TJ Admissions Roundup

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

The problem was that people gamed admissions so that only students from the most affluent schools had a fair shot. There are some posters try to cover this inconvenient fact up.

Mostly because you're lying to cover up the fact that this change was driven by racism against asians.
Your comments about indians are pretty gross and racist.

Your claim doesn't add up when you consider the facts.

1) The largest demographic cohort at TJ is still Asian by a considerable margin.
2) The selection process is still race-blind, and it's a matter of law.
3) The data shows the most significant beneficiaries of the admission change was low-income Asian families.

Asian cohort went from 75% to roughly their share of the applicant pool (50% of the applicants were asian and 55% of the admitted students were asian)
The selection process is race blind but the process was changed from a merit based process to the current method in order to achieve racial balance.
There was a significant increase in poor asian kids. This was an inevitable result of selecting for poverty, culture makes an even greater difference at the low end of the ses scale. If they could have figured out a race neutral way to replace those 50 poor asian kids with 50 middle class black/hispanic kids, they would have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

I totally agree with that.
I thought I was responding to a claim that there was an increase in poor asian kids.

Yeah, noone honestly thinks that this change was because they thought that the tests were compromised.
That's just something racists say because they want to call asians cheaters.
It used to be the white supremacists saying this about jews.
Then it was salty racists saying this about east asians.
And now it's progressives saying this about indians.
It's all coming from the same ugly impulse in human nature.

They did think the tests were compromised. Testing made it too hard to get the racial mix they wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I totally agree with that.
I thought I was responding to a claim that there was an increase in poor asian kids.

Yeah, noone honestly thinks that this change was because they thought that the tests were compromised.
That's just something racists say because they want to call asians cheaters.
It used to be the white supremacists saying this about jews.
Then it was salty racists saying this about east asians.
And now it's progressives saying this about indians.
It's all coming from the same ugly impulse in human nature.

They did think the tests were compromised. Tbh, you sound like you just came to Nova in the past year or two and are totally unaware of everything that happened before you came here. It's strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I totally agree with that.
I thought I was responding to a claim that there was an increase in poor asian kids.

Yeah, noone honestly thinks that this change was because they thought that the tests were compromised.
That's just something racists say because they want to call asians cheaters.
It used to be the white supremacists saying this about jews.
Then it was salty racists saying this about east asians.
And now it's progressives saying this about indians.
It's all coming from the same ugly impulse in human nature.

They did think the tests were compromised. Tbh, you sound like you just came to Nova in the past year or two and are totally unaware of everything that happened before you came here. It's strange.

They thought the concept of testing was compromised in the "tests are racist" sense.
Brabrand talked about "pay to play" but of course if that were true, places like TJ would have far more white kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

The problem was that people gamed admissions so that only students from the most affluent schools had a fair shot. There are some posters try to cover this inconvenient fact up.

Mostly because you're lying to cover up the fact that this change was driven by racism against asians.
Your comments about indians are pretty gross and racist.

Your claim doesn't add up when you consider the facts.

1) The largest demographic cohort at TJ is still Asian by a considerable margin.
2) The selection process is still race-blind, and it's a matter of law.
3) The data shows the most significant beneficiaries of the admission change was low-income Asian families.

Clearly discrimination!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I totally agree with that.
I thought I was responding to a claim that there was an increase in poor asian kids.

Yeah, noone honestly thinks that this change was because they thought that the tests were compromised.
That's just something racists say because they want to call asians cheaters.
It used to be the white supremacists saying this about jews.
Then it was salty racists saying this about east asians.
And now it's progressives saying this about indians.
It's all coming from the same ugly impulse in human nature.

They did think the tests were compromised. Tbh, you sound like you just came to Nova in the past year or two and are totally unaware of everything that happened before you came here. It's strange.

They thought the concept of testing was compromised in the "tests are racist" sense.
Brabrand talked about "pay to play" but of course if that were true, places like TJ would have far more white kids.

But white kids aren't applying to TJ in droves so they DGAF about prepping. IIRC only ~50% of eligible white kids apply vs. 99% of eligible Asian kids (FWIW black kids had a high % too).

It's common knowledge in my affluent area that test prep was available. If more white people wanted TJ they'd make it happen. But many families don't want the uber-competitive environment for their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I totally agree with that.
I thought I was responding to a claim that there was an increase in poor asian kids.

Yeah, noone honestly thinks that this change was because they thought that the tests were compromised.
That's just something racists say because they want to call asians cheaters.
It used to be the white supremacists saying this about jews.
Then it was salty racists saying this about east asians.
And now it's progressives saying this about indians.
It's all coming from the same ugly impulse in human nature.

They did think the tests were compromised. Tbh, you sound like you just came to Nova in the past year or two and are totally unaware of everything that happened before you came here. It's strange.

PP probably doesn't even live in VA. It's an election year.

[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:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

The problem was that people gamed admissions so that only students from the most affluent schools had a fair shot. There are some posters try to cover this inconvenient fact up.

Mostly because you're lying to cover up the fact that this change was driven by racism against asians.
Your comments about indians are pretty gross and racist.

Your claim doesn't add up when you consider the facts.

1) The largest demographic cohort at TJ is still Asian by a considerable margin.
2) The selection process is still race-blind, and it's a matter of law.
3) The data shows the most significant beneficiaries of the admission change was low-income Asian families.

Asian cohort went from 75% to roughly their share of the applicant pool (50% of the applicants were asian and 55% of the admitted students were asian)
The selection process is race blind but the process was changed from a merit based process to the current method in order to achieve racial balance.
There was a significant increase in poor asian kids. This was an inevitable result of selecting for poverty, culture makes an even greater difference at the low end of the ses scale. If they could have figured out a race neutral way to replace those 50 poor asian kids with 50 middle class black/hispanic kids, they would have.

Asian kids continue to have a higher acceptance rate than other groups.

The data also shows that Asian students were accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students.

Asian 19%
Black 14%
Hispanic 21%
White 17%
Multiracial/Other* 13%
ALL 18%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

When they were adding Quant-Q to the admissions process:

https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/04/26/is-the-no-1-high-school-in-america-thomas-jefferson-fairfax-discrimination/
“ “Is it gonna once again advantage those kids whose parents can pay to sign them up for special prep camps to now be prepping for science testing as well?” SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER Megan McLaughlin asked when presented with the new plan.

Admissions director Jeremy Shughart doesn’t think so. The firm that markets the math portion of the test, Quant-Q, doesn’t release materials to the public, a practice that should make them harder for test-prep schools to crack.”


Expensive test prep has been an ongoing issue that exacerbated the lack of representation from certain MSs and groups.

[Anonymous]

"McLaughlin, like other board members, still worries about Washington’s booming test-prep industry. Modeled on Korean “cram” schools, classes meet after school, on weekends, and throughout the summer. “They’ve become professionals at that process of getting into TJ,” says Josh Silverman, a private tutor in the area."

[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:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

The problem was that people gamed admissions so that only students from the most affluent schools had a fair shot. There are some posters try to cover this inconvenient fact up.

Mostly because you're lying to cover up the fact that this change was driven by racism against asians.
Your comments about indians are pretty gross and racist.

Your claim doesn't add up when you consider the facts.

1) The largest demographic cohort at TJ is still Asian by a considerable margin.
2) The selection process is still race-blind, and it's a matter of law.
3) The data shows the most significant beneficiaries of the admission change was low-income Asian families.

Asian cohort went from 75% to roughly their share of the applicant pool (50% of the applicants were asian and 55% of the admitted students were asian)
The selection process is race blind but the process was changed from a merit based process to the current method in order to achieve racial balance.
There was a significant increase in poor asian kids. This was an inevitable result of selecting for poverty, culture makes an even greater difference at the low end of the ses scale. If they could have figured out a race neutral way to replace those 50 poor asian kids with 50 middle class black/hispanic kids, they would have.

If you average a few years before and a few years after it was more like 70% to 60%.


There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students. More than all other groups, combined.

[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:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

The problem was that people gamed admissions so that only students from the most affluent schools had a fair shot. There are some posters try to cover this inconvenient fact up.

Mostly because you're lying to cover up the fact that this change was driven by racism against asians.
Your comments about indians are pretty gross and racist.

Your claim doesn't add up when you consider the facts.

1) The largest demographic cohort at TJ is still Asian by a considerable margin.
2) The selection process is still race-blind, and it's a matter of law.
3) The data shows the most significant beneficiaries of the admission change was low-income Asian families.

Asian cohort went from 75% to roughly their share of the applicant pool (50% of the applicants were asian and 55% of the admitted students were asian)
The selection process is race blind but the process was changed from a merit based process to the current method in order to achieve racial balance.
There was a significant increase in poor asian kids. This was an inevitable result of selecting for poverty, culture makes an even greater difference at the low end of the ses scale. If they could have figured out a race neutral way to replace those 50 poor asian kids with 50 middle class black/hispanic kids, they would have.

Asian kids continue to have a higher acceptance rate than other groups.

The data also shows that Asian students were accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students.

Asian 19%
Black 14%
Hispanic 21%
White 17%
Multiracial/Other* 13%
ALL 18%

But DISCRIMINATION!!! The changes to admission got students from schools other than the wealthy feeders apply because they'd now have a shot.

[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:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

The problem was that people gamed admissions so that only students from the most affluent schools had a fair shot. There are some posters try to cover this inconvenient fact up.

Mostly because you're lying to cover up the fact that this change was driven by racism against asians.
Your comments about indians are pretty gross and racist.

Your claim doesn't add up when you consider the facts.

1) The largest demographic cohort at TJ is still Asian by a considerable margin.
2) The selection process is still race-blind, and it's a matter of law.
3) The data shows the most significant beneficiaries of the admission change was low-income Asian families.

Asian cohort went from 75% to roughly their share of the applicant pool (50% of the applicants were asian and 55% of the admitted students were asian)
The selection process is race blind but the process was changed from a merit based process to the current method in order to achieve racial balance.
There was a significant increase in poor asian kids. This was an inevitable result of selecting for poverty, culture makes an even greater difference at the low end of the ses scale. If they could have figured out a race neutral way to replace those 50 poor asian kids with 50 middle class black/hispanic kids, they would have.

If you average a few years before and a few years after it was more like 70% to 60%.


There are MORE Asian students at TJ since the admissions change than almost any other year in the school’s history.

Asian students still make up the majority of students. More than all other groups, combined.

Thanks for clearing this up AGAIN.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I totally agree with that.
I thought I was responding to a claim that there was an increase in poor asian kids.

Yeah, noone honestly thinks that this change was because they thought that the tests were compromised.
That's just something racists say because they want to call asians cheaters.
It used to be the white supremacists saying this about jews.
Then it was salty racists saying this about east asians.
And now it's progressives saying this about indians.
It's all coming from the same ugly impulse in human nature.

They did think the tests were compromised. Tbh, you sound like you just came to Nova in the past year or two and are totally unaware of everything that happened before you came here. It's strange.

They thought the concept of testing was compromised in the "tests are racist" sense.
Brabrand talked about "pay to play" but of course if that were true, places like TJ would have far more white kids.

But white kids aren't applying to TJ in droves so they DGAF about prepping. IIRC only ~50% of eligible white kids apply vs. 99% of eligible Asian kids (FWIW black kids had a high % too).

It's common knowledge in my affluent area that test prep was available. If more white people wanted TJ they'd make it happen. But many families don't want the uber-competitive environment for their kids.

The eligibility criteria for taking the test were laughably low. I think the GPA requirement was like a 3.0.

There was a time when TJ was majority white, the white kids didn't leave, they got pushed out.
See this chart by the college board showing that 22% of asian kids geta 750 or higher on the math section of the SAT. That number if 4% for whites.
23% of asians get a 1400 SAT score or higher, that number if 7% for whites kids
9% of asians get a 1500 SAT score or higher, than number is 2% for white kids
White kids are clearly trying to get good SAT scores but they cannot seem to do so at the same rate as asians.

The white kids weren't foregoing tjhsst because they didn't want to deal with the competitive environment. They couldn't get in and they knew it so they didn't try.

[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:On the other hand, there might be lots of less advantaged kids who are more likely to find solutions to future problems because they are better at original thinking because they haven’t had everything handed to them by parents who are financially well off and/or focused on education.

I was the kid who was a NMF from a less advantaged family, so I know that kids like that need more support from the schools than kids who get plenty of support at home. As a society, it would be too bad to lose out on all that those kids can do in the future.

I don't doubt that less advantaged kids can achieve a lot.
I was not wealthy growing up, if you want to argue about who grew up poorer, we can have that debate but I think I met the threshold for growing up poor.
My family was on government assistance from time to time.
I know what government cheese, government peanut butter and government canned meat taste like.
I can tell you the denomination of a food stamp by its color.
But I also think that poor kids can meet objective measures of academic merit as well as anyone else.

There are three selective high schools in NYC whose alumni have won a ton of math and science prizes including 15 nobel prizes, a handful of wolf, field, abel, prizes in math, and a bunch of others.
These schools range from 40% to 60% free/reduced lunch.
Admissions to these schools is based on a single test.
The SHSAT is more or less the same test that TJHSST used until recently.
In this day and age of test prep, the population at these schools are significantly poorer than TJ and even more asian.

We know how to give preferences for poverty while preserving merit but we didn't do that at TJ because that was not the purpose of the change.
The purpose of the change was to reduce the asian population and increase the population of kids of other skin colors.
If we tried to preserve preferences for poverty while preserving merit, we would have seen an even larger concentration of asians as poor asians take a disproportionate number of spots meant for poor kids.

Are you sure about that? I thought the change was to address the rampant test buying and allow those who can't afford that a level playing field.

That was never stated by any school board official that I’m aware of.

It was in the 4th circuit opinion to the c4tj lawsuit.

No it wasn’t.

I'm on your side but the appellate opinion states:
"Nevertheless, in the 2021
application cycle, Asian American students attending middle schools historically
underrepresented at TJ saw a sixfold increase in offers, and the number of low-income
Asian American admittees to TJ increased to 51 — from a mere one in 2020."

I think this is probably the result of the fact that if you have a quota for every school, a very large percentage of those from poor schools are going to be asian.

Honestly, I think a place like TJ should only care about academic ability and not about how hard it was for individual students to achieve that academic ability because being poor or or being hispanic isn't going to make the curriculum easier for you and unless they also change academic standards for you within TJ based on your income or skin color, the differences in academic ability are going to start to be apparent.

We have seen SOLs drop significantly.
We have seen PSATs drop by over 100 points.
We have seen grades drop precipitously with the math department sending out an email saying that this was the worst performance they have ever seen.
This year we will see SAT scores and then college admissions and it will become apparent that we have replaced a hierarchy of merit with a hierarchy of perceived oppression.

We are replacing the hierarchy of merit with the hierarchy of perceived oppression.
This is bad for society and civilization.

The claim was the admissions were changed because of test buying. That’s just not true. Not even a little bit was mentioned by the SB.

The problem was that people gamed admissions so that only students from the most affluent schools had a fair shot. There are some posters try to cover this inconvenient fact up.

Mostly because you're lying to cover up the fact that this change was driven by racism against asians.
Your comments about indians are pretty gross and racist.

Your claim doesn't add up when you consider the facts.

1) The largest demographic cohort at TJ is still Asian by a considerable margin.
2) The selection process is still race-blind, and it's a matter of law.
3) The data shows the most significant beneficiaries of the admission change was low-income Asian families.

Asian cohort went from 75% to roughly their share of the applicant pool (50% of the applicants were asian and 55% of the admitted students were asian)
The selection process is race blind but the process was changed from a merit based process to the current method in order to achieve racial balance.
There was a significant increase in poor asian kids. This was an inevitable result of selecting for poverty, culture makes an even greater difference at the low end of the ses scale. If they could have figured out a race neutral way to replace those 50 poor asian kids with 50 middle class black/hispanic kids, they would have.

Asian kids continue to have a higher acceptance rate than other groups.

The data also shows that Asian students were accepted at a higher rate than almost all other groups, aside from Hispanic students.

Asian 19%
Black 14%
Hispanic 21%
White 17%
Multiracial/Other* 13%
ALL 18%

That is a drop in the acceptance rate of about 25%
Asians used to be 70-75% of the admitted students and they are now 55%
It's not even like you replaced the least qualified asians with the most qualified white kids
You replaced about 80% of the qualified asians with a relatively random cross section of the applicant pool.
You really don't GAF about merit, just skin color. You didn't even select for this kid
https://news.3m.com/2023-10-11-14-year-old-named-Americas-Top-Young-Scientist-for-development-of-skin-cancer-treatment