TJ Admin Test & Walls

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you? [/quote

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

That's a hypothesis. Not a particularly strong one given the limited effect of multiple, free SHSAT courses on admissions to the selective high schools in New York. But regardless, it probably wasn't the application fee that was the issue.

Oh it’s you! The NY example poster. Welcome back!

No, her deal is the opposite. My point here was that New York also has not solved this problem, even though they have removed that specific barrier.

[Anonymous]

We live in a strange time when admissions processes are tinkered with solely to change the racial makeup of a school, and the people who call it out are called racist.

If you don’t want parents to say “this kid only got in because they wanted more blacks and fewer Asians ,” don’t change admission processes with that very outcome in mind.

The attempt to engineer the make up of the class at Walls didn’t even work. If the move back to race-blind standards, it will at least shut up the racists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in a strange time when admissions processes are tinkered with solely to change the racial makeup of a school, and the people who call it out are called racist.

If you don’t want parents to say “this kid only got in because they wanted more blacks and fewer Asians ,” don’t change admission processes with that very outcome in mind.

The attempt to engineer the make up of the class at Walls didn’t even work. If the move back to race-blind standards, it will at least shut up the racists.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live in a strange time when admissions processes are tinkered with solely to change the racial makeup of a school, and the people who call it out are called racist.

If you don’t want parents to say “this kid only got in because they wanted more blacks and fewer Asians ,” don’t change admission processes with that very outcome in mind.

The attempt to engineer the make up of the class at Walls didn’t even work. If the move back to race-blind standards, it will at least shut up the racists.

Mic drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you?

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

Because no Asians are low-income?! What?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you?

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

Because no Asians are low-income?! What?!

There are low income Asians but it’s a different community with different challenges. There is also a culture of test prep that goes beyond anything I have ever seen in other cultures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I didn't know there was a $100 application fee. That just seems weird and elitist for a public school. These kids are amazing.

They waived it when there was financial need. The Post has a narrative here, so they don't mention that.

Phew, this comment says a lot about you and your understanding of structural barriers.

Do you think if the issue had previously been that low-income kids were doing great on the test when they applied but, gosh, they just weren't applying in very high numbers that the the Post wouldn't mention that to you?

Low income kids cannot afford the test prep classes that Asian kids take.

Because no Asians are low-income?! What?!

There are low income Asians but it’s a different community with different challenges. There is also a culture of test prep that goes beyond anything I have ever seen in other cultures.

The Asians that are not low income got that way by an intense focus on education!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live in a strange time when admissions processes are tinkered with solely to change the racial makeup of a school, and the people who call it out are called racist.

If you don’t want parents to say “this kid only got in because they wanted more blacks and fewer Asians ,” don’t change admission processes with that very outcome in mind.

The attempt to engineer the make up of the class at Walls didn’t even work. If the move back to race-blind standards, it will at least shut up the racists.

Mic drop.

If you think the previous process was race blind you can pick that mic back up and explain how you rationalize that

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If you think the previous process was race blind you can pick that mic back up and explain how you rationalize that

In a sense it was race blind, or at least it wasn't created, by design, to boost particular asian enrollment. Strangely enough (or not), white kids are underrepresented relatively to the population as a whole at TJ. You'd have to be delusional to think the previous admission process was created to boost asian kids at the expense of white (and black/latino) kids. The new process is specifically designed to boost enrollment of black and hispanic kids. The massive overrepresentation of asian kids at magnet schools is not local phenomena, the same is true at magnet schools around the country. Stuyvesant, for example, is 72% asian. Whether thats actually a problem or not is a matter of opinion, but it's factually incorrect to believe the previous process was designed to boost asian kids in the way the new process is intended to boost black and hispanic enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

With grade inflation plus 5 minute interviews, it’s a crap shoot.

(And it’s not top grades, it’s goodish grades.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

Equating GPAs and schools is like comparing teachers-one harder than the other for the same subject. No way to fix that. We went thru the process as well as multiple private school interviews. There wasn't much difference besides the essay's required from privates. I do think testing should be a component but not the dominant one. The interview does help distinguish a kid that wants to attend vs parents that wants it for the kid. That's a complaint I've heard from a lot of educators. Kids even bomb things on purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Walls vs TJ: Apples and Oranges

Walls was always diverse, including with the test. Dropping the test has done nothing to increase diversity...just swapped out less qualified white kids.

^^This. Walls has always courted students of color and understandably so even if they skew more affluent/UMC. Unlike Banneker Walls has virtually no economically disadvantaged students. The most qualified white students used to have a reasonable shot with the test over other white students. Now it's a total crapshoot.

From what I understand, Walls was majority black before the admission test was instituted. It's no crapshoot. Top GPAs and interview, plain and simple. You may not like it but it's pretty clear.

An interview is the MOST subjective way to evaluate 8th graders. And having kids who conducted the interview process, yes, it's a total crapshoot.

Add to that, a GPA coming out of certain middle schools is not equivalent to a GPA coming out of other middle schools (e.g. Jefferson vs. BASIS).

At least a test sets a certain universal academic standard that students must meet in order to gain admission.

The test should be pass/fail. You pass, you advance. You fail, you do not advance. I would even be cool with a re-take option. But to have no objective standard is ridiculous.

Equating GPAs and schools is like comparing teachers-one harder than the other for the same subject. No way to fix that. We went thru the process as well as multiple private school interviews. There wasn't much difference besides the essay's required from privates. I do think testing should be a component but not the dominant one. The interview does help distinguish a kid that wants to attend vs parents that wants it for the kid. That's a complaint I've heard from a lot of educators. Kids even bomb things on purpose.