$24 billion NYC public schools only accepted 7 black students (of 895) to top magnet high schoool

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

No. not every qualified student is admitted.... some chose not to go... some are qualified but there was no space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:THis is a huge story about nothing.

https://nypost.com/2018/06/09/how-nonprofits-are-boosting-nycs-brightest-minority-students/

this is why there are only 7 at stuy.

Just as I suspected (and i might've posted this on here before).

If you are poor and URM and good enought for stuy, you are going to get into a better elite private for free.

There's another factor that has gone unmentioned in the URM community in NYC.

My friend has taught public elementary in Queens and the Bronx and many of the Dominican and Puerto Rican working class families are religious and they want single-sex Catholic School for high school, and they are aiming for Catholic School scholarships (or Catholic school that is subsidized because they are longtime members of the diocese).


Actually, I remember an interview where Jennifer Lopez talks about how much her working class parents sacrificed so she could go to Catholic school in the Bronx and how they were upset and terrified when she moved to Manhattan to be an actor. Now, I'm sure, in theory, someone like her could have gotten into the performing arts magnets in Manhattan for HS, but that kind of thing is not viewed as an option in those communities/families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

No. not every qualified student is admitted.... some chose not to go... some are qualified but there was no space.

You're struggling with a couple of basic concepts. Every qualified student IS admitted. If they were admitted and chose not to go, great...they were still qualified and were admitted. If they were qualified and chose not to apply then of course they weren't admitted. Space constraint is what defines the threshold for admission. If there was more space, then the admission standard would be lowered to accept additional students. But again, given the current space and attendant admission standard, every qualified student is admitted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

No. not every qualified student is admitted.... some chose not to go... some are qualified but there was no space.

You're struggling with a couple of basic concepts. Every qualified student IS admitted. If they were admitted and chose not to go, great...they were still qualified and were admitted. If they were qualified and chose not to apply then of course they weren't admitted. Space constraint is what defines the threshold for admission. If there was more space, then the admission standard would be lowered to accept additional students. But again, given the current space and attendant admission standard, every qualified student is admitted.

I get that your logical reasoning skill are compromised ... test prep does that to kids.

The admission standard should be to let in kids that can handle the work. That would not lower the "standard"... actually you might find more intelligent and engaged students are in that cohort because they have more real world skills or higher EQs or more logical reasoning skills... instead of just book skills. It might actually raise the standard. A test does not set a standard for ability to thrive in that environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

No. not every qualified student is admitted.... some chose not to go... some are qualified but there was no space.

You're struggling with a couple of basic concepts. Every qualified student IS admitted. If they were admitted and chose not to go, great...they were still qualified and were admitted. If they were qualified and chose not to apply then of course they weren't admitted. Space constraint is what defines the threshold for admission. If there was more space, then the admission standard would be lowered to accept additional students. But again, given the current space and attendant admission standard, every qualified student is admitted.

I get that your logical reasoning skill are compromised ... test prep does that to kids.

The admission standard should be to let in kids that can handle the work. That would not lower the "standard"... actually you might find more intelligent and engaged students are in that cohort because they have more real world skills or higher EQs or more logical reasoning skills... instead of just book skills. It might actually raise the standard. A test does not set a standard for ability to thrive in that environment.

You're arguing for wholistic admissions? And one of the factors would be "diversity?" TJ doesn't do that too much and that's one reason it is so highly ranked and admissions there sought after.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

No. not every qualified student is admitted.... some chose not to go... some are qualified but there was no space.

You're struggling with a couple of basic concepts. Every qualified student IS admitted. If they were admitted and chose not to go, great...they were still qualified and were admitted. If they were qualified and chose not to apply then of course they weren't admitted. Space constraint is what defines the threshold for admission. If there was more space, then the admission standard would be lowered to accept additional students. But again, given the current space and attendant admission standard, every qualified student is admitted.

I get that your logical reasoning skill are compromised ... test prep does that to kids.

The admission standard should be to let in kids that can handle the work. That would not lower the "standard"... actually you might find more intelligent and engaged students are in that cohort because they have more real world skills or higher EQs or more logical reasoning skills... instead of just book skills. It might actually raise the standard. A test does not set a standard for ability to thrive in that environment.

I raised something similar a few pages back. IMO, an important question hasn't really been addressed: What are we really measuring here? Are there meaningful, well-established differences in outcomes--for example, in high school GPA, college admissions, etc.--between someone who scores in the top 10% and someone who scores in the top 1%?

If not, I suggested we put the top 10-15% scorers in a pool and pick from this group. Either make it a lottery, or add some other component such as interview, essay, etc. to ensure a well-rounded class. Weight these factors accordingly.

It's great to be a tippy top scorer, but there are other important skills for success in various arenas too. By tapping into some of these, the class could also be diversified in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

No. not every qualified student is admitted.... some chose not to go... some are qualified but there was no space.

You're struggling with a couple of basic concepts. Every qualified student IS admitted. If they were admitted and chose not to go, great...they were still qualified and were admitted. If they were qualified and chose not to apply then of course they weren't admitted. Space constraint is what defines the threshold for admission. If there was more space, then the admission standard would be lowered to accept additional students. But again, given the current space and attendant admission standard, every qualified student is admitted.

I get that your logical reasoning skill are compromised ... test prep does that to kids.

The admission standard should be to let in kids that can handle the work. That would not lower the "standard"... actually you might find more intelligent and engaged students are in that cohort because they have more real world skills or higher EQs or more logical reasoning skills... instead of just book skills. It might actually raise the standard. A test does not set a standard for ability to thrive in that environment.

I raised something similar a few pages back. IMO, an important question hasn't really been addressed: What are we really measuring here? Are there meaningful, well-established differences in outcomes--for example, in high school GPA, college admissions, etc.--between someone who scores in the top 10% and someone who scores in the top 1%?

If not, I suggested we put the top 10-15% scorers in a pool and pick from this group. Either make it a lottery, or add some other component such as interview, essay, etc. to ensure a well-rounded class. Weight these factors accordingly.

It's great to be a tippy top scorer, but there are other important skills for success in various arenas too. By tapping into some of these, the class could also be diversified in the process.

P.S. I have a Ph.D. in a research field and work in health outcomes. One thing we emphasize is whether certain metrics are associated with clinically meaningful outcomes to patients, providers, etc. Which is why I'm applying that lens here--what does a 1% top score really mean relative to a 10% top score?

If we know there is unequal access/awareness of test preparation and other academic resources among students and their families, and that test scores are not an absolute measure of one's future success, then perhaps it's time to consider some other indices of future success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

No. not every qualified student is admitted.... some chose not to go... some are qualified but there was no space.

You're struggling with a couple of basic concepts. Every qualified student IS admitted. If they were admitted and chose not to go, great...they were still qualified and were admitted. If they were qualified and chose not to apply then of course they weren't admitted. Space constraint is what defines the threshold for admission. If there was more space, then the admission standard would be lowered to accept additional students. But again, given the current space and attendant admission standard, every qualified student is admitted.

I get that your logical reasoning skill are compromised ... test prep does that to kids.

The admission standard should be to let in kids that can handle the work. That would not lower the "standard"... actually you might find more intelligent and engaged students are in that cohort because they have more real world skills or higher EQs or more logical reasoning skills... instead of just book skills. It might actually raise the standard. A test does not set a standard for ability to thrive in that environment.

I raised something similar a few pages back. IMO, an important question hasn't really been addressed: What are we really measuring here? Are there meaningful, well-established differences in outcomes--for example, in high school GPA, college admissions, etc.--between someone who scores in the top 10% and someone who scores in the top 1%?

If not, I suggested we put the top 10-15% scorers in a pool and pick from this group. Either make it a lottery, or add some other component such as interview, essay, etc. to ensure a well-rounded class. Weight these factors accordingly.

It's great to be a tippy top scorer, but there are other important skills for success in various arenas too. By tapping into some of these, the class could also be diversified in the process.

the thing is...look at the pool of "just miss" kids for Stuy that end up at the lower ranked "selective" schools that are covered by the exam.

The pool is still majority Asian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only way to correct this is to take a more holistic approach to admissions instead of relying so much on a test. And, yes, this may result in the rejection of some qualified Asian students, but there are plenty of other top NYC high schools for them to excel at. And, at the end of the day, this is just high school, not college. It is not going to be the end all be all of anyone’s life. I am of the camp that it is better for college admissions to stand out and be the special person at a lesser school than to be in the middle of the pack at a school like Stuyvesant.

I'm reposting a comment from several pages earlier:

"Looking at admissions, saying “hmmm there are too many Asians” and then changing the system so that we get fewer Asians is the definition of institutional racism. Can’t wait until affirmative action is struck down and we can stop this diversity BS."

Do you not see that?

No. Change the system because kids that can handle the work are not getting in. Grow the program, let more kids in, even more Asians.

Have a minimum requirement and take all students that meet that requirement.

This most recent opinion I can agree with the spirit, but it's easier said than done. It's a thin line between giving all kids more opportunity, and simply watering down the best programs. I hope that's not what NYC does.

Why would it be "watered down" if every QUALIFIED student is admitted.

Currently, every qualified student IS admitted.

No. not every qualified student is admitted.... some chose not to go... some are qualified but there was no space.

You're struggling with a couple of basic concepts. Every qualified student IS admitted. If they were admitted and chose not to go, great...they were still qualified and were admitted. If they were qualified and chose not to apply then of course they weren't admitted. Space constraint is what defines the threshold for admission. If there was more space, then the admission standard would be lowered to accept additional students. But again, given the current space and attendant admission standard, every qualified student is admitted.

I get that your logical reasoning skill are compromised ... test prep does that to kids.

The admission standard should be to let in kids that can handle the work. That would not lower the "standard"... actually you might find more intelligent and engaged students are in that cohort because they have more real world skills or higher EQs or more logical reasoning skills... instead of just book skills. It might actually raise the standard. A test does not set a standard for ability to thrive in that environment.

I’m going to stop trying to educate you because none of it will take but I’ll leave you with a hearty laugh at the idiocy of your suggestion for holistic admissions for high school.....literally the dunbest idea on this topic that I’ve ever heard.

[Anonymous]

So what? These schools have rigorous admission standards. If that means a lot of black students are admitted, great! But let’s not lower the bar and extend affirmative action with an easier admission standard just for for the sake of having students of color. There are lots of minority students admitted in any case. Asians are a minority, you know.

[Anonymous]

This is where Kerry Washington went to HS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what? These schools have rigorous admission standards. If that means a lot of black students are admitted, great! But let’s not lower the bar and extend affirmative action with an easier admission standard just for for the sake of having students of color. There are lots of minority students admitted in any case. Asians are a minority, you know.

Yeh. Sure. Just let the rich white folk use their own affirmative action. Put your name on the school west wing and kids are admitted without even taking a test.

[Anonymous]

I'd take top 1% over top 10% anything all day long. That is a statistically significant difference. Why are you even pretending that is a question?

If you're going to do "pass a bar, then do a lotto" it has to be amongst the top 2-3% of test-takers - NOT top 10%. That's a total boondoggle.

Public schools could also layer in the SSAT IQ test that the private schools require, or aptitude tests like ROTC requires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd take top 1% over top 10% anything all day long. That is a statistically significant difference. Why are you even pretending that is a question?

If you're going to do "pass a bar, then do a lotto" it has to be amongst the top 2-3% of test-takers - NOT top 10%. That's a total boondoggle.

Public schools could also layer in the SSAT IQ test that the private schools require, or aptitude tests like ROTC requires.

SSAT isn’t a bad idea but you’d likely get the same results.