective merit based process to take place.

So you want admissions to let your kid benefit from the advantages you could give them?

So it’s a school’s job to subjectively try and assess who had the harder breaks and try to keep those out who might benefit too much from amorphously defined privilege? Would just simply letting merit and a test help let everyone who can do well on it gain admission? There is so munch obfuscation over what is really a quota system now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Diversity is great. Viciously targeting a group is not.

Thankfully, the group that was targeted was relatively small (as Judge Heytens indicated) and was targeted largely because of resource hoarding behavior.

I've read the opinion and dissent and I'm not sure what you're referring to?

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/221280R1.U.pdf

"The Coalition does not represent a class or putative class of applicants; rather, it is a group of interested parents and community members. Based on the record, it appears the Coalition has identified only two children of its members who are even eligible admission to TJ this year, and those children may yet be admitted."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Diversity is great. Viciously targeting a group is not.

Thankfully, the group that was targeted was relatively small (as Judge Heytens indicated) and was targeted largely because of resource hoarding behavior.

I've read the opinion and dissent and I'm not sure what you're referring to?

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/221280R1.U.pdf

Ignorant and lazy progressives. Can't even be bothered to put in the effort to read That's exactly why they want a subjective process.

Umm, okay. If you're calling me a progressive, you're bonkers. You also cannot be bothered to back up your nonsense, so there's that.

spent $20k on prep and my kid did great by any objective measure. They just didn't do as well as the other prepped kids in our school zone so they lost out. But, I'm guessing they still did way better than the unprepared kids from the less wealthy schools so I feel my child deserve this opportunity and it's clearly discrimination right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Diversity is great. Viciously targeting a group is not.

Thankfully, the group that was targeted was relatively small (as Judge Heytens indicated) and was targeted largely because of resource hoarding behavior.

I've read the opinion and dissent and I'm not sure what you're referring to?

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/221280R1.U.pdf

"The Coalition does not represent a class or putative class of applicants; rather, it is a group of interested parents and community members. Based on the record, it appears the Coalition has identified only two children of its members who are even eligible admission to TJ this year, and those children may yet be admitted."

That's not an indictment of resource hoarding. That's a statement of the parties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Diversity is great. Viciously targeting a group is not.

Thankfully, the group that was targeted was relatively small (as Judge Heytens indicated) and was targeted largely because of resource hoarding behavior.

I've read the opinion and dissent and I'm not sure what you're referring to?

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/221280R1.U.pdf

Ignorant and lazy progressives. Can't even be bothered to put in the effort to read That's exactly why they want a subjective process.

Umm, okay. If you're calling me a progressive, you're bonkers. You also cannot be bothered to back up your nonsense, so there's that.

Ok. Just ignorant and lazy then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Diversity is great. Viciously targeting a group is not.

Thankfully, the group that was targeted was relatively small (as Judge Heytens indicated) and was targeted largely because of resource hoarding behavior.

I've read the opinion and dissent and I'm not sure what you're referring to?

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/221280R1.U.pdf

Ignorant and lazy progressives. Can't even be bothered to put in the effort to read That's exactly why they want a subjective process.

Umm, okay. If you're calling me a progressive, you're bonkers. You also cannot be bothered to back up your nonsense, so there's that.

spent $20k on prep and my kid did great by any objective measure. They just didn't do as well as the other prepped kids in our school zone so they lost out. But, I'm guessing they still did way better than the unprepared kids from the less wealthy schools so I feel my child deserve this opportunity and it's clearly discrimination right?

Yes. That is correct. Where will it end? What else do you want to control? How the parents met? What they believe in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

I feel just the opposite. I strongly support giving all children a fair chance at these opportunities, not just those who prioritize expensive prep classes. It's clear-cut. Despite people screaming merit, what they mean is they want an unfair advantage. Now I don't think it's possible for any system to completely level the playing field but the changes seem like a good start.

No, seriously - we really do want objective merit. Why is that so hard for SJWs to grasp. So stop with the "experience factors" and life hurdles and non-traditional schools and get back to pure objective merit admissions. I am not looking for an unfair advantage for my kids, I just want an objective merit based admissions systems where being affluent and Asian are not considered. I am fine with resources to help kids get on the playing field, but when its time to play, I want a purely objective merit based process to take place.

Yeah. In reality, any measure is subject to discrimination, exploitation, and privilege. It's just that traditionally, if your goal is good academics, you're probably much better at coming up with fair, objective academic assessments than you are at coming up with fair non-academic ones.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

I agree with this poster. 1 year of artificially elevated number of Black kids does nothing for the long-term goal of increasing achievement of underrepresented student population. It also divides communities and may have a very detrimental long term effect. This is not a smart way to change the way we admit students to TJ. The way it was done indicates a quick political point to be gained. Kids were never at the center of the decision making process, just read the TJ papers.

Oh please. Any change would cause great hue and outcry. Someone upthread (or maybe on a different thread) proposed phasing in changes in the admissions process over several years. So that children would have time to curate their resumes properly, apparently. That certainly doesn't put children "at the center of the decision making process".

all the communities should have been invited to comment. Instead, FCPS school board rushed the process and excluded parents completely. Arrogant, to say the least. Now they are dealing with the fall out. I used to work in university admissions and any kind of change in the process involved 2 years of advanced notice. This allowed for a smooth implementation. Stop being defensive and clean up your mess. Present a transparent and fair process and we might just get behind you. Get down from your pedestal. We are the constituents and our taxes pay for your salaries. Please try to remember that you are supposed to represent us, the parents.

Please stop acting as though the fall-out would have been any different had parents been granted to ability to comment on the new process more than they already were. They did more than enough commenting throughout the process on platforms outside of School Board meetings.

Regardless of their motives, they were going to have to come up with a new process to account for the fact that doing an exam during the worst of COVID would have been impossible. 2 years notice wasn't realistic and the entire purpose of making the change was to limit the amount of "resume-crafting" or "process gaming" that would be possible.

The C4TJ folks were going to scream bloody murder on this no matter what the end result was if it created a more representative TJ population. They might have a stronger leg to stand on legally because the School Board couldn't get out of its own way as far as messaging and discipline, but it's not as if their anger is some sort of righteous response that is generated by some level of disrespect. This is about the zero-sum game of spaces at TJ and the continued ability to hoard opportunities away from less fortunate students.

Listen to yourself. Constantly making it sound like everything hinges on TJ admissions and that all will be right in the world once more kids from certain middle schools and fewer from others go there. Nothing else matters besides your petty political victories and the vindication you’d get if only you were able to stick it to the Asian families like you’d planned.

Just shut the damn school down. It’s not like it’s going to escape you eventually that the bigger “inequity” is that TJHHST exists at all.

That's not how they sound at all. They seem to care about a fair process that gives all children an equal chance just not those with means to afford expensive prep classes.

Very true and it is kind of nuts that the group that has benefited the most from these programs and continues to do so is angry because they want an unfair advantage over others.

Gaslighting much?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Diversity is great. Viciously targeting a group is not.

Thankfully, the group that was targeted was relatively small (as Judge Heytens indicated) and was targeted largely because of resource hoarding behavior.

I've read the opinion and dissent and I'm not sure what you're referring to?

https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/221280R1.U.pdf

"The Coalition does not represent a class or putative class of applicants; rather, it is a group of interested parents and community members. Based on the record, it appears the Coalition has identified only two children of its members who are even eligible admission to TJ this year, and those children may yet be admitted."

That's not an indictment of resource hoarding. That's a statement of the parties.

What I said was that Heytens indicated that the targeted group was NOT Asian-Americans but was in fact a very small group of interested parents.

What was being targeted was not a race but a behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Today's GOP is run by White Nationalists who don't have any regard for the best interests of the Asian community but will gladly use them for their own ends.

How about Democrats acknowledge and address the Asian American voice instead? Pointing at the GOP and saying they are worse doesn't inspire any confidence that Democrats actually care about Asian American issues.

It'd be one thing if TJ was an isolated issue, but it feels like every magnet school with an Asian majority was targeted, from California to Philadelphia to New York.

Stuyvesant in particular is galling considering how poor Asians are in NYC and how many of the top URMs get scouted for free rides to the privates. Well, yeah, if the top URMs are going to privates then the racial balance at your magnet schools will suffer. If Asian kids aren't allowed to be a majority at Stuyvesant then under what scenario are Asians allowed to do well?

You can't help but feel Democrats do not like seeing Asians do well.

I was on board with the Democrats' vision until they Epsteined the whole concept of equity and social justice. It went from being this idea that was innocent, untouchable, and which heralded a more promising future, to something that was exploited for selfish, perverse, and illegal reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

Chap Peterson seems moderate. I saw in Loudoun, even the moderates ended up supporting the changes to admissions, because voting for equity is priority #1, and they don't want to be seen voting against it. I think Ian Serotkin abstained.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Today's GOP is run by White Nationalists who don't have any regard for the best interests of the Asian community but will gladly use them for their own ends.

How about Democrats acknowledge and address the Asian American voice instead? Pointing at the GOP and saying they are worse doesn't inspire any confidence that Democrats actually care about Asian American issues.

It'd be one thing if TJ was an isolated issue, but it feels like every magnet school with an Asian majority was targeted, from California to Philadelphia to New York.

Stuyvesant in particular is galling considering how poor Asians are in NYC and how many of the top URMs get scouted for free rides to the privates. Well, yeah, if the top URMs are going to privates then the racial balance at your magnet schools will suffer. If Asian kids aren't allowed to be a majority at Stuyvesant then under what scenario are Asians allowed to do well?

You can't help but feel Democrats do not like seeing Asians do well.

I was on board with the Democrats' vision until they Epsteined the whole concept of equity and social justice. It went from being this idea that was innocent, untouchable, and which heralded a more promising future, to something that was exploited for selfish, perverse, and illegal reasons.

Like most people, you were on board with it until it had the potential to impact you or people you care about. Then all of a sudden it became evil.

A lot of people showing their true colors out here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump made many life long Republicans vote for Biden. This nonsense has made me - a life long Democrat think about the Republican party. Or should I try to push for more moderate Democrats who believe in merit and less pandering? Quite a struggle.

There were many factors at play when they change the admissions. Curie was only part of it. Declining number of applicants, a very concentrated number of feeder schools, issues with the school itself including burnout and some toxicity, and more. There were also larger issues at play, including the changes in admissions at Maggie Walker and Stuy.

As a moderate (former Republican now Independent) who believes in meritocracy and also in the benefit in higher education of diversity instead of insularity (I have also seen these benefits at various jobs I've had), I think the changes are a step in the right direction. With some additional modifications, I think the change will benefit students at TJ and at all the regions' high schools.

Today's GOP is run by White Nationalists who don't have any regard for the best interests of the Asian community but will gladly use them for their own ends.

How about Democrats acknowledge and address the Asian American voice instead? Pointing at the GOP and saying they are worse doesn't inspire any confidence that Democrats actually care about Asian American issues.

It'd be one thing if TJ was an isolated issue, but it feels like every magnet school with an Asian majority was targeted, from California to Philadelphia to New York.

Stuyvesant in particular is galling considering how poor Asians are in NYC and how many of the top URMs get scouted for free rides to the privates. Well, yeah, if the top URMs are going to privates then the racial balance at your magnet schools will suffer. If Asian kids aren't allowed to be a majority at Stuyvesant then under what scenario are Asians allowed to do well?

You can't help but feel Democrats do not like seeing Asians do well.

I was on board with the Democrats' vision until they Epsteined the whole concept of equity and social justice. It went from being this idea that was innocent, untouchable, and which heralded a more promising future, to something that was exploited for selfish, perverse, and illegal reasons.

Like most people, you were on board with it until it had the potential to impact you or people you care about. Then all of a sudden it became evil.

A lot of people showing their true colors out here.

Surprisingly, people don't like getting stereotyped and discriminated against.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am confused where this conversation is headed. The whole quota system at ANY level is stupid and discriminatory. The focus should be on how to bring everyone to the same level playing field, have a process that clearly recognizes the talent and not segregate people into different pools.

They've tried that for decades and it hasn't worked. Even assuming that it was possible, FCPS doesn't have anything approaching the budget that it would take to bring a kid with uneducated parents who don't care about education up to par with a kid whose parents hold graduate degrees and who expect their child to follow a similar path and know what boxes need to be checked along the way.

FCPS already does much more to elevate kids who are poor or are URMs than just about any other school district. Any FARMS or URM kid demonstrating any spark of anything will be placed in Young Scholars and receive enrichment therein. The URM and FARMS kids who impress anyone along the way will be placed in Level IV AAP and receive full-time AAP instruction through 8th grade. The equity report demonstrated that URM kids are being admitted into AAP with significantly lower test scores than white and Asian kids. This is fine, because it is helping give a leg up to the kids who generally are not privileged.

After 8 years of being supported and mentored through Young Scholars and another 6 years of full-time gifted instruction, if the kids have not managed to distinguish themselves in any way and have done nothing to suggest TJ worthiness, it's likely that they're just not very exceptional.

It will take time before these measures are fully realized, but you do have a point.

Let's not make the mistake, however, of presuming that most kids admitted under the previous process had managed to distinguish themselves in any way other than test scores that were buffered by prep that they received outside of the advanced school environment, however.

I would estimate that about half of the kids distinguished themselves at the very least as kids who need or would greatly benefit from TJ, and the other half are undistinguished prep kids. At least the prep kids have demonstrated that they're hard workers.

I'm surprised that the old system didn't filter out the prep kids. High SES Schoo + perfect grades + high test scores + participation in a lot of STEM activities but without notable achievements + tepid teacher recommendations should pretty clearly indicate an otherwise unimpressive prep kid.

I genuinely don't think that the teacher recommendations did a good job of allowing teachers to compare their students with one another. At a place like Carson or Longfellow, that would have made all the difference in the world.

The private schools do this and it helps greatly.

The problem is they aren't objective or a reliable metric.

Genuine question: why the obsession with objectivity? Selection processes are almost never objective in nature for any field.

Enough said...but why have an obsessions with objectivity when you can be subjectively racist. Indeed.

That's not an answer.

That is an answer. Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it easier to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Correction: Subjectivity is a power play. Objectivity makes it tougher to oppress. Hence the obsession.

Objectivity makes it easier to use your resources to game the system.

You can't really argue oppression when the class selected by the new admissions process was significantly less resourced than the classes before it.

It's not oppression to have an avenue to buy one's way into TJ removed.

Communist revolutions everywhere relied on expropriation of the rich people’s wealth and redistribution of the same to the less fortunate. There is a reason we oppose communism. Transfer of resources from the have to the have nots is good but it has to be done in a manner that is just and equitable - not by the power of the gun or the (temporary) power of the ballot.

That is why Nelson Mandela is great. He had every reason to kick the whites to the curb. He did not. He brought the community together and still achieved his goal.

Nelson Mandela being invoked to keep black kids out of a school may be a first.

Which black kid is being kept out of school? Can’t help your hyperbole?

There have been fewer Black students in the entire 35-year history of TJ than there were Asian students in the Class of 2024.

The new admissions process resulted in an increase of 70% in Black applications and over a 500% increase in Black students.

But Neson Mandela would apparently be against it, so no more black kids at TJ

Your attempt at humor is lost on me.

Mandela had the power and could have brute forced his way. He did not. He made sure change happened in a manner that was fair to all.

You won’t get it. You see the world as black, white and Asian. I see the world as fair and unfair, process-driven and arbitrary. Different perspective.

I agree with this poster. 1 year of artificially elevated number of Black kids does nothing for the long-term goal of increasing achievement of underrepresented student population. It also divides communities and may have a very detrimental long term effect. This is not a smart way to change the way we admit students to TJ. The way it was done indicates a quick political point to be gained. Kids were never at the center of the decision making process, just read the TJ papers.

Oh please. Any change would cause great hue and outcry. Someone upthread (or maybe on a different thread) proposed phasing in changes in the admissions process over several years. So that children would have time to curate their resumes properly, apparently. That certainly doesn't put children "at the center of the decision making process".

all the communities should have been invited to comment. Instead, FCPS school board rushed the process and excluded parents completely. Arrogant, to say the least. Now they are dealing with the fall out. I used to work in university admissions and any kind of change in the process involved 2 years of advanced notice. This allowed for a smooth implementation. Stop being defensive and clean up your mess. Present a transparent and fair process and we might just get behind you. Get down from your pedestal. We are the constituents and our taxes pay for your salaries. Please try to remember that you are supposed to represent us, the parents.

Please stop acting as though the fall-out would have been any different had parents been granted to ability to comment on the new process more than they already were. They did more than enough commenting throughout the process on platforms outside of School Board meetings.

Regardless of their motives, they were going to have to come up with a new process to account for the fact that doing an exam during the worst of COVID would have been impossible. 2 years notice wasn't realistic and the entire purpose of making the change was to limit the amount of "resume-crafting" or "process gaming" that would be possible.

The C4TJ folks were going to scream bloody murder on this no matter what the end result was if it created a more representative TJ population. They might have a stronger leg to stand on legally because the School Board couldn't get out of its own way as far as messaging and discipline, but it's not as if their anger is some sort of righteous response that is generated by some level of disrespect. This is about the zero-sum game of spaces at TJ and the continued ability to hoard opportunities away from less fortunate students.

Listen to yourself. Constantly making it sound like everything hinges on TJ admissions and that all will be right in the world once more kids from certain middle schools and fewer from others go there. Nothing else matters besides your petty political victories and the vindication you’d get if only you were able to stick it to the Asian families like you’d planned.

Just shut the damn school down. It’s not like it’s going to escape you eventually that the bigger “inequity” is that TJHHST exists at all.

That's not how they sound at all. They seem to care about a fair process that gives all children an equal chance just not those with means to afford expensive prep classes.

Very true and it is kind of nuts that the group that has benefited the most from these programs and continues to do so is angry because they want an unfair advantage over others.

Gaslighting much?

Apparently ^^